college of education and human sciences - at the … folio... · web viewreport to the nebraska...

Nebraska Department of Education Rule 24 ReportWORLD LANGUAGE SPANISH

(Content Area)Educator Preparation Content Program Review

Name of institution University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Date Submitted 3.20.2017

Contact Person Thomas Wandzilak

Phone/Fax 402-472-8626

Email [email protected]

Folio type: X Regular Mini Advanced Program

Program(s) Covered by this Folio Press tab in last column to add rows

Endorsement(s) Type Grade Level Program Level

List EndorsementsSubject 7-12 Baccalaureate

Master’s

Spanish, Grades 7-12

Is the endorsement offered at more than one site? Yes X NoIf yes, list additional sites where endorsement is offered:

Institution Accreditation Status: X National X StateIs this a Nationally Accredited Program? X Yes No

If Yes, list Accrediting Organization: CAEP Attach National Letter to Cover Sheet

Report to the Nebraska Department of EducationUniversity of Nebraska – Lincoln

Folio Initial Level -- June 2017

INTRODUCTION AND WELCOMEThe purpose of this section is to provide general background information on the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and the College of Education and Human Sciences. In addition, information is provided on the teacher education program, admission and retention standards the field experiences in which student participate, and information on the key assessments used in Section 2 concerning data that has been collected in support of our programs.

Here is a list of websites that can provide some additional information on the university, the college and our teacher education program:

http://www.unl.edu/This is the University of Nebraska-Lincoln website.

https://bulletin.unl.edu/undergraduate/This is the link for the undergraduate bulletin.

https://bulletin.unl.edu/undergraduate/college/Education+%26+Human+SciencesThis is the link for the College of Education and Human Sciences section in the Undergraduate Bulletin.

http://www.unl.edu/gradstudies/bulletinThis is the link for the Graduate Bulletin.

http://cehs.unl.edu/The is the link for the website for the College of Education and Human Sciences

http://cehs.unl.edu/ssc/undergraduate-advising/

http://cehs.unl.edu/ssc/undergraduate-advising/

http://cehs.unl.edu/

http://www.unl.edu/gradstudies/bulletin

https://bulletin.unl.edu/undergraduate/college/Education+%26+Human+Sciences

https://bulletin.unl.edu/undergraduate/

http://www.unl.edu/

This is the link for our program sheets for all of the programs offered through the College of Education and Human Sciences. Program sheets will also be available for multiple years.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact Tom Wandzilak, Certification Officer, College of Education and Human Sciences at:

402-472-8626 or [email protected]

SECTION 1: CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION NARRATIVE

SECTION 1A: ENDORSEMENT PROGRAM/CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION

The link to the Rule 20 Folio is:http://cehs.unl.edu/cehs/nde/Rule20.pdf

Mission Statement ion StatementThe University of Nebraska-Lincoln, chartered by the Legislature in 1869, is that part of the University of Nebraska system which serves as both the land-grant and the comprehensive public University for the State of Nebraska.

Through its three primary missions of teaching, research, and service, UNL is the state's primary intellectual center providing leadership throughout the state through quality education and the generation of new knowledge. UNL's graduates and its faculty and staff are major contributors to the economic and cultural development of the state. UNL attracts a high percentage of the most academically talented Nebraskans, and the graduates of the University form a significant portion of the business, cultural, and professional resources of the State. The quality of primary, secondary, and other post-secondary educational programs in the state depends in part on the resources of UNL for curricular

http://cehs.unl.edu/cehs/nde/Rule20.pdf

development, teacher training, professional advancement, and enrichment activities involving the University's faculty, museums, galleries, libraries, and other facilities. UNL provides for the people of the state unique opportunities to fulfill their highest ambitions and aspirations, thereby helping the state retain its most talented youth, attract talented young people from elsewhere, and address the educational needs of the nontraditional learner.

The University of Nebraska-Lincoln has been recognized by the Legislature as the primary research and doctoral degree granting institution in the state for fields outside the health professions. Through its service and outreach efforts the University extends its educational responsibilities directly to the people of Nebraska on a state-wide basis.

The College of Education and Human SciencesThe College of Education and Human Sciences was founded on August 18, 2004 by Teachers College and The College of Human Resources and Family Sciences with each founding college contributing extensive history and tradition. The College of Education and Human Sciences offers excellent educational advancement to both undergraduate and graduate students, serving approximately 2,800 undergraduates and 1,000 graduate students each year.

Education courses first became a part of the University curriculum in 1895 with the organization of a Department of Education designed to prepare students for teaching careers. On Valentine’s Day, 1908, the Board of Regents established a Teachers College. Since that time, the College has been highly respected for its programs preparing teachers, administrators, and specialists for the education of children, youth, and adults. The quality of these programs is reflected in outstanding educational leadership in communities across the state and in the nation in teaching, administration, communication disorders, special education, and educational psychology.

Teacher Education programsTeacher education programs are found in five departments in CEHS as well as in two other colleges on campus. The College of Fine and Performing Arts (CFPA) oversees Music Education, and Agriculture Education, Horticulture Education, and Industrial Technology are located in the College of Agricultural

Sciences and Natural Resources. Even though these programs are housed outside of CEHS, they must comply with state rules and regulations tied to teacher education. The majority of the teacher education programs are located in the Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education (TLTE). There are currently 40 endorsement areas offered at the undergraduate and graduate levels through the University. Options exist for students to complete initial teacher certification and teaching endorsements at the undergraduate and graduate levels. All programs leading to an initial teaching certificate will also require the completion of an undergraduate or graduate degree. Individuals interested in adding one or more teaching endorsements may do so without pursuing a degree.

1B. STANDARDS OF ADMISSION, RETENTION, TRANSITION, AND COMPLETION

Admission to the University of Nebraska-LincolnAdmission to the University is based on a student’s demonstrated academic preparation for University-level work (see Appendix -- Table 1). Admission standards to the University are established by the University of Nebraska Board of Regents and apply to all new, first time degree-seeking students. This includes freshman as well as transfer students. The admission standards apply to general admission to the University as well as admission to the College of Education and Human Sciences.

Admission to the Teacher Education Program (TEP)Admission to the College of Education and Human Sciences does not guarantee admission to a teacher education program. Admission to the advanced phases of teacher education is selective and, in some endorsements, highly competitive. Selection to a TEP is based upon the following criteria:

1. Completion of at least 30 credit hours (Elementary Education) or 42 credit hours (Secondary Education) with a minimum 2.5 GPA.

2. Completion of TEAC 331 or 430 or 431 or 434 or 437 or 496 (3 hrs.) or approved course, and EDPS 250 or 251 with a 2.5 cumulative average in the two classes, no grade lower than a C.

3. Documentation of proficiency in reading, writing, and mathematics through successful completion of a basic skills examination that meets the Nebraska Department of Education competency requirement.

4. Completion of one course in communication studies selected from COMM 109, 205, 209, 210, or 341, or an approved substitute.

5. Faculty recommendations.6. Demonstration of attaining particular learning outcomes in the program.7. Completion of a personal and professional fitness self-disclosure form.

Admission to Student TeachingAll students who are candidates for an appropriately endorsed Nebraska Teacher’s certificate are required to student teach. Students who plan to student teach in the fall semester must complete the student teaching application form and submit it by the preceding March 1 to the Director of Field Experiences in 104 Henzlik Hall; students planning to student teach in the spring semester must apply by the preceding October 1. The basic program for student teaching provides for a full-day experience on a semester basis. Students enrolled in an elementary education dual major will compete requirements for student teaching in both majors. Admission to student teaching requires the following:

1. Matriculation in a teacher education program in the College of Education and Human Sciences, the Graduate College, or dual matriculation in the College of Education and Human Sciences and another college.

2. Admission to a teacher education program.3. Senior standing (89 hours or more) with a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.75.4. Application for and completion of a senior check.5. Minimum average of 2.5 in each endorsement area (in the case of Middle Grades Endorsement, a

2.5 in each academic area) with no grade below C.6. A minimum grade point average of 2.5 in pre-professional and professional education courses with

no grade below a C in pre-professional education courses and no grade below a C+ in professional education courses.

7. Completion of a criminal history check that will be conducted by an independent party (lab fee required).

Retention1. Must maintain a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.75.2. Must maintain a minimum average of 2.5 in each endorsement area (in the case of Middle Grades

Endorsement, a 2.5 in each academic area) with no grade below C3. Must maintain a minimum grade point average of 2.5 in pre-professional and professional

education courses with no grade below a C in pre-professional education courses and no grade below a C+ in professional education courses.

4. Must meet student teaching application deadlines.5. Must meet criminal history requirements at all times.

Transition PointsA summary of the transition points can be found in the Appendix in Table 2.

Requirements to Complete the Teacher Education Program1. Successful completion of student teaching.2. Successful completion of all remaining courses as identified in the senior check with grades

meeting the minimum requirements as identified in the “Admission to Student Teaching” section as described above.

3. Satisfy any additional requirements as described under teacher education in the undergraduate bulletin.

4. Address all financial obligations tied to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.5. Apply for the degree.

The Student Advising Sheet for the program(s) associated with this Folio can be found at:http://cehs.unl.edu/ssc/undergraduate-advising

1C. FIELD EXPERIENCES

http://cehs.unl.edu/ssc/undergraduate-advising

The link to the Rule 20 Folio is:http://cehs.unl.edu/cehs/nde/Rule20.pdf

Field experience “courses” can be divided into the following areas:Early Childhood, Inclusive, Elementary Education, Elementary Education/Mild Moderate Disabilities, and Secondary Education. Practicum experiences at the 200 level are initial experiences in the schools for our students. They can be placed in a classroom with a teacher at the appropriate grade level for their respective content area. Secondary students are placed individually in middle grades or secondary classrooms whereas elementary students are placed in pairs in elementary classrooms. In all instances, university students have opportunities to work with K-12 learners individually or in small groups. In some instances, they may be given full-class opportunities to work with learners. Students completing 397 level practica have expanded responsibilities where they will have greater classroom responsibilities that will include the teaching of multiple lessons as a requirement for the experience as well as teacher assistant roles during each day. The 497 experience is student teaching where the university student takes on more and more responsibilities that would be equivalent to those taken on by the classroom teacher. These responsibilities include, but are not limited to, the preparation of lesson plans and materials for teaching and assessment, the teaching of classes, grading formative and summative materials, working with students after class, attending staff/faculty meetings, and speaking with parents where necessary, all under the guidance of a cooperating teacher. Please see Table 3 in the Appendices for a summary of the Field Experience hour requirements associated with each practicum course and the related endorsements.

1D. PROGRAM COMPLETERS

Table 4 – Program Completers

Program Completers and Level – Content AreaAcademic Year Number of Endorsement Program Completers

Bac Post Bac Alternate Masters Ed. PhD

http://cehs.unl.edu/cehs/nde/Rule20.pdf

RouteSpecialis

t

2014 to 20 15 7 0

2015 to 20 16 9 2

SECTION 2: ENDORSEMENT PROGRAM KEY ASSESSMENTS AND RELATED DATA

ARTIFACT 1Table 5

Summary Table of Endorsement Program Key AssessmentsREGULAR FOLIOS

Name of Assessmentused for the following areas:

Type or Form of Assessment

Brief Description of Assessment, including indicated information obtained from Assessment

When Assessment is Administered

Specific Items

1Content-Praxis II or GPA

Cumulative GPASummative

Numerical computation of grades based onquality points earned divided by credithours completed

Ongoing—throughout one’s college career. Cumulative GPA is what is reported.

Specific to content area

Praxis II Comparison to a Standard

For elementary students, this test has been

Just before or during clinical practicum (student


used todocument one being highly qualified (minimumscore of 159) for No Child Left Behind.For secondary students, we piloted results for the2014-2015 academic year. Results will be used as a requirement fro teacher certification at all levelsstarting September 1, 2015.

teaching)

CEHS Student Teaching Instrument

Summative This instrument consists of 14 items that is completedby the student teacher supervisor and cooperatingteacher on the basis of one being proficient, basic orunsatisfactory on each item.

At the end of the Clinical Experience

Item 1

Administrator Survey

Summative This is a 21-item instrument that is completed by

In March/April at the end of the candidate’s first

Standards 4.1, 4.2, 4.3

school administrators at the end of a candidate’sfirst year of teaching. It is now administered bythe Nebraska Department of Education.

year of teaching

Candidate Teacher Survey

Summative This is a 23-item instrument that is completed byprogram completers at the end of the first year ofteaching. It is administered by the College ofEducation and Human Sciences at UN-L.

In March/April at the end of the candidate’s first year of teaching

Items 1 & 2

2 Content - Knowledge

Cumulative GPA Summative Numerical computation of grades based onquality points earned divided by credithours completed

Ongoing—throughout one’s college career. Cumulative GPA is what is reported.


Praxis II Comparison to a Standard

For elementary students, this test has been used todocument one being highly qualified

Just before or during clinical practicum (student teaching)


(minimumscore of 159) for No Child Left Behind.For secondary students, we piloted results for the2014-2015 academic year. Results will be used as a requirement fro teacher certification at all levelsstarting September 1, 2015.




Item 1


Summative This is a 21-item instrument that is completed byschool administrators at the end of a candidate’s


Standards 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2

first year of teaching. It is now administered bythe Nebraska Department of Education.




Item 14

3 Learner/Learning Environments




Items 2 & 3


Summative This is a 21-item instrument that is completed byschool

In March/April at the end of the candidate’s first

Standards 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3,

administrators at the end of a candidate’sfirst year of teaching. It is now administered bythe Nebraska Department of Education.

year of teaching 3.1, 3.2, 3.3




Items 3 & 4

4 Instructional Practices - Knowledge




Items 2, 3, & 6

Administrator Summative This is a 21-item In March/April at Standards

Survey instrument that is completed byschool administrators at the end of a candidate’sfirst year of teaching. It is now administered bythe Nebraska Department of Education.

the end of the candidate’s first year of teaching

7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3




Items 7, 8, 9, 16, 17 & 20

5 Instructional Practices - Effectiveness


Summative This instrument consists of 14 items that is completedby the student teacher supervisor and cooperatingteacher on the basis of one being proficient, basic or


Items 2, 3, & 5

unsatisfactory on each item.


Summative This is a 21-item instrument that is completed byschool administrators at the end of a candidate’sfirst year of teaching. It is now administered bythe Nebraska Department of Education.


Standards 6.1, 6.2




Item 10

6 Professional Responsibility


Summative This instrument consists of 14 items that is completedby the student teacher supervisor and cooperating


Items 12 & 14

teacher on the basis of one being proficient, basic orunsatisfactory on each item.


Summative This is a 21-item instrument that is completed byschool administrators at the end of a candidate’sfirst year of teaching. It is now administered bythe Nebraska Department of Education.


Standards 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 10.1, 10.2




Items 12 & 15

7 Overall Proficiency


Summative This is a 21-item instrument that is completed byschool administrators at


Standard 11.1

the end of a candidate’sfirst year of teaching. It is now administered bythe Nebraska Department of Education.




Item 23

8 Optional Assessment

REQUIRED RULE 24 FOLIO APPENDICES

Table 1UN-L Admission Requirements

English 4 units of EnglishAll units must include intensive reading and writing experience

Mathematics 4 units of mathematicsMust include Algebra I, II, Geometry, and one additional unit that builds on a knowledge of algebra or geometry.

Natural Science

3 units of natural sciencesIncluding at least 2 units selected from biology, chemistry, physics, and earth sciences. One of the units must include laboratory instruction.

Social Studies

3 units of social studiesAt least one unit of American and/or world history and one additional unit of history, American government and/or geography

Foreign Language

2 units of foreign languageMust include 2 units of the same foreign language. Students who are unable to take two years of foreign language in high school may still qualify for admission. Such students will be required to take two semesters of foreign language at the University of Nebraska. These students are required to complete 16 units of academic courses for admission.

Class Rank or ACT/SAT

For assured admission you must also graduate in the upper half of your class, or have an ACT composite score of 20 or higher, or an SAT combined score of 950. All freshman applicants under the age of 23 are required to submit an official ACT or SAT score.

Transfer For assured admission, in addition to completion of core course requirements, you must also show a C average (2.0 on a 4.0 scale) for your cumulative grade point average and a C average on your most recent term of college enrollment

Table 2Major Transition Points

Acceptance into University(Prior to Freshman year)

Acceptance into Teacher Education program(Sophomore year)

Acceptance into Student Teaching(Semester before Student Teaching)

Program Completion/Graduation(After Student Teaching)

-- Completion of specific number of

--Credit hour minimum--Minimum

-- Admission to TEP-- Credit Hour /overall 2.75 GPA minimum

-- 120 + credit hours-- successful

high school units.-- Appropriate ACT /SAT score

grades in specific courses-- PPST-- Faculty recommendations-- Completion of Prof. & Personal Fitness Form-- Criminal History check

-- 2.5 GPA in content areacourses, no grade below a C--2.5 GPA in Prof. ed – specific grade requirements for methods courses-- Criminal History check

completion of Student Teaching-- Maintain GPA minimum requirements-- Completion of a senior check--Met all financial obligations-- Apply for degree

Table 3Summary Table of Practicum Experiences

Course

Cr

Days/Wk

Hrs/Day

Weeks

Total Hrs

ELED

Sec. Ed.

ELED/SPED

ECE Unif

ELED/ECE

TEAC 297A

1 2 3 14 84 84 84 84 84

297B 2 2 5 14 140 140 140 140297 25

397A 3 2 7 14 196 196 196 196497A 1

25 8 16 640 640 640 640

197Q 1 2 4 14 112297Q 1 2 4 14 112397Q 1 2 4 14 112497Q 1

25 8 16 640

297 1 2 1 10 20 20397 3 5 2 12 120 12

0397D 3 2 8 15 240 240497 1

25 8 16 640 64

0497A 6 5 8 40 400 400SPED 397

3 3 4 12 144 120

SPED 496Y

1 2 4 14 56 56

497M 6 5 8 10 400 400CYAF 270L

2 1 4 14 52 52 52

271L 1 1 3 12 36 36 36374L 1 1 3 15 45 45 45497A 9 5 4 16 320 320 320Total -- ----- -------

---------- ------- 106

0780

1340 1473

1513

Instruments Used in Key Assessments:

In order to view the instruments used for the different surveys the provided data for this report, go to the “Instruments” folder at the State Approval website and select each of the following:

Student Teaching Final Evaluation used in Fall 2014–Spring 2015—All Program Completers

Student Teaching Final Evaluation used in Fall 2015–Spring 2016—All Program Completers

NDE First-Year Administrator Survey

First-Year Teacher Survey

SECTION 2: KEY ASSESSMENTS AND FINDINGS—Artifact 2

1. Content KnowledgeBelow are the measures used specifically for addressing the content knowledge or teacher candidates at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln.

Table 1A Grade Point Average in the Content Area and Cumulative GPA

Year Endorsement Subject Area/Content GPA

Cumulative GPA Total Students

2014-2015 Secondary Education

3.49 3.56 95

Elementary Education

3.43 3.57 125

Special Education

3.82 3.68 59

Early Childhood

3.81 3.70 25

Content area2015-2016 Secondary

Education 3.54250 3.55747 108Elementary Education 3.36632 3.56379 153Special Education 3.80480 3.64881 72Early Childhood Education

3.74777 3.5820340

Content area

Table 1BGrade Point Average in the Content Area and Cumulative GPA

Year Code Subject Area/Content GPA

Cumulative GPA

Total Students

Notes

2014-2015 BECE 3.21 2.79 1 Business & Cooperative EducationBMIT 3.35 3.32 6 Business, Marketing & Information Education

CYEC 3.85 3.74 18 Inclusive Early Childhood EducationCYFC 3.37 3.24 4 Family & Consumer Science Education 6-12ECED 3.57 3.65 6 Elementary Education & Early Childhood EducationELED 3.43 3.52 83 Elementary Education K-6EMATH 3.25 3.61 13 Mathematics 7-12ENGL 3.79 3.78 15 EnglishESPAN 3.67 3.58 9 SpanishLART 3.63 3.67 4 Language ArtsNTSC 3.50 3.64 12 Science (Field endorsement)PHSC 3.67 3.78 1 PhysicsSPEN ( 3.44 3.54 1 English and Speech ( old program)SPM7 3.29 3.68 37 Elementary & Special Education K-6SPM8 3.65 3.47 4 Special Education 7-12SSCI 3.40 3.49 27 Social Science Education 7-12

2015-16AEDU 3.45000 3.43140 10 Agriculture EducationCYEC 3.77413 3.62275 24 Inclusive Early Childhood EducationCYFC 3.64486 3.60000 7 Family & Consumer Science, 6-12ECED 3.58122 9 Elementary Education & Early Childhood EducationELAT 3.80000 3.68300 1 English/language ArtsELED 3.36632 3.54869 103 Elementary EducationENGL 3.66375 3.65475 12 EnglishERSS 3.13100 3.09600 1 Earth and space ScienceMATH 3.25427 3.48267 15 MathMUED 3.57743 3.54290 21 Music EducationNTSC 3.13850 3.40900 4 Science (formerly natural science)(old endorsement)SCIE 3.38650 3.52800 2 Science (new science endorsement)SENG 4.00000 3.99000 1 Secondary English????SPAN 3.77157 3.61343 7 SpanishSPM7 3.63335 37 Elementary and Special Education, K-6

SPM8 3.87173 3.75764 11 Special Education, 7-12SSCI 3.56767 3.59950 12 Social Science

Table 2APraxis II – September 2014 – August 2015

Pass Rate Based on Nebraska Cut Score

Praxis II – September 2014 – August 2015Pass Rate Based on Nebraska Cut Score

Endrsmnt Test # Cut Score

UN-L N

UN-L # Passing

UN-L # Failing

UN-L %age Pass

UN-L Mean

State N

State %age Pass

StateMean

National N National

%ageNational Mean

Curr Sup. NonePrincipal 5411 145 1 1 0 100 123 93.5 163.85 2778 83.59 164.95Supt 6021 152 1 1 0 100 163 26 96.15 167.23 637 96.39 168.15Unified 5024 160 17 16 1 94.2 174.47 101 77.23 168.15 1917 78.87 167.57Agric Ed 5701 147 19 18 1 94.74 166.53 20 95 166.65 436 95.64 167.52BMIT 5101 154 8 8 0 100 174.25 36 100 174.64 1848 89.72 170.45ELED 5017 153 151 142 9 94.04 170.66 803 90.78 167.94 4491 91.27 168.74FACS 5122 153 12 7 5 58.33 158.42 17 58.82 160.00 630 77.46 160.21ITE NoneMath 5161 146 30 26 4 86.67 163.87 101 77.23 158.12 8090 65.7 153.20Music 5114 152 20 20 0 100 173.90 61 88.52 164.28 1178 85.48 164.50Science 5435 148 12 12 0 100 176.25 53 94.34 173.00 3091 81.11 163.75Biology 5235 148 3 3 0 100 160.67 21 80.95 159.62 3910 83.43 162.16Chemistry 5245 140 1 1 0 100 176.00 7 100 161.57 1582 84.39 159.79Earth & 5571 147 2 2 0 100 162.00 3 67 157 816 84.44 164.48

Space ScPhysics 5265 131 1 1 0 100 169 6 83.33 147.50 951 80.34 150.34LA & Sec. English

5039 168 22 18 4 81.82 175.86 109 76.15 173.33 2831 75.27 173.28

Soc. Sci. 5081 154 27 23 4 85.19 168 88 77.27 165.02 6037 79.41 165.57SPED 5354 151 42 42 0 100 175.40 239 98.33 172.08 5825 95.91 171.85SPED HH 5272 160 10 10 0 100 173.9 11 100 173.45 125 70.40 163.72ECSE 5691 159 1 1 0 100 191 1 100 191 761 91.33 173.71

SPED V I 5282 163 1 1 0 100 167 1 100 167 169 73.96 167.24

SLPA 5331 162 13 11 2 84.62 173 35 91.43 174.51 8384 92.20 176.41

French 5174 162 1 1 0 100 168 5 80 175.20 482 69.92 169.59German 5183 163 1 1 0 100 183 2 100 182 122 70.49 170.50

Latin 5601 155 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 84.62 175.30Russian NoneSpanish 5195 156 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 178School Counslr

5421 156 0 0 0 0 0 31 96.76 169.97 3196 90.18 168.57

School Psychlgst

5402 147 7 7 0 100 175.29 23 100 170.83 2633 97.27 169.02

TOTAL 403 373 30 92.56%

Table 2B

Praxis II – September 2015 – August 2016

Pass Rate Based on Nebraska Cut ScoreEndrsmnt Test # Cut

ScoreUN-L N

UN-L # Passing

UN-L # Failing

UN-L %age Pass

UN-L Mean

State N

State %age Pass

StateMean

National N National

%ageNational Mean

Curr Sup. NonePrincipal 5411 145 21 20 1 95.24 171.33 286 98.25 166.33 3070 94.40 164.17Supt 6021 152 3 3 0 100.00 171.67 27 100 169.59 658 94.68 168.32Unified 5024 160 27 26 1 96.30 173.93 110 84.55 167.56 2450 79.63 167.25Agric Ed 5701 147 5 5 0 100.00 170.00 7 100.00 167.29 398 96.98 168.69BMIT 5101 154 6 5 1 83.33 172.33 35 97.14 174.31 1821 88.69 169.89ELED 5017 153 197 190 7 96.45 171.98 849 94.35 168.85 4996 92.77 169.15FACS 5122 153 20 19 1 95.00 165.65 31 96.77 164.48 1049 80.46 160.84ITE NoneMath 5161 146 25 22 3 88.00 166.32 102 86.27 159.63 7961 66.66 153.77Music 5114 152 27 26 1 96.30 175.41 92 92.39 167.29 1191 85.14 164.58Science 5435 148 15 15 0 100.00 175.87 53 98.11 175.34 2848 81.85 164.12Biology 5235 148 13 12 1 92.31 165.23 31 93.55 164.65 3556 85.18 163.10Chemistry 5245 140 3 2 1 66.67 159.67 6 83.33 165.33 1545 84.53 158.76Earth & Space Sc

5571 147 3 2 1 66.67 156 4 75.00 156.00 721 84.60 164.47

Physics 5265 131 2 2 0 100.00 167 9 100.00 165.11 844 81.52 150.77LA & Sec. English

5039 168 24 23 1 95.83 177.58 130 89.23 176.12 2943 76.79 173.51

Soc. Sci. 5081 154 18 18 0 100.00 170.06 90 90.00 169.38 5599 80.62 165.76SPED 5354 151 52 52 0 100.00 176.49 316 99.68 173.80 5977 96.29 171.97SPED HH 5272 160 2 2 0 100.00 176.00 7 100.00 170.14 136 88.97 168.82

ECSE 5691 159 7 7 0 100.00 184.29 8 100.00 182.85 816 93.01 173.88

SPED VI 5282 163 4 3 1 75.00 168.75 4 75.00 168.75 142 71.13 166.97

SLPA 5331 162 4 3 1 75.00 173.25 9 77.78 167.89 9013 93.38 176.21

French 5174 162 1 0 1 0 159.00 4 50.00 168.00 407 67.57 168.57German 5183 163 2 2 0 100.00 197.5 3 100.00 186.33 116 66.38 171.88

Latin 5601 155 - - - - - 2 100.00 174.5 52 84.62 176.02Russian NoneSpanish 5195 156 9 6 3 66.67 161.89 36 72.22 166 1842 73.13 167.22School Counselor

5421 156 2 2 0 100.00 177.00 66 96.97 171.39 3327 89.93 168.90

School Psychlgst

5402 147 11 11 0 100.00 178.00 38 100.00 170.66 2586 97.56 169.36

TOTAL 503 478 25 95.03%

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Subject Matter Knowledge for the 2014-2015 Academic Year for Teaching in General (Item 1).

Table 3A

Item 1: Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching in General 2014-2015

Subject Area ScoringYear # Item Endorsement Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Grand

Total2014- 2015

1 Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching in general. Demonstrates capacity to make content knowledge accessible to students.

Spanish (ESPAN) 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 7 87.50% 8

Early Childhood 0 0.0% 4 8.2% 45 91.8% 49


0 0% 0 0% 121

100% 121

Secondary Education

0 0% 9 7.5% 111

92.5% 120

Special Education

0 0% 5 10.2% 44 89.8% 49

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2015-2016 Academic Year on Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching (Item 3—Table 3B)—LIVETEXT version.

Table 3BItem 3: Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching in General

2015-2016Subject Area Scoring

Year # Item Endorsement Unacceptable Emergent Sufficient Advanced Grand Total

2015- 2016

3 Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching.

Subject matter Knowledge for Teaching. Make content knowledge accessible for students

Spanish 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 2

Early Childhood Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 13 38.24% 21 13.00% 34


0 0.00% 3 1.63% 71 38.59% 110 59.78% 184

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 4 4.60% 48 55.17% 35 40.23% 87

Special Education 0 0.00% 2 2.35% 29 34.12% 54 63.53% 85

Responses from First Year Administrator Survey: Preparation of Candidate to Teach Content Area.

Table 4Standards 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 – Content Knowledge

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total

4.1 --Theteacher understands thecentral concepts, tools of inquiry, and structuresof the discipline(s) s/he teaches.

2014-2015World Language-Spanish 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 40.00% 3 60.00% 5

Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0.00% 2 3.23% 22 35.48% 38 61.29% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 3 5.08% 17 28.81% 39 66.10% 59Special Education 1 5.88% 1 5.88% 6 35.29% 9 52.94% 17 Total 1 0.67% 7 4.70% 48 32.21% 93 62.42% 149

2015-2016 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent TotalWorld Language-Spanish

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 4

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 2 0.00% 2 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.89% 0.00% 27 50.94% 25 47.17% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 1 1.45% 25 36.23% 43 62.32% 69

Special Education 0.00% 2 10.00% 10 50.00% 8 40.00% 20 Total 1 0.68% 3 2.04% 65 44.22% 78 53.06% 147

4.2 Theteacher creates

2014-2015 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent TotalWorld Language- 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 40.00% 3 60.00% 5

learningexperiences that make these aspects of thediscipline accessible and meaningful for studentsto assure mastery of content.

Spanish

Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0.00% 4 6.45% 24 38.71% 34 54.84% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 3 5.08% 24 40.68% 32 54.24% 59Special Education 0.00% 3 17.65% 4 23.53% 10 58.82% 17 Total 0.00% 11 7.38% 55 36.91% 83 55.70% 149


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 4

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 2 0.00% 2 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.89% 3 5.66% 25 47.17% 24 45.28% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 3 4.35% 25 36.23% 41 59.42% 69

Special Education 0.00% 1 5.00% 10 50.00% 9 45.00% 20Total

4.3 Theteacher integrates NebraskaContent Standards and/or

2014-2015 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent TotalWorld Language-Spanish 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 60.00% 2 40.00% 5

Early Childhood 0.00% 7 11.29% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 7

professional standardswithin instruction.

Elementary 0.00% 0.00% 19 30.65% 36 58.06% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 6.25% 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 1 14.29% 24 40.68% 32 54.24% 59

Special Education 1 6.25% 12 8.11% 6 37.50% 8 50.00% 16 Total 1 0.68% 1 14.29% 52 35.14% 83 56.08% 148


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 4

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.00% 3 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.92% 0.00% 20 38.46% 31 59.62% 52Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 2 2.90% 20 28.99% 47 68.12% 69


Responses from First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Preparation to Teach Content Knowledge (Item 1) and Prepared to Teach Content Area (Item 2).

Table 5Item 1: Prepared to Teach Content Area

Year # Item Endorsement Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree Strongly Agree

Grand Total

2014 - 2015

1 I am well prepared to teach in my content area.

World Language (WLANG)

0 0.00%

0

0.00% 0 0.00% 3 60.00

% 2 40.00% 5


0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 9 75.0%

2 16.7% 12


0 0% 3 6.1% 3 6.1% 30 61.2%

13 26.5% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 1 2.0% 1 2.0% 33 67.3%

14 28.6% 49

Special Education

0 0% 2 9.5% 2 9.5% 11 52.4%

6 28.6% 21

2015 - 2016

1 I am well prepared to teach in my content area.


0 0.00% 0 0.00%

1 12.50% 2 25.00%

5 62.50%

8


0 0.00% 1 2.00%

2 4.00% 30 60.00%

17 34.00%

50

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 1 1.61%

4 6.45% 44 70.97%

13 20.97%

62

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00%

0 0.00% 15 68.18%

7 31.82%

22





Grand Total

2014 - 2 I am confident in World 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 40.00% 3 60.00% 5

2015 my level of subject matter knowledge.

language (WLANG)

. Early Childhood Education

0 0% 0 0% 3 25.0% 7 58.3% 2 16.7% 12


0 0% 3 6.1% 4 8.2% 26 53.1% 16 32.7% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 0 0% 2 4.1% 27 55.1% 20 40.8% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 3 14.3% 11 52.4% 7 33.3% 21

2015-2016

2 I am confident in my subject matter knowledge.

WLANG 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 33.33% 2 66.67% 3


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 4 50.00% 3 37.50% 8


0 0.00% 1 2.00% 3 6.00% 26 52.00% 20 40.00% 50

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 6 9.68% 31 50.00% 25 40.32% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 4.55% 14 63.64% 7 31.82% 22

Narrative:The GPA exceeds minimal requirements in all subject areas required for certification—both in endorsement areas and cumulative GPA at point of admission and program exit. In addition, summative evaluations of teacher candidates and administrator surveys reveal that teacher candidates know how to make content accessible and meaningful and integrate the state and professional standards into their curriculum. First year teacher surveys also demonstrate that respondents feel prepared to teach content. Results from Praxis II (2015-2016) indicate a need to improve content knowledge in the area of Spanish

(6 passed, 3 did not). In order to improve content knowledge, we are working closely with the Spanish section of the Department of Modern Languages and Literatures (DMLL) to address curricular issues aimed at enhancing language and cultural proficiency. In collaboration with the DMLL, we are establishing two programs (one in Ecuador and one in the Dominican Republic) focused on language and cultural immersion within a homestay context.

2. Content Area See Tables 1-6 from Content Area #1 above (first 8 tables in that section)

Table 7Responses from First Year Administrator Survey: Application of content

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total5.1 The teacher candidate understands how to connect concepts across disciplines


Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 3 42.86% 3 42.86% 7Elementary 1 1.61% 6 9.68% 27 43.55% 28 45.16% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 3 75.00% 0.00% 1 25.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 2 2.90% 20 28.99% 47 68.12% 69



0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 4


1 1.45% 9 13.04% 26 37.68% 33 47.83% 69


5.2 The teacher candidate uses differing perspectives to engage students in critical thinking, creativity, and collaborative problem solving related to authentic local and


Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 5 71.43% 2 28.57% 7Elementary 1 1.61% 7 11.29% 24 38.71% 30 48.39% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 7 11.67% 21 35.00% 32 53.33% 60Special Education 0.00% 4 23.53% 5 29.41% 8 47.06% 17 Total 1 0.67% 18 12.00% 57 38.00% 74 49.33% 150


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 4

global issuesEarly Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 2 0.00% 2 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.89% 4 7.55% 28 52.83% 20 37.74% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 9 13.04% 24 34.78% 36 52.17% 69


Responses From First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Teaching Subject Matter Materials in Ways Meaningful to Learners (Item 14).





Grand Total

2014 - 2015

14 I teach subject matter in ways that are meaningful to learners.


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 60.00% 2 40.00% 5


0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 7 58.3% 4 33.3% 12


0 0% 0 0% 3 6.1% 27 55.1% 18 36.7% 48

Secondary Education

0 0% 2 4.1% 5 10.2% 29 59.2% 13 26.5% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 2 9.5% 10 47.6% 9 42.9% 21

2015-2016

14 I teach subject matter in ways that are meaningful to learners.


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 50.00% 4 50.00% 8


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 6 12.00% 26 52.00% 18 36.00% 50

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 7 11.48% 40 65.57% 14 22.95% 61

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 9.09% 13 59.09% 7 31.82% 22

Narrative:According to data gleaned from the administrative survey and first year teacher follow-up survey (responses were “agreed” or “strongly agreed” in all categories), teacher candidates are well prepared to “connect concepts across disciplines,” “engage students in critical thinking,” and “teach their subject matter in ways that are meaningful for learners.” The surveys indicated that pedagogical content knowledge among Spanish education majors was an area of strength.

3. Learner/Learning Environments

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for the 2014-2015 Academic Year (Item 2—Table 9A).

Table 9AItem 2: Subject Planning for Learning


Year # Item Endorsement Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Grand Total

2014- 2015

2 Demonstrates capacity to create useable lesson and unit plans that are based upon knowledge of the discipline, students, and curricular goals

Spanish (ESPAN) 0 0.00% 3 37.50% 5 62.50% 8


1 2.1% 6 12.5% 41 85.4% 48


0 0% 5 4.0% 120 96.0% 54

Secondary Education

0 0% 21 17.5% 99 82.5% 120

Special Education 1 2.0% 7 14.0% 42 84.0% 50

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2015-2016 Academic Year on Planning for Learning (Item 4—Table 9B)—LIVETEXT Version.

Table 9BItem 4: Planning for Learning



2015- 2016

4 Planning for learning:Creates usable lessons and unit plans based on knowledge of the discipline, students, and curricular goals

Spanish 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 2


0 0.00% 1 2.94% 8 23.53% 25 73.53% 34


0 0.00% 2 1.08% 53 28.65% 130 70.27% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 2 2.27% 47 53.41% 39 44.32% 88


Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on Instructional Enactment (Item 3—Table 10A).

Table 10AItem 3: Instructional Enactment



2014- 2015

3 Demonstrates Capacity to implement, modify, and adapt plans that are responsive to students and curricular goals

Spanish (ESPAN)

0 0.00% 1 12.50% 7 87.50% 8


0 0% 5 10.2% 44 89.8% 49


0 0% 8 6.4% 117 93.6% 125

Secondary Education

1 0.8% 12 10.0% 107 89.2% 120

Special Education

1 2.0% 5 10.0% 44 88.0% 50

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2015-2016 Academic Year on Responsive Teaching (Item 5—Table 10B)—LIVETEXT version.

Table 10BItem 5: Responsive Teaching



2015 5 Responsive Spanish 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 2

- 2016

Teaching:Skillfully implements lessons that are flexible and intentional to meet individual student needs


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 9 26.47% 25 73.53% 34


0 0.00% 2 1.08% 58 31.35% 125 67.57% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 6 6.90% 38 43.68% 43 49.43% 87


Responses From First Year Administrator Survey: Items Related to Student Development, Learning Differences, and Learning Environments: Student Development (Standards 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3); Learning Differences (Standards 2.1 and 2.2); Learning Environments (Standards 3.1 and 3.2).

Table 11Standards 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3: Student Development


1.1 The teacher understands how students grow and develop.


Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 3 42.86% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0.00% 3 4.84% 26 41.94% 33 53.23% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 2 3.33% 26 43.33% 32 53.33% 60Special Education 0.00% 2 11.76% 3 17.65% 12 70.59% 17 Total 0.00% 7 4.67% 60 40.00% 83 55.33% 150


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 4


0.00% 2 2.90% 32 46.38% 35 50.72% 69


1.2 The teacher recognizes that patterns of learning and development vary individually within and across the cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and physical areas.




0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 4

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.00% 3 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.89% 4 7.55% 20 37.74% 28 52.83% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject 1 1.45% 3 4.35% 31 44.93% 34 49.28% 69

Area) EndorsementsSpecial Education 0.00% 1 5.26% 7 36.84% 11 57.89% 19 Total 2 1.37% 8 5.48% 60 41.10% 76 52.05% 146

1.3 The teacher implements developmentally appropriate and challenging learning experiences.



2015-2016 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Total


0.00% 5 7.25% 25 36.23% 39 56.52% 69


Table 12Standards 2.1 and 2.2: Learning Differences

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total2.1 The teacher understands individual differences and diverse cultures and communities


Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 4 57.14% 42.86% 7Elementary 0.00% 4 6.45% 27 43.55% 4 50.00% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 2 50.00% 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 6 10.17% 18 30.51% 6 59.32% 59Special Education 0.00% 0.00% 6 35.29% 64.71% 17 Total 0.00% 10 6.71% 57 38.26% 10 55.03% 149


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 4


0.00% 7 10.14% 25 36.23% 37 53.62% 69


2.2 The teacher ensures inclusive learning environments that enable each student to meet high demands


Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 1 14.29% 5 71.43% 7Elementary 0.00% 3 4.84% 23 37.10% 36 58.06% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 0.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 3 5.08% 24 40.68% 32 54.24% 59Special Education 1 5.88% 2 11.76% 4 23.53% 10 58.82% 17 Total 1 0.67% 10 6.71% 52 34.90% 86 57.72% 149


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 4

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 2 0.00% 2 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.89% 6 11.32% 19 35.85% 27 50.94% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject 0.00% 5 7.25% 26 37.68% 38 55.07% 69


Table 13Standards 3.1 and 3.2: Learning Environments

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total3.1 The teacher works with others to create environments that support individual and collaborative learning.


Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 1 14.29% 5 71.43% 7Elementary 0.00% 2 3.28% 21 34.43% 38 62.30% 61Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 1 25.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 5 8.62% 15 25.86% 38 65.52% 58Special Education 0.00% 2 11.76% 3 17.65% 12 70.59% 17 Total 0.00% 11 7.48% 41 27.89% 95 64.63% 147


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 75.00% 4

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.00% 3 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.89% 6 11.32% 18 33.96% 28 52.83% 53

Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 6 8.82% 21 30.88% 41 60.29% 68


3.2 The teacher creates environments that encourage positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation.


Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 1 1.61% 2 3.23% 20 32.26% 39 62.90% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 3 5.17% 16 27.59% 39 67.24% 58Special Education 0.00% 1 5.88% 5 29.41% 11 64.71% 17 Total 1 0.68% 7 4.73% 45 30.41% 95 64.19% 148


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 75.00% 4


0.00% 8 11.76% 19 27.94% 41 60.29% 68


3.3 The teacher manages student behavior to promote a positive learning environment.


Early Childhood 0 0.00% 1 14.29% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0 0.00% 3 4.84% 22 35.48% 37 59.68% 62Middle Grades 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0 0.00% 7 12.07% 23 39.66% 28 48.28% 58Special Education 0 0.00% 2 11.76% 5 29.41% 10 58.82% 17Total 0 0.00% 13 8.78% 54 36.49% 81 54.73% 148


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 75.00% 4

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 0.00% 4Elementary 2 3.77% 8 15.09% 20 37.74% 23 43.40% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 13 19.12% 25 36.76% 30 44.12% 68

Special Education 0.00% 3 15.00% 5 25.00% 12 60.00% 20

Total 2 1.37% 24 16.44% 51 34.93% 69 47.26% 146

Responses from First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Student Learning: Understands How Learners Learn (Item 3), and Adapts to Developmental Strategies of Learners (Item 4).

Table 14Item 3: Understands How Learners Learn




Grand Total

2014 - 2015

3 I positively impact the learning and development of all students.


0 0.00%

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

4

80.00%

1

20.00%

5


0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 7 58.3% 5 41.7% 12


0 0% 1 2.0% 0 0% 22 44.9% 26 53.1% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 0 0% 3 6.1% 26 53.1% 19 38.8% 48

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 10 47.6% 11 52.4% 21

2015-2016

3 I positively impact the learning and development of all students.

WLANG 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 66.67% 1 33.33% 3


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 25.00% 6 75.00% 8


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 10.00% 21 42.00% 24 48.00% 50

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 10 16.13% 33 53.23% 19 30.65% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 4.55% 11 50.00% 10 45.45% 22

Table 15Item 4: Adapts to Developmental Strategies of Learners




Grand Total

2014 - 2015

4 I adapt to different developmental stages of learners.


00.00% 0

0.00%

2

40.00%

2 40.00%

1 20.00%

5


0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 8 66.7%

3 25.0% 12


0 0% 0 0% 4 8.2% 22

44.9%

23 46.9% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 0 0% 9 18.4% 29

59.2%

11 22.4% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 2 9.5% 10

47.6%

9 42.9% 21

2015-2016

4 I adapt to different developmental stages of learners

WLANG 0 0.00%

0 0.00%

1 33.33% 1 33.33%

1 33.33%

3


0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00% 3 37.50%

5 62.50%

8


0 0.00%

0 0.00%

8 16.00% 20

40.00%

22 44.00%

50

Secondary Education

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

17

27.87% 31

50.82%

13 21.31%

61

Special Education

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

1 4.55% 10

45.45%

11 50.00%

22

Narrative:Responses on the summative evaluation of planning for learning indicate that our Spanish teacher candidates (100%) were exceptionally well prepared to create lesson plans in their discipline. In addition, first year teacher surveys indicate they felt confident implementing, modifying, and adapting plans to meet the needs of their diverse students as they grow and develop. All respondents indicated a full understanding of cognitive, emotional, and social development of their learners as well as in creating developmentally appropriate learning experiences. In addition, they indicate the ability to create a learner-centered environment that exhibits high expectations and that supports individual and collaborative learning that is highly motivating and engaging. Respondents also indicated that they are able to manage student behavior and promote a positive learning environment thereby impacting the learning and development of all students. In sum, candidates indicated competence in all areas of instructional and curricular planning.

4. Instructional Practices—Candidate Knowledge and Skills

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on Planning for Learning, Instructional Enactment (Item 2—Table 16A)

Table 16AItem 2: Subject Planning for Learning



2014- 2015


Spanish (ESPAN) 0 0.00% 3 37.50% 5 62.50% 8


1 2.1% 6 12.5% 41 85.4% 48


0 0% 5 4.0% 120 96.0% 125

Secondary Education

0 0% 21 17.5% 99 82.5% 120


Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for 2015-2016 Academic Year on Planning for Learning (Item 4—Table 16B)—LIVETEXT version.

Table 16BItem 4: Planning for Learning



2015- 2016

4 Planning for learning:Creates usable lessons and unit plans based on knowledge of the discipline,

Spanish 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 2

students, and curricular goals


0 0.00% 1 2.94% 8 23.53% 25 73.53% 34


0 0.00% 2 1.08% 53 28.65% 130 70.27% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 2 2.27% 47 53.41% 39 44.32% 88


Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on the Learning Environment (Item 3).




2014- 2015


Spanish (ESPAN) 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 7 87.50% 8


0 0% 5 10.2% 44 89.8% 49


0 0% 8 6.4% 117 93.6% 125

Secondary Education

1 0.8% 12 10.0% 107 89.2% 120


Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for the 2015-2016 Academic Year on Responsive Teaching (Item 5—Table 17B)—LIVETEXT version.




2015- 2016

5 Responsive Teaching:

Skillfully implements lessons that are flexible and intentional to meet individual student needs

Spanish 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 9 26.47% 25 73.53% 34


0 0.00% 2 1.08% 58 31.35% 125 67.57% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 6 6.90% 38 43.68% 43 49.43% 87


Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on the Learning Environment (Item 6—Table 18A).

Table 18AItem 6: Learning Environment

2014-15

Subject Area Scoring


2014- 2015

6 Learning Environment. Demonstrates capacity to create classroom communities that invite students’ engagement and learning, encourages positive social interaction and self-motivation.

Spanish (ESPAN) 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 7 87.50% 8


0 0% 1 2.0% 48 98.0% 49


0 0% 9 7.2% 116 92.8% 125

Secondary Education

0 0.0% 12 10.0% 108 90.0% 120

Special Education 0 0% 5 10.0% 45 90.0% 50

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for the 2015-2016 Academic Year on Learning Culture (Item 10—Table 18B)—LIVETEXT version.

Table 18B -- Item 10: Learning Culture2015-16

Subject Area ScoringYear # Item Endorsement Unacceptable Emergent Sufficient Advanced Grand

Total2015- 2016

10

Learning Culture:Creates classroom communities that invite student engagement and learning and encourage positive social interactions.

Spanish 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 2


0 0.00% 1 2.94% 11 32.35% 22 64.71% 34


0 0.00% 1 0.55% 51 28.18% 129 71.27% 181

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 39 45.35% 47 54.65% 86


Responses From First Year Administrator Survey: Items related to Planning for Instruction (Standards 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3) and Instructional Strategies (Standards 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3)

Table 19Standards 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3: Planning for Instruction

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total7.1 The teacher plans instruction that supports every student in meeting rigorous learning goals.




0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 4

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.00% 3 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.89% 4 7.55% 24 45.28% 24 45.28% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject 0.00% 5 7.25% 33 47.83% 31 44.93% 69


7.2 The teacher candidate draws upon knowledge of content areas, curriculum, cross-disciplinary skills, technology, and pedagogy.


Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 3 42.86% 3 42.86% 7Elementary 0.00% 5 8.06% 23 37.10% 34 54.84% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 1 25.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 4 6.78% 23 38.98% 32 54.24% 59Special Education 1 5.88% 3 17.65% 4 23.53% 9 52.94% 17 Total 1 0.67% 14 9.40% 54 36.24% 80 53.69% 149


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 4


0.00% 6 8.70% 29 42.03% 34 49.28%


7.3 The teacher draws upon knowledge of students and the community context.


Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 4 57.14% 3 42.86% 7Elementary 0.00% 4 6.45% 23 37.10% 35 56.45% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 1 25.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 1 1.69% 4 6.78% 24 40.68% 30 50.85% 59Special Education 1 5.88% 4 23.53% 3 17.65% 9 52.94% 17 Total 2 1.34% 13 8.72% 55 36.91% 79 53.02% 149


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 4


0.00% 8 11.59% 26 37.68% 35 50.72% 69


Table 20

Standard 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3: Instructional Strategies

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total8.1 The teacher understands a variety of instructional strategies.




0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 4


0.00% 5 7.35% 27 39.71% 36 52.94% 68


8.2 The teacher 2014-2015 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Total

uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage students to develop deep understanding of content areas and their connection and to build skills to apply knowledge in meaningful ways.

World Language-Spanish 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 40.00% 3 60.00% 5

Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0.00% 7 11.29% 24 38.71% 31 50.00% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 0.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 7 11.67% 23 38.33% 30 50.00% 60Special Education 1 5.88% 2 11.76% 5 29.41% 9 52.94% 17 Total 1 0.67% 18 12.00% 54 36.00% 77 51.33% 150


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 4


0.00% 8 11.76% 25 36.76% 35 51.47% 68


8.3 The teacher utilizes available technology for instruction and


Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 5 71.43% 2 28.57% 7

assessment. Elementary 0.00% 4 6.45% 23 37.10% 35 56.45% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 3 75.00% 1 25.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 1 1.67% 4 6.67% 17 28.33% 38 63.33% 60Special Education 0.00% 4 23.53% 6 35.29% 7 41.18% 17 Total 1 0.67% 12 8.00% 54 36.00% 83 55.33% 150


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 4


0.00% 8 11.94% 24 35.82% 35 52.24% 67


Responses From First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Creating Effective Instructional Plans (Item 7), Working Effectively as Part of an Instructional Planning Team (Item 8), Classroom Management (Item 9), Instruction Requires Problem Solving or Critical Thinking Skills (Item 16), Instruction is Adapted to the Needs of Learners with Special Needs (Item 17), and Use of Multiple Methods to Teach (Item 20).

Table 21Item 7: Create Effective Instructional Plans

Year # Item Endorsement Strongly

DisagreeDisagree Neither Agree

nor DisagreeAgree Strongly

AgreeGrand Total

2014 - 2015

7 I create effective instructional plans.


0 0.00%

0

0.00%

1

20.00%

3

60.00%

1

20.00%

5


0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 8 66.7% 4 33.3% 12


0 0% 0 0% 3 6.1% 26

53.1% 20 40.8% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 1 2.1% 4 8.3% 27

56.3% 16 33.3% 48

Special Education

0 0% 1 4.8% 1 4.8% 13

61.9% 6 28.6% 21

2015-2016

7 I create effective new lesson plans

WLANG 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 66.67% 1 33.33% 3


0 0.00% 0 0.00%

1 12.50% 3 37.50% 4 50.00% 8


0 0.00% 1 2.00%

7 14.00% 28

56.00% 14 28.00% 50

Secondary Education

1 1.61% 2 3.23%

6 9.68% 37

59.68% 16 25.81% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 2 9.09%

3 13.64% 12

54.55% 5 22.73% 22

Table 22

Item 8: Work Effectively as a Part of an Instructional Team




Grand Total

2014 - 2015

8 I work effectively as part of an instructional planning team.


0 0.00%

0

0.00%

2

40.00%

1

20.00%

2

40.00%

5


0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 4 33.3% 7 58.3% 12


0 0% 2 4.1% 3 6.1% 20 40.8% 24 49.0% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 1 2.0% 10 20.4% 23 46.9% 15 30.6% 49

Special Education

0 0% 1 4.8% 1 4.8% 9 42.9% 10 47.6% 21

2015-2016

8 I work effectively as part of an instructional team

WLANG 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 100.00% 3


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 2 25.00% 5 62.50% 8


0 0.00% 3 6.00% 2 4.00% 23 46.00% 22 44.00% 50

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 1 1.61% 9 14.52% 27 43.55% 25 40.32% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 4.55% 4 18.18% 9 40.91% 8 36.36% 22

Table 23Item 9: Manages Classroom Management

Year # Item Endorsement Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Agree Strongly Grand

Disagree nor Disagree Agree Total2014 - 2015

9 I apply effective methods to manage the classroom environment.

World Language (WLANG) 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 40.00% 3 60.00% 0 0.00% 5


0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 6 50.0% 5 41.7% 12


0 0% 1 2.0% 4 8.2% 21 42.9% 23 46.9% 49

Secondary Education

1 2.0% 3 6.1% 11 22.4% 20 40.8% 14 28.6% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 1 4.8% 7 33.3% 13 61.9% 21

2015-2016

9 I apply effective methods to manage the classroom

WLANG 0 0.00% 1 33.33% 0 0.00% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 3

environment


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 3 37.50% 4 50.00% 8


1 2.00% 1 2.00% 8 16.00% 21 42.00% 19 38.00% 50

Secondary Education

1 1.61% 8 12.90% 15 24.19% 28 45.16% 10 16.13% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 4.55% 3 13.64% 8 36.36% 10 45.45% 22

Table 24Item 16: Instruction Requires Student Problem Solving and/or Critical Thinking Skills




Grand Total

2014 - 1 My instruction World 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 20.00% 4 80.00% 5

2015 6 requires student problem solving and/or critical thinking skills.

Language (WLANG)


0 0% 0 0% 2 16.7% 6 50.0% 4 33.3% 12


0 0% 0 0% 6 12.2% 27

55.1% 16 32.7% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 3 6.1% 8 16.3% 23

46.9% 15 30.6% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 4 19.0% 11

52.4% 6 28.6% 21

2015-2016

16

My instruction requires student problem solving and/or critical

WLANG 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 3

thinking skills


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 62.50% 3 37.50% 8


0 0.00% 1 2.00% 5 10.00% 30

60.00% 14 28.00% 50

Secondary Education

1 1.61% 1 1.61% 8 12.90% 31

50.00% 21 33.87% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 9.09% 14

63.64% 6 27.27% 22

Table 25Item 17: Adapt Instruction to Meet Needs of Learners With Special Needs




Grand Total

2014 - 17 I adapt my World 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 40.00% 1 20.00% 2 40.00% 5

2015 instruction to the needs of learners with special needs.

Language (WLANG)


0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 6 50.0% 5 41.7% 12


0 0% 1 2.0% 6 12.2% 22 44.9% 20 40.8% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 2 4.1% 3 6.1% 26 53.1% 18 36.7% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 8 38.1% 13 61.9% 21

2015-2016

17 I adapt my instruction to the needs of learners with special needs.

WLANG 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 3


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 3 37.50% 4 50.00% 8


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 8 16.00% 23 46.00% 19 38.00% 50

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 1 1.61% 9 14.52% 39 62.90% 13 20.97% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 4.55% 1 4.55% 9 40.91% 11 50.00% 22

Table 26Item 20: Use Multiple Methods to Teach




Grand Total

2014 - 2015

20 I use multiple methods to teach.


0 0.00% 0 0.00%

0

0.00%

3

60.00%

2

40.00%

5


0 0% 0 0% 3 25.0% 2 16.7% 7 58.3% 12


0 0% 0 0% 6 12.2% 21 42.9% 22 44.9% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 0 0% 2 4.1% 27 55.1% 2 40.8% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 4 19.0% 11 52.4% 6 28.6% 21

2015-2016

20 I use multiple methods to teach

WLANG 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 33.33% 0 0.00% 2 66.67% 3


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 37.50% 5 62.50% 8


0 0.00% 1 2.00% 4 8.00% 25 50.00% 20 40.00% 50

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 1 1.61% 4 6.45% 36 58.06% 21 33.87% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 4.55% 1 4.55% 9 40.91% 11 50.00% 22

Narrative:Teacher candidate summative evaluations indicated that the teacher candidates know how to create usable lesson plans and adapt them as needed to meet individual needs. In addition, teacher candidates were strongly prepared in creating instruction aimed at problem solving and critical thinking. On the first year teacher surveys, students felt especially prepared to support their students’ learning as well as draw on their knowledge of content areas, technology, cross-disciplinary skills, and community context to best serve their students. Students also indicated that they excelled at working as part of an instructional team. Two areas on the survey in which a few candidates indicated they neither agreed nor disagreed included classroom management and working with students with special needs. We will integrate additional resources and readings as well as classroom experience in these two areas in order to address

these perceived gaps. At present, we spend a semester focused on classroom management while students are participating in their practicum (e.g., 452R) in order to combine theory and practice, but typically this is an area that comes with additional practice, experimentation, and reflection over time.

5. Instructional Practices—Assessment that Demonstrates Effects or Impact on P-12 Student Learning

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on Planning for Learning (Item 2—Table 27A).

Table 27AItem 5: Planning for Learning



2014- 2015


Spanish (ESPAN) 0 0.00% 3 37.50% 5 62.50% 8


1 2.1% 6 12.5% 41 85.4% 48


0 0% 5 4.0% 120 96.0% 54

Secondary Education

0 0% 21 17.5% 99 82.5% 120


Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for 2015-2016 Academic Year on Planning for Learning (Item 4—Table 27B)—LIVETEXT version.

Table 27B Item 4: Planning for Learning



2015- 2016

4 Planning for learning:Creates usable lessons and unit plans based on knowledge of the discipline, students, and curricular goals

Spanish 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 2


0 0.00% 1 2.94% 8 23.53% 25 73.53% 34


0 0.00% 2 1.08% 53 28.65% 130 70.27% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 2 2.27% 47 53.41% 39 44.32% 88


Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on Instructional Enactment (Item 3—Table 28A).




2014- 2015


Spanish (ESPAN) 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 7 87.50% 8


0 0% 5 10.2% 44 89.8% 49


0 0% 8 6.4% 117 93.6% 125

Secondary Education

1 0.8% 12 10.0% 107 89.2% 120


Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for 2015-2016 Academic Year on Responsive Teaching (Item 5—Table 28B)—LIVETEXT version.




2015- 2016

5 Responsive Teaching:

Skillfully implements lessons that are flexible and intentional to

Spanish 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 2

meet individual student needs


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 9 26.47% 25 73.53% 34


0 0.00% 2 1.08% 58 31.35% 125 67.57% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 6 6.90% 38 43.68% 43 49.43% 87


Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on Classroom Interaction With Students (Item 5—Table 29A).

Table 29A

Item 5: Classroom Interaction With Students2014-15

Subject Area Scoring


2014- 2015

5 Demonstrate a capacity to interact with learers in supportive and cobstructive ways.

Spanish (ESPAN) 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 7 87.50% 8


0 0% 1 2.0% 48 98.0% 49


0 0% 2 1.6% 123 98.4% 125

Secondary Education

0 0% 8 6.7% 112 93.3% 120


Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for the 2015-2016 Academic Year on Relationships with Students (Item 7—Table 29B)—LIVETEXT version.

Table 29BItem 7: Relationships With Students



2015- 2016

7 Relationships with Students:Develops and Maintains rapport with individual and groups of students

Spanish 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 11.76% 30 88.24% 34


0 0.00% 1 0.54% 27 14.59% 157 84.86% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 4 4.55% 25 28.41% 59 67.05% 88


Responses from First Year Administrator Survey on Assessment (Items 6.1 and 6.2)

Table 30Standard 6.1 and 6.2: Assessment

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total6.1 The teacher understands multiple methods of assessment


Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 4 57.14% 3 42.86% 7Elementary 0.00% 5 8.06% 26 41.94% 31 50.00% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 0.00% 3 75.00% 4

Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 1 1.67% 8 13.33% 24 40.00% 27 45.00% 60Special Education 1 5.88% 2 11.76% 5 29.41% 9 52.94% 17 Total 2 1.33% 16 10.67% 59 39.33% 73 48.67% 150


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 4


0.00% 7 10.29% 29 42.65% 32 47.06% 68


6.2 The teacher uses multiple methods of assessment to engage students in their own growth, to monitor student


Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 4 57.14% 3 42.86% 7Elementary 0.00% 4 6.45% 27 43.55% 31 50.00% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 1 25.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 1 1.67% 8 13.33% 30 50.00% 21 35.00% 60Special Education 1 5.88% 3 17.65% 5 29.41% 8 47.06% 17

progress, and to guide the teacher candidate’s and student’s decision making.

Total 2 1.33% 16 10.67% 67 44.67% 65 43.33% 150


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 4


0.00% 8 11.76% 24 35.29% 36 52.94% 68


Responses from First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Assessment: Create Effective Assessments to Measure Learning (Item 10).

Table 31 Standard 10: Creates Effective Assessments to Measure Learning




Grand Total

2014 - 2015

10

I create effective assessments to measure learning.


0

0.00%

0

0.00%

1

20.00%

4

80.00%

0

0.00%

5


1 8.3% 2 16.7% 2 16.7% 5 41.7% 2 16.7% 12


0 0% 3 6.1% 4 8.2% 33 67.3% 9 18.4% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 1 2.0% 8 16.3% 33 67.3% 7 14.3% 49

Special Education

0 0% 4 19.0% 2 9.5% 11 52.4% 4 19.0% 21

2015-2016

10

I create effective assessments to measure learning

WLANG 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 66.67% 1 33.33% 3


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 50.00% 4 50.00% 8


0 0.00% 2 4.08% 5 10.20% 29 59.18% 13 26.53% 49

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 2 3.23% 10 16.13% 37 59.68% 13 20.97% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 9.09% 15 68.18% 5 22.73% 22

Narrative:Results from the teacher candidate summative evaluation indicate that candidates in secondary Spanish education are well prepared to assume a teaching position as all responses indicate sufficient or advanced mastery of instructional practices. Specifically, candidates excelled in their ability to demonstrate effective assessments of student learning, create usable lesson plans, utilize multiple methods to engage, and build and maintain rapport with learners. The first year administrator survey also indicated that teacher candidates understood multiple methods of assessment and could create assessments that measured learning.

6. Professional Responsibility

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on Collaborative Relationships (Item 12—Table 32A).

Table 32AItem 12: Collaborative Relationships and Professional Conduct



2014- 2015

12

Collaborative Relations and Professional Conduct. Demonstrates a capacity to work with other practitioners to improve teaching for the benefit of students’ learning.

Spanish (ESPAN) 0 0.00% 2 25.00% 6 75.00% 8


0 0% 2 4.1% 47 95.9% 49


0 0% 8 6.4% 117 93.6% 125

Secondary Education

0 0% 13 10.8% 107 89.2% 120


Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for 2015-2016 Academic Year on Collaborative Relations and Professional Conduct (Item 13—Table 32B)—LIVETEXT version.

Table 32BItem 13: Collaborative Relations and Professional Conduct


Year # Item Endorsement Unacceptable Emergent Sufficient Advanced Grand

Total2015- 2016

13

Collaborative Relations and Professional Conduct:Uses effective communication and consultation techniques with other professionals and families for the benefit of student learning

Spanish 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 13 38.24% 21 61.76% 34


0 0.00% 1 0.54% 66 35.68% 118 63.78% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 2 2.30% 56 64.37% 29 33.33% 87


Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation Relationships for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on Reflection and Professional Growth (Item 14—Table 33A).

Table 33AItem 14: Reflection and Professional Growth



2014- 2015

14

Reflection and Professional Growth. Demonstrates capacity to continually evaluate how choices and actions affect

Spanish (ESPAN) 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 7 87.50% 8

students and others in the learning community and actively seeks opportunities to grow professionally.


0 0% 3 6.1% 46 93.9% 49


0 0% 9 7.2% 116 92.8% 125

Secondary Education

0 0% 9 7.5% 111 92.5% 120


Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2015-2016 Academic Year—Reflective Practices and Professional Growth (Item 14—Table 33B)—LIVETEXT version.

Table 33BItem 14: Reflective Practices and Professional Growth



2015- 2016

14

Reflective Practices and Professional Growth:Continually evaluates how choices and actions affects students and others in the learning community, makes necessary adjustments and actively seeks opportunities to grow professionally

Spanish 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 16 47.06% 18 52.94% 34


1 0.54% 1 0.54% 66 35.68% 117 63.24% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 5 6.25% 47 58.75% 28 35.00% 80


Responses From First Year Administrator Survey: Items Related to Professional Learning and Ethical Practice (Standards 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, and 9.4) and Leadership and Collaboration (Standards 10.1 and 10.2)

Table 34Standards 9.1, 9.2, 9.3 and 9.4: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total9.1 The teacher engages in ongoing professional learning.


Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 3 42.86% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0.00% 9 14.52% 12 19.35% 41 66.13% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 0.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 2 3.33% 18 30.00% 40 66.67% 60Special Education 1 5.88% 2 11.76% 3 17.65% 11 64.71% 17 Total 1 0.67% 14 9.33% 36 24.00% 99 66.00% 150


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 4

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 2 0.00% 2 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.89% 4 7.55% 12 22.64% 36 67.92% 53

Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 2 2.90% 25 36.23% 42 60.87% 69


9.2 The teacher models ethical professional practice.


Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 2 28.57% 5 71.43% 7Elementary 0.00% 4 6.45% 10 16.13% 48 77.42% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 2 3.33% 14 23.33% 44 73.33% 60Special Education 0.00% 1 5.88% 4 23.53% 12 70.59% 17 Total 0.00% 7 4.67% 31 20.67% 112 74.67% 150


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 4

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.89% 0.00% 14 26.42% 38 71.70% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Special Education 0.00% 1 5.00% 5 25.00% 14 70.00% 20Content (Subject Area)

0.00% 1 1.45% 8 11.59% 60 86.96% 69

Endorsements Total 1 0.68% 2 1.36% 28 19.05% 116 78.91% 147

9.3 The teacher uses evidence to continually evaluate his/her practice, particularly the effects of his/her choices and actions on others (students, families, other professionals, and the community), and adapts practice to meet the needs of each student.


Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 3 42.86% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 1 1.61% 0.00% 28 45.16% 33 53.23% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 1 25.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 1 1.67% 26 43.33% 33 55.00% 60Special Education 0.00% 3 17.65% 4 23.53% 10 58.82% 17 Total 1 0.67% 5 3.33% 62 41.33% 82 54.67% 150


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 4

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.00% 3 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.89% 3 5.66% 19 35.85% 30 56.60% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 4 5.80% 27 39.13% 38 55.07% 69


9.4 The teacher 2014-2015 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Total

models professional dispositions for teaching.


Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 2 28.57% 5 71.43% 7Elementary 1 1.61% 2 3.23% 15 24.19% 44 70.97% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 4 6.78% 15 25.42% 40 67.80% 59Special Education 0.00% 2 11.76% 4 23.53% 11 64.71% 17 Total 1 0.67% 8 5.37% 38 25.50% 102 68.46% 149


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 4

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.89% 2 3.77% 18 33.96% 32 60.38% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 1 1.45% 14 20.29% 54 78.26% 69


Table 35Standards 10.1 and 10.2: Leadership and Collaboration



Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 3 42.86% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0.00% 5 8.06% 19 30.65% 38 61.29% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 33.33% 0.00% 2 66.67% 3Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 4 6.78% 17 28.81% 38 64.41% 59Special Education 0.00% 3 17.65% 5 29.41% 9 52.94% 17 Total 0.00% 13 8.78% 44 29.73% 91 61.49% 148


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 4


0.00% 1 1.45% 25 36.23% 43 62.32% 69


10.2 The teacher seeks opportunities,


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 80.00% 1 20.00% 5

including appropriate technology, to collaborate with students, families, colleagues, and other school professionals, and community members to ensure student growth

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 4 57.14% 3 42.86% 7Elementary 0.00% 3 4.92% 25 40.98% 33 54.10% 61Middle Grades 0.00% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 3Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 1 1.72% 2 3.45% 23 39.66% 32 55.17% 58Special Education 0.00% 3 17.65% 5 29.41% 9 52.94% 17 Total 1 0.68% 9 6.16% 58 39.73% 78 53.42% 146


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 4


0.00% 4 5.80% 22 31.88% 43 62.32% 69


Responses From First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Professional Responsibility: Works Effectively With Parents (Item 12) and Takes Advantage of Opportunities to Grow Professionally (Item 15).

Table 36Item 12: Works Effectively with Parents




Grand Total

2014 - 2015

12 I work effectively with parents

World Language (WLANG) 0

0.00%

0

0.00%

2

40.00%

0

0.00%

3

60.00%

5


0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 8 66.7% 3 25.0% 12


0 0% 0 0% 2 4.1% 24

49.0% 23 46.9% 49

Secondary Education

1 2.0% 3 6.1% 9 18.4% 15

30.6% 21 42.6% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 11

52.4% 10 47.6% 21

2015-2016

12 I work effectively with parents

WLANG 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 33.33% 0 0.00% 2 66.67% 3


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 50.00% 4 50.00% 8


0 0.00% 2 4.00% 6 12.00% 30

60.00% 12 24.00% 50

Secondary Education

1 1.64% 2 3.28% 15 24.59% 33

54.10% 10 16.39% 61

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 9.09% 15

68.18% 5 22.73% 22

Table 37

Item 15: Takes Advantage of Opportunities to Grow Professionally




Grand Total

2014 - 2015

15 I take advantage of opportunities to grow professionally.


0 0.00% 0 0.00%

0

0.00%

2

40.00%

3

60.00%

5


0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 5 41.7% 6 50.0% 12


0 0% 0 0% 2 4.1% 21 42.9% 26 53.1% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 0 0% 2 4.1% 21 42.9% 26 53.1% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 2 9.5% 8 38.1% 11 52.4% 21

2015-2016

15 I take advantage of opportunities to grow professionally

WLANG 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 3


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 3 37.50%

4 50.00% 8


0 0.00% 1 2.00% 1 2.00% 30 60.00%

18 36.00% 50

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 7 11.29% 32 51.61%

23 37.10% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 4.55% 14 63.64%

7 31.82% 22

Narrative:Results from the summative evaluation of Spanish education teacher candidates and administrator survey indicated that they successfully work with other practitioners, families, and community in order to gain

feedback to improve their teaching practices and grow professionally. Candidates also demonstrated professional dispositions for teaching, conducted ongoing evaluation of their own teaching practices, and sought opportunities to integrate technology and collaborate with other professionals and community members. Additionally, candidates demonstrated ability to work effectively with parents and take some advantage of opportunities to grow professionally. At present, teacher candidates at UNL attend and participate in conferences of professional organizations at the state and regional levels (e.g., Nebraska International Language Association, Central States). It is clear from the first year survey responses that additional attention needs to be given to participation in professional development opportunities. Hence, we will continue to work actively with local and state school districts to offer professional opportunities aimed at increasing language and cultural proficiency among practicing teachers (e.g., Comprehensible Input Conference).

7. Overall Proficiency

Response to Administrative Survey: Items on Impact of Student Learning and Development (Standard 11.1)

Table 38 Standard 11.1: Impact of Student Learning and Development

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total11.1 The teacher

2014-2015World Language- 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 60.00% 2 40.00% 5

positively impacts the learning and development for all students

Spanish



0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 4


0.00% 2 2.90% 19 27.54% 48 69.57% 69


Responses from First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Overall Proficiency: I Am an Excellent Teacher (Item 23).

Table 39Item 23: I Am an Excellent Teacher




Grand Total

2014 - 2015

23 I am an excellent teacher.

World Language (WLANG) 0

0.00%

0

0.00%

1

20.00%

4

80.00%

0

0.00%

5


0 0% 0 0% 2 16.7% 8 66.7% 2 16.7% 12


1 2.0% 2 4.1% 11 22.4% 27

55.1% 8 16.3% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 3 6.1% 9 18.4% 28

57.1% 9 18.4% 49

Special Education

0 0% 2 9.5% 5 23.8% 11

52.4% 3 14.3% 21

2015-2016

23 I am an excellent teacher

WLANG 0 0.00% 1 33.33%

0 0.00% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 3


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 2 25.00% 5 62.50% 8


0 0.00% 3 6.00% 7 14.00% 29

58.00% 11 22.00% 50

Secondary Education

1 1.61% 4 6.45% 19 30.65% 35

56.45% 3 4.84% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 2 9.09% 4 18.18% 9 40.91% 7 31.82% 22

Narrative:

Respondents indicated in the first year candidate survey that they are able to positively impact the learning and development of their students and that they are excellent teachers. However, one teacher respondent indicated he/she did not regard him/herself as an excellent teacher. This may be due in part to the way that he/she perceives the path to becoming an excellent teacher as a process that requires more experience, reflection, and knowledge. Therefore, this response may not be an indication that he/she is not an excellent teacher but rather that the respondent views excellent teaching as something novice teachers should aim for or work toward over time.

SECTION 3: USE OF RELATED DATA AND INFORMATION FOR CONTINUOUS PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT OF ENDORSEMENT PROGRAM – Artifact 3

Summary NarrativeThe indicators from teacher candidates (on the first year surveys), their field supervisors, and school administrators clearly demonstrate that teacher candidates in Spanish are well prepared to teach Spanish. The vast majority of responses are consistently in the “agree” and “strongly agree” categories. Below is a summary of results for each competency.

1. Content Knowledge The GPA exceeds minimal requirements in all subject areas required for certification—both in endorsement areas and cumulative GPA at point of admission and program exit. In addition, summative evaluations of teacher candidates and administrator surveys show that teacher candidates know how to make content accessible and meaningful and integrate the state and professional standards into their curriculum. First year teacher surveys also demonstrate that respondents feel prepared to teach content. Results from Praxis II (2015-2016) indicate a possible need to improve content knowledge in the area of Spanish (6 passed, 3 did not). In order to improve content knowledge, we are establishing two programs (one in Ecuador and one in the

Dominican Republic) focused on language and cultural immersion within a homestay context. We are working closely with the Spanish section of the Department of Modern Languages and Literatures to address curricular issues in the program aimed at enhancing language and cultural proficiency.

2. Content Area (Pedagogy) According to data gleaned from the administrative survey and first year teacher follow up survey (responses were “agreed” or “strongly agreed” in all categories), teacher candidates are well prepared to “connect concepts across disciplines,” “engage students in critical thinking,” and “teach their subject matter in ways that are meaningful for learners.” The surveys indicated that pedagogical content knowledge among Spanish education majors was an area of strength.

3. Learner/Learning Environments Responses on the summative evaluation of planning for learning indicate that our Spanish teacher candidates (100%) were exceptionally well prepared to create lesson plans in their discipline. In addition, first year teacher surveys indicate they felt confident implementing, modifying, and adapting plans to meet the needs of their diverse students as they grow and develop. All respondents indicated a full understanding of cognitive, emotional, and social development of their learners as well as in creating developmentally appropriate learning experiences. In addition, they indicate the ability to create a learner-centered environment that exhibits high expectations and that supports individual and collaborative learning that is highly motivating and engaging. Respondents also indicated that they are able to manage student behavior and promote a positive learning environment, thereby impacting the learning and development of all students. In sum, candidates indicated competence in all areas of instructional and curricular planning.

4. Instructional Practices –Candidate Knowledge and Skills

Teacher candidate summative evaluations indicated that the teacher candidates know how to create usable lesson plans and adapt them as needed to meet individual needs. In addition, teacher candidates were strongly prepared in creating instruction aimed at problem solving and critical thinking. According to the first year teacher surveys, students felt especially prepared to support their students’ learning as well as draw on their knowledge of content areas, technology, cross-disciplinary skills, and community context to best serve their students. Students also indicated that they excelled at working as part of an instructional team. Two areas on the survey in which a few candidates indicated they neither agreed nor disagreed included classroom management and working with students with special needs. We will integrate additional resources and readings as well as classroom experience in these two areas in order to address these perceived gaps. At present, we spend a semester focused on classroom management while students are participating in their practicum (e.g., 452R) in order to combine theory and practice, but typically this is an area that comes with additional practice, experimentation, and reflection over time.

5. Instructional Practices—Assessment that Demonstrates Effects or Impact on P-12 Student Learning

Results from the teacher candidate summative evaluation indicate that candidates in secondary Spanish education are well prepared to assume a teaching position as all responses indicate sufficient or advanced mastery of instructional practices. Specifically, candidates excelled in their ability to demonstrate effective assessments of student learning, create usable lesson plans, utilize multiple methods to engage, and build and maintain rapport with learners. The first year administrator survey also indicated that teacher candidates understood multiple methods of assessment and could create assessments that measured learning.

6. Professional Responsibility Results from the summative evaluation of Spanish education teacher candidates and administrator survey indicated that they successfully work with other practitioners, families, and community in order to gain feedback to improve their teaching practices and grow professionally. Candidates also demonstrated professional dispositions for teaching, conducted ongoing evaluation of their own

teaching practices, and sought opportunities to integrate technology and collaborate with other professionals and community members. Additionally, candidates demonstrated ability to work effectively with parents and take some advantage of opportunities to grow professionally. At present, teacher candidates at UNL attend and participate in professional conferences at the state and regional levels (e.g., Nebraska International Language Association, Central States). It is clear from the first year survey responses that additional attention needs to be given to participation in professional development opportunities. Hence, we will continue to work actively with local and state school districts to offer professional opportunities aimed at increasing language and cultural proficiency among practicing teachers (e.g., Comprehensible Input Conference).

7. Overall Proficiency Respondents indicated in the first year candidate survey that they are able to positively impact the learning and development of their students and that they are excellent teachers. However, one teacher respondent indicated he/she did not regard him/herself as an excellent teacher. This may be due in part to the way that he/she perceives the path to becoming an excellent teacher as a process that requires more experience, reflection, and knowledge. Therefore, this response may not be an indication that he/she is not an excellent teacher but rather that the respondent views excellent teaching as something novice teachers should aim for, or work toward over time.

Program Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths

Students feel extremely well prepared in world language pedagogy as demonstrated by their responses and the responses of others (e.g., supervisors and administrators). Particular areas of strength include instructional planning, assessment practices, building rapport with students, working with diverse learners, critical thinking, working as part of a team, integration of technology, and use of varied instructional strategies. Faculty in world language education are active scholars and award winning

teachers who are actively engaged in professional organizations locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally. Their areas of research are focused on research-informed practices including assessment, technology, heritage learners, diversity, intercultural competence, and communication. In addition, UNL has a strong graduate program in world language, which has been nationally recognized. One indicator of the impact of our undergraduate program is the number of students who return to continue their professional development at the graduate level. These students take classes together with our undergraduate world language students thereby providing leadership and enriching the learning environment for our undergraduates.

Weaknesses and Plans to Address Weaknesses

Although data indicate we have a strong program that excels in preparing teacher candidates to teach Spanish, we have identified several areas we believe could be improved and/or further developed in the future.

First, to address the need to improve content knowledge as seen in results from the Praxis II, we are actively working with the Department of Modern Languages and Literature to develop study abroad programs and make curricular changes to optimize their linguistic and cultural proficiency to improve their performance on this exam. Ultimately, we hope to use the gold standard in language proficiency, namely the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) and Written Proficiency Test (WPT) instead of the Praxis II. The ACTFL exams are validated assessment tools used globally that allow for assessment of the three modes of communication (Interpretive, Interpersonal, and Presentational), which the Praxis does not. In addition, we have also instituted benchmarks within their pre-service program, which indicate at various points in the program growth over time in preparing them professionally. Finally, we have given additional attention in our methods classes to provide students with the preparation materials they need to prepare for these exams, particularly in terms of format and content of the exam.

A second area we believe could receive attention is that of the number of applicants in our program. Data in this review indicate fewer applicants in our teacher education programs in the last 3 years. We believe this reflects a national trend; however, we will continue to actively recruit potential teachers. This decrease in applicants may also be due to initial implementation of the state certification exam (e.g.,

Praxis II), and overall negative representation of teaching and teachers on the national media. We also would like to diversify our teaching force and we hope that our new dual language endorsement program will attract heritage learners of Spanish to our pre-service teacher program.

Finally, like most teacher education programs, our data indicate a continued need to focus on preparing teachers to work with students with special needs and how to differentiate instruction as well as classroom management issues. One activity we have included in our second semester methods class (which is dedicated to classroom management issues) is a simulation activity in which students act as students with behavior issues that the teacher candidates have selected based on their own experiences and questions. One student acts as the teacher and must demonstrate ways to manage these situations (ranging from a student sleeping in class to students doing all the talking to disruptive behavior). After this activity, students reflect on “student” behaviors and how the “teacher” handled them, drawing on what they have read in course readings or discussions. Students found this activity helpful in targeting specific behaviors and learning different ways to deal with them. As a result, we will continue to implement this activity and others that help students with whatever issues they find most frequently in their practicum classrooms. In addition, we will continue to develop curriculum that targets classroom management as well as working with students with special needs, and in particular, students living in poverty.

In sum, because we are active researchers, we continually seek to improve the content and delivery of our courses that lead to certification. Therefore, we will actively seek to update and incorporate new knowledge and cutting edge research and technology into our coursework.

college of education and human sciences - at the … folio... · web viewreport to the nebraska...

Documents