Delta state university


Community Partnerships with the



Download 0.5 Mb.
Page6/7
Date conversion18.07.2018
Size0.5 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7

Community Partnerships with the

Division of Languages and Literature


  • Mississippi Council of Teachers of English

  • Mississippi Philological Association

  • Mississippi Foreign Language Association

  • American College Theatre Association of Mississippi

  • The Southern Literary Festival

  • The Jane Austen Society of North America

  • Mississippi Institute of Arts and Letters

  • Mississippi Humanities Council

  • South Atlantic Modern Language Association

  • South Central Modern Language Association

  • Mississippi Delta Community College

  • Cultural Heritage Alliance, Inc.

  • Passports, Inc.

  • Entergy

  • Cleveland Public Schools

  • Clarksdale Public Schools

  • Indianola Academy

  • Lee Academy

  • Kirk Academy

  • North Delta Academy

  • The Washington School

  • Bayou Academy

  • University Press of Mississippi

  • LSU Press

  • The Garrard Fund

  • Greenwood Press

  • The Bolivar Commercial

  • The Cleveland News Leader

  • The Cleveland Current

  • The Delta Business Journal

  • Lawrence Printing Company

  • The Associated Press

  • The Clarksdale Blues-Star

  • DMI

  • Focus Press

  • University Reader’s Press

  • WREG TV in Memphis

  • WABG TV Greenwood/Greenville

  • Cox, More & Cox Law Firm

  • U.S. Department of Education

  • Kossman and Parker Law Firm
  • Troop 23 of the Boy Scouts of America


  • NCATE

  • DSU Foundation (Through donations to the DSU Department of Art, Division of Biological and Physical Sciences and the BPAC)

  • Judge Gwen Thomas

During the past year, individuals in the Unit received a number of grants and direct donations. These monies were received from, but were not limited to, the following organizations: The Chawton House Library (UK), The Jane Austen Society of North America, the Kent and Janice Wyatt Faculty Development Fund, the DSU Foundation, the DSU Student Government Association, Follett, Inc., Aramark, and the law firm of Jacks, Adams & Norquist, and the Delta Arts Alliance. These awards total approximately $15,500.


Economic Development initiatives and/or impact: In terms of impact, several of the graduates from unit programs have secured or enhanced professional employment in various communities in the Mississippi Delta.

Diversity Compliance Initiatives and Progress: Professor Georgene Clark continues her outstanding work as Coordinator of Diversity Activities for the University. She has a two-class reduction in her teaching load to perform these duties, and the University grants the Unit a .50 adjunct instructor to fill the space caused by the release time. Of special note: Natalie Pierre-Maliqi, a journalism major who was the first African American student in the history of DSU to be Editor-in-Chief of the 2009-2010 Delta Statement, led the publican to a number of state-wide awards and honors. For more details, see the “Significant Accomplishments” section below.

Committees reporting to the Unit (Committee records are archived in the office of the Chair of each committee listed below):

Assessment Committee Personnel Committee

Budget Committee Promotion and Tenure Committee

Composition Committee Publications Committee

Curriculum Committee Sophomore Literature Committee

Graduate Committee Student Advisement Committee

Library Committee Student Organizations Committee



V. Personnel:

Noteworthy activities and accomplishments:


Faculty


  • Susan Allen Ford won the S. E. Kossman Outstanding Teacher Award.

  • Georgene Clark was selected as a William Winter Scholar for outstanding work as a humanities scholar.

  • Jim and Yvonne Tomek published Fast French, a textbook for first year French students by University Reader’s Press.

  • John Ford published a book on Shakespeare’s A Midsummer’s Night’s Dream in The New Kittredge series

  • Renelda Owen published When People Were Nice and Things Were Pretty, a book of culinary history.

  • Stephen King’s book, I’m Feeling the Blues Right Now: Blues Tourism and the Mississippi Delta, has been accepted for publication by University Press of Mississippi.

  • Stephen King also presented a paper on blues tourism and race at the Intercultural Communication Dialogue Conference held in Istanbul, Turkey.

  • Clint Tibbs’ book, Religious Experience of the Pneuma: Communication with the Spirit World, was favorably reviewed by a writer for the Catholic Biblical Quarterly.

  • Bill Hays did a fiction reading and chaired a panel on employing the workshop method in creative writing classes at the College English Association’s national convention in San Antonio, Texas.

  • Dorothy Shawhan did a fiction reading at the Wild Acres Writing Conference in North Carolina.

  • Patricia Roberts served on a panel, chaired by Hodding Carter III, for “The Time Has Come Festival.”

  • Sally Paulson was selected to teach a course on ethics and equal protection law for the Arkansas Bar Association.

  • Division personnel published 51 scholarly or creative works, including three books.
  • Division personnel presented 43 scholarly or creative works at professional conferences.


  • Division personnel had eight grant proposals funded (six internal and two external).

  • Elizabeth Sarcone was honored for 30 years of service to the Unit and DSU.

  • Bonnie Horton, after 26 years of service to the Unit and the University, retired.

  • Don Allan Mitchell was appointed to the University Budget Committee.


Students and Alumni


  • A student from the Division won the Jack Winton Gunn Award, the highest academic honor given annually to a DSU student.

  • Two students from the Division graduated in May with a First Diploma and a 4.0 average for their entire academic careers.

  • Two students from the Division earned a Second Diploma, one in December and one in May, and both earned a 4.0 average for their entire academic careers.

  • A student from the Unit was named the outstanding teacher education student by the College of Education.

  • Five journalism students won prizes at the Mississippi State Press Association’s annual conference.

  • The Mississippi Press Association named The Delta Statement as the second place prize winner for General Excellence in competition with other university newspapers in Mississippi.

  • Four students who graduated in May have been accepted to graduate school; one was accepted to four prestigious graduate

schools, including Columbia University and Syracuse University.

  • Eight students won prizes for their writing in the Confidante Contest.

  • Four students were invited to read from their creative work at the Southern Literary Festival.
  • One student received national recognition for scoring in the top 5% in the nation on the PRAXIS II exam in English.


  • One alumnus was selected Teacher of the Year by her school district in Bay St. Louis.

  • One alumnus was admitted to the Ph.D. program (with a full fellowship) in creative writing at Ohio State University.

New position(s) requested, with justification:


The Unit made no requests for new positions. However, we requested to fill four vacancies in the Unit due to retirement, resignation, and a superimposed change of status. Those positions are:
An Assistant Professor of English (1 FTE)

An Instructor of English (1 FTE)

An Instructor of German/English (1 FTE)

The Supervisor of the Language Lab (.75 FTE)


The two full-time English positions were approved to be filled because of high student demand. The other two positions were not approved to be filled.
Recommended change of status:
The Unit did not recommend at change of status in 2009-2010.

VI. Degree Program Addition/Deletions and/or Major Curriculum Changes:

Changes made in the past year:


The “stand alone” minors in COM Studies and THE Arts were eliminated, and a combined minor in COM Studies and THE Arts was recommended by the Unit and approved by the Academic Council. “Streamlining” this minor greatly assists with scheduling, planning, and cost.

Recommended changes for the coming year(s):





  • Plans have been underway since August of 2009 to “streamline” the major in COM Studies and THE Arts to increase market appeal. A recommendation will be sent to Academic Council in August or September of 2010.



  • Initial plans are underway to develop practical “workplace” conversation courses in foreign language.


  • Initial plans are underway to expand journalism course offerings into video production.



APPENDIX A


ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

GRADING RUBRIC
The bulleted elements of each grade may not be represented with each assessment within the course. However, when all coursework assessments are considered, each grade would represent the bulleted qualities, although the list is not exhaustive. Most qualities are intended to apply to each grade.
A This grade represents excellent to distinguished work for the course.

  • The work exceeds what is ordinarily expected in scope and depth.

  • The work shows originality and creativity and/or demonstrates sound critical thinking.

  • The work may demonstrate application of concepts studied to new situations; there is willingness for risk-taking to tackle challenging problems.

  • The work demonstrates mastery of the material; it is organized and complete.

  • The argument, analysis, or problem-solving is complex.

  • Writing and logic flow smoothly.

  • The work contains few, if any, errors.


B This grade represents work that exceeds the basic expectations for the course.

  • The work demonstrates insight and critical thinking.

  • The work is organized, clear, and generally correct in analysis and/or facts; it is complete and reasonably thorough.

  • The work demonstrates a solid understanding of the material covered by the assignment.

  • The work demonstrates sound problem-solving skills; there is evidence of some risk-taking.

  • The structure is sound and logical, but the work may lack depth in some parts of the argument.

  • The work contains few errors.

C The work is competent, generally satisfying expectations, but reveals some gaps in student understanding, mastery, or presentation for the course.


  • The work satisfies the major requirements for the assignment.

  • The work demonstrates competent problem-solving skills; it may manage straightforward problems well but have problems making connections and/or applying concepts to new situations.

  • The work may leave some questions about understanding of parts of the course material because it is not quite complete or because there are noticeable oversights. It is less thorough and lacks details.

  • The work is generally correct but contains some organizational or structural problems.

  • The ideas have merit, but they may not be clearly presented or fully developed.

  • The ideas may be obvious or somewhat superficial.

  • The work may be weakened by grammar or punctuation errors.


D The work is of a poor quality; it is substandard in several areas for the course.

  • The work may not satisfy all requirements for the assignment.

  • The work contains serious flaws in logic or omissions of information.

  • The work reflects noticeable gaps in mastering the material and concepts studied.

  • The work reflects oversight or incomplete analysis.

  • The thinking is flawed except for that on the most basic of problems.

  • The work may be unclear and poorly organized.

  • The work may be disrupted with grammar or mechanical errors.


F The work is not acceptable; it is substandard in many areas for the course.


  • The work does not achieve the goals of the assignment.

  • The work reflects little understanding of the material and concepts studied.
  • The work contains serious errors, oversights, incomplete analysis, or carelessness. There is little evidence of the ability to recall information and relate it to the concepts studied.


  • The work is incomplete and/or provides evidence of little thought.

  • The work may not address the assignment.

  • The work may be disrupted with serious errors in grammar and mechanics.



APPENDIX B

2.D ELA Portfolio Rubric1 Candidate Knowledge 3.0
SCALE: Not Acceptable=1; Acceptable=2; and Target=3
Candidates are knowledgeable about language; literature; oral, visual, and written literacy; print and nonprint media; technology; and research theory and findings.
3.1 Candidates demonstrate knowledge of, and skills in the use of, the English language. AS A RESULT, CANDIDATES

2009-2010 N=4

NCTE Standard

NOT

ACCEPTABLE


ACCEPTABLE


TARGET


SCORE

3.1.5

Demonstrate little knowledge of the English language influences on its various forms;

Demonstrate knowledge of the evolution of the English language and the historical influences on its various forms;

Demonstrate in-depth knowledge of the evolution of the English language and historical influences on its forms and ability to integrate this knowledge into student learning;




3

3.1.6

Exhibit a lack of knowledge of English grammars and their application to teaching;

Demonstrate knowledge of English grammars in teaching students both oral and written forms of the language;

Demonstrate in-depth knowledge of English grammars that will empower students to compose and to respond effectively to written, oral, and other texts;



3

3.1.7

Show little knowledge of semantics, syntax, morphology, and phonology or their applications to their teaching;

Knowledge of semantics, syntax, morphology, and phonology is evident and could be used in teaching their students how to use oral and written language;

Evidence of an in-depth knowledge of semantics, syntax, morphology, and phonology through their own effective use of language and ability to integrate that knowledge into teaching their students to use oral and written language effectively.


2.75


3.2. Candidates demonstrate knowledge of the practices of oral, visual, and written literacy. AS A RESULT, CANDIDATES


3.2.2

Show infrequent use of writing, speaking, and observing throughout the program as major forms of inquiry, reflection, and expression;


Use writing, speaking, and observing as major forms of inquiry, reflection, and expression in their coursework and teaching;

Evidence that they can create opportunities and develop strategies for enabling students to demonstrate how they can integrate writing, speaking, and observing in their own learning



3

NCTE

Standard

NOT

ACCEPTABLE


ACCEPTABLE


TARGET













processes;




3.2.3

Exhibit infrequent use of the processes of composing to create various forms of oral, visual, and written literacy;

Use composing processes in creating various forms of oral, visual, and written literacy of their own;

Demonstrate knowledge of a variety of ways to teach students composing processes that will enable students to use various forms of oral, visual, and written literacy;



3

3.2.4

Use writing, visual images, and speaking for a variety of audiences and purposes;

Demonstrate through own learning, how writing, visual images, and speaking can be used effectively to perform a variety of functions for varied audiences and purposes;


Demonstrate knowledge to engage students in activities that provide opportunities for demonstrating their skills in writing, speaking, and creating visual images for a variety of audiences and purposes;


3

3.2.5

Show little knowledge of language structure and conventions in creating and critiquing print and nonprint texts;

Demonstrate their knowledge of language structure and conventions by creating and critiquing their own print and non-print texts;

Show evidence of knowing a variety of ways to assist students in creating and critiquing a wide range of print and non-print texts for multiple purposes and ability to help students understand the relationship between symbols and meaning;


3




    1. Candidates demonstrate their knowledge of reading processes. AS A RESULT CANDIDATES




3.3.1

Show limited ability to respond to and interpret what is read;

Respond to and interpret, in varied ways, what is read, so they can teach students how to do this;

Evidence of knowledge to integrate into their teaching continuous use of carefully designed learning experiences that encourage students to demonstrate their ability to read and respond to a range of texts of varying complexity and difficulty;



3

3.3.2

Show a lack of knowledge of ways to discover and create meaning from texts;

Show that they can discover and create meaning from texts and guide students in the processes;

Show that they are knowledgeable enough to use a wide of approaches for helping students draw upon their experiences,



3










Socio-cultural backgrounds, interests, capabilities, and understandings to make meaning of texts;




    1. Candidates demonstrate knowledge of different composing processes. AS A RESULT, CANDIDATES

NCTE

Standard

NOT

ACCEPTABLE


ACCEPTABLE


TARGET




3.4.1

Use a limited number of writing strategies to generate meaning and clarify meaning;

Use a variety of writing strategies to generate meaning and clarify understanding;

Provide evidence that they can develop in their students an ability to use a wide variety of effective composing strategies to generate meaning and to clarify understanding;




3

3.4.2

Produce a very limited number of forms of written discourse and show little understanding of how written discourse can influence thought and action;

Produce different forms of written discourse and understand how written discourse can influence thought and action;

Provide evidence of knowledge to help students make appropriate selections from different forms of written discourse for a variety of audiences and purposes and to design assessments the effectiveness influencing thought and action;


3




    1. Candidates demonstrate knowledge of, and uses for, an extensive range of literature. AS A RESULT, CANDIDATES








Show little knowledge of a variety of literature:


Know a variety of literature:

Demonstrate an in-depth knowledge of a variety of literature:




3.5.1

Works representing a broad historical and contemporary spectrum of United States, British, and world, including non-Western literature;

Works representing a broad historical and contemporary spectrum of United States, British, and world, including non-Western literature;


Works representing a broad historical and contemporary spectrum of United States, British, and world, including non-Western literature;



2.75

3.5.2

Works from a wide variety of genres and cultures, works by female authors, and works by authors of color;

Works from a wide variety of genres and cultures, works by female authors, and works by authors of color;

Works from a wide variety of genres and cultures, works by female authors, and works by authors of color;



3

3.5.3

Numerous works specifically written for older children and younger adults;

Numerous works specifically written for older children and younger adults;

Numerous works specifically written for older children and younger adults;


2.75




NCTE

STANDARDS

NOT

ACCEPTABLE


ACCEPTABLE


TARGET




3.5.4

A range of works of literary theory and criticism;


A range of works of literary theory and criticism;

A range of works of literary theory and criticism;


3




    1. Candidates demonstrate knowledge of the range and influence of print and non-print media and technology in contemporary culture. AS A RESULT, CANDIDATES




3.6.1

Exhibit a lack of understanding of the influence of media on culture and on people’s actions and communication;

Understand how media can influence construction of a text’s meaning, and know how media can enhance composing processes;

Understand media’s influence on culture and people’s actions and communication and reflecting that knowledge in own work as a resource for teaching;


3

3.6.3

Demonstrate limited knowledge of how to incorporate technology and print/non-print media into work;

Demonstrate knowledge of how to incorporate technology and print/non-print media into own work;

Demonstrate knowledge of how to respond to film, video, graphic, photographic, audio, and multimedia texts and how to incorporate into own work;



3

3.7


Demonstrate limited knowledge of how to relate language theory to teaching and learning

Demonstrate knowledge of the connections between theory and acquiring language and teaching and learning

Demonstrate knowledge of articulating the connections between acquiring language skills and teaching and learning and what it means for the classroom



3


APPENDIX C
2009=2010

N=4

Attachment 5.D Reflection and Self-Evaluation Rubric Data Results

Reflection and Self-Evaluation Rubric

TWS Standard: The teacher analyzes the relationship between his or her instruction and student learning in order to improve teaching practice.

Rating

Indicator

1

Indicator Not Met

2

Indicator Partially Met

3

Indicator Met

Score

Interpretation of Student Learning
(NCTE 4.10)

No evidence or reasons provided to support conclusions drawn in “Analysis of Student Learning” section.

Provides evidence but no (or simplistic, superficial) reasons or hypotheses to support conclusions drawn in “Analysis of Student Learning” section.


Uses evidence to support conclusions drawn in “Analysis of Student Learning” section. Explores multiple hypotheses for why some students did not meet earning goals. l


2.5

Insights on Effective Instruction and Assessment

(NCTE 3.7)

Provides no rationale for why some activities or assessments were more successful than others.

Identifies successful and unsuccessful activities or assessments and superficially explores reasons for their success or lack thereof (no use of theory or research).

Identifies successful and unsuccessful activities and assessments and provides plausible reasons (based on theory or research) for their success or lack thereof.


2.5

Alignment Among Goals, Instruction and Assessment
(NCTE 4.2)

Does not connect learning goals, instruction, and assessment results in the discussion of student learning and effective instruction and/or the connections are irrelevant or inaccurate.

Connects learning goals, instruction, and assessment results in the discussion of student learning and effective instruction, but misunderstandings or conceptual gaps are present.

Logically connects learning goals, instruction, and assessment results in the discussion of student learning and effective instruction.


2.5


Implications for Future Teaching
(NCTE 2.3)

Provides no ideas or inappropriate ideas for redesigning learning goals, instruction, and assessment.

Provides ideas for redesigning learning goals, instruction, and assessment but offers no rationale for why these changes would improve student learning.

Provides ideas for redesigning learning goals, instruction, and assessment and explains why these modifications would improve student learning.


2.5

Implications for Professional Development
(NCTE 2.3)

Provides no professional learning goals or goals that are not related to the insights and experiences described in this section.

Presents professional learning goals that are not strongly related to the insights and experiences described in this section and/or provide a vague plan for meeting the goals.

Presents a small number of professional learning goals that clearly emerge from the insights and experiences described in this section. Describes specific steps to meet these goals.


2.75


APPENDIX D

#5 (Required)—EFFECTS ON STUDENT LEARNING: Assessment that demonstrates candidate effects on student learning

Delta State University – Teacher Work Sample Folio

1. Brief Description

Notice: Much of the material contained in the Teacher Work Sample was developed by representatives of the Renaissance Partnership Institutions (California State University at Fresno, Eastern Michigan University, Emporia State University, Idaho State University, Kentucky State University, Longwood College, Middle Tennessee State University, Millersville University, Southeast Missouri State University, University of Northern Iowa, and Western Kentucky University). Permission has been granted by The Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality Project http://fp.uni.edu/itq. The Renaissance Partnership for Improvement of Teacher Quality is a Title II federally funded project, originally located at Western Kentucky University. The teacher education faculty at Delta State University is appreciative of the endeavors of our colleagues at these institutions.

The Teacher Work Sample Folio (TWS) has a total of eight components, seven of which deal with teaching processes identified by research and best practice as fundamental to improving student learning. The 2007 Spring cohort group completed only one rubric for the impact on student learning (see Attachment 5.D); each candidate maintained a reflective journal during student teaching and was provided the rubric 5.D for assessment. As a secondary education student teacher, the 2008 Spring candidates will have completed two of these components as a follow-up to the STAI unit designed for CUR 485: Methods. They must satisfy the indicators on Attachment 5.C in addition to 5.D. All candidates will do a second TWS during their student teaching with their STAI unit aligned with the Mississippi Curricular Frameworks.

Each dimension (or teaching process) of the teacher work sample is followed by a standard, the task, a prompt, and a rubric that defines various levels of performance on the standard. The standards and rubrics will be used to evaluate candidates’ work. The prompts help document the extent to which each standard has been met. This work sample will be completed during both CUR 485 Methods and during student teaching.

The TWS was revised for Spring 2008, and these candidates will complete a second one that differs slightly from the first during student teaching.


Revision of Assessment #5: For the 2008-2009 candidates, The Teacher Work Sample Folio (TWS) sections dealing with impact on student learning are completed during CUR 485: Methods and during the internship. The results compiled from the ones completed during the internship will be used for this assessment record. (See attachments 5.C and 5.D)
2. Alignment with NCTE Standards

The Teacher Work Sample Folio rubrics on Analysis of Student Learning (Attachment 5.C) and Reflection and Self-Evaluation (5.D) align with NCTE standards 2.3, 3.7, 4.2, and 4.10: Candidates have an opportunity “to use a variety of ways to interpret and report assessment methods and results to students, parents, administrators, and other audiences”; candidates “demonstrate reflective practice … and collaboration with both faculty and other candidates.”


3. Brief Analysis of Data Findings

For Spring 2007, the six candidates demonstrated that they met NCTE indicators 4.10, dealing with assessment; 3.7, addressing theory; 4.2, aligning goals, instruction, and assessment. Five out of the six candidates met indicator 2.3, dealing with implications for future teaching and; four out of six candidate met 2.3, addressing the implications for professional development. All candidates were members of the NCTE, and all but one were members of the NCTE campus affiliate group.


During Fall 2007, one candidate was pulled from the clinical practice before completion because it was clear that she had difficulty with planning, presenting, and synthesizing information. No data was collected.

For the Spring 2008 cohort group, the Teacher Work Sample (TWS) became a required component in the DSU College of Education for NCATE standard five, dealing with impact on student learning. During the Spring of 2007, the English Department had required the Reflection and Self-Evaluation Rubric (Attachment 5.D), but the rubric for analysis of student learning data results was not required during the CUR 485: Methods course until the 2008 cohort candidates entered student teaching.

The Spring 2008 candidates completed the TWS, meeting all the indicators on the rubrics for satisfying the NCTE standards: 2.3, 3.7, 4.2, and 4.10, 3.7. All candidates earned 3s in each area of the rubrics.
For rubric 5.C, the 2008-2009 cohort group of candidates met the indicator (3) for clarity and accuracy of presentation of the analysis of the data (NCTE 4.2) collected from their students’ test results on the STAI. Since one student on two indicators on Rubric 5.C was rated 2 on alignment with learning goals (NCTE 4.2), interpretation of data (NCTE4.10), and evidence of impact on student learning (NCTE 4.10), the group averaged 2.85 on these indicators.
For rubric 5.D Reflection and Self-Evaluation, the 2008-2009 candidates met the indicators for interpretation of student learning (NCTE 4.10), alignment among goals, instruction, and assessment (NCTE 4.2), and implications for future teaching (NCTE 2.3). The cohort group scored 2.85 (between indicator partially met and indictor met) for insights on effective instruction and assessment (NCTE 3.7) and implications for professional development (NCTE 2.3).

The four interns in th2 2009-2010 cohort had been out of the Methods course for approximately one year, and this is evident in their scores on these two rubrics intended to assess impact on student learning and to reflect on successes and failures in teaching. The averages ranged from 2.25 to 3.0 on both rubrics. All interns earned a 3.0 on the clarity and accuracy of their assessment results (NCTE 4.2). They could graphically represent the assessment pre- and post-tests well for the whole group, boys, and girls. The lowest score is 2.25 on alignment with learning goals (NCTE 4.2). They do not reference what learning goals were achieved or not achieved or how well the goals were achieved; they discuss the results in terms of final scores. They interpret the results globally but not specifically, and their evidence of impact on student learning (4.10) is presented in the score results, not in goals achieved. One intern’s scores on the reflection rubric (Attachment 5.D) are low in all areas because the reflection is not developed, except for the professional development area (NCTE 2.3). The professional development area averaged 2.75. Otherwise, all indicators on this rubric averaged 2.5 (NCTE 2.3, 3.7, 4.2, and 4.10).

4. Interpretation of Data Relevant to Meeting of Standards

The Spring 2007 cohort group met indicators 4.10, 3.7, and 4.2. More emphasis might be given to encouraging candidates to think about 2.3 implications for future teaching and for professional development. This group was a highly reflective and naturally considered what changes might be needed or what professional development might be helpful. Currently, MS teacher education candidates are not nurtured in schools where professional development is emphasized, except for workshops related to state testing. In Sept. 2007, teachers were on campus for workshops related to Depth of Knowledge (DOK) and state testing.


The Fall 2007 did not complete the program and was offered a remedial plan that she rejected.
Using data for evidence, the Spring 2008 cohort group demonstrated that each member can demonstrate the impact that instruction had on student learning. Each can present data clearly. The candidates can also reflect on their interpretations of the instructional strengths and weaknesses that the data suggests. They can discuss the implications for future teaching and professional development.
The MS public schools do not emphasize professional development since little funding is designated for conferences and workshops. In fact, some teachers have reported that they must pay for their own substitute if they attend meetings. The issue was emphasized during a panel presented on College Readiness to the Institutions of Higher Learning (IHL) and to public high school and community teachers Nov. 30, 2007, at the MS Medical Center.

The IHL members, Dr. Lynn House and Dr. Susan Lee, were interested in reviving the Mississippi Council of Teachers of English (MCTE) or providing incentives for teachers to attend this state meeting for professional development opportunities.

The 2008-2009 data from rubric 5.C suggests that this group can analyze its impact on student learning, and present and represent the data clearly (NCTE 4.2). More emphasis and explanation might be given to relating the analysis to the learning goals (NCTE 4.2), meaningful interpretation of data (NCTE 4.10), and impact on learning in terms of what goals students achieved and what goals need more instruction (NCTE 4.10).
An examination of the 2008-2009 data on rubric 5.D indicates that the candidates can interpret student learning (NCTE 4.10), align goals, instruction, and assessment (NCTE 4.2), and provide ideas for redesigning the lesson (NCTE 2.3). Nevertheless, candidates need more direction and preparation for identifying successful and unsuccessful activities and assessments, and they need instruction in the application of theory to explain what works and does not work (NCTE 3.7). They also might benefit from a clearer explanation of what the implications for professional development (NCTE 2.3) means on the rubric 5.D; they can specify learning goals that might enable their teaching the STAI more effectively, but they have problems identifying the steps that they might take to meet these goals.
Although the 2008-2009 data from rubrics 5.C and 5.D reveal some weakness, the cohort group essentially has met the indicators. Yet, the weaknesses (2.85 scores) provide areas that should be emphasized more when they are taught during Methods and during the internship.

The 2009-2010 cohorts entered the classroom a year or more after completing the Methods course. Meanwhile, changes occurred in the Methods course and in the internship. These interns were caught in the midst of change. The Methods course now uses Understanding by Design (UbD) for instructing how to plan lessons, and the internship has been extended to cover the entire public school semester. These interns continue with their assigned teaching, even though they have graduated. They are not awarded their certification for teaching until the semester ends for them, although they have their degrees. Thus, the results for this cohort suggest that more emphasis should be given in Methods to the following areas:



  • Emphasis on aligning assessments with learning goals (NCTE 4.2)

  • Discussing test results in terms of what learning goals were or were not achieved, so meaningful data can be inferred from the results (NCTE 4.2)

  • Discussing effectiveness of teaching in terms of developmental and language theory (NCTE 3.7)—currently they refer to activities that were successful or not successful but not in terms of theory

  • Reviewing the TIAI and the TWS in the new Methods course that accompanies the internship—results indicate interns need more experience with these assessment measures


APPENDIX E

Master’s Oral Exam in English

Scoring Rubric


Name of master’s candidate_________________________________________________
Date of exam__________________________
Overall result: Pass Fail

Verbal fluency: Exemplary Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

British literature Exemplary Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

knowledge:

American literature Exemplary Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

knowledge:

Terminology Exemplary Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

knowledge:

Pedagogical Exemplary Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

knowledge:
Comments: _____________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Chair of examination committee______________________________________________

Signature


Name of other examiners___________________________________________________


APPENDIX F
Evaluation Guide for Graduate Field/Clinical Experience Portfolio

DISTINGUISHED (4) Candidate has followed instructions and organized all parts of the portfolio in a notebook: resume, assignment sheet and categories of experiences, log, reports for each experience, reflection on overall reflection, and the College of Education Conceptual Framework. The log is completed with the required information. There are at least four categories of experiences, and twenty-five hours were devoted to these experiences. In addition, the candidate has followed the format for reporting field/clinical experiences. The distinguished portfolio will be most noticeable in the quality of the reflections. The summary and the theoretical applications will be detailed and clearly related to a course, standards, and/or the College of Education Conceptual Framework. The candidate will be able to explain more than one connection, e.g. to a course and the conceptual framework or to a course and the IRA/NCTE standards. The final overall reflective piece puts in field experiences in a context for where candidate is in teaching career: What was learned from these experiences? How does candidate anticipate using what was gained from these experiences? There are no disruptive patterns of errors throughout the reports.

SATISFACTORY (3) Candidate has followed instructions and organized all parts of the portfolio in a notebook: resume, assignment sheet and categories of experiences, log, reports for each experience, reflection on overall reflection, and the College of Education Conceptual Framework. The log is completed with the required information: There are at least four categories of experiences, and twenty-five hours were devoted to these experiences. In addition, the candidate has followed the format for reporting field/clinical experiences. The satisfactory portfolio provides adequate details about the experience, and the candidate can clearly connect the experience to at least one course. The final overall reflective piece puts the field experiences in context for where candidate is in teaching career. The candidate can explain what was learned from the experiences. There are no disruptive patterns of errors throughout the reports.
UNACCEPTABLE (0) Candidate may or may not have followed instructions and organized all parts of the portfolio in a notebook: resume, assignment sheet and categories of experiences, log, reports for each experience, reflection on overall reflection, and the College of Education Conceptual Framework. The log may or may not be completed with the required information. The candidate may have fewer than four categories of experiences and/or may have devoted less than twenty-five hours to the experiences. In addition, the candidate may or may not have followed the format for reporting field/clinical experiences. Written reports are not adequate for this project; the reports may be sketchy or have patterns of errors. The candidate must strengthen any weak areas or provide any missing pieces until the portfolio is acceptable.
APPENDIX G
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATIONING INFORMATIVE SEPECHES

In conjunction with the evaluation form, your instructor will use the following criteria when evaluating speeches.

For all sections: Speech components that appear in both speech and outline: (F)=item not in outline or presentation. D= an attempt has been made to include item in either outline or presentation.

OUTLINE (10 Possible Points)

FOLLOWS OUTLINE FORMAT

(D) = Student submits outline, but the outline conforms to 0-2 of the outlining rules discussed in class. (C) = The outline satisfies 3 out of 4 outlining rules discussed in class. (B) = In addition, the outline satisfies the four outlining rules. (A) = In addition, the outline is complete—it has an introduction, conclusion, transitions, and a consistent pattern of indentation, with little or no grammatical and stylistic errors. The specific purpose is detectable and correct.

REFERENCES CORRECT/SUFFICIENT

(D) = Sources are not cited correctly (MLA) on reference page and/or textual citations are missing or incorrectly formatted. (C) = Sources on reference page and outline are cited correctly, with few exceptions, and speaker used appropriate number of sources on the reference page.

(B) = In addition, sources cited are from credible and qualified sources.

(A) = In addition, sources provide insightful perspective into the issue(s).

INTRODUCTION (10 Possible Points)

GAINED ATTENTION

(C) = Attention getting device makes a good attempt to prepare the audience to listen to a speech on the topic. (B) = In addition, the attention-getter is the proper length (4-8 sentences) and it creates a need to listen to the rest of the speech and flowed well into the preview statement. (A) = In addition, it is creative, original, and highly motivating.

SHOWED RELEVANCE OF TOPIC TO AUDIENCE

(C) = The importance of the topic is established. (B) = In addition, the importance of the topic is related to the audience through strategies and tactics of adaptation. (A) = In addition, it is of significant importance to a COM 101 audience.


INTRODUCED TOPIC/THESIS STATEMENT CLEARLY

(C) = Statement avoids most of the problems associated with writing a poor thesis statement. (B) = The thesis statement leaves no room for confusion about the topic and the statement flows well into the preview and the thesis statement grows out of and answers the specific purpose. (A) = In addition, it has been worded powerfully and in a way that demonstrates a unique approach to the topic.
PREVIEWED BODY OF SPEECH

(C) = Speaker fails to preview all the main points in the speech.

(B) = Speaker previews all the main points, but it is somewhat difficult to distinguish between the main points previewed and/or the main points previewed do not always match how the main points are worded in the body of the speech. (A) = The above problems are not present in the speech and the preview fits well with the topic and clearly (and briefly) states exactly what each main point will be to ensure clarity.

BODY (20 Possible Points)

MAIN POINTS CLEAR

(C) = Main points are easy to identify. (B) = In addition, main points are well integrated and each is an independent idea. (A) = In addition, main points are made exceptionally clear with the use of transitions and previews, as well as signposting.

STRONG EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTING MATERIAL

(C) = A minimum of five sources have been used for evidence. (B) = In addition, speaker’s use of supporting material satisfies most of the criteria discussed in the book/class (accuracy, recency, completeness, sufficiency, variety, etc.) (A) = In addition, the supporting materials satisfy all the criteria for effective use of evidence and the evidence demonstrates a thorough and rich understanding of the topic.




1   2   3   4   5   6   7


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

    Main page