How To Become A College Professor

Transcription

1 Early Childhood Education Program Annual Assessment Report Programs Covered by This Report: Bachelor of Arts in Early Childhood Education (BA) Early Childhood Practice (ECP) Master of Arts in Early Childhood Education (MAT) Subsequent Certification in Early Childhood Education (SubCert) Report Writer: Xiaoli Wen, Ph.D.

2 Section I: Program Overview A : Number of Candidates: Undergrad (BA) Graduate (MAT) Alternative Program (SubCert) Alternative Program (ECP) Number of Students Admitted to the Program Number of Students Enrolled in the Program B. Overview of Program The Department of Early Childhood Education follows the professional standards established by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) in preparing student candidates. This program assessment report covers four programs: 1. BA program: awards bachelor s degree and leads to the Illinois Early Childhood (Birth- Grade 3) Type 04 teaching certificate. 2. Early Childhood Practice program: awards BA degree but not the Type 04 certificate. 3. MAT program: awards master s degree and the Type 04 certificate. 4. SubCert program: is a non-degree sequence for teachers who currently hold valid initial or standard Illinois teaching certifications in elementary education, secondary education, or special education, but want to add additional certification in early childhood education. Because these four programs share the SAME assessment system and methods, we combined the report for the programs (called nested reports in the SPA review). However, the assessment data were reported separately for each program. C. Sequence and Courses within Program (see next 4 pages) D. Delivery Models within Program _x_ Alternative Certification (ECP and SubCert) _x_ Face to Face Online Blended/Hybrid Offered in FL Offered in WI Residency Program (i.e. AUSL, UStep, SStep)

3 BA program (ECE460 and 470 are the transition points and benchmark courses) General Education Requirement Communication Two written communication courses Humanities One Humanities course Fine Arts One Fine Arts course Quantitative Reasoning Two college level Mathematics courses Physical and Life Sciences One Life Science course One Physical Science course One science course, must have a lab component Social Sciences One U.S. Politics course One Non-Western/Global Social Science course Behavioral Science One Developmental Psychology course Total semester hours 60 We accept IAI approved coursework that is transferred in from other institutions to fulfill these requirements and many of our candidates take these courses at the community colleges Foundational Courses Title Semester hours ECE 202 Developmental theory and Practice 5 ECE 205 Child Study I Infant and Toddler 2 ECE 206 Child Study II Preprimary 2 ECE 310 Child, Family & Community 5 ECE 320 Speech and Language Development 3 ECE 405 Preprimary Methods - Language Arts, Art, Music, and 3 Movement ECE 406 Preprimary Methods Social Studies, Math, & Science 3 ECE 460 Early Childhood Practicum 7 LAE 307 Children s Literature (includes children 0-8 years old) 5 History One American History course 5 SPE 300 Survey of Exceptional Children 5 Behavioral Science One Developmental Psychology course 5 Total semester hours 50 Professional Sequence Title Semester hours ECE 207 Child Study III - Primary 2 ECE 315 ECE315 History & Philosophy of ECE 5 ECE 330 Instructional Technology 3 ECE 340 Classroom Management 5 CIS481 Theory and Method: Primary Social Studies 1 MHE481 Theory and Method: Primary Math 3 RLL481 Theory and Method Primary Reading 3 SCE481 Theory and Method: Primary Science 2 ECE470 Full-Day Student Teaching 14 Total semester hours 38

4 ECP Program (ECE460 and 492/493 are the transition points and benchmark courses) General Education Requirement LAE 101 LAE 102 LAT210 Fine Arts LAA110 LAU110 Quant. Reasoning Two Math courses Physical/ Life Sciences LAN110 LAN150 Social Sciences LAS120 LAS110 LAS300 LAS302 LAS303 LAS304 English Composition l English Composition ll Effective Speaking One Humanities course Introduction to Art; and Introduction to Music General Biology Survey of Physical Science Introduction to American Politics; and Introduction to Cultural Anthropology; or Contemporary World Cultures: or Asian History and Culture; or Sub-Saharan African Cultures: or Middle and South American Cultures Behavioral Science LAP200 LAP201 LAP202 LAP303 LAP320 LAP321 Psychology of Development in the infant/toddler Years; or Psychology of Early Childhood; or Psychology of Middle Childhood and Adolescence; or Introduction to Psycholinguistics; or Psychology Assessment of the Young Child--Part l; with Psychological Assessment of the Young Child Part ll Foundational Courses Title 50QH LAE307 LAS200 LAS201 LAS203 ECE202 ECE205 ECE206 ECE310 ECE320 ECE405 ECE406 ECE460 SPE300 LAP200 LAP201 LAP320 Literature for Children U.S. History and Culture: ; or U.S. History and Culture: ; or U.S. History and Culture Present; and Developmental Theory and Practice; and Child Study l: Infant and Toddler; and Child Study ll: Preprimary; and Child, Family and Community; and Speech and Language Development; and Preprimary Methods: Language Arts/ Art/Music/Movement Preprimary Methods: Social Studies/Science /Math; and Early Childhood Practicum; and Survey of Exceptional Children and Adolescents; and Psychology of Early Childhood; or Psychology of Early Childhood; or Psychological Assessment of the Young Child--Part l; with Psychological Assessment of the Young Child Part ll

5 Professional Sequence Title 31 QH ECE 301 Understanding Infants and Toddlers ECE 302 Essentials of Infants and Toddlers ECE 321 Curriculum and Teaching in the Infant and Toddler Classroom ECE 322 Developing Early Childhood Programs ECE 326 Administration of Early Childhood Programs ECE 330 Instructional Technology ECE 335 Best Practices in Family Childhood Education for Infants and Toddlers and Families ECE 336 Best Practices in Early Childhood Education for Infants and Toddlers and Families ECE 337 Ethics and Professionalism in Early Childhood Education ECE 340 Classroom Management in Early Childhood Education Internship ECE492 ECE493 Title Internship: Child Care Center and Preschool Practice or Internship: Infant and Toddler Care and Development 7 QH MAT program (ECE580 and 590 are the transition points and benchmark courses) Core courses Title Semester Hours EPS 500a Human Development with a Focus on Early Childhood 3 ESR 514 Research in Action: Becoming Practitioner Researchers 3 FND 503 Historical and Philosophical Foundations of Early 3 Childhood Education Program courses ECE 501 Instructional Methods/Primary: Language Arts, Social 2 Studies ECE 502 Infant-Toddler Preclinical Experiences 2 ECE 505 Instructional Methods/Pre-Primary: Lang Arts, Art, 2 Music, Movement ECE 506 Instructional Methods/Pre-Primary: Math, Science, 2 Social Studies ECE 510 Child, Family and Community 3 ECE 580 Early Childhood Education Practicum 2 MHE 482 Methods for Teaching Primary-Grade Mathematics and 2 Science RLL 537 Early Literacy Methods PreK-3 3 ESR 504 Assessment in Early Childhood Education Settings: 2 Purpose &Practice SPE 500 Introduction to Exceptional Children and Adolescents 3 ECE 590 Student Teaching: Early Childhood Education 5 Total SHs 37

6 SubCert program (ECE569 and 575 are the transition points and benchmark courses) SubCert Required Courses Program courses Title Semester hours ECE 569 Portfolio Development 4 ECE 575 Practicum 3-6 the hours depends on the portfolio evaluation SubCert Optional Courses (Students take one or more below courses only if they have deficiency in certain areas based on the professional portfolio evaluation) Program courses Title Semester hours EPS 500a Human Development with a Focus on Early 3 Childhood FND 503 Historical and Philosophical Foundations of Early Childhood Education ECE 501 Instructional Methods/Primary: Language Arts, 2 Social Studies ECE 505 Instructional Methods/Pre-Primary: Lang Arts, 2 Art, Music, Movement ECE 506 Instructional Methods/Pre-Primary: Math, 2 Science, Social Studies ECE 510 Child, Family and Community 3 ECE 512 Early Childhood Curriculum 2 MHE 482 Methods for Teaching Primary-Grade 2 Mathematics and Science RLL 537 Early Literacy Methods PreK-3 3 ESR 504 Assessment in Early Childhood Education 2 Settings: Purpose &Practice SPE 500 Introduction to Exceptional Children and Adolescents 3

7 Section II: Relationship of Assessments to Program Outcomes and Standards The Early Childhood Education programs aim to promote the following learning outcomes for future teachers who serve young children and their families: Understand the contextual nature of learning Construct their own knowledge Integrate theory and practice Assess, reflect upon, and critique their own knowledge, practice, schools, and society Engage in inquiry Collaborate with students, teachers, administrators, parents and the community at large Advocate for young children and their families As showed in the two tables below, these program learning outcomes are well aligned with the conceptual framework/outcomes of the National College of Education, and are highly consistent with the five NAEYC professional standards. A. Alignment of Program Assessments to NCE Conceptual Framework/Outcomes NCE Conceptual Framework/Outcomes NCE Candidates: Envision, articulate and model democratic and progressive education Design powerful learning environments that integrate appropriate technologies Design powerful learning environments that utilize multiple meaningful assessments Design powerful learning environments that enable self-directed learning Work collaboratively in diverse communities and with diverse learners to achieve learning goals Advocate for democratic values, equity, access and resources to assure educational success for all Cultivate curiosity and excitement for learning in themselves and others Respect and learn from other peoples, cultures, and points of view Demonstrate a caring attitude in recognizing the needs of others and acting to promote their growth Act with confidence and self-knowledge to assume professional leadership roles and responsibilities Use information from self and others to continuously improve Program Assessments LiveText electronic portfolio Lesson plan rubric Competency Appraisal Content test LiveText electronic portfolio Lesson plan rubric Competency Appraisal Assessment of professional teaching test LiveText electronic portfolio Lesson plan rubric Competency Appraisal Assessment of professional teaching test LiveText electronic portfolio Lesson plan rubric Competency Appraisal Assessment of professional teaching test Professional disposition evaluation Competency Appraisal LiveText electronic portfolio Professional disposition evaluation Competency Appraisal Professional disposition evaluation Competency Appraisal Professional disposition evaluation Competency Appraisal LiveText electronic portfolio Professional disposition evaluation Competency Appraisal Professional disposition evaluation Professional disposition evaluation Competency Appraisal

8 B. Alignment of Program Assessments to Professional Standards and Program Outcomes Program Outcomes Professional Standards Program Assessments 1. Understand the contextual nature of learning; Standard 1: Promoting child development and learning 2. Construct their own knowledge Standard 5: Becoming a professional 3. Integrate theory and practice Standard 4: Teaching and learning; 4. Assess, reflect upon, and critique our own knowledge, practice, schools, and society; Standard 5: Becoming a professional Standard 3: Observing, documenting, and assessing young children 5. Engage in inquiry Standard 5: Becoming a professional LiveText electronic portfolio Lesson plan rubric Competency Appraisal Assessment of professional teaching test Content test LiveText electronic portfolio Lesson plan rubric Assessment of professional teaching test LiveText electronic portfolio Lesson plan rubric Competency Appraisal Professional disposition evaluation 6. Collaborate with students, teachers, administrators, parents and the community at large; 7. Advocate for young children and their families Standard 2: Building Family and Community Relationships Standard 5: Becoming a professional LiveText electronic portfolio Competency Appraisal Professional disposition evaluation

9 Section III: Program Key Assessments Using the chart below, indicate the name, type, and administration point for each of the assessments that the program uses to assess candidate learning and evaluate program effectiveness. Refer to the specific requirements for your program s SPA (if any) to ensure you are meeting the standards. For non-spa programs, only 1 content knowledge assessment is necessary. Name of Assessment Type or Form of Assessment When the Assessment Is Administered Transition Point in Program (as applicable) Assessment of Content Knowledge I (i.e., Licensure assessment, or other content-based assessment) *Note: Non-SPA programs do not have state content tests) Assessment of Content Knowledge II State Licensure Test: Content Test (107) Assessment of Professional Teaching Test (101) LiveText Electronic Portfolio The content test is administrated several times throughout the year. The BA and MAT candidates are encouraged to pass the test before student teaching. SubCert candidates are required to pass the test before student teaching. Note: ECP candidates do not take state tests. For BA, ECP, and MAT candidates, LiveText portfolios are reviewed two times across the program by faculty when candidates take the two benchmark courses that occur at the middle and end of the programs. ECE470, 590, & 575: student teaching for BA, MAT and SubCert students First Review: ECE460- BA & ECP ECE580 MAT ECE569: SubCert Assessment of Professional Knowledge (Pedagogical content knowledge) LiveText Electronic Portfolio & Lesson Plan Evaluation For SubCert candiates, LiveText portfolios are reviewed at the beginning of the program ( ECE569) and the end of the practicum. 1. The APT test is administrated several times throughout the year. The BA and MAT candidates are encouraged to pass the test before student teaching. SubCert candidates are required to pass the test before student teaching. Second Review: ECE460- BA ECE492/493: ECP ECE590 MAT ECE575: SubCert First Review: ECE460- BA & ECP ECE580 MAT ECE569: SubCert Assessment of Field Experiences Survey: Competency Appraisal The Competency Appraisal is a survey administered during student teaching and completed by candidates themselves, university supervisors, and cooperating teachers at the 5 th and 10 th week of the student teaching placement (ECE470, ECE492, ECE590, and ECE575 for BA, ECP, MAT, and SubCert, respectively). Second Review: ECE460- BA ECE492/493: ECP ECE590 MAT ECE575: SubCert ECE470 - BA ECE492/493 - ECP ECE590 - MAT ECE575 - SubCert

10 Assessment of Candidate Impact on Student Learning Assessment of Candidate Dispositions Assessment of Candidate Diversity Proficiencies Lesson Plan Evaluation Survey: Professional Disposition Evaluation LiveText Electronic Portfolio During both practicum and student teaching, one lesson that was implemented by the candidates is evaluated by the candidates themselves, university supervisors, and seminar course leaders. Candidates professional dispositions are evaluated during their practicum experience, by themselves, cooperating teachers, and university supervisors at the end of the experience LiveText portfolios are reviewed two times across the program (middle and end of the programs). BA: ECE460 and 470; ECP: ECE460 & 492/493; MAT: ECE580 and 590; SubCert: ECE575. ECE460, 580, and 575, for BA, ECP, MAT, and SubCert, respectively First Review: ECE460- BA & ECP ECE580 MAT ECE569: SubCert Assessment of Candidate Technology Proficiencies LiveText Electronic Portfolio LiveText portfolios are reviewed two times across the program (middle and end of the programs). Second Review: ECE460- BA ECE492/493: ECP ECE590 MAT ECE575: SubCert First Review: ECE460- BA & ECP ECE580 MAT ECE569: SubCert Second Review: ECE460- BA ECE492/493: ECP ECE590 MAT ECE575: SubCert

11 Section IV: Assessment Tools and Data Analysis Content Knowledge I: Assessment: Content Test & Assessment of Professional Teaching Test Description of the assessment Candidates who seek a Type 04 certification must pass the Early Childhood Education Content Test (107) and the Assessment for Professional Teaching Test (101). The tests are administrated several times throughout the year. The candidates in BA and MAT programs are encouraged to pass the exams before their student teaching, while the candidates in SubCert are required to pass the exams prior to student teaching. The content test covered three subareas: (1) Language and Literacy Development, (2) Learning across the Curriculum, and (3) Diversity, Collaboration, and Professionalism in the Early Childhood Programs. The test consists of 125 multiple-choice questions that measure an examinee's mastery of the test objectives and the questions include both practical scenarios and conceptual understandings. A total test scaled score of 240 or above is required to pass the test. The test has established reliability and validity. The APT test covers six subareas: (1) Foundations, Characteristics, and Assessment, (2) Planning and Delivering Instruction, (3) Managing the Learning Environment, (4) Collaboration, Communication, and Professionalism, (5) Language Arts, and (6) Educational Technology. The test consists of 120 multiple-choice questions and 2 constructed-response assignments. A total test scaled score of 240 or above is required to pass these tests. How and when the assessment is implemented This is a computer-based test that is implemented by ISBE. The tests can be taken multiple times each year. When data ia analyzed and by whom The state test data are usually analyzed by the end of the academic year by our program assessment coordinator, one faculty member. In the meanwhile, the dean s office also provides the test statistics by the end of the academic year. Remediation provided to candidates not meeting criteria To address the low performance on state tests, several remediation strategies have been implemented. First, NLU enhanced both online tutor and tutoring resources and face-to-face tutoring services to students who experience difficulties with state tests and other general learning tasks. The early childhood program works closely with the Student Advising Center to help students locate resources and support. For students who failed the tests, more intensive one-on-one tutoring services are provided. Second, in collaboration with the advising center, the program plans to hold more workshops on state test preparation. We bring all students in benchmark courses who are more likely to take the tests to the workshops. Third, we also believe that the tutoring services (24/7) will help to support students writing skills, which is one of the main reasons that caused students lower scores on the constructed response assignment in APT test.

12 How data from assessment is used by program, instructors, and candidates Our faculty review the state test data on an annual basis, and the test results have been used to inform curriculum revisions, program updates, and program supervision in general. Data interpretation [see data table in the Appendix 1] The data suggested that candidates in the three certification programs (ECP students do NOT take state test) achieved an average score that was above the passing cutoff (240 points) in all test areas of the both state exams. The MAT candidates gained better scores than SubCert and BA students, but with relatively larger variation in their scores. Compared to the graduate candidates, the undergraduate candidates had relatively lower average total and subscale scores. Each program maintained a 100% passing rate on both tests, except that the MAT program had an 86% passing rate on the content test. For the BA program, the passing rate on content test was significantly improved in comparison to last two years data (although the number of students who took the tests was small). Overall, the state test data demonstrate that the candidates in all four programs possessed a satisfactory level of content knowledge.

13 Appendix 1: Content Test Data BA (N = 7) MAT (N = 14) SubCert (N = 5) Mean (SD) Range Mean (SD) Range Mean (SD) Range Total Score (8.34) (20.21) (7.20) Subscale: Language & Literacy Development (16.00) (23.18) (22.47) Subscale: Learning Across the Curriculum (18.68) (20.40) (11.47) Subscale: Diversity, Collaboration, Professionalism (8.50) (19.47) (18.01) Rate of passing 100% 86% 100% APT Test Data MAT (N = 13) SubCert (N = 4) Mean (SD) Range Mean (SD) Range Total Score (12.14) (1.83) Foundations, Characteristics, & Assessment (12.23) (12.42) Plan & Deliver Instruction (15.31) (18.87) Management the Learning Environment (17.42) (20.74) Collaboration, Communication, & Professionalism (14.41) (5.32) Language Arts (15.49) (16.86) Educational Technology (11.69) (3.77) Constructed Response Assignment (30.54) (18.60) Rate of passing 100% 100% Note: None of BA program student took APT test in ECP is a non-certificate program, so the program students do NOT take state tests. 13

14 Content Knowledge II Assessment: LiveText Electronic Portfolio Description of the assessment In addition to the state tests, we use a local assessment, professional portfolio, to provide a more holistic and extensive measure of the candidates content knowledge. LiveText is an internet-based platform that allows students to create their professional portfolios, which are organized around all NAEYC standards (ISBE standards for the SubCert students) and two additional institutional standards (i.e., Diversity and Technology). Those state and national standards represent all the expected content, pedagogical, and professional knowledge that ECE teacher candidates should master. We require candidates to submit at least 4 artifacts under each standard to demonstrate their knowledge in meeting each standard. For each submitted artifact, candidates need to provide a brief summary and rationale for why and how this artifact can demonstrate their knowledge in meeting a specific standard. Candidates are also required to write a reflection statement for each standard which includes a self-assessment relative to the components of the standard. Their portfolios were evaluated based on a 4-point rubric. This assessment is a comprehensive and straightforward system in demonstrating evidence that our students have attained the state and national requirements. To demonstrate students content specific knowledge, data from four standards of the portfolio were presented for BA, ECP, and MAT students: - NAEYC Standard 1: Promoting child development and learning (artifact example: child study paper that covers all domains of development, including language, physical, cognitive, social and emotional developments) - NAEYC Standard 2: Building family and community relationships (artifact example: lesson plans that cover parent participation). - NAEYC Standard 4: Teaching and learning (a. connecting with children and families, using developmentally effective approaches, understanding content knowledge in early education, and building meaningful curriculum). Artifact examples include lesson plans that cover various subject areas, such as fine arts, social studies, physical development, literacy, math, and science activities. - Institutional Standard 6: Diversity (artifact example: case studies of children with special needs, from low-income families, or from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds). Since the SubCert students followed the ISBE standards (well aligned with the NAEYC standards), data from 11 relevant ISBE standards were presented: - Standard 1: Curriculum content - Standard 2: Curriculum English language arts - Standard 3: Curriculum Mathematics - Standard 4: Curriculum Science - Standard 5: Curriculum Social science - Standard 6: Curriculum Physical development and health - Standard 7: Curriculum final arts - Standard 8: Human development and learning - Standard 9: Diversity 14

15 - Standard 13: Communication - Standard 15: Collaborative relationships How and when the assessment is implemented Candidates portfolios are evaluated twice across the whole program period (middle and end of the program for BA, MAT, and ECP candidates; beginning and end of the program for SubCert candidates), as defined by program benchmark courses. Candidates portfolios are evaluated based on a 4-point rubric that covers the quality of: (1) artifacts; (2) rationale statement; (3) overall writing; and (4) self-reflection. [The rubric was attached in the Appendix 2] When data is analyzed and by whom The portfolio reviews were conducted by all faculty in the Early Childhood Education programs. The data were analyzed by the end of the academic year by the program assessment coordinator. However, the benchmark review data for specific programs (e.g., BA and MAT) were also reported to the field placement coordinator periodically in order to ensure the candidates eligibility for field placement. It is a program policy that prior to applying for student teaching, the candidates portfolio reviews need to be at the minimal expectations level (out a 4-point rubric). Remediation provided to candidates not meeting criteria For candidates who did not pass the review, the faculty reviewers met with students individually, gave them detailed feedback, and allowed them to resubmit their portfolios up to two times. In addition, our faculty hold one free LiveText workshop each term to support students. How data from assessment is used by program, instructors and candidates The livetext review data were used to determine whether the candidates are eligible for student teaching and whether they are qualified for graduation. In each class, candidates were required to submit benchmark assignments into livetext and each instructor review their submission as a part of teaching. Therefore, we facilitate students to build their portfolios on a continuous basis. Data interpretation (see data tables in Appendix 3) The assessment data suggested that: (1) ECP candidates overall ratings on the artifact quality and rationale statement were at the Minimal Expectations level, but the scores tend to be relatively higher in the areas of overall writing quality and self-reflection. The ECP candidates achieved lower ratings in standard 2 (building family and community relationship). (2) BA candidates achieved an average rating at the Meeting Expectations level, with slightly better scores in the area of writing quality and self-reflection. The candidates scoring on four standards was quite balanced. (3) MAT candidates had well balanced performance in different standards and assessment areas and their overall rating was at the Meeting Expectations level. They had relatively higher ratings in self-reflection and writing quality. (4) SubCert Candidates showed relatively smaller variation across all standards and assessment areas. On average, the students were rated at the Meeting Expectations level for all the standards. The ratings on the standard 13 (communications) and standard 15 (collative relationships) were higher than the ratings on the curriculum specific knowledge. 15

16 Appendix 2: LiveText Portfolio Rubric The teacher candidate utilizes high-quality artifacts in order to provide an argument (i.e., rationale statement) to demonstrate the candidate s knowledge, skills, and dispositions related to current competency in each NAEYC performance standard. For example: This artifact reflects my current level of proficiency in and relates to NAEYC standards in many ways. For a teaching episode a high quality artifact might include reflection and analysis of a lesson plan, an evaluation of a lesson plan observed by the cooperating teacher or university supervisor, analysis of student work, etc. Artifact Rationale Below Expectations (1 point) Artifacts show a weak degree of understanding, knowledge, and/or performance of the NAEYC standards; no description of what was read, prepared, completed and/or observed related to the artifacts/ assignments. The connection between the artifacts and the standards to demonstrate the candidate s proficiency in understanding the standards at the given time is not established or is illogically established. Minimal Expectations (2 points) Artifacts show relatively weak understanding, knowledge, and/or performance of the NAEYC standards; include some but limited description of what was read, prepared, completed and/or observed related to the artifacts/ assignments. Describes the connection between the artifacts and the standards to demonstrate the candidate s proficiency in understanding the standards at the given checkpoint, but lacks necessary detail. Meeting Expectations (3 points) Artifacts show a moderate degree of understanding, knowledge, and/or performance of the NAEYC standards; include a detailed description of what was read, prepared, completed and/or observed related to the artifacts/ assignments. Clearly describes the connection between the artifacts and the standards to demonstrate the candidate s proficiency in understanding the standards at the given checkpoint, but lacks adequate detail. Exceeds Expectations (4 points) Artifacts show a high degree of understanding, knowledge, and/or performance of the NAEYC standards; include a detailed description of what was read, prepared, completed and/or observed related to the artifacts/ assignments. Clearly and thoroughly describes the connection between the artifacts and the standards to demonstrate the candidate s proficiency in understanding the standards at the given checkpoint. 16

17 Self-refection Quality of writing Little, if any, description of what was learned, the candidate s strengths and areas for improvement in meeting the standards. Poorly written; obtrusive errors Describes what was learned, the candidate s strengths and areas for improvement in meeting the standards, but lacks necessary specifics. Clear analysis of what was learned, the candidate s strengths and areas for improvement in meeting the standards, and a plan for growth, but lacks adequate specifics. Clear, well developed, and specific analysis of what was learned, the candidate s strengths and areas for improvement in meeting the standards, and a detailed plan for growth. Satisfactorily written Well written Very well written 17

18 Appendix 3 LiveText Portfolio Data: Content Knowledge ECP Program (N =6) Artifacts Rationales Quality of writing Self-reflection M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) NAEYC STD1: Promoting Child Development and Learning 2.00 (1.41) 1.83 (1.21) 3.50 (.50) 3.50 (.50) NAEYC STD2: Building Family and Community Relationships 1.83 (1.21) 1.83 (.121) 3.50 (.50) 3.50 (.50) NAEYC STD 4: Teaching and Learning 2.50 (1.12) 2.00 (1.41) 2.60 (.80) 3.50 (.50) Institute STD 6: Diversity 2.00 (1.27) 2.00 (1.27) 3.50 (.50) 3.50 (.50) BA Program (N = 17) Artifacts Rationales Quality of writing Self-reflection M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) NAEYC STD1: Promoting Child Development and Learning 2.77 (1.06) 2.88 (.76) 3.07 (.70) 3.07 (.70) NAEYC STD2: Building Family and Community Relationships 2.71 (1.02) 2.71 (1.02) 3.07 (.70) 3.07 (.70) NAEYC STD 4: Teaching and Learning 2.67 (1.00) 2.67 (1.00) 2.93 (.85) 3.07 (.70) Institute STD 6: Diversity 2.71 (1.02) 2.71 (1.02) 3.07 (.70) 3.07 (.70) 18

19 MAT Program (N = 14) Artifacts Rationales Quality of writing Self-reflection M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) NAEYC STD1: Promoting Child Development and Learning 2.86 (1.19) 2.79 (1.26) 3.21 (.77) 3.20 (1.08) NAEYC STD2: Building Family and Community Relationships 2.57 (1.29) 2.71 (1.28) 3.00 (.93) 2.75 (1.30) NAEYC STD 4: Teaching and Learning 2.64 (1.23) 2.64 (1.23) 2.86 (1.06) 2.75 (1.23) Institute STD 6: Diversity 2.50 (1.04) 2.64 (1.23) 2.79 (1.08) 2.67 (1.25) SubCert Program (N = 6) Artifacts Rationales Quality of writing Self-reflection M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) ISBE Standard 1: Curriculum - Content 2.92 (.49) 3.08 (.64) 3.08 (.64) 2.92 (.49) ISBE Standard 2: Curriculum English Language Arts 3.08 (.64) 3.08 (.64) 3.08 (.64) 2.92 (.49) ISBE Standard 3: Curriculum Mathematics 2.92 (.49) 3.08 (.64) 3.08 (.64) 2.92 (.49) ISBE Standard 4: Curriculum Science 2.92 (.49) 3.08 (.64) 3.08 (.64) 2.92 (.49) ISBE Standard 5: Curriculum Social Science 2.92 (.49) 3.08 (.64) 3.08 (.64) 2.92 (.49) ISBE Standard 6: Curriculum Physical Dev. and Health 2.92 (.49) 3.08 (.64) 3.08 (.64) 2.92 (.49) ISBE Standard 7: Curriculum Fine Arts 2.92 (.49) 3.08 (.64) 3.08 (.64) 2.92 (.49) ISBE Standard 8: Human Development and Learning 3.08 (.64) 3.08 (.64) 3.08 (.64) 2.92 (.49) ISBE Standard 9: Diversity 3.00 (.41) 3.17 (.55) 3.17 (.55) 3.00 (.41) ISBE Standard 13: Communication 3.17 (.55) 3.17 (.55) 3.17 (.55) 3.00 (.41) ISBE Standard 15: Collaborative Relationships 3.17 (.55) 3.17 (.57) 3.17 (.55) 3.00 (.41) 19

20 Professional Knowledge (Pedagogical Content Knowledge) Assessments: LiveText Electronic Portfolio & Lesson Plan Rubric Description of the assessment: (1) LiveText Portfolio As specified in the previous section, the LiveText portfolio assessment covers all domains of expected knowledge, including pedagogical knowledge, for teacher candidates as outlined by the state and national standards. We presented the proportion of assessment data related to content knowledge in the previous section. In this section, another proportion of portfolio data related to candidates pedagogical, professional knowledge were provided. Specifically, to demonstrate students pedagogical knowledge, data from four standards of the portfolio were presented for BA, ECP, and MAT students: - NAEYC Standard 3: Observing, documenting, and assessing to support young children and families (artifact example: child observation study that covers specific domains of development, such as language, fine motor, cognitive, and social behaviors). - NAEYC Standard 4: Teaching and learning (a. connecting with children and families, using developmentally effective approaches, understanding content knowledge in early education, and building meaningful curriculum). This standard certainly covers both content and pedagogical knowledge. Artifact examples include lesson plans that cover various subject areas, such as fine arts, social studies, physical development, literacy, math, and science activities. - NAEYC Standard 5: Becoming a professional (artifact examples include field practice reflections, teaching philosophy statements, advocacy for children and families, and engagement in professional organizations) - Institutional Standard 7: Technology (artifact examples: lesson plans that involve use of technology in instruction and assessment and Open House presentations to parents). Since the SubCert students followed the ISBE standards, which are well aligned with the NAEYC standards, data from the following six relevant ISBE standards were presented: - Standard 10: Planning for instruction - Standard 11: Learning environment - Standard 12: Instructional delivery - Standard 14: Assessment - Standard 16: Reflection and professional growth - Standard 17: Professional conduct and leadership Description of the assessment: (2) Lesson Plan Rubric [attached in the Appendix 4] In addition to the portfolio assessment, we also evaluate candidates specific lesson plans that they implemented in classrooms during practicum and student teaching to assess their pedagogical knowledge. A 5-point rubric was used to examine several aspects of the lesson design: (a) specification of learning outcomes that are aligned with the state learning standards, (b) inclusion of child assessments, (c) the process of implementation (introduction, material design, closing, and extension of lesson), and (d) differentiation strategies. 20

21 In this section, we provided data from a proportion of items of the tool (10 out of 14 items) to demonstrate candidates professional knowledge. As you will see in a later section, this tool is also used to assess impact on learning. The internal consistency reliability of the tool is established at α =.80 for this year s data. How and when the assessment is implemented One lesson was evaluated during both practicum (at the half-way of the program) and student teaching (at the end of the program) by the candidates and supervisors. A 5-point rubric was used to perform the evaluation. When data is analyzed and by whom The data were analyzed by the program assessment coordinator by the end of the academic year. However, when alarming qualitative comments were noticed during data entry, the seminar leaders were quickly informed. Remediation provided to candidates not meeting criteria For candidates who received low ratings on lesson evaluation, they met with supervisors and mentor teachers to discuss the issues, identify the components that need to be revised, and reimplemented the lesson when it is necessary. How data from assessment is used by program, instructors and candidates The lesson evaluation data provided important information in revising our method courses. Faculty reviewed the assessment data from last year, and reinforced the components of lesson design within the method courses. In addition, the data helped us to see the importance of practice alignment across different stages of the program. The evaluation conducted during the practicum (half way through the program) prepared students for their final student teaching. Data interpretation [see data tables in the Appendix 5] The LiveText data indicated that: (1) ECP candidates overall performance was at the Minimal Expectations level, with higher scores in the areas of overall writing quality and self-reflection. (2) BA candidates achieved an average rating at the Meeting Expectations level. The candidates had relatively lower ratings in standard 4 (teaching and learning) and standard 7 (technology). (3) MAT candidates had well balanced performance in different standards and assessment areas and their overall rating was at the Meeting Expectations level, moving towards Exceeds Expectations. (4) SubCert Candidates were rated at the Meeting Expectations level for all the standards. The ratings on the Standard 10: Planning for Instruction were slightly lower. The lesson evaluation data indicated that: the candidates in all programs were doing well. Almost all ratings were above 4 points (out of 5 points), and none of the ratings were below 3 points. One consistent data trend that found within both undergraduate and graduate students was that students received relatively lower ratings in the areas of lesson assessment, closing, and extended experiences. 21

22 Appendix 4 Early Childhood Education Lesson Plan Rubric Student Name: Supervisor Name: Prepared by: (Student or Supervisor) Date: Name of Lesson: Lesson Number: (Please include comments under each section) Items Being Not Evident Assessed 0 Score Introduction Did not include any information in the introduction Below Standard 1 Left out one or two areas of the introduction Satisfactory 3 All areas of the intro are completed Excellent 5 All areas of the introduction are completed and developmentally appropriate Learning Objectives Essential questions/learning objectives are missing Essential question/learning objectives are not clearly stated Essential questions/learning objectives are clearly stated Essential questions/learning objectives are clearly stated and differentiated Score State Standards Score Comments: No evidence of state standards are included in the lesson State standards are inappropriate for the age group and state standards are not aligned with learning objectives State standards are appropriate for the age group, but are not aligned with learning objectives Identifies age appropriate state standards and aligns with learning objectives Items Being Assessed Pre-Assessment Strategies Score Lesson Assessment Score Comments: Not Evident 0 Evidence of preassessment strategies is missing Evidence of an assessment strategy is missing Below Standard 1 Pre-assessment strategies are not clearly stated The assessment strategy is disconnected from the learning objectives Satisfactory 3 *Clearly identifies the knowledge and skills needed to participate in the lesson *Pre-assessment strategy is explained clearly *Modifications are clearly explained for those students lacking prior knowledge and skills *The assessment strategy is explained clearly *The assessment strategy correlates directly to the learning objectives Excellent 5 *Clearly identifies the knowledge and skills needed to participate in the lesson *Pre-assessment strategy is explained clearly *Modifications are clearly explained for those students lacking prior knowledge and skills *An example of the preassessment tool is included with the plan *The assessment strategy is explained clearly *The assessment strategy correlates directly to the learning objectives *An example of the assessment tool is included with the plan Items Being Not Evident Below Standard Satisfactory Excellent 22

23 Assessed Materials and Resources (Including Technology) Score Differentiation Score Comments: Materials for all parts of the lesson are missing Modifications to meet the needs of various learners are not identified Materials for one or two parts of the lesson are missing Modifications to meet the needs of various learners are unclear *Specific materials for all parts of the lesson are listed and directly relate to the learning objectives *Materials and resources are age appropriate Modifications and strategies to meet the needs of various learners are clearly identified *Specific materials for all parts of the lesson are listed and directly relate to the learning objectives *Materials and resources are age appropriate *The components and preparation of the learning environment are clearly described *Modifications and strategies to meet the needs of various learners are clearly identified *Materials and resources needed to support the needs of individual students are included Items Being Assessed Anticipatory Set Score Score Score Main Activity Closing Extended Experiences and/or Home- School Connections Not Evident 0 Anticipatory set is missing Teaching strategies are missing Below Standard 1 Anticipatory set is not focused or connected to prior knowledge Teaching strategies are unclear and disconnected from the learning objectives Satisfactory 3 Anticipatory set: *connects to prior knowledge *focuses attention on the lesson Teaching strategies are explained in detail and relate directly to the learning objectives Closing is not included Closing is unclear Closing summarizes the lesson and connects to future learning Extended experiences or home-school connections are not included Extended experiences or home-school experiences are not clearly stated Extended experience or home school connection is summarized and connects to the lesson Excellent 5 Anticipatory set: *connects to prior knowledge *focuses attention on the lesson *engages learners in the content in a creative and age appropriate way *Teaching strategies are explained in detail and relate directly to the learning objectives *Teaching strategies engage the learners in the content in a creative and age appropriate way *Closing summarizes the lesson and connects to future learning *Closing includes directions for clean up and transition *Extended experience or home school connection is summarized and connects to the lesson *Connects to future learning Score Comments: 23

24 Items Being Assessed Not Evident 0 Below Standard 1 Satisfactory 3 Excellent 5 Analysis of Pre-Assessment Score Comments: Analysis of pre-assessment is missing. Analysis of pre-assessment is not clear. The reflection and analysis includes a discussion of how the pre-assessment connected to the learning objectives. * The reflection and analysis includes a discussion of how the pre-assessment connected to the learning objectives *The reflection and analysis highlights strengths and weaknesses of the preassessment. Items Being Assessed Not Evident 0 Below Standard 1 Satisfactory 3 Excellent 5 Assessment Analysis (Interpretation of Assessment Data) for Impact on Student Learning Score Comments: Analysis of assessment is missing. Analysis of assessment is not clear. *The reflection and analysis includes a discussion of how the assessment connected to the learning objectives *The reflection includes a discussion of the impact on learning for all students based on the analysis of the data. * The reflection and analysis includes a discussion of how the assessment connected to the learning objectives * The reflection includes a discussion of the impact on learning for all students based on the analysis of the data. *The reflection and analysis highlights strengths and weaknesses of the assessment. Items Being Assessed Not Evident 0 Below Standard 1 Satisfactory 3 Excellent 5 Next Steps and Ideas for Future Revisions to Impact Student Learning (This may include changing upcoming lessons) Next steps and ideas for future revisions to impact student learning are missing. Next steps and ideas for future revisions to impact student learning are not clear. *The next steps and ideas for future revisions demonstrate proof of impact on student learning. *The next steps and ideas for future revisions demonstrate proof of impact on student learning. *Discussion includes a reflection on the impact of the differentiation strategies. Score Comments: Total Score: 24

25 Appendix 5 LiveText Portfolio Data: Pedagogical Knowledge ECP Program (N =6) Artifacts Rationales Quality of writing Self-reflection M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) NAEYC STD 3: Observing, Documenting, and Assessing to Support Young Children and Families 1.83 (1.21) 2.00 (1.16) 3.50 (.50) 3.50 (.50) NAEYC STD 4: Teaching and Learning 2.50 (1.12) 2.00 (1.41) 2.60 (.80) 3.50 (.50) NAEYC STD 5: Becoming a Professional 2.17 (1.34) 2.17 (1.34) 3.50 (.50) 3.50 (.50) Institution STD 7: Technology 2.80 (.98) 2.80 (.98) 2.60 (.80) 3.50 (.50) BA Program (N = 17) Artifacts Rationales Quality of writing Self-reflection M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) NAEYC STD 3: Observing, Documenting, and Assessing to Support Young Children and Families 2.83 (.76) 2.83 (.76) 2.93 (.85) 3.07 (.70) NAEYC STD 4: Teaching and Learning 2.67 (1.00) 2.67 (1.00) 2.93 (.85) 3.07 (.70) NAEYC STD 5: Becoming a Professional 2.71 (1.02) 2.71 (1.02) 3.07 (.70) 3.07 (.70) Institution STD 7: Technology 2.67 (1.00) 2.67 (1.00) 2.93 (.85) 3.07 (.70) 25

26 MAT Program (N = 14) Artifacts Rationales Quality of writing Self-reflection M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) NAEYC STD 3: Observing, Documenting, and Assessing to Support Young Children and Families 3.07 (1.03) 2.79 (1.26) 3.21 (.77) 2.83 (1.28) NAEYC STD 4: Teaching and Learning 2.64 (1.23) 2.64 (1.23) 2.86 (1.06) 2.75 (1.03) NAEYC STD 5: Becoming a Professional 2.57 (1.24) 2.64 (1.23) 2.86 (1.06) 2.67 (1.25) Institution STD 7: Technology 2.64 (1.20) 2.64 (1.23) 2.79 (1.08) 2.67 (1.25) SubCert Program (N = 6) Artifacts Rationales Quality of writing Self-reflection M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) ISBE Standard 10: Planning for Instruction 2.92 (.49) 3.08 (.64) 3.08 (.64) 2.92 (.49) ISBE Standard 11: Learning Environment 3.17 (.55) 3.17 (.55) 3.17 (.55) 3.00 (.41) ISBE Standard 12: Instructional delivery 3.08 (.64) 3.08 (.64) 3.08 (.64) 2.92 (.49) ISBE Standard 14: Assessment 3.00 (.41) 3.17 (.55) 3.17 (.55) 3.00 (.41) ISBE Standard 16: Reflection and Professional Growth 3.17 (.55) 3.17 (.55) 3.17 (.55) 3.00 (.41) ISBE Standard 17: Professional Conduct and Leadership 3.17 (.55) 3.17 (.55) 3.17 (.55) 3.00 (.41) 26

27 Lesson Plan Evaluation Data: Pedagogical Knowledge BA: Practicum (N = 20) Candidates Mean (SD) Supervisors Mean (SD) BA: Student teaching (N = 7) Candidates Mean (SD) Supervisors Mean (SD) Introduction 4.75 (.71) 4.67 (.78) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) Learning objectives 4.75 (.71) 4.83 (.58) 4.60 (.55) 5.00 (.00) State standards 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) Lesson assessment 4.50 (.93) 4.83 (.57) 3.80 (1.10) 4.80 (.45) Materials and resources 4.88 (.35) 4.75 (.62) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) Differentiation 4.25 (1.04) 4.67 (.78) 4.80 (.45) 5.00 (.00) Anticipatory set 4.63 (.74) 4.83 (.58) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) Main activity 4.63 (.74) 4.83 (.58) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) Closing 3.88 (1.46) 4.42 (.79) 4.80 (.45) 4.40 (.89) Extended experiences 4.63 (.74) 4.75 (.62) 4.40 (.89) 5.00 (.00) ECP: Practicum (N = 47) Candidates Mean (SD) Supervisors Mean (SD) Introduction 4.87 (.50) 4.72 (.75) Learning objectives 4.87 (.50) 4.52 (.99) State standards 4.75 (.68) 4.59 (.87) Lesson assessment 4.31 (.95) 4.55 (.95) Materials and resources 4.81 (.54) 4.75 (.75) Differentiation 4.56 (.81) 4.38 (.90) Anticipatory set 4.63 (.81) 4.71 (.76) Main activity 4.50 (.89) 4.69 (.89) Closing 4.25 (1.00) 4.61 (.88) Extended experiences 4.25 (1.00) 4.04 (1.06) 27

28 MAT: Practicum (N = 9) MAT: Student Teaching (N = 12) SubCert: Practicum (N =2) Candidates Mean (SD) Supervisor Mean (SD) Candidates Mean (SD) Supervisors Mean (SD) Supervisors Mean (SD) Introduction 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) Learning objectives 3.75 (1.50) 4.60 (.89) 4.67 (.58) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) State standards 4.50 (1.00) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) Lesson assessment 3.50 (1.00) 3.80 (1.30) 4.67 (.58) 5.00 (.00) 4.00 (.00) Materials and resources 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) Differentiation 4.00 (.82) 4.00 (1.41) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) Anticipatory set 4.75 (.50) 5.00 (.00) 4.67 (.58) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) Main activity 4.00 (2.00) 5.00 (.00) 4.33 (.58) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) Closing 3.50 (1.91) 5.00 (.00) 4.33 (.58) 4.00 (1.41) 5.00 (.00) Extended experiences 4.00 (1.15) 5.00 (.00) 4.67 (.58) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) 28