MESSAGE

NCATE 2010 Standard 3

STANDARD 2. ASSESSMENT SYSTEM AND UNIT EVALUATION

 

The unit has an assessment system that collects and analyzes data on the applicant qualifications, the candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate and improve the unit and its programs.

 

[In this section the unit must include (1) initial and advanced programs for teachers, (2) programs for other school professionals, and (3) off-campus, distance learning, and alternate route programs, noting differences when they exist.]

 

2a. Assessment System

 

2a.1. How does the unit ensure that the assessment system collects information on candidate proficiencies outlined in the unit's conceptual framework, state standards, and professional standards?

 

The unit has had a formal assessment system in place since 1980 based on the SACS five column model for Student Learning Outcomes. This system was redesigned by the unit 10 years ago and was placed in a major revision process for the 2010 SACS Continuing Accreditation Visit. In 2005, the Assessment committee convened to review all unit and program assessments in order to be prepared for the 2010 SACS visit and the 2007 State/NCATE Partnership visit. At that time the SACS five column model was used as the major form of analysis for unit performance.

 

In 2005 in preparation for the State/NCATE partnership visit, the Assessment committee met with the Dean to establish the program transition points, the key assessments for the SPA program reviews, the program assessments, and the unit assessments. All these assessments have been aligned to conceptual framework, state standards, and professional standards (SPA standard, NBPTS, INTASC). This was a new area of development for the unit since faculty were drawn into the revision process and became stakeholders in the ways assessment data would be collected, summarized, analyzed, and made available for program renewal. The undergraduate and graduate programs have been aligned with the university and the School of Education conceptual framework.

 

At this time the university was involved with the unit to bring the university mission, the SOE’s mission and conceptual framework into alignment. Meetings with the Vice President of Academic Affairs, the Dean, the Chair of the Department of Education, and the chair of the Assessment Committee met to complete the alignment during 2005-2006. In 2006 the five column model was expanded to include 115 assessments across all programs and the entire unit. Again the model was expanded to the 115 assessments, but the concept of key assessments was not well designed.

 

During 2006-2007, the new implementation plan encouraged faculty to review the five column models in order to establish the direction for program renewal for the next academic year. This was accomplished through faculty meetings and data analysis discussions meeting two times per term. As the unit entered the final preparation phase for the State/NCATE visit, the transition points were put into place with faculty training and student awareness training about how the transition point system would operate. All students’ records were re-evaluated and updated to reflect their transition point progress. See Advising Sheets: Elementary, Biology, Physical Education, English, Mathematics, Social Studies. Advisors counseled students on the basis of their transition points providing a better picture for teacher candidates to understand their professional development. Instead of series of hoops to jump through, teacher candidates started to realize the value of professional preparation and how the transition points defined their development to the ultimate goal of licensure.

 

2007 became a year of faculty focusing on program renewal and reflection about the unit’s effectiveness in the preparation of teacher candidates. The Continuing accreditation visit with the MDE was the motivation, but the faculty was well aware that new changes were coming about within the next year with the state requiring a complete overhaul of every teacher preparation program in every university and college. Our 2007 State/NCATE Partnership Accreditation visit went well with all standards being met and recommendations offered that were extremely helpful in the new program designs the unit was preparing to propose. There was concern that our SPA program review reports were weak and would need additional work should we go for national accreditation. That proved to be exactly the case when we submitted our Program Reviews in 2010 for evaluation. The unit continues to work on the SPA program reviews during the summer of 2011 for a September resubmission. There were two programs who were Nationally Recognized: Mathematics Education, and Physical Education (with conditions).

 

The Dean of the School of Education became a founding member of the Mississippi Department of Education Blue Ribbon Commission on the Renewal of Teacher Preparation Programs. This dramatic redesign effort would impact every university and college. The Dean as one of the writers who build the redesign recommendations that would guide all teacher preparation renewal efforts. The Chair of the Department of Education joined the Blue Ribbon Commission as the State Implementation Team chair. This commitment by the Dean and the Chair to serve on state committees allowed the unit to become a change agent at the state level rather than just react to state mandates. The unit’s faculty went into overdrive once the Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning and the Mississippi Department of Education issued the Mississippi Blue Ribbon Commission for the Redesign of Teacher Preparation report (BRC). There were seven issues outlined by the report which the faculty spent one year redesigning all programs in the secondary, elementary and specialty teacher preparation areas:

Issue 1: Meaning Field Experiences;

Issue 2: Subject Content Preparation;

Issue 3: Differentiating Instruction;

Issue 4: Classroom Management;

Issue 5: Recruitment and Retention;

Issue 6: Strong Partnerships; and

Issue 7: Accountability.

 

The BRC report listed seven goals which would be encompassed into the unit and program redesigns:

Goal 1: Develop a plan that will benefit all teachers so that students will prosper from what is done;

Goal 2: Prepare and support beginning teachers to achieve success so that they do not feel defeated during their first years of teaching;

Goal 3: Raise standards and increase interest and retention in the profession;

Goal 4: Insure clear, consistent expectations for teacher preparation across institutions and alternate route programs within the state;

Goal 5: Define with clarity the varying levels of certification and the paths to achieve them;

Goal 6: Create a marketing strategy which will inspire faith in the educational system and make education a desirable field to enter;

Goal 7: Create an opportunity for all stakeholders to have a role in a vision of success.

 

During 2008-2009, a series of Blue Ribbon faculty meetings took place at the university level involving multiple schools (Education, Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, English, Music, and Art) in the most comprehensive renewal process ever to have taken place in the history of the university. Never before had secondary and specialty programs ever had such a collegial experience with the education faculty. Major program changes took place across the university affecting every teacher preparation program. The unified effort on the part of all departments was truly amazing since faculty members had experienced at other universities resentment and lack of collegiality which caused program chaos during the renewal process. In the summer of 2009, the WCU Blue Ribbon Program Renewal proposal was submitted to the Mississippi Department of Education (MDE) and the Institutions of Higher Learning (IHL) for program review. See WCU Proposal for Blue Ribbon Teacher Preparation Program Renewals. The decisions resulting from the MDE/IHL review would determine whether the teacher education programs would maintain their state accreditation. In July 2009, the MDE/IHL findings were announced to the university and the unit. The WCU unit and all programs had received an overall score of Satisfactory with three Exemplary ratings and no Needs Improvement. See Summary Form for Evaluation of Teacher Preparation Programs – William Carey University.

 

The Assessment System

The goals and standards for William Carey University’s Teacher Education Program are listed as follows:

 

Liberal Arts Content Excellence

Standard 1: The teacher candidate demonstrates a strong foundation in the liberal arts.

 

Specialty Area Preparation

Standard 2: The candidate demonstrates knowledge of the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the discipline.

 

Pre-Service Experience

Standard 3: The teacher candidate applies current research and technology related to the teaching, learning, and assessment process.

 

Professional Education Training

Standard 4: The teacher candidate plans and implements learning experiences that support the highest level of student potential.

 

Standard 5: The teacher candidate responds sensitively to individual differences and diversity.

 

Standard 6: The teacher candidate continues to reflect, refine, and revise professional practices.

 

Leadership and Decision-Making

Standard 7: The teacher candidate collaborates with others to promote learning.

 

Christian Environment

Standard 8: The teacher candidate understands and anticipates the needs of a global society within a Christian Worldview.

 

These goals and standards are correlated with the Mississippi Department of Education Educator Preparation Standards, NBPTS Educator Standards, INTASC Standards, and IRA/MS Standards. These external standards are considered the core knowledge and skills required for teacher candidates in their professional development.

 

 

 

A correlation matrix (See Table 2.1) aligns the WCU standards with the external accreditation and learned society standards.

 

Table 2.1 Standards Correlation Matrix

 

 

WCU School of Education Standards

INTASC

Standards

NBPTS

Standards

MDE

Standards

IRA/MS Standards

Liberal Arts Content Excellence

Standard 1

Strong Foundation in Liberal Arts and Professional Education

 

1, 2

 

2

 

A

 

1

Specialty Area Preparation

Standard 2

Apply research and technology to teaching, learning, assessment

 

2, 3, 4

 

1, 2

 

A, B, D

 

2, 5

Pre-Service Experience

Standard 3

Individual Differences and Diversity

 

2, 3

 

3

 

A, B, C, E

 

2, 3

Professional Education Training

Standard 4

Anticipate needs of global society

 

3, 10

 

5

 

F

 

5

Standard 5

Plan and implement learning experiences

 

2, 5, 6, 7, 8

 

1, 2, 3, 4

 

A, B, C, D

 

2, 3

Standard 6

Reflect, refine and revise

 

8, 9

 

4

 

F

 

5

Leadership and Decision-Making

Standard 7

Collaborate with others to promote learning

 

10

 

4, 5

 

E, F

 

4, 5

Christian Environment

Standard 8

Global perspective within a Christian worldview

 

5

 

5

 

F

 

5

 

 

 

 

 

2a.2. What are the key assessments used by the unit and its programs to monitor and make decisions about candidate performance at transition points such as those listed in Table 6? Please complete Table 6 or upload your own table at Prompt 2a.6 below.

There are five transition points in the undergraduate teacher education program: Admission and Program Core; Specialty, Clinical, Professional; Student Teaching; Graduation and Licensure; and Candidate Follow-up. See Table 2.2 for a description of key points of assessments.

Table 2.2 Description of Key Points of Assessments – Initial Program

 

 

 

Assessment Stage

 

Transition

Point 1

Admission and Program Core

 

 

Transition

Point 2

Specialty Clinical

Professional

 

 

Transition

Point 3

Student

Teaching

 

Transition

Point 4

Graduation

and

Licensure

 

Transition

Point 5

Candidate

Follow-up

 

Program Delivery or Evidence Required

 

 

1-Admission to University

 

2-Admission to School of Education GPA 2.5 or higher

 

3-PRAXIS I or ACT 21 (subtests minimum 18)

 

3-Completon of B.S. Core (44 hrs.) Required

 

 

1-Additional University/General requirements

 

2-Interdisciplinary Concentration (30 hrs.)

 

3-GPA B.S. Core/General Requirements and Interdisciplinary Concentration

 

4-Nine hrs. of ED courses allowed

 

5-Evidence of professional behaviors

 

6-All Cs, Ds, Fs reported - advisor

 

1-Completion of all Specialty, Clinical, Professional courses with a C or higher (May have 9-12 hrs. unfinished)

 

2-Successful Field Experiences in the Practicum

 

3-Evidence of professional behaviors in the program

 

4-GPA 2.5 or higher

 

1-Completion of all program courses

 

2-GPA 2.5 or higher

 

3-Successful Student Teaching Experience

 

4-Evidence of Effective Classroom Management Strategies

 

5-PRAXIS II Passing Scores – PLT and Subject Area

 

1-First year teacher perceptions

 

2-

Principal’s Evaluation of Educator Competencies

 

3-Follow-up by Student Teaching Director – self-evaluation of first year

 

Summary of Assessments

 

1-Review of Current transcripts

 

2-GPA of 2.5 or higher

 

3-Praxis I scores or ACT scores

 

 

 

 

1-Coursework / Projects

 

2-Field Experiences

 

3-Reflections

 

1-Coursework / Projects

 

2-Faculty supervision and evaluation

 

3-Clinical courses – Faculty Evaluation and Student Learning Outcomes Report

 

 

1-Coursework / Projects

 

2-Transcript review GPA 2.5 or higher

 

3-Supervising Teacher STAI Evaluation

 

4-Supervising Professor STAI Evaluation

 

5-PRAXIS II PLT Scores

 

6-PRAXIS II Subject Area

1-MS. Annual Performance Review – First Year Teacher Survey

 

2-MS. Annual Performance Review – Principal’s Evaluation of First Year Teachers

 

3-Email Survey of First Year Teachers

 

There are four transition points in the graduate M.A.T. teacher education program: Entry, Pre-Candidacy, Professional Candidacy, and Exit. See Table 2.3 for a description of key points of assessments.

 

Table 2.3 Description of Key Points of Assessment M.A.T.  - Advanced Program

 

 

Assessment Stage

Transition

Point 1

Entry

 

Transition

Point 2

Pre-Candidacy

 

Transition

Point 3

Professional Candidacy

Transition

Point 4

Exit

 

Program Delivery

Or Evidence Required

 

 

1-Admission to University Graduate School

 

2-Undergraduate non-teaching degree

 

3-Admission to School of Education GPA 2.5

 

4-PRAXIS I

 

5-GPA of 2.5 or higher in last 64 hrs of undergraduate degree

 

6-PRAXIS II – Subject Area Exam

 

 

 

1-EDU 536 – Classroom Management

 

2-EDU 650 Tests, Measurements, and Evaluation

 

3-Evidence of Professional Dispositions

 

4-Evidence of Differentiated Instruction

 

 

 

1-EDU 635 Internship

 

2-Successful Field Experiences in the Practicum

 

3-Evidence of professional behaviors in the program

 

4-GPA 3.0 or higher

 

5- EDU 620 Teacher as Researcher

 

6-EDU 640 Curriculum Planning; EDU 606 Integration of Content Curriculum

 

7-Literacy Component: EDU 636 Reading & Writing Across Curr; EDU 611 Current Trends in Reading

 

8- EDU 625 Technology in Education

 

 

1-EDU 635 Internship

 

2-Successful Field Experiences in the Practicum

 

3-Evidence of professional behaviors in the program

 

4-GPA 3.0

 

5- EDU 620 Teacher as Researcher

 

6-EDU 640 Curriculum Planning; EDU 606 Integration of Content Curriculum

 

7-Literacy Component: EDU 636 Reading & Writing Across Curr; EDU 611 Current Trends in Reading

 

8- EDU 625 Technology

 

Summary of Assessments

 

 

1 Current transcripts

 

2-GPA of 2.5

 

3-PRAXIS I scores

 

4- Three letters of recommendation

 

5-PRAXIS II – Subject Area Score

 

 

 

 

 

1-Coursework / Projects

 

2-Faculty Evaluations

 

3-Lesson Plans

 

4-Classroom Management Plan

 

5-Differentiated Instruction Survey Results

 

 

1-Coursework / Projects

 

2-Faculty supervision and evaluation

 

3-Supervising Professor STAI Evaluation

 

4-Intel Technology Benchmarks

 

5-Principal’s Annual Evaluation

 

6-Scholarly Writing

 

1-Comprehensive Exam Rubric

 

2-GPA 3.0

 

3-Program Audit

 

4-Master’s Exit Survey

 

 

 

There are four transition points in the graduate M.Ed. teacher education program: Entry, Candidacy, Professional, and Exit. See Table 2.4 for a description of key points of assessments.

 

Table 2.4 Description of Key Points of Assessment M.Ed.- Advanced Program

 

 

 

Assessment Stage

 

Transition

Point 1

Entry

 

 

Transition

Point 2

Candidacy

 

 

Transition

Point 3

Professional

 

Transition

Point 4

Exit

 

Program Delivery Or Evidence Required

 

 

1-Admission to University Graduate School

 

2-Undergraduate degree in teacher education program

 

3-Current Educator’s License

 

4-GPA of 2.5 in last 64 hrs of undergraduate degree or higher

 

 

 

1. 9 hours of graduate work

 

2- EDU 620 Teacher as Researcher – Scholarly Writing and Research Component

 

3. Course Requirements

 

4-GPA 3.0 or higher

 

 

1-Research component

 

2-GPA 3.0 or higher

 

3-EDU 640 Curriculum Planning; EDU 606 Integration of Content Curriculum

 

4-Literacy Component: EDU 636 Reading & Writing Across Curr; EDU 611 Current Trends in Reading

 

 

1-Completion of all program courses

 

2-GPA 3.0 or higher

 

3- Written Comprehensive Examination

 

4-Program and University Final Audit

 

 

 

Summary of Assessments

 

 

1 Current transcripts

 

2-GPA of 2.5 or higher in last 64 hours of undergraduate degree

 

3-Three letters of recommendation

 

4-Hold valid Educator’s license

 

 

 

1-Coursework / Projects

 

2-Faculty Evaluations

 

3-Research Proposal - 620

 

4-Journal Critiques

 

5-Research Projects

 

6-GPA 3.0 or higher

 

 

1-Coursework / Projects

 

2-Scholarly Writing and Research Projects

 

3-Literature reviews

 

1-Comprehensive Exam Rubric

 

2-GPA 3.0 or higher

 

3-Program Audit

 

4-Master’s Exit Survey

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2.5 correlates the Undergraduate Assessment System to the WCU Standards categorizing the assessments by assessment stage, type of assessments, and type of data.

 

Table 2.5 WCU School of Education Correlation to Assessment System – Initial Program

 

 

WCU

Assessment Stage

Type of Assessment

Data Used to Determine

 

Standard 1 -

Liberal Arts Content Excellence

Transition Pt 1 – Admission-Program Core

 

Transition Pt 3 – Student Teaching

PRAXIS I, GPA, Core

 

 

PRAXIS II Subject Area Exam, GPA, STAI

Admission to the School of Education

 

Completion of Student Teaching

 

 

 

 

Standard 2 -

Specialty Area Preparation

Transition Pt 2 – Specialty, Clinical, Professional

 

 

 

 

 

 

Transition Pt 3 – Student Teaching

Lesson plans, STAI evaluations, student teaching, supervising teacher evaluation, case study (EDR 441, EDU 413, EDU 440), portfolios

GPA- Interdisciplinary Concentration

 

PRAXIS II Subject Area Exam, GPA, STAI

Progress in program

 

 

Eligibility for student teaching

 

 

 

 

Completion of Student Teaching

 

 

 

Standard 3 –

Pre-Service Experience

Transition Pt 2 – Specialty, Clinical, Professional

 

 

 

 

 

 

Transition Pt 3-

Student Teaching

Lesson plans, STAI evaluations, student teaching, supervising teacher evaluation, case study (EDR 441, EDU 413, EDU 440), portfolios

GPA- Interdisciplinary Concentration

 

PRAXIS II Subject Area Exam, GPA, STAI

Progress in program

 

 

Eligibility for student teaching

 

 

 

 

Completion of Student Teaching

 

 

 

Standard 4 –

Professional Education Training

Transition Pt 2-

Specialty, Clinical, Professional

 

 

 

 

 

 

Transition Pt 4-

Graduation &Licensure

Lesson plans, STAI evaluations, student teaching, supervising teacher evaluation, case study (EDR 441, EDU 413, EDU 440), portfolios

GPA- Interdisciplinary Concentration

 

GPA, PRAXIS II, PLT, STAI, Program Review

Progress in program

 

 

Eligibility for student teaching

 

 

 

 

Completion of Program, Licensure

 

 

Standard 5 –

Leadership and Decision-Making

Transition Pt 4-

Graduation and Licensure

 

 

Transition Pt 5-

Candidate Follow-up

GPA, PRAXIS II, PLT, STAI, Program Review

 

 

MDE Annual Performance Review

1st Yr Teacher Survey

Principal Evaluation

Completion of Program, Licensure

 

 

Internal Program Review and Revision

 

 

 

Standard 7–

Collaborate with Others

Transition Pt 3-

Student Teaching

 

Transition Pt 5 – Candidate Follow-up

STAI

 

 

MDE Annual Performance Review

1st Yr Teacher Survey

Principal Evaluation

Completion of Student Teaching

 

Internal Program Review and Revision

 

 

 

Table 2.6 correlates the M.A. T. Assessment System to the WCU Standards categorizing the assessments by assessment stage, type of assessments, and type of data.

 

 

Table 2.6 WCU School of Education Correlation to Assessment System – M.A.T. Program

 

 

WCU

Assessment Stage

Type of Assessment

Data Used to Determine

 

Standard 1 -

Liberal Arts Content Excellence

 

Transition Pt 1- Entry

Admission to Grad Schl

GPA, PRAXIS I, PRAXIS II, Recommendations

Admission into the Graduate School and MAT Program

 

Standard 2 -

Specialty Area Preparation

Transition Pt 2-Pre-Candidacy

EDU 536 and EDU 650

Coursework/Projects, Faculty evaluations, Lesson Plans –rubrics, Class Management Plan-rubric, Survey

Progress in program

Temporary Licensure

 

Eligibility for Internship

 

 

 

 

Standard 3 –

Pre-Service Experience

Transition Pt 2-Pre-Candidacy

 

 

 

 

 

Transition Pt 3-

Professional Candidacy

EDU 536 and EDU 650

Coursework/Projects, Faculty evaluations, Lesson Plans –rubrics, Class Management Plan-rubric, Survey

 

GPA, STAI, Intel Technology Benchmarks, Principal’s Annual Evaluation, Scholarly Writing and Research Projects Rubrics

Progress in program

Temporary Licensure

Eligibility for Internship

 

 

 

 

Completion of Internship

Standard Licensure

Evidence of professional dispositions

 

Completion of Core courses

 

 

 

 

 

 

Standard 4 –

Professional Education Training

Transition Pt 2-Pre-Candidacy

 

 

 

 

 

Transition Pt 3-

Professional Candidacy

 

 

 

 

 

 

Transition Pt 4-Exit

EDU 536 and EDU 650

Coursework/Projects, Faculty evaluations, Lesson Plans –rubrics, Class Management Plan-rubric, Survey

 

GPA, STAI, Intel Technology Benchmarks, Principal’s Annual Evaluation, Scholarly Writing and Research Projects Rubrics

 

GPA, Comprehensive Exam, Final Program Audit, Survey

Progress in program

Temporary Licensure

 

Eligibility for Internship

 

 

 

Completion of Internship

Standard Licensure

Evidence of professional dispositions

Completion of Core Courses

 

 

Graduation and AA Licensure

 

Standard 5 –

Leadership and Decision-Making

 

Transition Pt 3-

Professional Candidacy

STAI, Principal’s Annual Evaluation

Completion of Internship

Standard Licensure

 

Standard 7-

Collaborate with Others

Transition Pt 2-Pre-Candidacy

 

Transition Pt 3-

Professional Candidacy

EDU 536 and EDU 650

Coursework/Projects, Faculty evaluations

STAI, Principal’s Annual Evaluation

Progress in program

Temporary Licensure

 

Completion of Internship

Standard Licensure

 

 

Table 2.7 correlates the M. Ed. Assessment System to the WCU Standards categorizing the assessments by assessment stage, type of assessments, and type of data.

 

Table 2.7 WCU School of Education Correlation to Assessment System – M.Ed. Program

 

 

WCU

Assessment Stage

Type of Assessment

Data Used to Determine

 

 

 

Standard 1 -

Liberal Arts Content Excellence

Transition Pt 1 - Entry

Admission to University Graduate School-references

 

Undergraduate degree in teacher education - transcript

 

Current Educator’s License

 

GPA 2.5 in last 64 hrs-teacher education

Admission to the Graduate School and the M.Ed. Program

 

 

 

Standard 2 -

Specialty Area Preparation

Transition Pt 1 - Entry

 

 

 

Transition Pt 2-Candidacy

GPA 2.5 or higher in last 64 hrs-teacher education

 

 

1-9 hours of graduate work

EDU 620 – Scholarly Writing and Research Projects

GPA 3.0 or higher

Admission to the Graduate School and the M.Ed. Program

 

Program progress

 

 

Standard 3 –

Pre-Service Experience

Individual Differences and Diversity

Transition Pt 3 -

Professional

Research Component

Literature Reviews

GPA 3.0 or higher

Completion of Curriculum Core: EDU 640, 606, 636, 611

Coursework, projects, rubrics, surveys

Program progress

 

 

 

 

 

Standard 4 –

Professional Education Training

Transition Pt 3 -

Professional

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Transition Pt 4-Exit

Research Component

Literature Reviews

GPA 3.0 or higher

Completion of Curriculum Core: EDU 640, 606, 636, 611

Coursework, projects, rubrics, surveys

 

Final program audit

GPA 3.0 or higher

Comprehensive exam

Survey

Program progress

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Graduation and AA Licensure

 

Standard 5 –

Leadership and Decision-Making

 

Transition Pt 3 -

Professional

Research Component

Coursework, projects, rubrics, surveys

Program progress

 

Standard 7-

Collaborate with Others

 

Transition Pt 3 -

Professional

Research Component

GPA 3.0 or higher

Coursework, projects

Program progress

 

 

Table 2.8 correlates the External and Internal Evaluations for the Initial Program with the Undergraduate Elementary and Secondary Transition Points.

 

Table 2.8 External and Internal Evaluations – Initial Program

 

 

Transition Points

External Evaluation

Internal Education

 

Admission and

Program Core

 

 

ACT Scores or PRAXIS I

Core content courses

GPA

 

Faculty evaluations

 

Specialty, Clinical,

Professional

 

Field Experiences

 

Evaluations by Supervising Teachers

 

Observation Evaluations by Supervising Professors

Evidence of Professional Dispositions

GPA

 

 

 

Student Teaching

 

PRAXIS II

PLT

STAI Evaluations by Supervising Teachers

Evidence of Professional Dispositions- Supervising Teachers

 

 

STAI – Supervising Professor

Evidence of Professional Dispositions – Supervising Professor

GPA

 

Graduation and

Licensure

 

 

PRAXIS I, II, PLT

 

GPA

Final Program Audit

 

 

Candidate

Follow-up

 

Mississippi Annual Performance Review – (1) First Year Teacher Survey;

(2) Principal’s Evaluation

 

 

 

Follow-up self-evaluation by teacher graduate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2.9 correlates the External and Internal Evaluations for the Graduate programs (M.A.T. and M.Ed.) with the graduate Transition Points.

 

 

Table 2.9 External and Internal Evaluations – Graduate M.A.T. and M.Ed.

 

 

Transition Points

External Evaluation

Internal Education

 

Entry

M.A.T.- M.Ed.

 

 

PRAXIS I

PRAXIS II Subject Area Exam

GPA 2.5 or higher in the last 64 hours of undergraduate degree

References

 

 

 

Pre-Candidacy

M.A.T.

 

 

 

 

Candidacy

M.Ed.

 

 

 

 

EDU 536, EDU 650

Coursework, project rubrics, content examination scores

 

Evidence of Professional Dispositions

 

9 hrs of coursework requirements

Evidence of Professional Dispositions

 

 

Professional

Candidacy

M.A.T.

 

Professional

M.Ed.

 

 

Principal’s Annual Evaluation

Student Self-Evaluation

Student Journals

 

STAI by Supervising Professor

Course Requirements

GPA

 

Course Requirements

GPA

 

Exit

M.A.T. – M.Ed.

 

 

Survey by Students

 

Written Comprehensive Exam

GPA

 

 

 

Table 2.10 is an overview of the Initial Program Assessment Stages describing requirements at each stage.

 

Table 2.10 Overview of Initial Program Assessment Stages

 

 

 

 

Assessment

Stage

 

Transition

Point 1

Admission and Program Core

 

 

Transition

Point 2

Specialty Clinical

Professional

 

 

Transition

Point 3

Student

Teaching

 

Transition

Point 4

Graduation

and

Licensure

 

Transition

Point 5

Candidate

Follow-up

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Requirements

at Each Stage

 

 

1-Admission to University

 

2-Admission to School of Education GPA 2.5 or higher

 

3-PRAXIS I or ACT 21 (subtests minimum 18)

 

3-Completon of B.S. Core (44 hrs.) Required

 

 

1-Additional University/General requirements

 

2-Interdisciplinary Concentration (30 hrs.)

 

3-GPA B.S. Core/General Requirements and Interdisciplinary Concentration

 

4- Nine hrs. of ED courses allowed

 

5-Evidence of professional behaviors

 

6-All Cs, Ds, Fs reported to advisor

 

1-Completion of all Specialty, Clinical, Professional courses with a C or higher

 

(May have 9-12 hrs. unfinished)

 

2-Successful Field Experiences in the Practicum

 

3-Evidence of professional behaviors in the program

 

4-GPA 2.5 or higher

 

1-Completion of all program courses

 

2-GPA 2.5 or higher

 

3-Successful Student Teaching Experience

 

4-Evidence of Effective Classroom Management Strategies

 

5-PRAXIS II Passing Scores – PLT and Subject Area

 

1-First year teacher perceptions

 

2- Principal’s Evaluation of Educator Competencies

 

3-Follow-up by Student Teaching Director – self-evaluation of first year.

 

 

Transition Point 1: Admission and Program Core

 

Teacher candidates begin the admission process in the University undergraduate admissions office. Freshmen are required to submit a high school transcript and an ACT or SAT score. Admission to the School of Education for freshmen or transfer students requires an ACT score of 21 or higher with all subscores at 18 or higher. Otherwise, a student must pass the PRAXIS I in reading, writing, and mathematics. Admission requirements include completing the B.S. Core with a GPA of 2.5 or higher.

 

Transition Point 2: Specialty, Clinical, Professional

 

Teacher candidates must complete the additional University and General Requirements followed by the Interdisciplinary Concentration (30 hours) with a GPA of 2.5 or higher. Nine hours of EDU/EDR courses are allowed at the 300 level only. 400 level courses may not be taken. Teacher candidates must show evidence of professional behaviors.

 

 

Transition Point 3: Student Teaching

 

To be eligible for entrance into Student Teaching, the candidate completes all specialty, clinical, and professional courses with a C or higher and an overall GPA of 2.5 or higher. Also, evidence of successful completion of all practica experiences in the content methods courses.

 

Transition Point 4: Graduation and Licensure

 

This transition point is completed when all course work is finished with a GPA of 2.5 or higher along with the successful completion of the Student Teaching experience that evidences effective classroom management skills. Passing scores on the PRAXIS II: PLT and Subject Area Exam are required.

 

Transition Point 5: Candidate Follow-up

 

Program effectiveness is measured through the survey sent to graduating students during their first year of teaching by the Director of Student Teaching. External evaluations come annually from the MDE Mississippi Annual Performance Review: First Year Teacher Survey and Principal’s Evaluation.

 

Initial Program: M.A.T. Candidates

 

Transition Point 1: Entry

 

An applicant for the M.A.T. program must be admitted to the University Graduate School by meeting the following requirements: (1) Has an undergraduate non-teaching degree; (2) Hold a GPA of 2.5 or higher in the last 64 hours of the undergraduate degree; (3) Passing scores for PRAXIS I and PRAXIS II (Subject Area Exam).

 

Transition Point 2: Pre-Candidacy

 

Pre-Candidacy status is achieved by completing EDU 536 and EDU 650 with a C or higher. The candidate must evidence professional behaviors in the university setting. Table 2.11 displays the first two transition points.

 

 

Table 2.11 Alternate Route Initial Program – M.A.T.

 

 

 

Assessment

Stage

 

Transition Point 1

Entry

 

 

Transition Point 2

Pre-Candidacy

 

 

 

 

 

Requirements at

Each stage

 

 

1-Admission to University Graduate School

 

2-Undergraduate non-teaching degree

 

3-Admission to School of Education GPA 2.5 or higher

 

4-PRAXIS I

 

5-GPA of 2.5 or higher in last 64 hrs of undergraduate degree

 

6-PRAXIS II – Subject Area Exam

 

 

 

1-EDU 536 – Classroom Management

 

2-EDU 650 -Tests, Measurement, and Evaluations

 

3-Evidence of Professional Dispositions

 

 

 

 

Transition Point 3: Professional Candidacy

 

Professional Candidacy is satisfied with the successful completion of the Internship, evidence of professional behaviors in the field, completion of the research component (EDU 620), the curriculum component (EDU 640 or 606); the literacy component (EDU 636 or 611), and the technology component (EDU 625). The candidate’s GPA must be 3.0 or higher.

 

Transition Point 4: Exit

 

The final requirements for graduation are a satisfactory Program and University Audit, GPA of 3.0, and a passing score on the Written Comprehensive Examination. Table 2.12 describes the M.A.T. Assessment System.

 

Table 2.12 M.A.T. Assessment System

 

 

 

Assessment Stage

 

Transition

Point 1

Entry

 

 

Transition

Point 2

Pre-Candidacy

 

 

Transition

Point 3

Professional Candidacy

 

Transition

Point 4

Exit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Requirements

At Each Stage

 

1-Admission to University Graduate School

 

2-Undergraduate non-teaching degree

 

3-Admission to School of Education GPA 2.5 or higher

 

4-PRAXIS I

 

5-GPA of 2.5 or higher in last 64 hrs of undergraduate degree

 

6-PRAXIS II – Subject Area Exam

 

 

 

1-EDU 536 – Classroom Management

 

2-EDU 650 Tests, Measurement, and Evaluations

 

3-Evidence of Professional Dispositions

 

 

 

 

 

1-EDU 635 Internship

 

2-Successful Field Experiences in the Practicum

 

3-Evidence of professional behaviors in the program

 

4-GPA 3.0 or higher

 

5- EDU 620 Teacher as Researcher

 

6-EDU 640 Curriculum Planning; EDU 606 Integration of Content Curriculum

 

7-Literacy Component: EDU 636 Reading & Writing Across Curr; EDU 611 Current Trends in Reading

 

8- EDU 625 Technology in Education

 

 

1-Completion of all program courses

 

2-GPA 3.0 or higher

 

3- Written Comprehensive Examination

 

4-Program and University Final Audit

 

 

 

Advanced Programs

 

The School of Education offers graduate degrees and endorsements in the following areas:

M.Ed.: Art Education, Biology, Elementary Education, English, Gifted Education, Mild/Moderate Disabilities, Secondary Education, Social Science Education,

Endorsements in Reading, Gifted Education, Mild/Moderate Disabilities; Severe/Profound Disabilities,

M.S. in Counseling Psychology: School Counselor, Psychometrist,

Endorsements in School Counseling, School Psychometry.

Specialist Degree in Elementary Education.

Table 2.13 displays the M.Ed. Assessment System for each Transition Point describing the requirements at each stage.

Table 2.13 M.Ed. Assessment System

 

 

 

Assessment Stage

 

Transition

Point 1

Entry

 

 

Transition

Point 2

Candidacy

 

 

Transition

Point 3

Professional

 

Transition

Point 4

Exit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Requirements

At Each Stage

 

1-Admission to University Graduate School

 

2-Undergraduate degree in teacher education program

 

3-Current Educator’s License

 

4-GPA of 2.5 or higher in last 64 hrs of undergraduate degree

 

 

 

1-9 hours of graduate work

 

2- EDU 620 – Teacher as Researcher – Scholarly Writing and Research Component

 

3. Course Requirements

 

4-GPA 3.0 or higher

 

 

1-Research component

 

2-GPA 3.0 or higher

 

3-EDU 640 Curriculum Planning; EDU 606 Integration of Content Curriculum

 

4-Literacy Component: EDU 636 Reading & Writing Across Curr; EDU 611 Current Trends in Reading

 

 

1-Completion of all program courses

 

2-GPA 3.0 or higher

 

3- Written Comprehensive Examination

 

4-Program and University Final Audit

 

 

 

Transition Point 1: Entry (M.Ed.)

 

Admission to the Teacher Education Program begins with the application to the University’s Graduate School. The graduate applicant must establish evidence of an undergraduate degree in an accredited teacher education program and a current educator’s license or eligibility to obtain a license. The admissions committee in the School of Education reviews the transcript, references, and licensure. The Dean or Chair of the Unit calculates the G.P.A. for the last 64 hours of the undergraduate degree transcript. An applicant to be eligible must have a 2.5 GPA for the last 64 hours.

 

Transition Point 2: Candidacy

 

Graduate students are assessed after completing nine hours of graduate work, including the research component (EDU 620) and evidence of scholarly writing. The grade point average must be a 3.0 or higher.

 

Transition Point 3: Professional

 

The Professional Transition point is met by completing the advanced research component, the literacy component (EDU 636 or 611) and the curriculum component (EDU 640 or 606) with a GPA of 3.0 or higher.

 

Transition Point 4: Exit

 

The final requirements for graduation are a satisfactory Program and University Audit, GPA of 3.0, and a passing score on the Written Comprehensive Examination.

 

Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation

 

An ongoing assessment system at the initial and advanced levels provides for data collection, analysis, and revision/intervention in all teacher education programs in the School of Education. This cyclical process builds continuity across program components as faculty members build student learning outcomes at the most important levels – the university classrooms and the field practica classrooms. Student learning outcomes are designed to measure the professional development growth of the teacher candidates and the academic developmental growth of children in the practica experiences. Data are analyzed and repackaged for faculty review and external review by NCATE and SACS. Tables 2.14, 2.15, and 2.16 describe the continuous data collection system.

See next page for Table 2.14.

 

Table 2.14 Initial Level Data Collection

 

 

 

Assessment Stage

 

 

Type of Assessment

 

Who Collects Data

 

When Collected

 

Data Used to Determine

 

 

 

Admission and Program Core

 

1-Review of Current transcripts

 

2-GPA of 2.5 or higher

 

3-Praxis I scores or ACT scores

 

 

 

Dean, School of Education

 

Chair of Department

 

 

 

Each term

 

Admittance to Teacher Education Program

 

 

Specialty

Clinical

Professional

 

1-Coursework / Projects

 

2-Field Experiences

 

3-Reflections

 

 

Faculty

 

Chair of the Department

 

 

 

 

 

Each term

 

Progress in Program

 

Eligibility for Student Teaching

 

 

 

 

Student

Teaching

 

1-Coursework / Projects

 

2-Faculty Supervision and Evaluation

 

3-Clinical courses Faculty Evaluation and Student Learning Outcomes Report

 

 

Faculty

 

Chair of the Department

 

 

 

 

Each term

 

 

Progress in Student Teaching

 

Exit from Student Teaching

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Graduation and Licensure

 

1-Completion of all program courses

 

2-GPA 2.5 or higher

 

3-Successful Student Teaching Experience

 

4-Evidence of Effective Classroom Management Strategies

 

5-PRAXIS II Passing Scores – PLT and Subject Area

 

 

Registrar’s office

 

School of Education Program Assistant

 

Chair of the Department

 

Director of Student Teaching

 

 

Each term

 

 

Exit from Student Teaching

 

Program Completion

 

Licensure

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Candidate Follow-up

 

1-First year teacher perceptions

 

2- Principal’s Evaluation of Educator Competencies

 

3-Follow-up by Student Teaching Director – self-evaluation of first year.

 

 

Director of Student Teaching

 

MDE

Annual Performance Review Staff

 

Dept Chair

 

 

Annually

 

 

Effectives of Candidates in the field

 

Success of Teacher Education Program

 

 

 

Table 2.15 M.A.T. Data Collection

 

 

 

Assessment Stage

 

 

Type of Assessment

 

Who Collects Data

 

When Collected

 

Data Used to Determine

 

 

 

 

 

Entry

1-Admission to University Graduate School

 

2-Undergraduate non-teaching degree

 

3-PRAXIS I

 

4-GPA of 2.5 or higher in last 64 hrs. of bachelor’s degree

 

5-PRAXIS II – Subject Area Exam

 

Dean, School of Education

 

Chair of Department

 

School of Education Program Assistant

 

Graduate Admissions Office

 

 

 

 

Each term

 

Admittance to M.A.T.

Teacher Education Program

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pre-Candidacy

1-Coursework / Projects

 

2-Faculty Evaluations

 

3-Lesson Plans

 

4-Classroom Management Plan

 

5-Differentiated Instruction Survey

 

Faculty

 

Chair of the Department

 

 

 

 

 

Each term

 

Progress in Program

 

Eligibility for Internship

 

Eligibility for Professional Candidacy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Professional Candidacy

1-Coursework / Projects

 

2-Faculty Supervision and evaluation

 

3-Supervising Professor STAI Evaluation

 

4-Intel Technology Benchmarks

 

5-Principal’s Annual Evaluation

 

6-Scholarly Writing and Research Projects

 

Faculty

 

Chair of the Department

 

Director of Internships

 

 

 

Each term

 

 

Progress in Internship

 

Exit from Internship

 

Eligible for Standard License (5 yrs)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exit

1-Comprehensive Exam Rubric

 

2-GPA 3.0 or higher

 

3-Program Audit

 

4-Master’s Exit Survey

 

 

Registrar’s office

 

School of Ed Program Assistant

 

Chair - Dept

 

University Institutional Effectiveness

 

Three times a year

 

 

Program Completion

 

Licensure- AA Master

 

 

 

Table 2.16 M.Ed. Data Collection

 

 

 

Assessment Stage

 

 

Type of Assessment

 

Who Collects Data

 

When Collected

 

Data Used to Determine

 

 

 

 

 

Entry

 

1- Current transcripts

 

2-GPA of 2.5 or higher in last 64 hours of undergraduate degree

 

3-Three letters of recommendation

 

4-Hold valid Educator’s license

 

 

Dean, School of Education

 

Chair of Department

 

Graduate Admissions Office

 

 

Each term

 

Admittance to Advanced

Teacher Education Program

 

 

 

 

 

 

Candidacy

 

1-Coursework / Projects

 

2-Faculty Evaluations

 

3-Research Proposal –EDU 620

 

4-Journal Critiques

 

5-Research Projects

 

6-GPA 3.0 or higher

 

 

Faculty

 

Chair of the Department

 

 

 

 

Each term

 

Progress in Program

 

 

 

 

 

 

Professional

 

1-Coursework / Projects

 

2-Scholarly Writing and Research Projects

 

3-Literature reviews

 

 

Faculty

 

Chair of the Department

 

 

 

Each term

 

 

Progress in

Program

 

Eligibility for Comprehensive Exam

 

 

 

 

 

Exit

 

1-Comprehensive Exam Rubric

 

2-GPA 3.0 or higher

 

3-Program Audit

 

4-Master’s Exit Survey

 

 

Registrar’s office

 

Program Assistant

 

Chair of the Department

 

 

 

Two times a year

 

Program Completion

 

Licensure- AA Master

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2a.3. How is the unit assessment system evaluated? Who is involved and how?

 

The unit assessment system is evaluated through the reports developed by the Assessment committee (prior to 2011) and the TK20 aggregated analyses (2011). These unit reports are brought before the faculty at Tradition and Hattiesburg for summarization, analysis, and unit evaluation. The Blue Ribbon Commission set the stage for ongoing unit evaluation at the deepest level when the faculty was required with the three other Schools to begin at the foundational level and redesign all programs. This in-depth study in 2009-2010 retrained the faculty to reconceptualize their role as stakeholders in a bigger picture rather than individual professors working isolation and analyzing their impact on student learning disconnected from the work of their colleagues. This no longer holds true as this revitalization has overtaken traditional roles and colleagues no longer fear and distain the comments of others when program improvements are discussed. The faculty works together for the overall improvement of the unit and each program. Since the Dean and all other administrators are also teachers, the unit sees the organizational structure as more collegial than an hierarchical design. This has been true of the Carey community for decades. The School of Education has a major professional focus to create learning communities on each campus and draw the adjuncts into those communities. The Dean, the Director of Education (Tradition Campus), the four Chairs along with the Director of Internship and the Director of Student Teacher serve as the Executive Team to assure that all faculty members are receiving communications, data, encouragement, and support in order to improve the internal programs of the unit. The business of the School of Education is the business of every faculty member and this is a major paradigm shift made possible due to the BRC Project. Unit changes and program changes may be initiated from several directions:

  • Individual faculty members or adjuncts;
  • University administration;
  • Faculty meetings;
  • Data Analysis Meetings;
  • Professional Standards Committee:
  • 11 Special Committees (Ph.D. Higher Education Administration; Educational Leadership; QEP; Technology and Instructional Strategies; Internship and Field Experiences; Higher Education Administration Specialist Program; Library and Resources; NCATE; BLUE RIBBON; Community Partnerships; P-16 Councils); and finally
  • The Executive team.

These proposals are presented to the faculty at large for discussion and approval. The Dean and the Chairs implement all decisions made by the faculty and/or refer such proposals requiring additional approvals to the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, Graduate Curriculum Committee, the University Academic Council, the Faculty Senate or to the University Faculty through the office of the Vice President of Academic Affairs. The one great positive of William Carey University is its ability to efficiently make decisions and implement needed improvements within a relatively short period of time. Faculty members coming from other institutions are often amazed at the freedom of action allowed in this professional learning community. The administration trusts its faculty to make the student learning improvement required to build powerful learning experiences.

 

 

 

2a.4. How does the unit ensure that its assessment procedures are fair, accurate, consistent, and free of bias?

 

 

The unit operates all committee work through the faculty meetings. The small size of the School of Education allows for the entire faculty to be involved in the full review and revision process. The majority of the decision-making is handled in faculty meetings. The transition from the STAI to TIAI, student teaching internship evaluation instruments, started in Fall of 2009.

 

Professional Dispositions – every undergraduate, graduate, and graduate MAT receives the Professional Dispositions standards to be signed and placed in their file. Professional Standards Committee monitors Professional Dispositions across the undergraduate and graduate populations through recommendations from advisors and professors. Students who are evidencing dispositional weaknesses are counseled and a Professional Development Plan is designed, implemented, and monitored by the Professional Standards Committee. In most cases, the professional disposition in question is a matter of immaturity or lack of training and becomes fully developed as the student increases time in the field working with master teachers.

 

Syllabi are consistent across courses with faculty and adjuncts. D2L, the university’s learning management systems, provide syllabi and course content with clear rubrics aligned to the standards and with the learning outcomes for the course that are aligned with the national and professional standards. These courses are transferred to adjuncts in order to provide consistent delivery. All adjuncts are assigned a mentor instructor who is fulltime at the university. The syllabus template is sent to the adjunct by the mentor. The adjunct completes the syllabus and submits it to the mentor for approval which is then submitted to the unit. This helps with consistency, content validity, and fairness in the assessment process. The rubrics are strengthened in a way that allows multiple assessors to evaluate consistently. This has not always been the case especially between the Tradition (Biloxi) campus and the Main campus. The scheduling committee in 2010 initiated the adjunct packet as another tool for training the adjunct faculty.

 

Another process to protect the accuracy and consistency of internship evaluations and free the assessments from bias is the Teacher Internship Assessment Instrument (TIAI) which evaluates the teacher candidates through two external evaluations (cooperating teacher) and two internal evaluations (University supervisor) to provide a more objective evaluation of their student teaching. Teacher candidates are then required to complete a self-evaluation using the same instrument and a video recording of a class lesson. These five evaluations are then compared and discussed with the teacher candidate to enable the candidate to revise units and grow more effective professional skills.

 

Evaluations are reviewed routinely to insure that they are accurately aligned with professional standards. The faculty is in continuous review mode with the rubrics. The revision of rubrics encompasses the clear definitions of the performance indicators and their alignment with standards. Rubrics have changed dramatically over the past five years as faculty members work together to agree on key assessments that are measuring learning outcomes which are related to national standards across courses and campuses.

 

The Mississippi Department of Education through the state legislature passed the Mississippi Code of Ethics in March 2011. Faculty are assigned from the MAT program, the undergraduate internship program, and the admissions committee to revise the Professional Dispositions Standards in order to incorporate the Code of Ethics.

 

Data are evaluated over time creating an opportunity to ensuring program fairness and continuous content updating and alterations of assessments to accurately assure that assessments are correctly with the professional standards and are producing an accurate profile of an effective teacher candidate. The student learning outcomes become the picture of the successful future teacher.

 

An example of continuous examination and evolution of assessments took place during June 2011 when faculty met to analyze data (See June Faculty minutes). The theme of the meeting turned to improving key assessments in teacher candidates’ writing proficiency across programs.

 

 

2a.5. What assessments and evaluation measures are used to manage and improve the operations and programs of the unit?

 

The first category of assessment is the candidate’s progress through transition points. Through the TK20 system, candidates can view a live update of their progress through the transition points. The second category is an assessment of unit and program operations through unit graduate exit surveys, unit undergraduate surveys, unit graduate surveys, and university exit surveys. The unit and programs are assessed based on the following themes:

Theme 1: Candidates are prepared to enter the workforce;

Theme 2: Candidates believe that their professional training adequately prepared them for the classroom;

Theme 3: Candidates experienced cutting edge technologies and became users of those technologies;

Theme 4: Candidates believe that the university and unit provide resources and support (i.e. library, financial assistance);

Theme 5: Candidates along with faculty are active members in their professional communities.

 

The survey data becomes the change agents for improvement across the university and the unit.

 

With a 19% increase (700 students) across the university during 2010-2011, the unit and the university are taking new directions and starting new programs. The data indicate that student satisfaction remains high and is supported by the new enrollment numbers. Some focus will be redirected with the growth of enrollment and new programs. Faculty members assigned to new programs (Educational Leadership, Specialist in Secondary Education, Specialist in Higher Education, Career and Technology Education) are now designing expanded assessment systems.

 

Concerning results of the graduate, undergraduate surveys and exit surveys, the candidates are very satisfied with their professional development in content knowledge, pedagogy, dispositions, and skills. Effective use of differentiated instruction across diverse populations, particularly special populations, is also an area of strength according to the results of the surveys. Graduate report back to the unit that understanding the recordkeeping and documentation is the daunting part of their first year’s experience. The unit has responded to that need by developing the mentor program out in the districts. The unit provides scholarships for mentors who will work with first and second year teachers in an effort to ameliorate the pressures of recordkeeping and documentation. This program was started in 2009-2010 and has results in over $100,000 in scholarships being awarded to mentor teachers. The undergraduate programs have also increased their pre-service and internship hours to a total of 750-850 hours in the field. This overt effort to increase teacher candidates’ time in the field was born out of the Blue Ribbon Project. The unit has provided additional experiences to teacher candidates to build a more realistic perspective on the education profession and the multicultural world they are entering. The unit continues to monitor and improve those experiences. The unit continues to provide close advisement relationships with teacher candidates. The university has additionally provided a new online registration process which is still in its infancy, but undergraduate students continue to maintain a close relationship with advisors in order to insure a smoother transition in resolving initial issues with the new system. All undergraduates are required to regularly meet their advisors each term. The unit is providing opportunities for teacher candidates to be involved in community activities locally (Young Authors Celebration and Hattiesburg Literacy Parade), state (Mississippi Professional Educators, Mississippi Association of Educators), nationally (Phi Delta Kappa), and internationally (Lin Yi University).

 

 

2a.6. (Optional Upload for Online IR

 

2b. Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation

 

2b.1. What are the processes and timelines used by the unit to collect, compile, aggregate, summarize, and analyze data on candidate performance, unit operations, and program quality?

 

How are the data collected?

From whom (e.g., applicants, candidates, graduates, faculty) are data collected?

How often are the data summarized and analyzed?

Whose responsibility is it to summarize and analyze the data? (dean, assistant dean, data coordinator, etc.)

In what formats are the data summarized and analyzed? (reports, tables, charts, graphs, etc.)

What information technologies are used to maintain the unit's assessment system?

 

 

Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation

 

An ongoing assessment system at the initial and advanced levels provides for data collection, analysis, and revision/intervention in all teacher education programs in the School of Education. This cyclical process builds continuity across program components as faculty members build student learning outcomes at the most important levels – the university classrooms and the field practica classrooms. Student learning outcomes are designed to measure the professional development growth of the teacher candidates and the academic developmental growth of children in the practica experiences. Data are analyzed and repackaged for faculty review and external review by NCATE and SACS. Tables 2.14, 2.15, and 2.16 describe the continuous data collection system.

 

See next page for Table 2.14.

 

Table 2.14 Initial Level Data Collection

 

 

 

Assessment Stage

 

 

Type of Assessment

 

Who Collects Data

 

When Collected

 

Data Used to Determine

 

 

 

Admission and Program Core

 

1-Review of Current transcripts

 

2-GPA of 2.5 or higher

 

3-Praxis I scores or ACT scores

 

 

 

Dean, School of Education

 

Chair of Department

 

 

 

Each term

 

Admittance to Teacher Education Program

 

 

Specialty

Clinical

Professional

 

1-Coursework / Projects

 

2-Field Experiences

 

3-Reflections

 

 

Faculty

 

Chair of the Department

 

 

 

 

 

Each term

 

Progress in Program

 

Eligibility for Student Teaching

 

 

 

 

Student

Teaching

 

1-Coursework / Projects

 

2-Faculty Supervision and Evaluation

 

3-Clinical courses Faculty Evaluation and Student Learning Outcomes Report

 

 

Faculty

 

Chair of the Department

 

 

 

 

Each term

 

 

Progress in Student Teaching

 

Exit from Student Teaching

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Graduation and Licensure

 

1-Completion of all program courses

 

2-GPA 2.5 or higher

 

3-Successful Student Teaching Experience

 

4-Evidence of Effective Classroom Management Strategies

 

5-PRAXIS II Passing Scores – PLT and Subject Area

 

 

Registrar’s office

 

School of Education Program Assistant

 

Chair of the Department

 

Director of Student Teaching

 

 

Each term

 

 

Exit from Student Teaching

 

Program Completion

 

Licensure

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Candidate Follow-up

 

1-First year teacher perceptions

 

2- Principal’s Evaluation of Educator Competencies

 

3-Follow-up by Student Teaching Director – self-evaluation of first year.

 

 

Director of Student Teaching

 

MDE

Annual Performance Review Staff

 

Dept Chair

 

 

Annually

 

 

Effectives of Candidates in the field

 

Success of Teacher Education Program

 

 

 

Table 2.15 M.A.T. Data Collection

 

 

 

Assessment Stage

 

 

Type of Assessment

 

Who Collects Data

 

When Collected

 

Data Used to Determine

 

 

 

 

 

Entry

1-Admission to University Graduate School

 

2-Undergraduate non-teaching degree

 

3-PRAXIS I

 

4-GPA of 2.5 or higher in last 64 hrs. of bachelor’s degree

 

5-PRAXIS II – Subject Area Exam

 

Dean, School of Education

 

Chair of Department

 

School of Education Program Assistant

 

Graduate Admissions Office

 

 

 

 

Each term

 

Admittance to M.A.T.

Teacher Education Program

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pre-Candidacy

1-Coursework / Projects

 

2-Faculty Evaluations

 

3-Lesson Plans

 

4-Classroom Management Plan

 

5-Differentiated Instruction Survey

 

Faculty

 

Chair of the Department

 

 

 

 

 

Each term

 

Progress in Program

 

Eligibility for Internship

 

Eligibility for Professional Candidacy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Professional Candidacy

1-Coursework / Projects

 

2-Faculty Supervision and evaluation

 

3-Supervising Professor STAI Evaluation

 

4-Intel Technology Benchmarks

 

5-Principal’s Annual Evaluation

 

6-Scholarly Writing and Research Projects

 

Faculty

 

Chair of the Department

 

Director of Internships

 

 

 

Each term

 

 

Progress in Internship

 

Exit from Internship

 

Eligible for Standard License (5 yrs)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exit

1-Comprehensive Exam Rubric

 

2-GPA 3.0 or higher

 

3-Program Audit

 

4-Master’s Exit Survey

 

 

Registrar’s office

 

School of Ed Program Assistant

 

Chair - Dept

 

University Institutional Effectiveness

 

Three times a year

 

 

Program Completion

 

Licensure- AA Master

 

 

 

Table 2.16 M.Ed. Data Collection

 

 

 

Assessment Stage

 

 

Type of Assessment

 

Who Collects Data

 

When Collected

 

Data Used to Determine

 

 

 

 

 

Entry

 

1- Current transcripts

 

2-GPA of 2.5 or higher in last 64 hours of undergraduate degree

 

3-Three letters of recommendation

 

4-Hold valid Educator’s license

 

 

Dean, School of Education

 

Chair of Department

 

Graduate Admissions Office

 

 

Each term

 

Admittance to Advanced

Teacher Education Program

 

 

 

 

 

 

Candidacy

 

1-Coursework / Projects

 

2-Faculty Evaluations

 

3-Research Proposal –EDU 620

 

4-Journal Critiques

 

5-Research Projects

 

6-GPA 3.0 or higher

 

 

Faculty

 

Chair of the Department

 

 

 

 

Each term

 

Progress in Program

 

 

 

 

 

 

Professional

 

1-Coursework / Projects

 

2-Scholarly Writing and Research Projects

 

3-Literature reviews

 

 

Faculty

 

Chair of the Department

 

 

 

Each term

 

 

Progress in

Program

 

Eligibility for Comprehensive Exam

 

 

 

 

 

Exit

 

1-Comprehensive Exam Rubric

 

2-GPA 3.0 or higher

 

3-Program Audit

 

4-Master’s Exit Survey

 

 

Registrar’s office

 

Program Assistant

 

Chair of the Department

 

 

 

Two times a year

 

Program Completion

 

Licensure- AA Master

 

 

Use of Data for Program Improvement

 

In the twenty-first century, transparency stands at the juncture between teaching institutions at all levels and the public domain. Transparency issues include structured goal articulation, strategic management in teacher preparation redesign, and consistent movement toward systemic best practices in K-12 schools. Transparency skills require creating context-based imperatives to bring theory and practice together through meaningful learning experiences, fostering quality instruction at all levels of development, monitoring student successes, and developing sustainable climates for recruitment and retention of teachers. The K-12 community and higher education work jointly to bring new teachers into the field and to offer continuing professional development for teachers in the field. As professionals, educators are ambassadors for the broader learning community. Even so, they must share the triumphs and tensions, along with working modes necessary for systems of learning to be strengthened in a global environment.

 

Assessment and Accountability

 

The new “playing field” is K-16. Teachers in preparation are still internalizing learning (structural and operational) from the content of sciences, humanities, and the arts, even as they initiate instructional planning for younger learners. The melding of content, pedagogy, and dispositions assumes critical dimensions in upper level college experiences of teacher candidates. As goals become realities in the action “laboratories” of local schools, community colleges, and universities—partners in the K-16 system—this melding must be made clear to all the students and leaders. These are critically important for developing teacher candidates to understand the value of assessment in their classrooms. “It does make sense that our schools should examine and implement empirically supported best practices while working with students” (Lockley, 2007, p. 9).

 

Districts and schools may use these assessments to measure progress in student learning. These annual tests provide educators with information regarding each child’s academic strengths and weaknesses. With this knowledge, teachers can craft lessons to ensure that each student meets or exceeds the standards. In addition, principals may use these data to assess where the school should invest resources (Essex, 2006, p. 14).

 

William Carey University (WCU) has developed program assessment points for secondary education 7-12 and K-12 art, music, and P.E. licensure, Elementary Education (K-6, 4-8). WCU employs varied instrumentation based upon rubrics, self-evaluation and surveys, external examinations, and exit examinations to manage the development of teaching candidates. For M.Ed., M.A.T. licensure and advanced degrees similar instrumentation continues professional development in the field of teaching.

 

Teacher candidates must learn the skills of the diagnostician in order to move from the status of technicians to professional educators. It is the School of Education’s mission to expand the repertoire of assessment strategies to help teachers meet the need of every learner in the classroom (Stanford & Reeves, 2005, p. 18). In the national inclusion movement, states are working with the U.S. Department of Education to “close the achievement gap and ensure that all students, including those who are disadvantaged, achieve academic proficiency” (Essex, 2006, p. 7).

 

Partnerships in Education

 

Talking points for credibility meld institutional level conceptual frames with state level literacy benchmarks; these, in turn, align with INTASC national standards and International Reading Association literacy standards for new teachers. Documents from the four sources express similar expectations for general and professional knowledge, communication skills predicated on reading and writing proficiencies, lifelong pedagogical preparation, sensitivity toward needs and developmental trajectories of diverse learners, and awareness of and participation in professional preparation and collaborative programs or institutes of actualized learning. It is no longer enough to say that “something has been accomplished” or that “goals have been met”; the obligation today is to share information among all partners and the public in accessible forms throughout the venues of the educational domain. This includes verifying real world student improvement when the students come in contact with our teacher candidates.

 

William Carey University analysis by standards document presents the general expectations of the University teacher education program, the INTASC national standards for new teachers, and the IRA.MS standards for teachers as concerns general literacy expectations.

 

Program Content Implementation

 

A key topic among K-16 partners involves the implementation of program content. Just as psychology thought that it could “get along” with behaviors, without looking at the brain, in the past educators thought that evidence of preparation for teaching would insure teaching success in educational contexts. Most educators were not then assessing what novice teachers were accomplishing in laboratory or K-12 environments in terms of what their students learned or how students matured under their care. Learning communities are complex micro societies necessitating skillful interactions and assorted mental sequences. Managing time, conveying content, facilitating climates for learning, keeping records, maintaining professional and personal balance—each of these elements must flow together for one’s instruction to proceed in an orderly manner. However, micro societies (like macro societies) are not usually orderly on all fronts—participants (teachers and learners) may enter with varied cultural expectations and ways of working, and learners will have multiple needs. New teachers are especially vulnerable to cultural anomalies, and these particulars often derail them from the general goals they established prior to professional experience. They need tacit and collegial feedback from veterans among educational partners. Disciplined knowledge comes from understanding fields of study, specialties within fields, and courses of study as hierarchical components with structure, operations, and values. General knowledge is not enough preparation for teaching, and particular understanding evolves through research and synthesis with context. Teachers must be able to recognize insight in the raw among learners and perceive understanding explained without technical words. Without exploring content in depth in some areas of coursework, the teachers themselves lack exposure to challenging concepts and deep structure.

 

Some teacher candidates enter with an inborn sensitivity for the needs of others, and they readily display mature professional dispositions when engaged in classrooms. Others must learn dispositional expectations through mentors and models of tacit approaches to learners. Dispositions must be internalized and made integral to the teaching personality, otherwise teachers will fail educational systems, themselves, their colleagues, or their young charges.

 

Alternative route preparation and rigorous performance-based standards for subject areas do not insure quality teaching. Some socialization processes will still be latent and subject to real experience in classrooms. Alternative route teachers, more so than traditionally prepared teachers, may need substantial mentoring and support during their first year of teaching.

 

In summation, pedagogy, theory, and practice must be intertwined as real models for new teachers in their classrooms. It is difficult to teach effectively with sophisticated approaches that have only been modeled in a limited fashion. Beginning teachers need to interact with educational professionals with different work assignments, to witness the professional delivery of exemplary K-12 educators, to participate in a variety of learning settings, and to engage with groups and individual learners throughout their professional preparation.

 

William Carey University’s task analysis document for its undergraduate licensure program details the particulars of INTASC, WCU conceptual frames, and IRA/MS within courses. Each course targets particular expectations and provides data for sustained growth in the undergraduate licensure program and goals: the program task analysis by standards for undergraduate and graduate education

 

Recruitment/Retention

 

Research and practice based approaches to inducting and mentoring prospective teachers in the system find support among educational partners. Districts can provide mentors, universities can extend guidance and support to graduates beyond the diploma, and state agencies deliver source services and conduct research. William Carey University is committed to a system of partnerships with school districts in the development of Professional Development Schools (PDS). School leadership provides specific instrumentation and context for data driven decisions, and these materials assume high relevance for their teaching staff. Retention can be fostered with staff development programming. School leadership must embrace roles for guidance and supervision of instructional practice at the school level; and, school leaders need preparation for the extended services to teachers.

 

William Carey University recruits prospective teachers through its affiliation with professional teaching associations and with WCU high school recruitment practices. Funding for merit is available to qualified undergraduates. WCU continues affiliation with graduates of teacher programs through surveys, professional development opportunities on the campus, further advanced degrees, and cooperative support orchestrated through school districts. We review principal evaluations, college supervisor evaluations, and Mississippi’s first year teacher evaluation.

 

There are 115 student learning outcomes that continuously evaluate program effectiveness based on data collection from internal and external sources. These outcomes are part of the program-wide assessment that was built to provide data and analysis for SACS requirements. This same data are used to a great extent in the NCATE program evaluation. Table 2:17 lists a variety of assessments used in the School of Education assessment system.

 

 

Table 2.17 Assessment data and program improvement

 

 

 

Instrument Used to Gather Data

 

How Data are Collected

 

When Data Collected

 

Who Analyzes and Summarizes

 

Program Changes

 

External Evaluations

 

STAI Supervising Teacher

(Initial)

 

 

Lesson observation during Student Teaching

 

 

Fall and Spring terms

 

Director of Student Teaching

 

Redesign lesson plans to include Student Learning Outcomes and assessment data.

 

Program Evaluation by Supervising Teachers

(Initial)

 

 

Survey taken by teachers in the field

 

Fall and Spring terms

 

Chair of the Department

 

Director of Student Teaching

 

 

 

Revised STAI program to broaden teacher candidate understanding of Professional Dispositions and their effects on the practicum experience.

 

 

MS. Annual Performance Review

(Initial)

 

 

 

Annual Survey to all Mississippi Schools for Principals and First Year Teachers

 

 

April each year

 

 

 

Mississippi Department of Education

 

Increased real world assignments in Classroom Management and other valuable topics

 

Instrument Used to Gather Data

 

How Data are Collected

 

When Data Collected

 

Who Analyzes and Summarizes

 

Program Changes

 

 

Principal’s Annual Evaluation

(Advanced)

 

 

 

Annual Teacher’s Review conducted by Principals

 

Winter Term

 

Director of Internships

 

Increased real world assignments in Classroom Management and in Tests, Measurements, and Evaluation

 

 

PRAXIS

PLT Exam

(Initial)

 

 

 

National Examination

 

Every term

 

Chair of Department

 

Study group led by a professor to guide students in the preparation for the exam.

 

 

PRAXIS I

(Initial/Advanced)

 

 

National Examination

 

Every term

 

Chair of Department

 

Strengthened initial tutoring program offered at the university level for freshmen and sophomores.

 

 

Praxis II

Subject Area Exam

(Initial/Advanced)

 

 

 

National Examination

 

Every term

 

Chair of Department

 

Increased information about Differentiated Instruction and Inclusion

 

 

Internal Evaluations

 

 

STAI

Supervising Professor

(Initial/Advanced)

 

Lesson Observation during Student Teaching and Internships

Fall and Spring terms (Initial)

 

Fall and Winter (Advanced)

Director of Student Teaching

 

Director of Internships

Redesign lesson plans to include Student Learning Outcomes and assessment data.

 

Comprehensive Exam

(Advanced)

 

School of Education

Graduate

Examination

 

 

October, March, July

 

Dean of the School of Education

Redesigned graduate courses to include a more targeted emphasis on scholarly research and writing.

 

 

Instrument Used to Gather Data

 

How Data are Collected

 

When Data Collected

 

Who Analyzes and Summarizes

 

Program Changes

 

 

Undergraduate Survey

 

Survey taken by students

 

Spring term

 

Dean of the School of Education

 

 

Syllabi revised to include library visits and database training in order to increase the use of the library as a teaching resource center.

 

 

Graduate Survey

 

 

Survey taken by students

 

 

Spring term

 

Dean of the School of Education

 

 

Syllabi revised to increase the amount and quality of scholarly writing and research with an emphasis on using the tools of the library and discovering primary source material in the library.

 

 

 

Data gives evidence from multiple sources: supervising teachers in the field, national test scores, supervising professors, principals, teacher candidates and graduate students. This multi-focus allows the undergraduate and graduate programs to be tested and revised at multiple levels and from differing viewpoints. Faculty, staff and adjuncts move through the ongoing review process working with the mission and values statements and aligning student learning outcomes to NCATE, INTASC, MDE Educator Outcomes, NBPTS, and IRA/MS.

 

Proposals for course changes, revision of program curricula, and brainstorming to keep current with cutting edge research and technology builds an important foundation for creativity and “thinking outside of the box”. With the current teacher crisis, there are multiple pressures at the district, state, and national levels to increase the production of teacher candidates within a shorter amount of time. Thus begins a dynamic tension between the national educational and political forces who demand instant educators and the traditional practice university faculty who might have difficulty imagining streamlining any part of the educator preparation program. There is a middle ground including the development of online offerings that will not minimize the critical training that must take place to produce a superior educator. Philosophies crash into one another as corporations advertise that they are able to produce a higher quality educator than the universities can. So the ongoing assessment process is dynamic, fraught with tension and uncertainty, and filled with the joyful expectation that an entirely new design for educator preparation can be forthcoming from the university experience where best practice and current theory are merged into the 21st century schoolhouse program. The faculty at WCU School of Education are committed to vision far beyond today’s plans and programs.

 

The effectiveness of the faculty and adjunct instructional delivery is continuously evaluated at William Carey University. Formal evaluations by the students are conducted each spring by the university. The School of Education schedules formal evaluations for new and continuing adjuncts. The university employs several instruments for the evaluation of faculty. These include student evaluations, self-evaluations, administrative evaluations by unit chairs or deans, and peer evaluations. All evaluations are conducted annually. All evaluations consider the purpose and goals of the university. The Faculty Handbook outlines the policies governing the administration of and the results of the four types of evaluations. Summary results of student evaluations are routinely forwarded to each faculty member and placed in the faculty member’s permanent file in the office of the Vice President of Academic Affairs. Criteria for self-evaluations and administrative evaluations focus on five broad areas of performance: teaching, professional activity and development, service to the university, Christian commitment, and community service. A process of confidential peer evaluations is used as part of each faculty member’s portfolio. Evaluations of all types except peer evaluations are used as part of the portfolio in making decisions concerning such matters as tenure, promotion, raises, and termination.

 

The university has an ongoing institutional effectiveness program which evaluates the Student Learning Outcomes of the programs and uses the results for program improvement. This plan is evaluated by the University Leadership Team at the beginning of the fall term and new Student Learning Outcomes set for each program within the university for the coming year. Faculty in the department review exit interviews of students, student testing results, M.D.E. first year teacher evaluations, and M.D.E. principal evaluations of first year teachers, as well as other data in the development of Student Learning Outcomes for the institutional effectiveness model.

 

 

Program Task Analysis by Standards

William Carey University – School of Education 2010-2011

 

William Carey University – School of Education - Conceptual Framework

  1. Demonstrate a Strong Foundation in Liberal Arts and Professional Education.
  2. Apply Current Research and Technology Related to the Teaching, Learning, Assessment Process.
  3. Respond Sensitively to Individual Differences and Diversity.
  4. Understand and Anticipate the Needs of a Global Society.
  5. Plan and Implement Learning Experiences that Support the Highest Level of Student Potential.
  6. Continue to Reflect, Refine, and Revise Professional Practices.
  7. Collaborate with Others to Promote Learning.

 

INTASC National Standards for New Teachers

  1. Knowledge of central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the discipline.
  2. Understands how children learn and develop and provides developmentally appropriate activities.
  3. Understands how students differ in their approach to learning and support those approaches.
  4. Understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies.
  5. Creates a positive learning environment that encourages positive social interaction and active engagement in learning
  6. Uses effective verbal, nonverbal and media communication, including all forms of technology.
  7. Plans instruction based on the students, community, curriculum goals, and the subject matter.
  8. Uses formal and informal assessment strategies.
  9. Is a reflective practitioner who seeks out opportunities to grow professionally.
  10. Fosters relationships with school colleagues, parents, and agencies.

 

IRA / MS standards (Adopted by the Mississippi IHL Literacy Council in 2003)

  1. A candidate has current knowledge and appropriate dispositions concerning the foundations of reading and writing.
  2. Has knowledge of a wide range of instructional practices, methods and curriculum materials.
  3. Uses a variety of assessment tools and practices to plan effective instruction.
  4. Integrates instructional practices, curricular materials, and assessment to create a literate environment.
  5. A reflective practitioner committed to lifelong professional growth.

 

 

 

Task Analysis – Undergraduate Licensure Program

 

 

Task

Course

Assessment

INTASC

WCU

Conceptual

Frameworks

IRA/MS

Undergraduate Teacher Preparation Courses – Elementary (K-6, 4-8), Physical Education, Secondary, Special Education

1- Observation Journal (20 hrs)

EDU 300

Rubric

#1, #4

#1,#6

#1, #2

2-Graphophonic Proficiency T

EDR 308

Benchmark Score - Exam

#1, #7

#1

#1

3-”Real School” Literacy Lesson Plans

EDR 311

Rubric/Observation by Supervising Teacher

#3, #4

#2,# 3,# 5

#2, #4

4- “Real School” Literacy Lesson Plans - Assessment Results

EDR 311

Assessment Rubric

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

5-Lesson Plan integrated with Technology

EDU 325

Rubric

#3, #4 #6

#2

#2, #4

6-”Real School” Literature Web Lesson

EDR 344

Rubric – by Supervising Teacher

#3, #4, #6

#2,#3,#5

#2, #4

7- Demonstration Lessons - Assessment Results

EDR 344

Assessment Rubric

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

8-“Real School” Lesson Plan

EDU 345

Rubric

#3, #4

#2, #3,#4,#5

#1, #2

9-Social Studies Content Exam

EDU 345

Benchmark Score

#1, #4

#1, #2, #3,#4

#2

10-“Real School” Lessons

EDU 345

Observation Rubric by Supervising Teacher

#3, #4

#2,# 3,# 5

#2, #4

11- “Real School” Lessons - Assessments

EDU 345

Assessment Rubric – by University Supervisor

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, 8

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

12-Science Lesson Portfolio

EDU 346

 

#3, #4

#2, #3, #5

#1, #2

13-Unit Exams

EDU 372

Benchmark Score

#1

#1

#1

14-Language Arts Teaching Unit

EDR 407

Rubric

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, 8

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

 

 

 

#1, #2, #3, #4

 

 

Task

 

 

Course

 

 

Assessment

 

 

INTASC

 

 

WCU

Conceptual

Frameworks

 

 

IRA/MS

15- Demonstration Lessons - Assessment Results

EDR 407

Assessment Rubric – by University Supervisor

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

16-Lesson Presentations

EDU 413

Observation

#7

#2, #5

#2, #4

17- Demo Lessons - Assessment

EDU 413

Assessment Rubric – by University Supervisor

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, 8

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

18-Mathematics Case Study

EDU 413

Rubric

#1, #2, #3, #4,

#1, #2, #3, #5, #6

#2, #3

19-Philosophy of Management

EDU 436

Rubric

#5

#2, #6,#7

#1, #5

20-Assessing Behavior Scenarios

EDU 436

Trait Writing Rubric

#2, #3

#2, #3

#3

21-Content Exam (PLT Pre-test)

EDU 436

Benchmark Score

#1

#1

 

22-Child Observation Case Stdy

EDU 440

Case Study Rubric

#8

#3, #5

#3

23-“Real School” Phonemic Awareness Lesson Plan

EDU 440

Lesson Rubric

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

#1, #2, #3, #4

24-Implementation of “Real School” Phonemic Awareness Lesson

EDU 440

Observation Rubric by Supervising Teacher

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

#1, #2, #3, #4

25- “Real School” Phonemic Awareness Lesson - Assessment Results

EDR 440

Assessment Rubric – by University Supervisor

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

26-Kindergarten Two Week Unit

EDU 440

Unit Rubric

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

#1, #2, #3, #4

 

Task

 

Course

 

Assessment

 

INTASC

 

WCU

Conceptual

Frameworks

 

IRA/MS

27-“Real School” Big Book Lesson

EDU 440

Observation Rubric by Supervising Teacher

#7

#2, #5

#1, #2, #4

28- “Real School” Big Book Lesson

EDU 440

Observation Rubric by Supervising Teacher

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, 8

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

#1, #2, #3, #4

29- “Real School Big Book Lesson - Assessment Results

EDU 440

Assessment Rubric – by University Supervisor

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

30-Reading Case Study

EDR 441

Case Study Rubric

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6,

#1, #2, #3, #5, #6

#1, #,2, #3, #4, #5

31- Demonstration Lessons - Assessment Results

EDR 441

Assessment Rubric – by University Supervisor

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

32-Designing a lesson plan

EDU 446

Rubric

#3, #4

#2, #3,#4,#5

#1, #2

33-Annotated Bibliography

EDU 450

Research Rubric

#1

#1, #2

#1, #2

34-Criterion-Referenced Exam

EDU 450

Rubric

#1, #2, #3, #8

#1, #2, #3, #5

#3

35-Measurements Examination

EDU 450

Benchmark Score

#8

#1, #2

#3

36-Special Education Notebook

EDU 460

CEC Standards

#1, #2

#1,#2,#3

#1, #2

37-Instructional Unit – Special Education

EDU 461

CEC Standards

#3, #4, #5

#2

#2, #4

38-Instructional Unit – Special Education

EDU 462

CEC Standards

#3, #4, #5

#2

#2, #4

39-L.D. Research Critique

EDU 463

Rubric

#1, #2

#1

#1

40-Journal Article Summary

EDR 474

Rubric

#1

#1, #2

#1, #2

41-Demonstration Lessons

ED 483/484/496

Observation STAI – by University Supervisor

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

Task

Course

Assessment

INTASC

WCU

Conceptual

Frameworks

IRA/MS

42-10 Day STAI Unit

ED 483/484/496

Unit Design Rubric

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

43-Student Teaching Portfolio

ED 483/484/496

Portfolio Outline/Rubric

#9, #10

#1,#2,#3,#4,

#5,#6,#7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

44-Student Teacher Self-Evaluation

ED 483/484/496

Survey

#1, #9

#1, #7

#5

45-Supervising Teacher’s Evaluation

ED 483/484/496

Survey by Supervising Teacher

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8, #10

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

46-Demonstration Lessons

ED 483/484/496

Observation STAI – by Supervising Teacher

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8, #10

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

47-Demonstration Lessons

ED 483/484/496

Observation STAI – by University Supervisor

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8, #10

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

48- Demonstration Lessons - Assessment Results

ED 483/484/496

Assessment Rubric – by Supervising Teacher

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

49- Demonstration Lessons - Assessment Results

ED 483/484/496

Assessment Rubric – by University Supervisor

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

50-Differentiated Instruction Survey

ED 483/484/496

Survey

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

#1, #2, #3, #4

 

Task

 

Course

 

Assessment

 

INTASC

 

WCU

Conceptual

Frameworks

 

IRA/MS

51-INTASC Survey

ED 483/484/496

Survey

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7

#1, #2 #3, #4, #5

52-Teaching Plan Design

 

HEA 300

Lesson Plan Rubric

#3, #4, #5

#2,#5

#2, #4

53- Elementary Videotape Lesson

MUE 313

Observation Rubric by University Supervisor

 

 

 

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8, #10

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

54- Middle School Videotape Lesson

 

 

MUE 315

Observation Rubric by University Supervisor

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8, #10

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

55- High School Videotape Lesson

 

 

 

 

MUE 314

Observation Rubric by University Supervisor

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8, #10

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

56-Elementary Student Teaching Portfolio

 

 

 

MUE 313

Portfolio Rubric

#9, #10

#1,#2,#3,#4,

#5,#6,#7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

57-Middle School Student Teaching Portfolio

 

 

MUE 315

Portfolio Rubric

#9, #10

#1,#2,#3,#4,

#5,#6,#7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

58-High School Student Teaching Portfolio

 

MUE 314

Portfolio Rubric

#9, #10

#1,#2,#3,#4,

#5,#6,#7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

59-Demonstration of on-court skills

PED 331

Performance Benchmark

#1, #2

#1,#2

#1, #2

 

Task

 

Course

 

Assessment

 

INTASC

 

WCU

Conceptual

Frameworks

 

IRA/MS

60-Unit Lesson Plan

PED 333

Performance Benchmark

#1, #2

#1,#3,#6

#1, #2, #3, #5

61-Tracking Patterns of Movement Project

PED 336

Observation/Rubric

#8

#1,#2

#1

62-Elementary Teaching Plan

PED 337

Lesson Rubric

#2, #3, #4

#2,#5

#1, #2

63-Elementary Teaching Plan

PED 338

Lesson Rubric

#2, #3, #4

#2,#5

#1, #2

64-Secondary Teaching Plan

PED 339

Lesson Rubric

#2, #3, #4

#2,#5

#1, #2

65-Lesson Assessment Plan

PED 436

Lesson Rubric

#8

#2,#5

#3

66-PRAXIS I General Exam

PRAXIS

PRAXIS Benchmark Score

 

#1

#1

67-PRAXIS II PLT Content Exam

PRAXIS

PRAXIS Benchmark Score

#1, #2, #3, #4

#1, #2, #3, #4

#1, #2, #3

68-PRAXIS II Subject Area Exam

PRAXIS

PRAXIS Benchmark Score

#1, #2, #3, #4

#1, #2, #3, #4

#1, #2, #3

69-Mississippi Annual Performance Survey – First Year Teacher Survey

Mississippi Department of Education

Survey

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

70-Mississippi Annual Performance Review – Principal Evaluation

Mississippi Department of Education

Survey

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

71-Undergraduate School of Education Survey

School of Education

Survey

#9, #10

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7

#5

 

 

Program Task Analysis by Standards

Graduate Education – Masters / Specialist

 

 

 

 

Task

Course

Assessment

INTASC

Conceptual Framework

IRA/MS

Graduate Courses – Elementary (K-6, 4-8), Gifted, Mild/Moderate, Reading, Secondary

1-Class Management Plan

EDU 536

Presentation/Rubric

#5

#2,#5

#1

2-Field Experience Summary

EDU 572

Reflection Journal

#5, #6

#3,#6,#7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

3-Plans with MS Rdg Standards

EDU 574

Standards Benchmarks

#2, #3

#1,#2

#1, #2, #4

4-Interdisciplinary Unit Presentation

EDU 601

Observation/Rubric

#3, #4

#2,#3,#5

#2, #4

5-Curriculum Development Project

EDU 602

Presentation

#3, #4, #5

#5,#6

#1, #2, #3, #4

6-Reflective Journals

 

EDU 603

Journaling Rubric

#9

#6

#5

7-Integrated Lesson Plans

 

EDU 606

Presentation Rubric

#3, #4, #5

#2

#1, #2, #4

8-Science Lesson Presentation

 

EDU 609

Presentation Rubric

#2, #3, #4

#5

#1, #4

9-Scholarly Writing

 

EDU 611

Writing Rubric

#1

#1, #2

#1

10-Research Paper

 

 

EDU 617

Rubric

#1

#1

#1

11-Introduction to Research Plan – Scholarly Writing

 

EDU 620

Rubric

#1, #2, #3, #4, #8

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

12-Evaluate Research from Annotated Bibliography

 

EDU 620

Rubric

#1, #2, #3, #4, #8

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

13-Designing a Research Proposal Methodology

 

 

EDU 620

Rubric

#1, #2, #3, #4, #8

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

Task

Course

Assessment

INTASC

WCU

Conceptual

Frameworks

IRA/MS

14- Learning Theories Portfolio

 

 

EDU 621

Rubric

#1, #2, #3, #4, #8

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

15-Content/Performance Knowledge

 

EDU 625

Performance Benchmarks

#1, #2, #4

#2, #4, #5

#2, #3, #4

16-Cooperative Learning Unit Plans

 

 

 

EDU 626

Rubric

#3, #4, #5

#2

#1, #2, #4

17-Philosophy of Education

 

EDU 630

Rubric

 

#4,#6

#5

18-Summative Demonstration Lesson

EDU 635

Observation STAI – by University Supervisor

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

19-Evaluation of Teaching Behaviors

EDU 635

Principal’s Annual Evaluation

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

20-Differentiated Instruction Survey

 

EDU 635

Survey

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

#1, #2, #3, #4

21-Alternate Route Program Survey

 

 

EDU 635

Survey

#1, #9

#1, #7

#5

22- Summative Demonstration Lesson-Assessment Results

 

EDU 635

Assessment Rubric- By University Supervisor

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

23-INTASC Survey

 

 

 

 

EDU 635

Survey

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7

#1, #2 #3, #4, #5

Task

Course

Assessment

INTASC

WCU

Conceptual

Frameworks

IRA/MS

24-Scholarly Writing

EDU 636

Writing Rubric

#1

#1, #2

#1

25-Reading Case Study

EDU 637

Presentation

#8

#2,#5,#6

#3

26- Reading Diagnostic Assessment Results

EDU 637

Assessment Rubric – by University Supervisor

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

27-Interdisciplinary Unit Presentation

EDU 640

Rubric

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

28-Culminating Performance Project

EDU 646

Rubric

#1

#1,#2

#1

29-Annotated Bibliography

EDU 650

Research Rubric

#1

#1, #2

#1, #2

30-Criterion-Referenced Exam

EDU 650

Rubric

#1, #2, #3, #8

#1, #2, #3, #5

#3

31-Measurements Examination

 

EDU 650

Benchmark Score

#8

#1, #2

#3

32-Differentiated Instruction Survey

EDU 653

Survey

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

#1, #2, #3, #4

33- Essay Quiz on Atypical Populations

 

EDU 654

Rubric

#2, #3, #8

#2,#3,#5

#3

34-Interdisciplinary Unit – Special Education Population

EDU 662

Rubric

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

35-IEP Design

EDU 662

IEP Rubric

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #8

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2,

36-L.D. Research Critique

EDU 663

Rubric

#1, #2

#1

#1

37-Journal Article Summary

 

EDU 664

Rubric

#1, #2

#1

#1

38-10 Day Lesson

Plan

 

 

EDU 664

Rubric

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

Task

Course

Assessment

INTASC

WCU

Conceptual

Frameworks

IRA/MS

39-Action Research Project

 

EDU 720

Presentation

#1, #2, #8

#2,#7

#2, #5

40-Annotated Bibliography

 

 

EDU 720

Research Rubric

#1, #2, #3, #4, #8

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

41-Action Research Portfolio

 

 

EDU 720

Rubric

#1, #2, #3, #4, #8

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

42-Action Research Project Design

 

 

EDU 720

Specialist Defense Committee

#1, #2, #3, #4, #8

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

43-Action Research Project Defense

 

 

EDU 720

Specialist Defense Committee

#1, #2, #3, #4, #8

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

44-Action Research Project Implementation

 

 

EDU 721

Specialist Defense Committee

#1, #2, #3, #4, #8

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

45-Graduate School Exit Survey

 

 

University

Survey

#1, #9, #10

#1, #2, #6, #7

#5

46-Mississippi Annual Performance Survey – First Year Teacher Survey

Mississippi Department of Education

Survey

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

47-Mississippi Annual Performance Review – Principal Evaluation

 

 

Mississippi Department of Education

Survey

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

48-PRAXIS I General Exam

 

 

PRAXIS

PRAXIS Benchmark Score

 

 

#1

#1

 

Task

 

Course

 

Assessment

 

INTASC

 

WCU

Conceptual

Frameworks

 

IRA/MS

49-PRAXIS II Subject Area Exam

PRAXIS

PRAXIS Benchmark Score

#1, #2, #3, #4

#1, #2, #3, #4

#1, #2, #3

50-Graduate School Survey

School of Education

Survey

#9, #10

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7

#5

 

 

 

Program Task Analysis by Standards

School of Education, MDE, NBPTS

 

William Carey University – School of Education - Conceptual Framework

  1. Demonstrate a Strong Foundation in Liberal Arts and Professional Education.
  2. Apply Current Research and Technology Related to the Teaching, Learning, Assessment Process.
  3. Respond Sensitively to Individual Differences and Diversity.
  4. Understand and Anticipate the Needs of a Global Society.
  5. Plan and Implement Learning Experiences that Support the Highest Level of Student Potential.
  6. Continue to Reflect, Refine, and Revise Professional Practices.
  7. Collaborate with Others to Promote Learning.

 

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION EDUCATOR STANDARDS

STANDARD A and Indicators

  1. Plans instruction consistent with state standards to facilitate high levels of learning for all students.

    1. Plans units of instruction that are aligned with state standards and curriculum frameworks.
    2. Plans instruction to address individual differences in learners.

STANDARD B and Indicators

  1. Delivers instruction and facilitates high levels of learning for all students.

    1. Demonstrates deep knowledge of content
    2. Actively engages students in the learning process
    3. Uses principles of effective teaching

STANDARD C and Indicators

  1. Organizes and manages the learning environment and maintains student behavior that is conducive to learning.

    1. Maintains an environment and climate conducive to learning.
    2. Maximizes time available for instruction.
    3. Manages student behavior to provide productive learning opportunities for all.

STANDARD D and Indicators

  1. Demonstrates knowledge and skills in assessing/facilitating student learning

    1. Plans and implements systematic assessments.
    2. Considers state content standards and assessments when planning classroom assessments.
    3. Uses classroom assessment results.
    4. Produces evidence of student academic growth under his/her instruction.

STANDARD E and Indicators

  1. Communicates effectively with students, peers, and parents/guardians

    1. Speaks clearly, correctly, and coherently.
    2. Writes clearly, correctly, and coherently.
    3. Establishes effective communication processes.

STANDARD F and Indicators

  1. Committed to continual professional growth and school improvement

    1. Engages in continuous professional development.
    2. Takes an active role in school improvement.

 

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS)

Proposition 1: Teachers are Committed to Students and Learning

  • NBCTs are dedicated to making knowledge accessible to all students. They believe all students can learn.
  • They treat students equitably. They recognize the differences that distinguish their students and they take account for these differences in daily practice .
  • NBCTs understand how students develop and learn.
  • They respect the cultural and family differences students bring to their classroom.
  • They are concerned with their students’ self-concept, their motivation and the effects of learning on peer relationships, character and civic responsibility.

Proposition 2: Teachers Know the Subjects They Teach and How to Teach Those Subjects to Students.

  • NBCTs have mastery over the subject(s) they teach. They have a deep understanding of the history, structure and real-world applications of the subject.
  • They have skill and experience in teaching it, and they are very familiar with the skills gaps and preconceptions students may bring to the subject.

They are able to use diverse instructional strategies to teach for understanding.

Proposition 3: Teachers are Responsible for Managing and Monitoring Student Learning.

  • NBCTs deliver effective instruction. They move fluently through a range of instructional techniques, keeping students motivated, engaged and focused.
  • They know how to engage students to ensure a disciplined learning environment, and how to organize instruction to meet instructional goals.
  • NBCTs know how to assess the progress of individual students as well as the class as a whole.

They use multiple methods for measuring student growth and understanding, and they can clearly explain student performance to parents.

Proposition 4: Teachers Think Systematically about Their Practice and Learn from Experience.

  • NBCTs model what it means to be an educated person – they read, they question, they create and they are willing to try new things.
  • They are familiar with learning theories and instructional strategies and stay abreast of current issues in American education.

They critically examine their practice on a regular basis to deepen knowledge, expand their repertoire of skills, and incorporate new findings into their practice.

Proposition 5: Teachers are Members of Learning Communities.

  • NBCTs collaborate with others to improve student learning.
  • They are leaders and actively know how to seek and build partnerships with community groups and businesses.
  • They work with other professionals on instructional policy, curriculum development and staff development.
  • They can evaluate school progress and the allocation of resources in order to meet state and local education objectives.

They know how to work collaboratively with parents to engage them productively in the work of the school.

 

 

Task Analysis – Undergraduate Licensure Program

 

 

Task

Course

Assessment

MDE

WCU

Conceptual

Frameworks

NBPTS

Undergraduate Teacher Preparation Courses – Elementary (K-6, 4-8), Physical Education, Secondary, Special Education

1- Observation Journal (20 hrs)

EDU 300

Rubric

A, B, D, F

#1,#6

#2, #4

2-Graphophonic Proficiency T

EDR 308

Benchmark Score – Exam

 

A, B

#1

#2

3-”Real School” Literacy Lesson Plans

EDR 311

Rubric/Observation by Supervising Teacher

A, B, C, D

#2,# 3,# 5

#1, #2, #3, #4

4- “Real School” Literacy Lesson Plans - Assessment Results

EDR 311

Assessment Rubric

A, B, C, D, E

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

5-Lesson Plan integrated with Technology

EDU 325

Rubric

A, B, C, D

#2

#1, #3

6-”Real School” Literature Web Lesson

EDR 344

Rubric – by Supervising Teacher

A, B, C, D, E

#2,#3,#5

#1, #2, #3, #4

7- Demonstration Lessons - Assessment Results

EDR 344

Assessment Rubric

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

8-“Real School” Lesson Plan

EDU 345

Rubric

A, B, C, D, E

#2, #3,#4,#5

#1, #2, #3, #4

9-Social Studies Content Exam

EDU 345

Benchmark Score

A, B, C, D, E

#1, #2, #3,#4

#1, #2, #3, #4

10-“Real School” Lessons

EDU 345

Observation Rubric by Supervising Teacher

A, B, C, D

#2,# 3,# 5

#1, #2, #3, #4

11- “Real School” Lessons - Assessment

EDU 345

Assessment Rubric – by University Supervisor

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

12-Science Lesson Portfolio

EDU 346

 

A, B, C, D

#2, #3, #5

#1, #2, #3, #4

13-Unit Examination

EDU 372

Benchmark Score

 

A, B

#1

#2

Task

Course

Assessment

MDE

WCU

Conceptual

Frameworks

NBPTS

14-Language Arts Teaching Unit

EDR 407

Rubric

A, B, C,D,E

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

#1, #2, #3

15- Demo Lessons - Assessment Results

EDR 407

Assessment Rubric – by University Supervisor

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4

16-Lesson Presentations

EDU 413

Observation

A, B, C, D

#2, #5

#1, #2, #3, #4

17- Demo Lessons - Assessment

EDU 413

Assessment Rubric – by University Supervisor

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4

18-Mathematics Case Study

EDU 413

Rubric

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #5, #6

#1, #2, #3, #4

19-Philosophy of Management

EDU 436

Rubric

A, C

#2, #6,#7

#3

20-Assessing Behavior Scenarios

EDU 436

Trait Writing Rubric

A, C

#2, #3

#3

21-Content Exam (PLT Pre-test)

EDU 436

Benchmark Score

A, B

#1

#2, #3

22-Child Observation Case Study

EDU 440

Case Study Rubric

A, B, C,D,E

#3, #5

#1, #2, #3, #4

23- Phonemic Awareness Lesson

EDU 440

Lesson Rubric

A, B, C,D,E

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

#1, #2, #3, #4

24-Implementation of Phonemic Awareness Lesson

EDU 440

Observation Rubric by Supervising Teacher

A, B, C, D, E

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

#1, #2, #3, #4

25- “Real School” Phonemic Awareness Lesson - Assessment Results

EDR 440

Assessment Rubric – by University Supervisor

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4

26-Kindergarten Two Week Unit

EDU 440

Unit Rubric

A, B, C, D

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

#1, #2, #3

27-“Real School” Big Book Lesson

EDU 440

Observation Rubric by Supervising Teacher

A, B, C, D

#2, #5

#1, #2, #3, #4

28-Implementation of “Real School” Big Book Lesson

EDU 440

Observation Rubric by Supervising Teacher

A, B, C, D, E

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

#1, #2, #3, #4

Task

Course

Assessment

MDE

WCU

Conceptual

Frameworks

NBPTS

29- “Real School Big Book Lesson -

EDU 440

Assessment Rubric – by University Super

A, B, C, D

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#3

30-Reading Case Study

EDR 441

Case Study Rubric

A, B, C D,E

#1, #2, #3, #5, #6

#1, #2, #3, #4

31- Demo Lessons - Assessment Results

EDR 441

Assessment Rubric – by University Supervisor

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4

32-Designing a lesson plan

EDU 446

Rubric

A, B, C, D

#2, #3,#4,#5

#1, #2

33-Annotated Bibliography

EDU 450

Research Rubric

A, D

#1, #2

#2

34-Criterion-Referenced Exam

EDU 450

Rubric

A, D

#1, #2, #3, #5

#2

35-Content Examination

EDU 450

Benchmark Score

A, D

#1, #2

#2, #1

36-Special Educ Notebook

EDU 460

CEC Standards

A, B, D

#1,#2,#3

#1, #2

37-Instructional Unit – Spec Edu

EDU 461

CEC Standards

A, B, D

#2

#1, #2, #3

38-Instructional Unit – Spec Edu

EDU 462

CEC Standards

A, B, D

#2

#1, #2, #3

39-L.D. Research Critique

EDU 463

Rubric

A, B

#1

#2

40-Journal Article Summary

EDR 474

Rubric

A, B

#1, #2

#2

41-Demonstration Lessons

ED 483/484/496

Observation STAI – by University Supervisor

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

42-10 Day STAI Unit

ED 483/484/496

Unit Design Rubric

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

43-Student Teaching Portfolio

ED 483/484/496

Portfolio Outline/Rubric

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1,#2,#3,#4,

#5,#6,#7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

44-Student Teacher Self-Evaluation

ED 483/484/496

Survey

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #7

#4

45-Supervising Teacher’s Evaluation

ED483/484/496

Survey by Supervising Teacher

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

46-Demonstration Lessons

ED 483/484/496

Observation STAI – by Supervising Teacher

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

Task

Course

Assessment

MDE

WCU

Conceptual

Frameworks

NBPTS

47-Demonstration Lessons

ED 483/484/496

Observation STAI – by University Super

A, B, C, D

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3,#4, 5

48- Demonstration Lessons - Assessment Results

ED 483/484/496

Assessment Rubric – by Supervising Teacher

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

49- Demonstration Lessons - Assessment Results

ED 483/484/496

Assessment Rubric – by University Supervisor

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

50-Differentiated Instruction Survey

ED 483/484/496

Survey

A, B, C, D

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

#1, #2

51-INTASC Survey

ED483/484/496

Survey

A, B, C, D

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7

#1, #4

52-Teaching Plan Design

HEA 300

Lesson Plan Rubric

A, B, C, D

#2,#5

#1, #2

53- Elementary Videotape Lesson

MUE 313

Observation Rubric by University Supervisor

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4

54- Middle School Videotape Lesson

MUE 315

Observation Rubric by University Supervisor

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4

55- High School Videotape Lesson

MUE 314

Observation Rubric by University Supervisor

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4

56-Elementary Student Teaching Portfolio

MUE 313

Portfolio Rubric

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1,#2,#3,#4,

#5,#6,#7

#1, #2, #3, #4

57-Middle School Student Teaching Portfolio

MUE 315

Portfolio Rubric

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1,#2,#3,#4,

#5,#6,#7

#1, #2, #3, #4

58-High School Student Teaching Portfolio

MUE 314

Portfolio Rubric

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1,#2,#3,#4,

#5,#6,#7

#1, #2, #3, #4

59-Demonstration of on-court skills

PED 331

Performance Benchmark

A, B, C, D

#1,#2

#2

60-Unit Lesson Plan

PED 333

Performance Benchmark

A, B, C, D

#1,#3,#6

#1, #2

61-Tracking Patterns of Movement Project

PED 336

Observation/Rubric

A, B, C, D

#1,#2

#2

62-Elementary Teaching Plan

PED 337

Lesson Rubric

A, B, C, D

#2,#5

#1, #2, #3

Task

Course

Assessment

MDE

WCU

Conceptual

Frameworks

NBPTS

63-Elementary Teaching Plan

PED 338

Lesson Rubric

A, B, C, D

#2,#5

#1, #2, #3

64-Secondary Teaching Plan

PED 339

Lesson Rubric

A, B, C, D

#2,#5

#1, #2, #3

65-Lesson Assessment Plan

PED 436

Lesson Rubric

A, B, C, D

#2,#5

#1, #2, #3

66-PRAXIS I General Exam

PRAXIS

PRAXIS Benchmark Score

A, B

#1

#2

67-PRAXIS II PLT Content Exam

PRAXIS

PRAXIS Benchmark Score

A, B, C, D, E

#1, #2, #3, #4

#1, #2, #3

68-PRAXIS II Subject Area Exam

PRAXIS

PRAXIS Benchmark Score

A, B, C, D, E

#1, #2, #3, #4

#1, #2, #3

69-Mississippi Annual Performance Survey – First Year Teacher Survey

Mississippi Department of Education

Survey

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7

#4

70-Mississippi Annual Performance Review – Principal Evaluation

Mississippi Department of Education

Survey

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

71-Undergraduate School of Education Survey

School of Education

Survey

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7

#4

 

 

Program Task Analysis by Standards

Graduate Education – Masters / Specialist

 

 

 

 

Task

Course

Assessment

MDE

Conceptual Framework

NBPTS

Graduate Courses – Elementary (K-6, 4-8), Gifted, Mild/Moderate, Reading, Secondary

1-Class Management Plan

EDU 536

Presentation/Rubric

A, B, C, D

#2,#5

#1, #2

2-Field Experience Summary

EDU 572

Reflection Journal

A, B, C, D, E. F

#3,#6,#7

#4

3-Plans with MS Rdg Standards

EDU 574

Standards Benchmarks

A, B, C, D

#1,#2

#1, #2

4-Interdisciplinary Unit Presentation

EDU 601

Observation/Rubric

A, B, C, D, E

#2,#3,#5

#1, #2, #3, #4

5-Curriculum Development Project

EDU 602

Presentation

B, C, D, E, F

#5,#6

#1, #2, #5

6-Reflective Journals

EDU 603

Journaling Rubric

E, F

#6

#4

7-Integrated Lesson Plans

EDU 606

Presentation Rubric

A, B, C, D

#2

#1, #2

8-Science Lesson Presentation

EDU 609

Presentation Rubric

B, C, D

#5

#1, #2

9-Scholarly Writing

EDU 611

Writing Rubric

A, B, C, D

#1, #2

#2

10-Research Paper

EDU 617

Rubric

A, B

#1

#2

11-Introduction to Research Plan – Scholarly Writing

EDU 620

Rubric

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6

#2

12-Evaluate Research from Annotated Bibliography

EDU 620

Rubric

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6

#2, #4

13-Designing a Research Proposal Methodology

EDU 620

Rubric

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6

#2, #4

14- Learning Theories Portfolio

EDU 621

Rubric

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4

15-Content/Performance Knowledge

EDU 625

Performance Benchmarks

A, B, C, D, E

#2, #4, #5

#1, #2

16-Cooperative Learning Unit

EDU 626

Rubric

A, B, C, D

#2

#1, #2

Task

Course

Assessment

MDE

Conceptual Framework

NBPTS

17-Philosophy of Education

EDU 630

Rubric

A, B, D, F,

#4,#6

#2, #4

18-Summative Demonstration Lesson

EDU 635

Observation STAI – by University Supervisor

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

19-Evaluation of Teaching Behaviors

EDU 635

Principal’s Annual Evaluation

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

20-Differentiated Instruction Survey

EDU 635

Survey

A, B, C, D, E

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

#2, #4

21-Alternate Route Program Survey

EDU 635

Survey

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #7

#2, #4

22- Summative Demonstration Lesson-Assessment Results

EDU 635

Assessment Rubric- By University Supervisor

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4

23-INTASC Survey

EDU 635

Survey

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7

#1, #2, #4

24-Scholarly Writing

EDU 636

Writing Rubric

A, B, C, D

#1, #2

#2

25-Reading Case Study

EDU 637

Presentation

A, B, C, D, E, F

#2,#5,#6

#2

26- Reading Diagnostic Assessment Results

 

EDU 637

Assessment Rubric – by University Supervisor

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4

27-Interdisciplinary Unit Presentation

EDU 640

Rubric

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4

28-Culminating Performance Project

 

EDU 646

Rubric

A, B, C, D

#1,#2

#1, #2, #3

29-Annotated Bibliography

 

EDU 650

Research Rubric

A, B, C, D

#1, #2

#2

30-Criterion-Referenced Exam

EDU 650

Rubric

A, B, C, D, E

#1, #2, #3, #5

#1, #2

31-Measurements Examination

 

EDU 650

 

Benchmark Score

A, B, C, D

#1, #2

#1, #2,

Task

Course

Assessment

MDE

Conceptual Framework

NBPTS

32-Differentiated Instruction

EDU 653

Survey

A, B, C, D, E

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

#1, #2, #3

33- Essay Quiz on Atypical Populations

EDU 654

Rubric

A, B, C, D, E

#2,#3,#5

#1, #3

34-Interdisciplinary Unit – Special Education Population

EDU 662

Rubric

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4

35-IEP Design

EDU 662

IEP Rubric

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3

36-L.D. Research Critique

EDU 663

Rubric

A, B

#1

#2

37-Journal Article Summary – Scholarly Writing

EDU 664

Rubric

A, B

#1

#2

38-10 Day Lesson Plan

EDU 664

Rubric

A, B, C, D, E

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7

#1, #2, #3

39-Action Research Project

EDU 720

Presentation

A, B, C, D, E, F

#2,#7

#1, #2, #3

40-Annotated Bibliography

EDU 720

Research Rubric

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6

#2

41-Action Research Portfolio

EDU 720

Rubric

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6

#1, #2, #3

42-Action Research Project Design

EDU 720

Specialist Defense Committee

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6

#1, #2, #3, #4

43-Action Research Project Defense

EDU 720

Specialist Defense Committee

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6

#1, #2, #3, #4

44-Action Research Project Implementation

EDU 721

Specialist Defense Committee

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6

#1, #2, #3, #4

45-Graduate School Exit Survey

University

Survey

A, B, C, D

#1, #2, #6, #7

#2, #4

46-Mississippi Annual Performance Survey – First Year Teacher Survey

Mississippi Department of Education

 

Survey

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

Task

Course

Assessment

MDE

Conceptual Framework

NBPTS

47-Mississippi Annual Performance Review – Principal Evaluation

Mississippi Department of Education

Survey

A, B, C, D, E, F

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

48-PRAXIS I General Exam

PRAXIS

PRAXIS Benchmark Score

A, B

#1

#2

49-PRAXIS II Subject Area Exam

PRAXIS

PRAXIS Benchmark Score

A, B, C, D, E

#1, #2, #3, #4

#1, #2, #3

50-Graduate School Survey

School of Education

Survey

F

#6

#4

 

 

 

 

 

 

2b.2 How does the unit disaggregate candidate assessment data for candidates on the main campus, at off-campus sites, in distance learning programs, and in alternate route programs?

 

The unit disaggregates data by programs and has compared data between the Tradition campus and the Main campus for the purpose of assuring equity of resources and fairness of assessments. Both the Tradition and the Main Campus have 100% passing rate on the PRAXIS II Content Area examinations and the Principles of Learning and Teaching examinations. The Tradition campus has a higher first time pass rate for the Elementary Content Examination than does the Main Campus.

 

 

 

2b.3. How does the unit maintain records of formal candidate complaints and their resolutions?

 

William Carey University’s The Red Book: 2010-2011 (See Attachment)

There are university policies that outline the procedures for formal candidate complaints and their resolutions. The first course of action is to work with the professor, then the chair of the department, and the dean. Non-academic complaints are handled through ad hoc advisor committee with the approach to a hands-on solution with the student’s academic well-being at the forefront of all deliberations. Should the complaint not be resolved to the satisfaction of all stakeholders and for the well-being of the teacher candidate, the teacher candidate has the right to contact the Vice President of Academic Affairs who will serve as a mediator.

 

Informal and formal complaints are maintained in each student’s file which can be accessed by faculty or administrators. Academic good standing will be based on overall grade point average. Students not meeting the minimum standards as set forth will be placed on academic probation. Advisors become an integral part of the creation of the student’s professional development plan and monitor student success regularly through the term.

 

 

 

2b.4. (Optional Upload for Online IR)

 

2c. Use of Data for Program Improvement

 

2c.1. In what ways does the unit regularly and systematically use data to evaluate the efficacy of and initiate changes to its courses, programs, and clinical experiences?

Data on key assessments are collected and aggregated across terms and campuses. The SACS five column model reports have been the basis of analysis and program review for twenty years. We have relied heavily on those data and made important program decisions based on that data. We are in the beginning stages of implementing TK20 to aggregate the data in a centralized computerized format. This first year’s implementation of TK20 has started the analysis process in a more centralized computerized type format which has provided more information for faculty analysis. These reports also allow the analysis team to move data to Excel format for additional analysis. Cooperating teachers and administrators in our practicum schools and internship schools provide input to the supervising professors. This anecdotal data comes to the Director of Internships (MAT) and Director of Student Teaching. It is proposed that in 2011-2012 program effectiveness surveys be administered to all cooperating field experience teachers and all principals of practicum and internship schools.

 

 

The Blue Ribbon Project redesigned the way the faculty has worked with data. Since 2007, the faculty has turned from an introspective data analysis approach (considering my own students and my impact on their student learning) to a learning community approach. Major redesigns projects are now in implementation and first/second year evaluations by the IHL and the MDE. This hands-on approach by the state government has raised the accountability levels across the School of Education. We are gearing up for a statewide Accountability System that will evaluate teacher effectiveness at the classroom level across all schools in the state. Then these evaluations will be aggregated by the school of education where the teacher graduated. For the first time in the history of Mississippi education, Colleges and Schools of Education will receive public report cards similar to those report cards given to every school and every district. For the first time, accountability for children’s progress at the classroom level will be directly linked to the School of Education. This value-added accountability system modeled after Tennessee and Louisiana will bring a new reality to college professors about the impact of their work on teacher candidates. The SOE’s learning community is certain that the evaluations will be positive for the teacher educators we have been producing over the past ten years. Everyone in the state is concerned about that population of teachers who for whatever reasons have lost their vision, burned out, and have become incompetent in instructional delivery. We are grappling with this new paradigm: Carey is responsible for its graduates as they enter their career and must continue to provide support in the field. The state understands this to mean from the birth of a new educator in his/her first year until retirement. This is a totally new paradigm and leads to some spirited discussions.

 

 

 

 

2c.2. What data-driven changes have occurred over the past three years?

 

The Blue Ribbon Commission on the Renewal of Teacher Preparation Programs was a state mandated initiative required of all teacher preparation programs in order to renew their accreditation status (program by program). All programs and institutions moved through a two year process of responding to the Blue Ribbon Standards (Issues), building a renewed teacher preparation program based on national models of superior teacher preparation programs, analyzing the MDE/IHL review report, writing the rejoinder to the report, and implementing the required innovations. This was a massive project requiring all secondary and elementary programs across four schools (The School of Natural and Behavioral Sciences; Ralph and Naomi Noonkester School of Arts and Letters; Donald and Frances Winters School of Music; and the School of Education) to work in collaboration on program design. This initiated the single most significant change in teacher education across secondary, elementary, and specialty programs in the history of William Carey University.

 

The William Carey University Blue Ribbon Commission Proposal is at the following link:

Blue Ribbon Commission Proposal – William Carey University.

 

 

 

The School of Education’s learning community work as a unit to send out faculty teams to Mississippi Department of Education trainings, NCATE conventions, Tk20 conventions, ACEI conventions, SACS accreditation conferences and other national learning societies’ meetings. These teams return and report to the learning community. Our faculty is small enough that the majority if not all educational faculty members attend and participate in discussion of how to best implement new and or additional requirements to change and update existing policies, assessment, course redesigns, and updated content knowledge. See Faculty Minutes. It is not unusual for changes to take place rather quickly in the unit due to the university administration’s support and confidence in the School of Education’s vision and mission.

 

 

 

2c.3. What access do faculty members have to candidate assessment data and/or data systems?

 

TK20 system has an advisement application that allows faculty members to search any student name to find PRAXIS Scores, Transcript, Transition Point information and Key assessment data. The INDIGO portal is the university’s CAMS system providing the teacher candidate’s information profile, course records, and registration records.

 

 

2c.4. How are assessment data shared with candidates, faculty, and other stakeholders to help them reflect on and improve their performance and programs?

 

Faculty have access to the students’ records. The TK20 allows a live data portal access for students and faculty providing updated information for teacher candidate growth. Stakeholders can view accreditation and data assessment information through the School of Education website.

 

During the 2011-2012 academic year, the unit has proposed to design a teacher candidate electronic portfolio