Description of the Unit Assessment System

Transcription

1 Description of the Unit Assessment System The UAS System is supported by a Microsoft Access Database (for capturing numerical and categorical data) and LiveText (for storing artifacts). The Education faculty collects information regarding candidates grade point averages, Praxis I and Praxis II scores, candidate dispositions, lists of cooperating teachers and placement sites, student teacher evaluations from cooperating teachers and university supervisors, student teachers evaluations of their cooperating teachers, program evaluations from candidates at completion of their program, graduates and employers, and graduation status. This information is entered into our Microsoft Access Database by Steve Penn (UAS Database Coordinator) and Janice Strange (part-time Administrative Assistant). Teacher candidate outcomes are assessed through the use of Hallmark Artifacts that are collected from each Education course. The Hallmark Artifacts are stored on LiveText by the teacher candidates and the system is maintained by Steve Penn (UAS Database Manager) and Janice Strange (part-time Administrative Assistant). The Hallmark Artifacts are scored using a fourpoint scoring rubric. Further, in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Capstone Course in Education, each teacher candidate develops a professional electronic portfolio which is housed on the LiveText site. The Vincennes University Education Program was implemented in Three cohorts of teacher candidates in Special Education/Elementary Education, secondary Mathematics, and secondary Science have graduated from the program. The Unit Assessment System was initiated at the outset of the program and has undergone a number of minor revisions since that time. The Unit Assessment System can be considered to be dynamic because Education faculty continuously examines and refines the comprehensive assessment system to assure the quality of the programs offered and to ensure that the program meets the standards set forth by professional, state, and institutional standards delineated in the Conceptual Framework. The primary groups for unit assessment system evaluation include Education faculty and the Teacher Education Advisory Committee (TEAC). Due to the small size of the program, faculty department meetings are used to recommend and adopt minor adjustments to the system. For significant changes, the TEAC group, consisting of school administrators and teachers, program alumni, current students, university faculty, and community stakeholders, meets on a regular basis for the purpose of updating, reviewing data, and making data based decisions to improve the program. TEAC formally reviews the UAS on an annual basis.

2 Formative and Summative Key Assessments Used for Progression Through the Program Data from each of the four gateways (Declaration of the Teaching Major, Admission to Teacher Education, Admission to Student Teaching, and Program Completion and Indiana State Licensure) from all three baccalaureate programs are used to determine students progression through the Education Programs. Various points of data are collected for each teacher candidate at Gateways Two, Three, and Four of the Vincennes University Teacher Education Program. Gateway Two: At admission into the Teacher Education Program, data collected include Praxis I scores, overall grade point average, grade point average in education core courses, satisfactory or higher initial experience portfolio score, satisfactory or higher ratings on dispositional rating scales, and a recommendation from the student s advisor. Gateway Three: At admission to Student Teaching, data collected include overall grade point average, grade point average in education coursework, satisfactory or higher ratings on disposition rating scales, and a satisfactory criminal history report. Additionally, candidates must successfully complete key assessments required during Gateway Three (see table that follows). Gateway Four: For Program Completion and Indiana State Licensing, data includes Praxis II scores, satisfactory or higher ratings on disposition rating scales, and satisfactory or higher student teaching evaluations from the student teaching experiences. Additionally, candidates must successfully complete key assessments required during Gateway Four (see table that follows). The following table lists the key assessments that are used at each transition point to determine whether a teacher candidate passes into the next gateway. Unit Assessment System: Transition Point Assessments Declaration of the Teaching Major Complete all university developmental coursework Meet with an education advisor to review program requirements Cover Praxis I information with advisor Submit a satisfactory criminal history report Admission to Teacher Education Passing scores (Indiana) on Praxis I Overall GPA of 2.75 or higher Completion of all 100 and 200 level education courses GPA of 2.75 or higher in core education courses Clear criminal history report Satisfactory performance evaluations from field experience (EDUC 290) Satisfactory portfolio grade in Initial Experience Admission to Student Teaching Complete all prerequisite education coursework Overall GPA of 2.75 or higher GPA of 2.75 in education coursework with no grade lower than a C and no Incomplete grade ( I ) in any education coursework Continued satisfactory ratings on dispositional evaluations from select methods courses Satisfactory criminal history report Program Completion and Indiana State Licensure Successfully complete student teaching in both the Elementary and Special Education placements, Secondary Mathematics Education, and Secondary Science Education Pass required Praxis II examinations Complete application for Indiana teaching licensure Satisfactory criminal history report

3 (EDUC 290) Satisfactory Dispositional Rating Scores Signed recommendation form from advisor For Mathematics: GPA of 2.75 or higher in all math courses with no grade lower than a C and no Incomplete I grades For Science: GPA of 2.75 or higher in all science courses with no grade lower than a C: and no Incomplete I grades Key Assessments Completed Prior to Admission to Student Teaching for Special Ed/Elementary Ed GPA in Special Education coursework EDUC 310 Comprehensive Classroom Management Project EDUC 312 Assistive Technology Portfolio EDUC 330 Interdisciplinary Unit EDUC 350 Student Case Study EDUC 372 Differentiated Instructional Unit Key Assessments During Student Teaching for Special Ed/Elementary Ed: Student Teaching Evaluations Project Learning Curve Praxis II scores Key Assessments Completed Prior to Admission to Student Teaching for Mathematics Education Grade Point Average Key Assessments During Student Teaching for Mathematics Education Student Teaching Evaluations Project Learning Curve Praxis II scores Site Visit Observations Portfolio/Research Course Grade Report Mini-Portfolio of ITIP Formatted Lessons Key Assessments Completed Prior to Admission to Student Teaching for Science Education Grade Point Average Safety and Welfare Module (first offered Fall, 2012) Research Paper (first offered Fall, 2012) Contextual Content Min- Portfolio (first offered Fall, 2012) Key Assessment During Student Teaching for Science Education Student Teaching Evaluations Project Learning Curve Praxis II scores

4 PROGRAM GRADUATES 2009 GATEWAY CANDIDATE DATA SUMMARY Gateway Two: Entry into the Teacher Education Program (: n=22; : n=5; Science Ed: n=2) Praxis I Scores Reading: Writing: Math: Reading: Writing: Math: Overall GPA Overall GPA (Science candidates) 3.51 N/A GPA in Core Education Courses EDUC 290 Performance Evaluations Data Not Available Data Not Available EDUC 290 Portfolio Grade Data Not Available Data Not Available GPA in Math Coursework (Math candidates) N/A No Program at GPA in Science Coursework (Science candidates) 3.51 No Program at Gateway Three: Entry into Student Teaching (: n=22; : n=5; Science Ed: n=2) Overall GPA Overall GPA (Science candidates) 3.31 N/A GPA in Core Education Courses Dispositional Rating Scores (Aggregated across campuses) Key Assessment: GPA in Special Education coursework (CEC SPA) Key Assessment: GPA in Content Area Courses (ACEI SPA) (Aggregated across campuses) Key Assessment: Comprehensive Classroom Management Project Exemplary 74% Above Ave 13% Average 12% Unacceptable 2% Key Assessment: Assistive Technology Portfolio Exemplary 61% Above Average 32% Average 7% Unacceptable 1% Key Assessment: Differentiated Instruction Unit Exemplary 73% Above Ave 12% Average 12% Unacceptable 3% Key Assessment: Student Case Study Exemplary 63% Above Ave 28% Average 8% Unacceptable 1% Exemplary 78% Above Ave 0% Average 16% Unacceptable 6% Exemplary 70% Above Average 25% Average 5% Unacceptable 0% Exemplary 0% Above Ave 80% Average 12% Unacceptable 8% Exemplary 73% Above Ave 10% Average 15% Unacceptable 3%

5 GPA in Math Coursework (Math candidates) N/A No Program at GPA in Science Coursework (Science candidates) 3.31 No Program at Gateway Four: Exiting the Program Key Assessment: Student Teaching Evaluation (Special Education) Key Assessment: Student Teaching Evaluation (Elementary Education) Key Assessment: Student Teaching Evaluation (Math and Science Education) Dispositional Rating Scores (Aggregated Across Campuses) Prof. Behaviors- 3.5 Ethic of Care-3.6 Affective Teaching Behaviors-3.5 Reflection-3.3 Collaboration-3.5 Overall-3.5 Key Assessment: Learning Curve Exemplary 78% Above Average 17% Average 5% Key Assessment: Praxis II Scores (Aggregated across and Campuses) (No Program at ) Unacceptable 0% Special Education #0353 = 173 #0542 = 180 Elementary Education #0011 = 180 #0300 = 540 Math Education #0061 = 168 Science Education #0235 = 181 #0571 = 175 Prof. Behaviors- 3.5 Ethic of Care-3.6 Affective Teaching Behaviors-3.5 Reflection-3.3 Collaboration-3.5 Overall-3.5 Exemplary 75% Above Average 25% Average 0% Unacceptable 0% Special Education #0353 = 173 #0542 = 180 Elementary Education #0011 = 180 #0300 = 540

6 PROGRAM GRADUATES 2010 Gateway Two: Entry into the Teacher Education Program (: n=24; : n=5; Math Ed: n=6; Science Ed: n=2) Praxis I Scores Reading: Writing: Math: Reading: Writing: Math: Overall GPA Overall GPA (Math candidates) 3.67 N/A Overall GPA (Science candidates) 3.67 N/A GPA in Core Education Courses EDUC 290 Performance Evaluations (Aggregated across 2.67 (of 3) 2.67 (of 3) campuses) EDUC 290 Portfolio Grade Fall 2007 Average: 62.4% Fall 2007 Average: 97% Spring 2008 Average: 73.4% GPA in Math Coursework (Math candidates) 3.67 No Program at GPA in Science Coursework (Science candidates) 3.67 No Program at Gateway Three: Entry into Student Teaching (: n=24; : n=5; Math Ed: n=6; Science Ed: n=2) Overall GPA Overall GPA (Math candidates) 3.31 N/A Overall GPA (Science candidates) 3.51 N/A GPA in Core Education Courses Dispositional Rating Scores (Aggregated across campuses) Key Assessment: GPA in Special Education coursework Key Assessment: GPA in Content Area Courses (Aggregated Across Campuses) Key Assessment: Comprehensive Classroom Management Project Exemplary 87% Above Ave 9% Average 2% Unacceptable 1% Key Assessment: Assistive Technology Portfolio Exemplary 71% Above Average 23% Average 1% Unacceptable 5% Key Assessment: Differentiated Instruction Unit Exemplary 59% Above Ave 16% Average 16% Unacceptable 9% Exemplary 70% Above Ave 24% Average 6% Unacceptable 0% Exemplary 88% Above Average 13% Average 0% Unacceptable 0% Exemplary 63% Above Ave 36% Average 1% Unacceptable 0%

7 Key Assessment: Student Case Study Exemplary 79% Above Ave 12% Exemplary 65% Above Ave 22% Average 7% Average 11% Unacceptable 1% Unacceptable 0% GPA in Math Coursework (Math candidates) 3.31 No Program at GPA in Science Coursework (Science candidates) 3.51 No Program at Gateway Four: Exiting the Program Key Assessment: Student Teaching Evaluation (Special Education) Key Assessment: Student Teaching Evaluation (Elementary Education) Key Assessment: Student Teaching Evaluation (Math and Science Education) Dispositional Rating Scores (Aggregated Across Campuses) Prof. Behaviors- 3.5 Ethic of Care-3.6 Affective Teaching Behaviors-3.5 Reflection-3.4 Collaboration-3.5 Overall-3.5 Key Assessment: Learning Curve Exemplary 64% Above Average 25% Average 8% Key Assessment: Praxis II Scores (No Program at ) Unacceptable 3% Special Education #0353 = #0542 = Elementary Education #0011 = 179 #0300 = None Math Education #0061 = 159 Science Education #0245 = 164 Prof. Behaviors- 3.5 Ethic of Care-3.6 Affective Teaching Behaviors-3.5 Reflection-3.4 Collaboration-3.5 Overall-3.5 Exemplary 93% Above Average 7% Average 0% Unacceptable 0% Special Education #0353 = #0542 = Elementary Education #0011 = 179 #0300 = None

8 PROGRAM GRADUATES 2011 Gateway Two: Entry into the Teacher Education Program (: n=28; : n=3; Math Ed: n=3; Science Ed: n=2) Praxis I Scores Reading: Writing: Math: Reading: Writing: Math: Overall GPA Overall GPA (Math candidates) 3.46 N/A Overall GPA (Science candidates 3.64 N/A GPA in Core Education Courses EDUC 290 Performance Evaluations (Aggregated across campuses) 2.74 (of 3) 2.74 (of 3) EDUC 290 Portfolio Grade Fall 2008 Fall 2008 Average: 74.8% Average: 92% Spring 2009 Average: 86.2% GPA in Math Coursework (Math candidates) 3.46 No Program at GPA in Science Coursework (Science candidates) 3.64 No Program at Gateway Three: Entry into Student Teaching Overall GPA Overall GPA (Math candidates) 3.43 N/A Overall GPA (Science candidates) 3.33 N/A GPA in Core Education Courses Dispositional Rating Scores (Aggregated across campuses) Key Assessment: GPA in Special Education coursework Key Assessment: GPA in Content Area Coursework (Aggregated across campuses) Key Assessment: Comprehensive Classroom Management Project Exemplary 88% Above Average 4% Average 7% Unacceptable 1% Key Assessment: Assistive Technology Portfolio Exemplary 41% Above Average 43% Average 16% Unacceptable 0% Key Assessment: Differentiated Instruction Unit Exemplary 49% Above Ave 36% Average 13% Unacceptable 2% Exemplary 70% Above Average 21% Average 3% Unacceptable 6% Exemplary 71% Above Average 27% Average 2% Unacceptable 0% Exemplary 63% Above Ave 28% Average 8% Unacceptable 3%

9 Key Assessment: Student Case Study Exemplary 63% Above Ave 22% Exemplary 7% Above Ave 23% Average 12% Average 60% Unacceptable 3% Unacceptable 10% GPA in Math Coursework (Math candidates) 3.43 No Program at GPA in Science Coursework (Science candidates) 3.33 No Program at Gateway Four: Exiting the Program (: n=28; : n=3; Math Ed: n=3; Science Ed: n=2) Key Assessment: Student Teaching Evaluation (Special Education) Key Assessment: Student Teaching Evaluation (Elementary Education) Key Assessment: Student Teaching Evaluation (Math and Science Education) Dispositional Rating Scores (Aggregated Across Campuses) Prof. Behaviors- 3.6 Ethic of Care-3.7 Affective Teaching Behaviors-3.4 Reflection-3.4 Collaboration-3.5 Overall-3.5 Key Assessment: Learning Curve Exemplary 66% Above Average 14% Average 14% Key Assessment: Praxis II Scores (No Program at ) Unacceptable 5% Special Education #0353 = 173 #0542 = 176 Elementary Education #0011 = 174 #0300 = None Math Education #0061 = 160 Science Education #0245 = 173 #0235 = 180 #0265 = 133 Prof. Behaviors- 3.6 Ethic of Care-3.7 Affective Teaching Behaviors-3.4 Reflection-3.4 Collaboration -3.5 Overall-3.5 Exemplary 62% Above Average 28% Average 9% Unacceptable 1% Special Education #0353 = 173 #0542 = 176 Elementary Education #0011 = 174 #0300 = 467

10 PROGRAM GRADUATES 2012 Gateway Two: Entry into the Teacher Education Program (: n= 38; : n=4; Math Ed: n=4; Science Ed: n=2) Praxis I Scores Reading: Writing: Math: Reading: Writing: Math: Overall GPA Overall GPA (Math candidates) 3.73 N/A Overall GPA (Science candidates 3.97 N/A GPA in Core Education Courses EDUC 290 Performance Evaluations (Aggregated across campuses) 3.2 (of 4) 3.2 (of 4) EDUC 290 Portfolio Grade Spring 2010 Spring 2010 Average: 88.3% Average: 92.6% GPA in Math Coursework (Math candidates) 3.73 No Program at GPA in Science Coursework (Science candidates) 3.97 No Program at Gateway Three: Entry into Student Teaching Overall GPA Overall GPA (Math candidates) 3.67 N/A Overall GPA (Science candidates) 3.95 N/A GPA in Core Education Courses Dispositional Rating Scores Key Assessment: GPA in Special Education coursework Key Assessment: Interdisciplinary Unit Exemplary 74% Above Ave 19% Average 5% Key Assessment: Comprehensive Classroom Management Project Unacceptable 0% Exemplary 78% Above Ave 13% Average 6% Unacceptable 3% Key Assessment: Assistive Technology Portfolio Exemplary 43% Above Ave 49% Average 6% Unacceptable o% Exemplary 82% Above Ave 5% Average 8% Unacceptable 5% Exemplary 82% Above Ave 5% Average 8% Unacceptable 5% Exemplary 71% Above Ave 27% Average 2%` Unacceptable 0% Exemplary 80 % Above Average 20% Average 0% Unacceptable 0% Key Assessment: Differentiated Instruction Unit Exemplary 78% Above Average 13% Average 6% Unacceptable 3% Key Assessment: Student Case Study Exemplary 63% Exemplary 4%

11 Above Ave 22% Average 12% Unacceptable 3% Above Ave 13% Average 34% Unacceptable 6% GPA in Math Coursework (Math candidates) 3.67 No Program at GPA in Science Coursework (Science candidates) 3.95 No Program at Gateway Four: Exiting the Program Data Not Yet Available Key Assessment: Student Teaching Evaluation I Key Assessment: Student Teaching Evaluation II Dispositional Rating Scores Key Assessment: Learning Curve Key Assessment: Praxis II Scores

12 PROGRAM GRADUATES 2013 Gateway Two: Entry into the Teacher Education Program (: n= 38; : n=4; Math Ed: n=4; Science Ed: n=2) Praxis I Scores Reading: Writing: Math: Reading: Writing: Math: Overall GPA GPA in Core Education Courses EDUC 290 Performance Evaluations (Aggregated across campuses) 3.2 (of 4) 3.2 (of 4) EDUC 290 Portfolio Grade Spring 2010 Spring 2010 Average: 88.3% 91.3% GPA in Math Coursework (Math candidates) 3.73 No Program at GPA in Science Coursework (Science candidates) 3.97 No Program at Gateway Three: Entry into Student Teaching Data Not Yet Available Overall GPA GPA in Core Education Courses Dispositional Rating Scores Key Assessment: GPA in Special Education coursework Key Assessment: Interdisciplinary Unit Key Assessment: Comprehensive Classroom Management Project Key Assessment: Assistive Technology Portfolio Key Assessment: Differentiated Instruction Unit GPA in Math Coursework (Math candidates) 3.67 No Program at GPA in Science Coursework (Science candidates) 3.95 No Program at Gateway Four: Exiting the Program Data Not Yet Available Key Assessment: Student Teaching Evaluation I Key Assessment: Student Teaching Evaluation II Dispositional Rating Scores Key Assessment: Learning Curve Key Assessment: Praxis II Scores

13

14 Procedures for Ensuring Fair, Accurate, Consistent, and Bias Free Assessments and Unit Operations Data are collected through the use of the Unit Assessment System Database and Livetext. The candidates Hallmark Artifacts are stored in LiveText and are used to align outcomes with institutional, state, and national standards. Hallmark Artifacts are evaluated through the use of four-point rubrics. Unit faculty recognizes that assessment is an ongoing process that requires constant re-evaluation. Therefore, faculty members are continuously reflecting on the efficiency and effectiveness of their assessment rubrics. All faculty members have developed and used rubrics to evaluate the hallmark artifacts required in their courses. These rubrics are used across instructors who teach the same courses and across the Vincennes and Jasper campuses. Discussions have taken place among assessors to ensure consistency of the expectations required at each level of the rubric s grading scale. These discussions have helped assure uniformity. Some minor adjustments were made to the scoring rubrics after the first semester of use based on consensus among faculty members. For example, the first scoring rubrics for the hallmark artifacts originally were based on a three-point scale. This was changed for all scoring rubrics after the first semester to a four-point grading scale. Prior to the student teaching experience, orientation meetings are held by Vincennes University faculty with University supervisors, Cooperating Teachers, and student teachers to discuss the Student Teaching Evaluation Form. At the orientation meeting, the evaluation instrument is presented and instruction is provided regarding the use of the grading scale. The training enables the assessors to understand the expectation levels required for each component. Unit faculty also strives for fairness, accuracy, consistency, and freedom from bias regarding the dispositional ratings of teacher candidates. All Education faculty members were involved in the development of the Dispositions Rating Form. The form also was presented to and approved by the Teacher Education Advisory Committee. Dispositional ratings from select Education courses and field Experiences are entered into the Unit Assessment System databases to minimize inter-rater variability. Using commonly available software, the 5 dimensions (Professional Behaviors, Ethic of Care, Affective Teaching Behaviors, Reflective Practitioner, and Collaborative) were tested for reliability. All Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficients were above.90 indicating a high degree of reliability. Further, to ensure that assessment procedures used by the Education Program are fair, accurate, consistent, and free of bias, nationally-normed assessments, such as the Praxis I and II are used for evaluation purposes.

15 Policies, Procedures, and Timelines for Data Collection and Analysis Data Collection: Two types of data are collected by Vincennes University Education faculty. First, data are collected at the various program gateways prior to formal admission into the Teacher Education Program, admission to the Teacher Education Program, admission to Student Teaching, and program completion and Indiana State Licensure. The Unit Assessment System database is the central repository for the majority of data and information regarding the teacher candidates as they progress through the Education program. Assessment data are collected and entered into the database each semester by the part-time administrative assistant. Various data are collected for each teacher candidate at Gateways Two, Three, and Four of the teacher education program. At Gateway Two Admission into the Teacher Education Program, data collected include Praxis I scores, overall grade point averages, grade point average in education core courses, and satisfactory initial experience portfolio scores. At Gateway Three Admission to Student Teaching, data collected include overall grade point averages, grade point averages in Education coursework, satisfactory disposition rating scales, and satisfactory performance on key assessments. For Special Education/Elementary Education the key assessments required include the: (1) Interdisciplinary Unit, (2) Student Case Study, (3) Assistive Technology Portfolio, (4) Differentiated Instruction Unit, and (5) Comprehensive Classroom Management Project. For the Science Education Program, key assessments at this point include the: (1) Safety and Welfare Module, (2) Research Paper, and (3) Contextual Content Mini-Portfolio. For the Mathematics Education Program, the overall grade point average is used as the key assessment. At Gateway Four - Program Completion and Indiana State Licensing data includes Praxis II scores, satisfactory disposition rating scales, and satisfactory student teaching evaluations from the Special Education and Elementary Education student teaching experiences. Key assessments during student teaching for Special Ed/Elementary Ed include: (1) Student Teaching Evaluations, (2) Project Learning Curve, and (3) Praxis II scores. Key assessments during student teaching for Mathematics Education include (1) Student Teaching Evaluations, (2) Project Learning Curve, (3) Praxis II scores, (4) Site Visit Observations, (5) Mini-Portfolio of ITIP Formatted Lessons. Key assessment during Student Teaching for Science Education include: (1) Student Teaching Evaluations, (2) Project Learning Curve, and (3) Praxis II scores. Secondly, data on the candidates key assessments are collected and stored on Livetext. At the conclusion of each course, teacher candidates submit their Hallmark artifacts on LiveText. The artifacts are graded by faculty using a four-point rubric. The assessment rubrics for each hallmark artifact are collected and data are aggregated. Data on each key assessment are presented at a designated faculty meeting and faculty members examine the data and make informed recommendations. In addition, Hallmark artifacts are required of the teacher candidates in each Education course. The data from the hallmark artifacts are collected and stored on LiveText. Rubrics from each

16 candidate s Hallmark artifacts are collected and analyzed by faculty at the conclusion of each spring semester. Following the student teaching experience, teacher candidates are evaluated by their cooperating teachers and also by their university supervisors. At the conclusion of student teaching, the teacher candidates have the opportunity to evaluate their cooperating teachers and also to evaluate the Vincennes University Education Program. The data from these evaluations are collected at the conclusion of the student teaching experience at the end of each semester. Further, one year after graduation, program completers are asked to again evaluate the teacher education program. Additionally, for all program completers who are employed in the teaching profession, employers/principals also are asked to evaluate the teacher education program. How often are the data summarized and analyzed? Data are collected, summarized, and analyzed at various times of the year. Some data (i.e., Praxis I scores) are continuously collected and entered into the Unit Assessment System, while other data (i.e., student teacher evaluations) are collected and entered at the conclusion of each semester. Hallmark artifacts from courses are collected, summarized, and analyzed each semester. Gateway assessment data are collected after candidates complete each gateway requirements. Queries are run on other key assessments regularly for unit review at Department meetings. Employer surveys, Teacher Candidate Exit surveys, and One-Year Follow-Up surveys are summarized and reviewed annually by unit faculty. Steve Penn, the UAS Database Coordinator, with assistance from the Education Chair, other faculty members, and the administrative assistant summarize the data and information, performs most analyses on the data, and presents the data to faculty and stakeholders for evaluation and recommendations in narrative reports and tables. The data are shared at a designated department faculty meeting. An interpretation of the data is made by faculty that summarizes the data and suggests steps for program improvement. This report is completed annually and presented to TEAC. What information technologies are used to maintain the unit s assessment system? The unit maintains an extensive database using Microsoft Access to assist with the management, reporting and analysis of information regarding candidate demographics, progress, formative/summative assessments, field/student teaching evaluations, and unit operations. Teacher candidates also use LiveText to submit and collect their Hallmark artifacts from individual courses and to develop and maintain their Teacher Education Portfolio.

17 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 offers the Special Education/Elementary Education program at the main campus and also at the Jasper Campus (). Key assessments and other data are able to be aggregated and disaggregated using our Microsoft Access database. Artifacts stored in LiveText also may be sorted by campus location. The secondary Mathematics Education program and the secondary Science Education program are offered at the main campus only. Candidate performance data are disaggregated by major and by campus. The Vincennes University Education Department does not prepare alternative route candidates. Use of Data for Program Improvement Data are entered into the UAS database on a continual basis, and data are entered into LiveText on a semester basis. Reports from both sources are prepared for analysis on an annual basis and presented to faculty. Changes within the program and/or unit, based on the data, typically are initiated by unit faculty at departmental meetings. Minor changes typically are made through consensus of faculty members. Substantive program or unit changes are brought forth from the Education faculty to the Teacher Education Advisory Committee for discussion and/or approval. Substantive program changes at the program or unit level must be reviewed and approved through the university Curriculum and Academic Affairs Committee.

18 CANDIDATE KEY ASSESSMENT SAMPLE DISAGGREGATED BY CAMPUS The following is a sample of Key Assessment 5: Learning Curve Project. The data have been disaggregated by campus ( main campus and ). All of the Education Program key assessments have been disaggregated by campus. KEY ASSESSMENT FIVE: Learning Curve Project Candidate Performance Data Tables Component (4) Exemplar y (1) Lesson 95% Foundation (n=21) (2) Assessment 77% (n=17) (3) Research 59% Base (4) Evidence of Student Learning and Reflection Main Campus Spring 2009 Graduates (3) (2) Above Average Average (n=13) 82% (n=18) 5% (n=1) 17% (n=3) 41% (n=9) 9% (n=2) (1) Unacceptabl e Total # 0% 0% 22 87% 9% (n=2) 0% 22 87% 0% 0% 22 13% (n=3) 9% 0% 22 65% (n=2) (n=15) Main Campus Spring 2010 Graduates (4) (3) (2) (1) Exemplary Above Average Unacceptabl Average e 4% 9% (n=20) (n=1) (n=2) 4% 9% (n=20) (n=1) (n=2) 70% 9% 9% (n=16) 17% (n=4) (n=2) 13% (n=3) Total # 0% 23 0% 23 (n=2) 4% (n=1) Component (4) Exemplar y (1) Lesson 80% Foundation (n=4) (2) Assessment 80% (n=4) (3) Research 40% Base (4) Evidence of Student Learning and Reflection Jasper Campus Spring 2009 Graduates (3) (2) Above Average Average (n=2) 100% (n=5) 20% (n=1) 20% (n=1) 60% (n=3) (1) Unacceptab le Total # 0% 0% 5 100% (n=7) 0% 0% 5 100% (n=7) 0% 0% 5 71% (n=5) 0% 0% 0% 5 100% (n=7) Jasper Campus Spring 2010 Graduates (4) (3) (2) (1) Exemplary Above Average Unacceptab Average le Total # 0% 0% 0% 7 0% 0% 0% 7 29% 0% 0% 7 (n=2) 0% 0% 0% 7

19 Unit and Institutional Policies for Student Complaints The Education program follows the institutional student grievance procedure found in the University Catalog ( At this time, no candidate has filed a formal complaint. If a written complaint were to be generated, copies of the complaint and resolution would be stored in both the office of the Dean and the office of the Department Chair.

20 Information Technology Used to Manage Performance Data The unit maintains an extensive database using Microsoft Access to assist with the management, reporting and analysis of information regarding candidate demographics, progress, formative/summative assessments, field/student teaching evaluations, and unit operations. Some faculty members use Excel and MSWord Tables. Teacher candidates also use LiveText to submit and collect their Hallmark artifacts from individual courses and to develop and maintain their Teacher Education Portfolio.

21 Data Analysis Schedule Summary of Assessments Used to Manage and Improve Unit Operations Unit Evaluation Measure When Administered Key Assessments End of Spring Semester Teacher Education Advisory Committee Fall Semester; Spring Semester (TEAC) Feedback Sponsoring Institution (Oakland City Continuous University) Representative Feedback Dean of Social Sciences and Performing Arts Continuous Supervisory Input Department Chair Leadership and Input Continuous Program Coordinators Leadership and Input Continuous Input Twice Monthly Student Evaluation of and Courses End of Fall Semester; End of Spring Semester Evaluations by Chair and Dean Annually in the Spring Semester Graduate Exit Survey of Program End of Fall Semester; End of Spring Semester Student Teaching Cooperating Teachers End of Fall Semester; End of Spring Semester Survey Practicum and Initial Experience Cooperating End of Fall Semester; End of Spring Semester Teacher Surveys Employer Survey At the end of one year after graduation Education Alumni Survey of Program at the At the end of one year after graduation End of One Year Professional Growth Plan for Annually in the Fall Semester Institutional Assessment (Higher Learning Continuous Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools) Because the Education program has a small candidate population at this time, management and program improvement takes place both formally and informally. Data are regularly collected and distributed to unit faculty and administrators. The data are discussed at bi-monthly faculty meetings which generate recommendations for programmatic changes and unit operations. All major changes must be approved by the Teacher Education Advisory Committee

22 Data-Driven Changes to the Education Program Date of Change March 2008 June 2009 February 2010 July 2011 June 2009 Change Data Used to Support Decision Decision Made By: Rubric Point System Feedback from faculty the and changed from a three-point need for more discriminating TEAC to four-point scale performance data Gateways Revised Feedback from faculty and TEAC Student Teaching Evaluation Form Form changed to reflect days present/absent during Student Teaching Feedback from Cooperating Teachers June 2009 Disposition Rating Form Revised Indicator 2 changed from Believes in the worth and potential of others, to Believes that all students can learn. Scoring rubric was changed from a 3- point to a 4-point rating scale. August 2009 Initiated EDUC 101 course: Introduction to Education August 2009 Information Provided by NCATE Input Number of students who were unaware of Education Program requirements and information Initiated EDUC 346: Autism New data for Autism prevalence released indicated the need for an autism course Change of select Hallmark Artifacts: and TEAC, TEAC, and CAAC, TEAC, and CAAC November 2010 EDUC 330 Change from Lesson Plan to Interdisciplinary Unit to fulfill the ACEI content standard Data from the previous ACEI assessment for content knowledge deemed insufficient when reviewed by ACEI SPA August 2011 EDUC 360 Change from Necessary due to candidates

23 June 2009 May 2011 Differentiated Instruction Unit to Lesson Plan Review of and minor changes to the Conceptual Framework Review of and minor changes to the Student Teacher Evaluation Form (Change from a four-point rating scale to a five-point rating scale) class scheduling - - necessary to take EDUC 360 and EDUC 372 at the same time TEAC review of Conceptual Framework Feedback from university supervisors and cooperating teachers TEAC and TEAC

24 DATA DRIVEN COURSE CHANGES Date of Change Course Change Data Used to Support Decision 2010 EDUC 372 Changes to the Differentiated Unit: Data indicated that candidates are having difficulty in the following two areas: (1) developing objectives and (2) creating and using content enhancers. Instruction on these two skills will be enhanced in future semesters 2010 EDUC 372 Change to the Differentiated Unit: Change from a group project to an individual project 2010 EDUC 477 and EDUC 492 Changes to Strengthen Technology: Data indicated that many cooperating teachers either did not rate the student teachers on their use of technology or rated the student teachers use of technology low. commit to (1) increase the number of technology devices available for STT to take to their placements, (2) refine their own technology skills, and (3) incorporate technology more into their own instruction and assignments 2010 EDUC 493 Change to the Learning Curve Assignment: Data indicated candidate weakness in the areas of linking research to assessment and instructional methodology CEC and ACEI SPA Data Feedback from CEC SPA Data from Student Teaching Evaluation Form Data from the Learning Curve Assignment rubric Decision Made By: 2010 EDUC 493 Change to the Learning Curve Rubric: Data on candidates ability to create five ITIP lesson plans was difficult to assess given that the rubric combined the five lesson plans into one line item. The rubric was changed so that each lesson plan could be assessed individually EDUC 350 Change to Student Case Study: Data on candidates ability to write Individualized Education Program goals and objectives indicated candidate weakness in this area. Unavailability of data CEC and ACEI SPA data

25 Efforts will be made by faculty to enhance instruction in this area throughout more courses in the program EDUC 312 Change to the Assistive Technology Portfolio: The data on the Student Case Study indicated a deficiency in candidates ability to write Individual Education Programs. Therefore, one of the assignments included in the Assistive Technology Portfolio was changed. Candidates now are required to write a student s IEP and include an assistive technology component. This gives candidates more instruction and one more opportunity to write Individualized Education Programs EDUC 330 Change of Key Assessment: Due to feedback from the ACEI SPA, Key Assessment 2: Content Knowledge was changed from GPA in content area coursework to an Interdisciplinary Unit EDUC 350 Change to the Student Case Study: An additional component was added to the Student Case Study. That component was that candidates were required to write three instructional strategies to remediate the student difficulty presented in the IEP goals and objectives. Data indicated that this was an area of weakness for many candidates. Instruction will be enhanced in this area EDUC 330 Change to Interdisciplinary Unit: Data indicated that candidates had difficulty writing lesson plans, particularly in the area of writing lesson objectives. More time in class will be devoted to writing lesson plans and feedback will be provided on each lesson plan in the interdisciplinary unit prior to another lesson plan being due. CEC and ACEI SPA data ACEI determined there was a lack of data in the area of demonstrating content knowledge CEC and ACEI data CEC and ACEI data