eastern kentucky university edu curi ug elementary … · eastern kentucky university edu curi ug...

Unit Assessment Report - Four Column

Eastern Kentucky UniversityEDU CURI UG Elementary Education (P-5)

Objectives Means of Assessment & Criteria / Tasks Results/Observations Use of Result & Follow-UpEDU CURI UG Elementary Education (P-5) -1. a. State Licensure - Teacher candidatesknow the content that they plan to teach andcan explain important principles andconcepts delineated in professional, state,and institutional standards.Objective Types (Control-click to selectmultiple):06-10 PlanInitialStudent Learning Objectives

Objective Status:Active

Assessment Method:Evaluation of content area Praxis subscores.KY requires the PRAXIS Elementary ContentKnowledge Test for all candidates seekinginitial certification for Ekekmentary (P-5).The pass rate is also used to assess teacherpreparation programs. The minimumpassing score is 163.

Criterion:At least 80% pass rate is required.Who will use the data (How and When)?:Elementary Education faculty and TeacherEducation Administrative staff reviewPRAXIS scores annually to ensure that theprogram requirements are effectivelypreparing candidates.

Related Documents:Title II Report

03/23/2010 - Students' PRAXIS scores arereported annually by the KY EPSB. The latestreport summarizes the PRAXIS ElementaryContent Knowledge Test scores from the 2008-2009 academic year, September 1 2008 - Aug 31,2009. These scores are reflected in the followingdata:

Type of AssessmentNumber taking assessmentNumber passing assessmentInstitutional PassRateElementary Education Content Knowledge21420897%

Pass rates are established by the KY EPSB. Theinstitutional pass rate must be 80% or higher.EKU meets this requirement. Candidates who donot pass may retake the test. If a candidateretakes the test during the same testing cycle, thatscore will be included in the annual pass rate aswell as the original score. This indicates that sixtest scores were below the pass score. Overall,Eastern Kentucky University's students are clearlysuccessful on this national measure of teacherreadiness.Result/Observation Type: StrengthResult Status:Result Open-Further action needednotes:EKU requires that candidates take thePRAXIS exams prior to graduation, butcandidates are NOT required to passPRAXIS to graduate. The passing score isrequired for teacher certification.

09/30/2010 - Annually, facultyreview PRAXIS test scores andpass rates to determine needealignments to programs and coursesyllabi. In 2009, Curriculum andAssessment facultyreviewed theelementary content test results bycontent area and by emphasis area.Based on these disaggregatedscores, the Elementary Educationprogram was revised. This newprogram ensures that all majors haea common multidisciplinary programthat is carefully aligned to theelementary P-5 curriculum. Inaddition, the requirements for mathcontent were raised to include MAT107, college algebra as well as MAT201, 202, and a new course, MAE301. This new program went intoeffect for newly enrolled candidatesfall 2010.

10/9/10 3:10 PM Generated by TracDat a product of Nuventive. of 27

http://tracdatvm.eku.edu:8081/tracdat/viewDocument?y=gcRYX4OaLRdq

Objectives Means of Assessment & Criteria / Tasks Results/Observations Use of Result & Follow-Up

Related Documents:Title II AggregateNCATEKA1PRAXIS_ele_emg.docx

EDU CURI UG Elementary Education (P-5) -2. a. Content Assessments - ContentKnowledge - Teacher candidates know thecontent that they plan to teach and canexplain important principles and conceptsdelineated in professional, state, andinstitutional standards.Objective Types (Control-click to selectmultiple):06-10 PlanInitialStudent Learning Objectives


Assessment Method:Average GPA by program emphasis.Assessment Method Category:Program Area GPACriterion:Average GPA of 3.0 with no individualsbelow 2.75.

09/30/2010 - Students' GPAs at each of the threeGates (for the 2008-2009 academic year) areindicated below:ProgramGATE 1 Average GPAGATE 2 AverageGPAGATE 3 Average GPAElementary Grades3.233.273.27 The data indicate that students as a group aremeeting the 2.75 GPA requirement and areexceeding it as they move through the program.The programs? successes indicate that studentsare developing content knowledge. The TeacherEducation Program and the University willcontinue to support this component of teacherpreparation through alignment (and realignment)of program requirements and course syllabi to theKentucky core Academic standards.

Result/Observation Type: StrengthResult Status:Result Open-Further action needednotes:The GPA requirement is set and approvedby the College of Education, TeacherEducation Program and Eastern KentuckyUniversity. Upon admission to the TeacherEducation Program and throughout theremainder of their course work, studentsmust maintain a 2.75. If a candidate fails tomeet this standard, s/he must either repeatcoursework or take additional coursework toraise the GPA or be removed from theprogram. For GPA averages, data werecollected and averaged from elementarygrades and middle grades candidates atGates 1, 2, and 3 during the

09/30/2010 - Faculty and TeacherEducation Serives administrativestaff review GPA data for allprograms annually. Sine the GPArequirement was raise in 2007, westill have some candidates who donot have to meet that requirement.Faculty observe that candidates withGPA's below 2.75 are less likely topass the PRAXIS exams. Facultywill continue to monitor GPAs ofcanidates and the relatioshipsamong these and other measures ofcandidate success. 0 edit | addFollow-Up


http://tracdatvm.eku.edu:8081/tracdat/viewDocument?y=CBBcXoZK56Fl

http://tracdatvm.eku.edu:8081/tracdat/viewDocument?y=2CNgClAWdj9v


2008-2009. The minimum GPA requirementwas approved for candidates who selectedTeacher Education as their major fall 2007or later. The data include candidates whobegan their programs prior to thisrequirement and were only required to earna 2.5 overall GPA.

Related Documents:NCATEKA2aGPA_ele_emg.docx

Assessment Method:Content knowledge exemplars evaluatedduring presentation portfolio review atTransition Point 2 - Admission to StudentTeaching.Assessment Method Category:Portfolio ReviewCriterion:Average score of 2.5 on range of 0-4. Noindividual lower than 2.0

07/23/2010 - The data show that most of ourstudents have good content knowledge in math,science, social studies, and language arts. Out of58 students in the Richmond and Corbinelementary methods courses, 57 studentsreceived a score of 4 (exemplary); one studentreceived a score of 3 (satisfactory). All 58 studentsscored satisfactory or above in the area of contentknowledge.Result/Observation Type: StrengthResult Status:Result Open-Further action needednotes:Student content knowledge is assessed oneach subject matter's KTIP lesson plan.Students submit this plan to each subject'smethods instructor following implementationand assessment of the plan in the fieldplacement. Content knowledge is evaluatedbased on the understanding of the contentas demonstrated by the lesson plan.

Related Documents:NCATEKA3_summaryreport_ContentKnowledge

07/23/2010 - The elementarymethods instructors do not believethat our assessment of contentknowledge is adequate. While ourstudents show evidence of havingcontent knowledge in all thesubjects, the instructors do not feelthat looking at one lesson plan ineach subject is a good measure ofcontent knowledge. We believe thatthe Praxis test results are a bettermeasure of content knowledge.Therefore, we will no longermeasure content knowledge on theKTIP lesson plan. We will begintracking Praxis test results.

Assessment Method:Content knowledge exemplars evaluatedduring presentation portfolio review atTransition Point 3 - Exit from StudentTeaching.


http://tracdatvm.eku.edu:8081/tracdat/viewDocument?y=zfGQ64GEtMnM

http://tracdatvm.eku.edu:8081/tracdat/viewDocument?y=fa7iP7PmhyZV

http://tracdatvm.eku.edu:8081/tracdat/viewDocument?y=fa7iP7PmhyZV

Objectives Means of Assessment & Criteria / Tasks Results/Observations Use of Result & Follow-UpAssessment Method Category:Portfolio ReviewCriterion:Average score of 3.25 on range of 0-4. Noindividual lower than3.0

EDU CURI UG Elementary Education (P-5) -2. b. Content Assessments - Pedagogicalcontent knowledge and integration oftechnology - Teacher candidates understandthe relationship of technology and content-specific pedagogy delineated in professional,state, and institutional standards. Theyfacilitate student learning of the contentthrough presentation of the content in clearand meaningful ways and through theintegration of technology.Objective Types (Control-click to selectmultiple):06-10 PlanInitialStudent Learning Objectives


Assessment Method:Praxis PLT scores. (Data should include cutscores and test numbers)Assessment Method Category:State Licensure ExamCriterion:80% pass rate

09/30/2010 - PRAXIS scores are reportedannually by the KY EPSB and represent oneacademic year.EKU's institutional pass rate for the PRAXIS PLT(K-6), September 1, 2008- August 31, 2009 isreported below:PRINCIPLES LEARNING & TEACHING K-6Assessment Code Number 522Number Taking Assessment 230Number Passing Assessment 224Institutional Pass Rate 97%Result/Observation Type: StrengthResult Status:Result Open-Further action needednotes:Candidates must take the required PRAXISexams in order to graduate. They mustpass to earn teacher certification.Candidates that do not pass must retake theexam. All scores that any individual earnsare included in the score report, regardlessof the number of repeated attempts.

Related Documents:NCATEKA1PRAXIS_ele_emg.docx

09/30/2010 - Elementary Programfaculty review the PRAXIS PLTscores annually. A faculty learningcommunity is currently developing aPRAXIS PLT Notebook guide forteaching candidates to assist themwith organization of coursematerials for preparation for theexam.

Assessment Method:Technology Competence from portfolioreview. Score on Standard 6 at PortfolioReview for Transition into Teacher EdProgram-Gate 1 in EDF 203 or EDF 310.Assessment Method Category:Technology CompetenceCriterion:90% of candidates will score 3.0 or higher

09/02/2010 - Objective not met. Gate 1 PortfolioReview does not include a measure for Standard6, TechnologyResult/Observation Type:LimitationResult Status:Result Closed-No further action needednotes:

09/02/2010 - How Data ProvideEvidence for Meeting StandardsResults show that universitysupervisors, cooperating teachers,and professors agree that theoverwhelming majority of ourelementary and middle schoolcandidates meet the three sub-


http://tracdatvm.eku.edu:8081/tracdat/viewDocument?y=ENeRYv5ALX22


on Standard 6.Who will use the data (How and When)?:Faculty will review the data annually.

Input by June Hyndman, September 2, 2010

standards assessed within theTechnology Standard.Summary of FindingsResults will be more valid beginningin January 2011. EKU facultymembers have successfully becomecomfortable assessing candidatesthrough TaskStream. In fall of 2010,the members of the TechnologyPLC will look at editing theevaluation process for technology.Improvement can be made by:(1) Developing two technologycommon assessments forelementary and two commonassessments for middle school to berepresented in the two areas ofStandard Six, Technology.(2) Developing more specificcriteria.(3) Evaluating all candidates acrossall majors consistently, even with alarge number of evaluators.(4)Middle school professors havedeveloped an assessment oftechnology during Gate 2. Otherprofessors may be encouraged todevelop similar measures so thatdata show growth from Gate 2 toGate 3.

05/15/2010 - Candidates? projects were scoredaccording to the following criteria: 1. A homepage, a letter of presentation or videointroduction, and the portfolio-at-a-glance arepresent and professional.2. A resume is presented along with a writtenreflection and the Inclusion of appropriatestandards

08/11/2010 - EDF 203 faculty willevaluate the performance of ourteacher candidates against thisstandard annually, or morefrequently if indicated.



3. An essay on diversity is presented along with awritten reflection and the Inclusion of appropriatestandards4. A philosophy of teaching is presented alongwith a written reflection and the Inclusion ofappropriate standards5. The Mentoring Project is presented along with awritten reflection and the Inclusion of appropriatestandards

On Criterion 1: 92% of the candidates scoredeither a 3 or 4. Only 1% scored a one. The overallaverage was 3.67 for the group. This criterionassessed whether the candidates had created ahomepage and included a professional letter ofpresentation or a video introduction as well astheir Portfolio-At-A-Glance spreadsheet thatserves as tracking device that demonstratesbalanced learning across all standards.

On Criterion 2: 98% of the candidates scoredeither a 3 or 4. 1% scored a one. The overallaverage was 3.77 for the group which is thestrongest criterion measured. This criterionassessed whether the candidates had created aresume that is presented along with a writtenreflection and the inclusion of appropriatestandards.

On Criterion 3: 98% of the candidates scoredeither a 3 or 4. 1% scored a one. The overallaverage was 3.76 for the group. This criterionassessed whether the candidates had written adiversity essay that is presented along with awritten reflection and the inclusion of appropriatestandards.

On Criterion 4: 97% of the candidates scoredeither a 3 or 4. 0% scored a one. The overallaverage was 3.77 for the group. This criterionassessed whether the candidates had written aphilosophy of teaching that is presented along witha written reflection and the Inclusion of

08/11/2010 - Since the facultyelected to improve our program byswitching to a key assessment inEDF 203, the information producedin the current report from May 2010will serve as baseline data for on-going program evaluations whichwill occur annually, and morefrequently if needed.



appropriate standards.

On Criterion 5: 96% of the candidates scoredeither a 3 or 4. 1% scored a one. The overallaverage was 3.63 which is the weakest criterionfor the group. This criterion assessed whether thecandidates had completed a 15-hour MentoringProject that is presented along with a writtenreflection and the inclusion of appropriatestandards.

Result/Observation Type: StrengthResult Status:Result Closed-No further action needednotes:Prior to spring 2010, EDF 203 instructorshad identified a 15-hour field experiencecalled the Mentoring Project as its CommonAssessment. There was no EDF 203project used as a Key Assessment. In May2010, faculty changed to a new KeyAssessment - the TaskStream ePortfolio,which includes data from the MentoringProject along with several other activities.Formerly, portfolios were scored outside ofTaskStream using a 48 point rubric.

During the 2009-2010 academic year, theportfolio rubric was improved and reducedto 20 points. Instructors began to evaluatecandidates? initial portfolios in TaskStreamto allow for timely evaluation and better datacollection.

During the year, 172 candidates submittedtheir initial portfolios to TaskStream forevaluation under the new 20 point rubric.This represents candidate data from acombination of the fall and spring semesterswhich will form a baseline for future datacollection.



Of those 172 candidates, 4 were DHHcandidates, 14 were LBD candidates, 80were elementary candidates, 20 weremiddle grades candidates, and 54 weresecondary candidates. The secondarycandidates represented the fields ofbusiness and marketing, career/tech, health,art, biology, chemistry, English, family andconsumer science, history, math, andmusic.

Assessment Method:Technology Competence from portfolioreview. Score on Standard 6 at PortfolioReview for Transition into Student Teaching-Gate 2 in methods block.Assessment Method Category:Technology CompetenceCriterion:90% of candidates will score 3.0 or higher onStandard 6.

09/02/2010 - Gate Two Candidate Data (1)Plansto Use Technology to Support Student ContentLearning. Of 12 assessments, 1 scored 3 of 4 and11 scored 4 of 4. (2)Plans to Integrate StudentUse of Technology into Instruction to EnhanceContent. Of 12 assessments, 2 scored 3 of 4 and10 scored 4 of 4. (3) Portfolio Review 2/Standard 6(Technology). Of 34 assessments, 3 scored 3 of 4and 31 scored 4 of 4. (4) Gate 3 Candidate Data.Ninety-six elementary and 25 middle schoolcandidates are in progress or completed asshown. (5) Demonstrates Effective Use ofTechnology for Productivity. 102 candidatesscored 4 of 4 possible points. Three candidates, 2elementary and 1 middle, scored 3 of 4 points. (6)Demonstrates Developmentally Appropriate,Ethical and Legal Uses of Technology. With theexception of 4 candidates, all candidates scored 4of 4 possible points. Two elementary candidatesscored 3 of 4 possible points and 2 middle.(7)Integrates Appropriate Student Uses ofTechnology to Enhance Instruction andAssessment. With the exception of 25 candidates,all candidates scored 4 out of 4 possible points. 22candidates score 3 of 4 possible points, 17elementary and 5 middle. Three candidatesscored 2 of 4 points, 1 elementary and 2 middle.How Data Provide Evidence for MeetingStandards Results show that universitysupervisors, cooperating teachers, and professorsagree that the overwhelming majority of our

09/02/2010 - How Data ProvideEvidence for Meeting StandardsResults show that universitysupervisors, cooperating teachers,and professors agree that theoverwhelming majority of ourelementary and middle schoolcandidates meet the three sub-standards assessed within theTechnology Standard.Summary of FindingsResults will be more valid beginningin January 2011. EKU facultymembers have successfully becomecomfortable assessing candidatesthrough TaskStream. In fall of 2010,the members of the TechnologyPLC will look at editing theevaluation process for technology.Improvement can be made by:(1) Developing two technologycommon assessments forelementary and two commonassessments for middle school to berepresented in the two areas ofStandard Six, Technology.(2) Developing more specificcriteria.(3) Evaluating all candidates acrossall majors consistently, even with a



middle school candidates meet the three sub-standards assessed within the TechnologyStandard.Result/Observation Type: StrengthResult Status:Result Closed-No further action needednotes:Input by June Hyndman, September 2, 2010

large number of evaluators.(4)Middle school professors havedeveloped an assessment oftechnology during Gate 2. Otherprofessors may be encouraged todevelop similar measures so thatdata show growth from Gate 2 toGate 3.

Assessment Method:Technology Competence from portfolioreview. Score on Standard 6 at PortfolioReview for Exit from Student Teaching-Gate3 in student teaching course ELE 499.Assessment Method Category:Technology CompetenceCriterion:90% of candidates will score 3.0 or higher onStandard 6

EDU CURI UG Elementary Education (P-5) -2. c. Content Assessments - Professionaland Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills -Teacher candidates can apply theprofessional and pedagogical knowledgeand skills delineated in professional, state,and institutional standards to facilitatelearning. These include: foundations ofeducation; ways children and adolescentsdevelop and the relationships to learning;professional ethics, laws, and policies; use ofresearch in teaching; roles andresponsibilities of the professionalcommunities; diversity of studentpopulations, families, and communities; andconsideration of school, family, andcommunity contexts and the priorObjective Types (Control-click to selectmultiple):

Assessment Method:Appreciation of Diversity. Candidatescomplete a "Diverse School ContextualAnalysis" task in ELE 490. The contextualanalysis is based upon candidates' fieldexperiences in a school with a diversestudent population. Candidates collect,summarize and analyze school assessmentdata and observe P-12 student behaviors.Each candidate completes a writtensummary analysis and reflection that isevaluated on a common scoring guideacross all programs. The section of thescoring rubric focusing on acceptance andappreciation of diversity will be used toanalyze appreciation of diversity.Assessment Method Category:DiversityCriterion:

05/21/2010 - The teacher education program hasestablished a standard that candidates will scorean average of 3.0 on this section of the rubric. Theresults indicate that 94% of the candidatesassessed met this standard by scoring above 3.0overall on the rubric and with the average score of3.7. The range of scores for this assessment was2.4 - 4.0. This indicates that overall students in theprogram are aware of issues related to diversityand are able to analyze performance data anddetermine implications and recommendations forimproving performance for diverse students.

Result/Observation Type: StrengthResult Status:Result Open-Further action needed

Related Documents:

05/21/2010 - This academic yearwas the first time this assessmenthas been completed and it was alsothe first year utilizing task stream.Even so, the results areencouraging. Faculty feel that theassignment meets the goals ofproviding field experience in adiverse setting as well as engagingthe candidates in critical thinking.However, it is noted that the rubric isnot providing the informationneeded, therefore it isrecommended that the rubric berevised.

Faculty met in April to revise therubric to reflect the information



06-10 PlanCritical Thinking Learning ObjectiveInitialStudent Learning Objectives

Start Date:08/17/2009End Date:07/30/2010Objective Status:Active

Candidates will receive an average score of3.0 or higher on this section of the scoringrubric.

DSCA ELE 490 spring 2010Results.xls.xlsx

needed. Utilization of the new rubricwill begin in the summer of 2010and data collection will begin at thistime.

Assessment Method:Critical Thinking Skills. Candidates completea "Diverse School Contextual Analysis" taskin ELE 490. The contextual analysis isbased upon candidates' field experiences ina school with a diverse student population.Candidates collect, summarize and analyzeschool assessment data and observe P-12student behaviors. Each candidatecompletes a written summary analysis andreflection that is evaluated on a commonscoring guide across all programs. Thesection of the scoring rubric focusing oncritical thinking skills (analysis, synthesis,and evaluation) will be used to analyzecritical thinking skills.Assessment Method Category:Program Area Class ProjectCriterion:Candidates will receive an average score of3.0 or higher on this section of the scoringrubric.Who will use the data (How and When)?:Faculty will review results annually.

Assessment Method:Teacher candidate score on dispositionsassessment instrument items # 2. PositiveAttitude and # 5. Appreciation and Value forDiversity.Assessment Method Category:DiversityCriterion:Average score of 2.5 or higher at transitionpoint 1 and average 3.5 or higher attransition points 2 and 3. No one student


http://tracdatvm.eku.edu:8081/tracdat/viewDocument?y=HWA1J8H5zKom

http://tracdatvm.eku.edu:8081/tracdat/viewDocument?y=HWA1J8H5zKom


will earn less than 2.

Assessment Method:Evaluation of teaching episode in methodsfield experiences. Scored with a commonrubric.Assessment Method Category:Field Experience (student teaching andpracticum)

Assessment Method:Objectives:1. Develop a personal belief statement ofteaching and learning, 2.Develop anunderstanding of how a personal beliefstatement of teaching and learning affectsfuture teaching and, 3.Make connectionsbetween personal beliefs and class content.

Purpose:This activity is designed to help studentsthink and reflect about their personal beliefstatement of teaching and learning. Studentswill reflect on what the experiences are thataffect their beliefs and will be encouraged tomake connections between their own beliefsand research in educational psychology.

Assignment:Identify and articulate a personal theory oflearning and teaching.

Assessment Method Category:Program Area Class Project

EDU CURI UG Elementary Education (P-5) -3. Ability to Plan Instruction - Teachercandidates focus on student learning. Theyare able to develop and implementmeaningful learning experiences for studentsbased on their developmental

Assessment Method:Lesson plan designed using KTIP format.Scored with a common rubric.Assessment Method Category:Field Experience (student teaching andpracticum)

07/23/2010 - The data show that most of ourstudents in the ELE 446 Language Arts Methodscourse demonstrate their facility with planning,teaching, assessing, and reflecting on their owninstruction in the area of language arts. Out of 73

07/23/2010 - Analysis of the KTIPlesson plan data provided themethods instructors with feedbackon instruction in the skill of lessonplanning. The results showed that


Objectives Means of Assessment & Criteria / Tasks Results/Observations Use of Result & Follow-Uplevels and prior experience.Objective Types (Control-click to selectmultiple):06-10 PlanInitialStudent Learning Objectives


students in the Richmond and Corbin LanguageArts Methods course, 48 received a score of 4(exemplary); 23 received a score of 3(satisfactory); only two students received a scoreof 2 (making progress). Because 71 out of 73students ranked at satisfactory or above, we donot anticipate making any change to ourinstruction for lesson planning at this time.The data show that most of our students in ELE491 Mathematics Methods course demonstratetheir facility with planning, teaching, assessing andreflecting on their own instruction in the area ofmathematics. Out of 65 students in the Richmondand Corbin Mathematics Methods course, 39received a score of 4 (exemplary); 22 received ascore of 3 (satisfactory; three received a score of 2(making progress); only one student received ascore of 1 (beginning). Because 61 out of 65students ranked at satisfactory or above, we notanticipate making any changes to our instructionfor lesson planning.The data shows that most of our students in ELE492 Science Methods course demonstrate theirfacility with planning, teaching, assessing andreflection on their own instruction in the area ofscience. Out of 68 students in the Richmond andCorbin Science Methods course, 56 received ascore of 4 (exemplary); 10 received a score of 3(satisfactory); 2 received a score of 2 (makingprogress). Because 66 out of 68 students rankedat satisfactory or above, we do not anticipate anychanges to our instruction on lesson planning.The data show that most of our students in ELE493 Social Studies Methods course demonstratetheir facility with planning, teaching, assessing,and reflecting on their own instruction in the areaof social studies. Out of 72 students in theRichmond and Corbin Social Studies Methodscourse, 67 received a score of 4 (exemplary);three received a score of 3 (satisfactory); tworeceived a score of 2 (making progress). Because70 out of 72 of our students ranked at

lesson planning is a strength of ourstudents. Therefore, the methodsinstructors do not plan to changeour instruction in the area of lessonplanning.



satisfactory or above, we do not anticipate makingany changes to our instruction on lesson planning.

Result/Observation Type: StrengthResult Status:Result Open-Further action needednotes:The KTIP lesson plans in the language arts,mathematics, science, and social studiesmethods courses were examined forevidence of content knowledge andpedagogical content knowledge for eachpart of the learning cycle (planning,implementation, assessment, andreflection). Each methods instructorevaluated the lesson plan that was written intheir content area. The lesson plan wassubmitted on Taskstream and the evaluationof each plan is located there.

Related Documents:NCATEKA3_summaryreport_ELE44NCATEKA3_summaryreport_ELE49NCATEKA3_summaryreport_ELE49NCATEKA3_summaryreport_ELE49

Assessment Method:Student teachers develop a unit plan/teacher work sample to demonstrate theirability to assess and analyze P-12 studentlearning. One section of the scoring rubricfocuses on planning instruction.Assessment Method Category:Unit of StudyCriterion:Student teachers will receive an averagescore of 3.0 or higher on this section of thescoring rubric from their Universitysupervisor.

10/01/2010 - Results indicate that most studentteachers are producing KTIP Unit Work Samplesat the Competent to Exemplary level. Only twoelementary education candidates out of 83 earnedan average score below a 3, with 60 scoring 3.78or higher.Result/Observation Type: StrengthResult Status:Result Open-Further action needednotes:This task requires student teachers to planand implement a unit of study thenevaluation their students' performance andreflect on their teaching practices.

10/01/2010 - Results can be used toprovide feedback to the Office ofStudent Teaching and studentteaching supervisors as well as theelementary education progamfaculty in aligning course instruction,methods practicum and studentteaching supervision and mentoring.In addition, the Assistant Director forthe Student Teaching Programshould review the results forreliability of scoring and provide ongoing professional development forsupervisors and student teachers.


http://tracdatvm.eku.edu:8081/tracdat/viewDocument?y=j7tUC9UmMMgR

http://tracdatvm.eku.edu:8081/tracdat/viewDocument?y=cWqUvgboTVHk

http://tracdatvm.eku.edu:8081/tracdat/viewDocument?y=gzzkNRkVFsaQ

http://tracdatvm.eku.edu:8081/tracdat/viewDocument?y=RAmjJ2CQbiWC


Related Documents:NCATEKA3_Unit WorkSample_ele_emg_Gate3.docx

Assessment Method:Development of a Personal Learning TheoryCriterion:Candidates demonstrate knowledge ofstudent learning through developing aPersonl Learning Theory in EDF 319 HumanGrowth and Develpment. This assignmentrequires candidates to discuss variouslearning theories and explain how knowingthis information will benefit their futurestudents.

EDU CURI UG Elementary Education (P-5) -4. Clinical Practice - Candidatesdemonstrate mastery of content areas andpedagogical and professional knowledgebefore admission to and during clinicalpractice.Objective Types (Control-click to selectmultiple):06-10 PlanInitialStudent Learning Objectives


Assessment Method:Self-assessment based on the KentuckyTeacher Standards. Scored with commonrubric.Assessment Method Category:Candidate Self Assessment in StudentTeachingCriterion:At the end of student teaching, studentteachers will identify at least 80% of theitems as "demonstrates skills at times/needsmore practice or information" or"demonstrates skills consistently."

Assessment Method:The personal learning theory projectcompleted in EDF 319.Assessment Method Category:Program Area Class Project

09/30/2010 - Candidates demonstrate theirknowledge of best practices in teaching andlearning and analyze educational researchfindings through the development of The PersonalLeaning Theory key assessment. This activity isdesigned to help students think and reflect abouttheir personal belief statement of teaching andlearning. Students will reflect on the experiencesand theories that affect their beliefs and areencouraged to make connections between theirown beliefs and research in educational

10/01/2010 - The Personal LearningTheory is the key assessment thatmost candidates complete as asophomore. Candidates will haveother opportunities to be assessedthroughout the program beforegraduation. Overall we are verypleased with the scores candidatesreceive on this assessment.Consistent assessment is ongoing.The rubric currently used has been


http://tracdatvm.eku.edu:8081/tracdat/viewDocument?y=Cg74KwrANWym

http://tracdatvm.eku.edu:8081/tracdat/viewDocument?y=Cg74KwrANWym


psychology. Candidates identify and articulatetheir personal theory of learning and teaching.Task Objectives:1Develop a personal belief statement of teachingand learning2Demonstrate through writing an understanding ofhow a personal belief statement of teaching andlearning affects future teaching3Make connections between personal beliefs andclass content

All ELementary Education candidates had averagescores above 3.0 (Competent Level). The largestsamples analyzed were derived from ourElementary Education candidates (n=72). Theiraverage scores indicate these candidates meetthe criteria of the key assessment at either theCompetent or Exemplary Levels.Result/Observation Type: StrengthResult Status:Result Open-Further action needednotes:As with the other key assessments,candidates must successfully achieve anacceptable score in order to receive a C orhigher in the course.

Related Documents:NCATEKA4_PLT_all_programs.docx

revised to better reflect and assessthe candidates knowledge,pedagogical skills, and dispositions.

Assessment Method:Mid/Final Student teaching evaluations -Student TeachersAssessment Method Category:Field Experience (student teaching andpracticum)Criterion:Student teachers will receive an averagescore of 3.0 (competent) on their finalevaluations from their cooperating teachersand at least 85% of the standards marked as"competent" from their University


http://tracdatvm.eku.edu:8081/tracdat/viewDocument?y=x1kWYjy6sulK


supervisor on their observation forms.

EDU CURI UG Elementary Education (P-5) -5. a. Impact on P-12 student learning -Teacher candidates focus on studentlearning. Teacher candidates assess andanalyze student learning, make appropriateadjustments to instruction, andmonitor student progress. Areas of focusinclude ability to assess and analyze studentlearning; make appropriate adjustments toinstruction; monitor student learning; developand implement meaningful learningexperiences; help students learn; and createpositive environments for student learning.

Objective Types (Control-click to selectmultiple):06-10 PlanInitialStudent Learning Objectives


Assessment Method:Assessment project completed in EDF 413designed to evaluate teacher candidates'ability to design and evaluate appropriateformative and summative assessments.This assessment project preparescandidates to assess and evaluate 5-9student learning outcomes.Assessment Method Category:Program Area Class ProjectCriterion:Average score of 2.5 on the EDF 413 finalproject.Who will use the data (How and When)?:Undergraduate elementary, middle grades,and selected secondary and P-12 programs.

08/17/2010 - A total of 215 unique candidates tookEDF 413 during the 2009-2010 academic year.

FALL SEMESTER: During the Fall Semester, 104candidates were enrolled in five sections.However, only 85 submitted their final projects toTaskstream for evaluation. Sixteen of those werein one section, and because the rubric was notinstalled into Taskstream until November, theinstructor evaluated their projects using a hardcopy and did not require a submission. Threeothers were in the sections that were evaluated onTaskstream, but they did not submit a final projectto the professor at all, and they received an F inthe course. They have not retaken the course todate. Two candidates received Fs in the course(even though they turned in the final project) andthey retook the course in the Spring and weresuccessful. Each of the two replaced her Fallsubmission with a new project during the SpringSemester. Thus, in this report, 83 candidatesubmissions were analyzed for the Fall Semester.

SPRING SEMESTER: In the Spring Semester,125 candidates took EDF 413 in six sections(including the two repeats). Four of thosecandidates did not submit a project to Taskstream.Two who did not do the project all received Fs inthe course. The other two received an incompletein the course. Thus, in this report, 121 candidatesubmissions were analyzed for the Fall Semester.

TOTAL: There were a total of 83 candidates whowere evaluated in Taskstream in the FallSemester and 121 candidates who were evaluatedin Taskstream in the Spring Semester. This reportreflects the data on those 204 candidates.



Of those 204 candidates, 111 were elementarycandidates, 25 were middle grades candidates,and 68 were secondary candidates. Thesecondary candidates represented the fields ofbusiness and marketing, health, art, biology,chemistry, earth science, English, family andconsumer science, foreign language, history,math, and music.

All of the sub-groups (elementary, middle grades,and the various secondary programs) scoredwithin the competent range (of 2.5). The highestgroup were the math and earth science students,with the music students a close second. Math andscience candidates often score the highest onvarious measures in the Teacher EducationProgram (even on components not relative to theirmajor). Twelve of the 15 music candidates tookthe course in the Fall Semester, and they formedstudy groups among themselves. They wouldoften contact the professor during a study sessionto ask questions. The professor observed that thisclose-knit group's collaboration, and peerassessment of one another's projects, contributedto their high ranking. Although all of the projectswere about different units, they were all created ata high level. The lowest score (2.50) was achievedby the one health candidate. His 2.50 on the finalproject correlates with the 81% he received in thecourse.

There were eight criteria on which they wereevaluated.

Criterion 1 had 83% of the candidates scoringeither a 3 or 4. However, there were 2% whoscored a one. Still, the overall average was 3.30for the group. This criterion assessed whether thecandidates could write objectives appropriately.The elementary candidates scored a 3.30 averageon Criterion 1.



Criterion 2 had 91% of the candidates scoringeither a 3 or 4. No one scored a 1. The overallaverage was 3.47 for the group. This criterionassessed the candidates? abilities to write usingthe conventions of standard grammar and spelling.The elementary candidates scored a 3.35 onCriterion 2.

Criterion 3 had 93% of the candidates scoringeither a 3 or 4, and again, no one scored a 1. Theoverall average was 3.63 for the group. Thiscriterion determined if the candidates? projectsshowed consistency and continuity leading to facevalidity.The elementary candidates scored a 3.52 onCriterion 3.

Criterion 4 had only 58% of the candidates scoringeither a 3 or 4. The remaining 42% scored a 2(progressing). Criterion 4 was the one on whichthe candidates as a group scored the lowest withan overall average of 2.89. This was partlybecause of a flaw in the rubric. Both theacceptable (3) and target (4) ranges required thatall five objectives be written appropriately.Whereas, on Criterion 1, a student could have oneof the objectives not appropriately written and stillreceive an acceptable, candidates had to have allfive written appropriately to score a 3 or 4 for thiscriterion. The rubric is being reconsidered for the2010-11 academic year. This criterion assessedthe candidates? abilities to write both objectivesand quality assessments.The elementary candidates scored a 2.88 onCriterion 4.

Criterion 5 had 88% of the candidates scoring a 4,while 6% scored a 3 and the remaining 6% scoreda 2. The overall average was 3.87 for the group.This was the criterion that received the highestranking of the eight criteria. It assessed if thecandidates could name and describe a unit and



create objectives that matched the unit. Again, therubric appears to be flawed and is beingreconsidered for future evaluations.The elementary candidates scored a 3.84 onCriterion 5.

Criterion 6 had 84% of the candidates scoringeither a 3 or 4 (with most of them scoring a three).Again, no one scored a 1. The overall averagewas 3.22 for the group. This criterion addressedthe big picture aspect of the project. Candidateshad to have all the objectives written appropriately,all the classifications correct, and all theassessments written as quality items in order toreceive a 4.The elementary candidates scored a 3.12 onCriterion 6.

Criterion 7 had 76% of the candidates scoringeither a 3 or 4, with the majority again scoring a 3.One percent of the candidates scored a 1. Thisbrought the overall average to 3.08 for the group.This criterion addressed the candidates? abilitiesto classify their objectives according to theKentucky Combined Curriculum Document,according to Bloom?s Taxonomy in the CognitiveDomain, and according to the Depth of Knowledgelevel. If even one of those was incorrect or missingfor a single objective, the candidate could notreceive a 4.The elementary candidates scored a 2.93 onCriterion 7.

Criterion 8 had 88% of the candidates scoringeither a 3 or 4, with the majority again scoring at a3. The overall average was 3.25 for the group.This criterion assessed the candidates? ability tocreate a professional document. Like Criterion 6, astudent had to have virtually no errors throughoutthe project in order to receive a 4.The elementary candidates scored a 3.18 onCriterion 8.



See attachment for graphs of criteria.Result/Observation Type: StrengthResult Status:Result Closed-No further action needednotes:The results indicated that the candidateshad the ability to create a description of aunit, objectives for the unit, andassessments to determine if the objectiveshad been fulfilled. Because of the changingemphasis in Kentucky toward moreformative assessment, and because of acouple of flaws found in the rubric, theproject and the rubric are undergoingchanges that will be implemented during thefall 2010 semester.

Assessment Method:Task C analysis of teaching episode. TaskC of the KTIP lesson plan format evaluatesteacher candidates' ability to analyze studentassessment data. Completed duringmethods block.Assessment Method Category:Field Experience (student teaching andpracticum)Criterion:100% of teacher candidates complete TaskC satisfactorily. A satisfactory evaluationmeans that all questions in Task C areanswered thoroughly, indicating thatcandiates can evaluate their P-5 students'performance and recommend appropriateinstruction.

Assessment Method:Mid/Final Student teaching evaluations -Student TeachersAssessment Method Category:Field Experience (student teaching andpracticum)Criterion:



Student teachers will receive an averagescore of 3.0 (competent) on their finalevaluations from their cooperating teachersand at least 85% of the standards marked as"competent" from their University supervisoron their observation forms.

Assessment Method:Student teachers will develop a unitplan/teacher work sample to demonstratetheir ability to assess and analyze P-12student learning. The Unit Work Samplescoring rubric has sections that addressassessment design (pre/post), measuredstudent learning outcomes, and reflection onstudent learning.Assessment Method Category:Unit of StudyCriterion:90% of candidates will receive an averagescore of 3.0 or higher for these sections ofthe UWS scoring rubric from their Universitysupervisors.

EDU CURI UG Elementary Education (P-5) -5. b. Professional dispositions - Teachercandidates will possess appropriatedispositions for teaching as evidencedthrough observable behavior in the followingcategories: professionalism, includingattendance and punctuality; a positiveattitude; effective oral communication skills;effective written communication skills;appreciation and value for diversity;preparation to teach and/or learn; effectivecollaboration; self-directed learning;emotional intelligence; reflection on one'sown teaching and learning; focus onindividual student needs; and professionalappearance.Objective Types (Control-click to selectmultiple):

Assessment Method:Cooperating Teacher Scores: Analysis ofdisposition scores on final evaluation ofstudent teaching in the areas ofprofessionalism, attitude, oralcommunication, written communication,preparation, collaboration, self-direction,emotional intelligence, self-reflection, focuson individual, and appearance. Scored withcommon rubric by cooperating teacher.

Assessment Method Category:Dispositions EvaluationCriterion:Candidates will receive an average score of3.0 (competent) or higher.

07/01/2010 - Results indicate that most pre-service teacher education candidates are meetingor exceeding the targeted expectations at exit fromstudent teaching. At this point dispositions scoresare not disaggregated by program.Results arealso not disagreggated between coooperatingteachers and supervisors. The grand mean for allstudents assessed at Gate 4 in 2009-2010 was4.75. The mean for each area far exceeded theminimum of 3.0. Candidates whose scores fellbelow 2 on any criteria were referred to theTeacher Education Admissions Committee forreview. Results also indicate that candidatesimprove as they progress through the program.Result/Observation Type: StrengthResult Status:Result Open-Further action needed

07/01/2010 - The DispositionsAssessment provides feedback toprogram faculty and individualcandidates regarding candidatedispositions, including attitudes,work ethic, communication skills,collaboration skills, and appreciationof diverse cultures, gender,disability, racial and ethnic groups.Faculty can target areas for directinstruction and can specificprofessional growth areas forindividual candidates.



06-10 PlanInitialStudent Learning Objectives


notes:Results indicate that most pre-serviceteacher education candidates are meetingor exceeding the targeted expectations.Further, the evidence from one year of datasuggest that candidate dispositions improveas they progress through the program.While the date would suggest face validity ofthe instrument, the Teacher EducationServices Office and College of Educationleadership should continue to providetraining to faculty and cooperating teachersto ensure inter-rater reliability ofassessments.

Related Documents:ALL_KA5_2009_2010_Dispostions.docx

Assessment Method:University Supervisor Scores: Analysis ofdisposition scores on final evaluation ofstudent teaching in the areas ofprofessionalism, attitude, oralcommunication, written communication,preparation, collaboration, self-direction,emotional intelligence, self-reflection, focuson individual, and appearance. Scored withcommon rubric by University supervisor.

Assessment Method Category:Dispositions EvaluationCriterion:Candidates will receive an average score of3.0 (competent) or higher.

07/01/2010 - Results indicate that most pre-service teacher education candidates are meetingor exceeding the targeted expectations at exit fromstudent teaching. At this point dispositions scoresare not disaggregated by program. ALso, resultsare not disaggregated between supervisor andcooperating teachers. The grand mean for allstudents assessed at Gate 4 in 2009-2010 was4.75. The mean for each area far exceeded theminimum of 3.0. Candidates whose scores fellbelow 2 on any criteria were referred to theTeacher Education Admissions Committee forreview. Further, results indicate that overall,candidate dispositions improve as they progressthrough the program.Result/Observation Type: StrengthResult Status:Result Open-Further action needednotes:While the date would suggest face validity ofthe instrument, the Teacher Education



http://tracdatvm.eku.edu:8081/tracdat/viewDocument?y=KOyiQFo52E6N



Services Office and College of Educationleadership should continue to providetraining to faculty and cooperating teachersto ensure inter-rater reliability ofassessments.Initially there was confusion regarding someinstructions on the web based form andconcerns were expressed regardingconfidentiality of individual raters, especiallywhen candidates were recommended forreview. These have been addressed in theTeacher Education Dispositions Policy andProcedures.


Assessment Method:Analysis of disposition scores for admissionto teacher education program in the areas ofprofessionalism, attitude, oralcommunication, written communication,preparation, appreciation of diversity,collaboration, self-direction, emotionalintelligence, self-reflection. Scored withcommon rubric by faculty and advisor.Assessment Method Category:Dispositions EvaluationCriterion:Candidates will receive an average score of2.5 or higher with no individual lower than2.0.

07/01/2010 - Results indicate that most pre-service teacher education candidates are meetingor exceeding the targeted expectations atadmission to the program. At this pointdispossitions scores are not disaggregated byprogram. The grand mean for all studentsassessed at Gate 1 in 2009-2010 was 4.12. Themean for each area far exceeded the minimum of2.5. Candidates whose scores fell below 2 on anycriteria were referred to the Teacher EducationAdmissions Committee for review.Result/Observation Type: StrengthResult Status:Result Open-Further action needednotes:While the date would suggest face validity ofthe instrument, the Teacher EducationServices Office and College of Educationleadership should continue to providetraining to faculty and cooperating teachersto ensure inter-rater reliability ofassessments.Initially there was confusion regarding






some instructions on the web based formand concerns were expressed regardingconfidentiality of individual raters, especiallywhen candidates were recommended forreview. These have been addressed in theTeacher Education Dispositions Policy andProcedures.


Assessment Method:Analysis of disposition scores for admissionto student teaching in the areas ofprofessionalism, attitude, oralcommunication, written communication,preparation, appreciation of diversity,collaboration, self-direction, emotionalintelligence, self-reflection. Scored withcommon rubric by faculty and cooperatingteacher.Assessment Method Category:Dispositions EvaluationCriterion:Candidates will receive an average score of3.0 or higher with no individual lowerthan3.0.

07/01/2010 - Results indicate that most pre-service teacher education candidates are meetingor exceeding the targeted expectations atadmission to student teaching. At this pointdispositions scores are not disaggregated byprogram. The grand mean for all studentsassessed at Gate 3 in 2009-2010 was 4.65. Themean for each area far exceeded the minimum of3.0. Candidates whose scores fell below 2 on anycriteria were referred to the Teacher EducationAdmissions Committee for review.Result/Observation Type: StrengthResult Status:Result Open-Further action needednotes:While the date would suggest face validity ofthe instrument, the Teacher EducationServices Office and College of Educationleadership should continue to providetraining to faculty and cooperating teachersto ensure inter-rater reliability ofassessments.Initially there was confusion regarding someinstructions on the web based form andconcerns were expressed regardingconfidentiality of individual raters, especiallywhen candidates were recommended forreview. These have been addressed in theTeacher Education






Dispositions Policy and Procedures.


EDU CURI UG Elementary Education (P-5) -6. Program Specific Objectve: (Copy) -Teacher candidates reflect on their practiceand make plans for professional growth.Objective Types (Control-click to selectmultiple):06-10 PlanInitialStudent Learning Objectives


Assessment Method:Analysis of Professional Growth Plan scoresincluded in the Presentation Portfolio atadmission to student teaching (TP 2).Scored with a common rubric.Assessment Method Category:Portfolio ReviewCriterion:An average score of 3.25 with no individualsbelow 3.

07/23/2010 - The data show that most of ourstudents are able to self-assess and use feedbackto make a plan for improvement. Out of 75students in the Richmond and Corbin elementarymethods courses, 50 students received a score of4 (exemplary); 24 of our students received a scoreof 3 (satisfactory); only one student received ascore of 2 (making progress). Because 74 out of75 students ranked at satisfactory or above, we donot anticipate making any change to instructionrelated to this objective.Result/Observation Type: StrengthResult Status:Result Open-Further action needednotes:The Plan for Professional Growth wasexamined each student?s assigned fieldinstructor. Students conducted a selfevaluation at the beginning and at the endof the semester. In addition, they used themidterm feedback received from theCooperating Teacher to write a plan forimprovement. The PGP was submitted onTaskstream and the evaluation is locatedthere for inspection.

Related Documents:NCATEKA3_summaryreport_PGP

07/23/2010 - Review of the dataindicates that our studentsappropriately reflect on theirprofessional growth at this point intheir program (prior to studentteaching). The methods instructorsdo not anticipate changing theamount of emphasis on or theapproach currently being taken tothe topic of self-reflection.

06/18/2010 - Each student writes a ProfessionalGrowth Plan based on the midterm report ofdispositions written by the Cooperating Teacher inthe field placement school. The ProfessionalGrowth Plan follows the format prescribed by theKentucky Teacher Standards Self-Assessment.

09/30/2010 - Faculty review theProfessional Growth Plans eachsemester as formative assessmentsto guide instruction and planadditional professional developmentsessions for




http://tracdatvm.eku.edu:8081/tracdat/viewDocument?y=fzCjKCuUe7cQ


Each student begins the semester with a self-assessment of dispositions as measured againstthe Kentucky Teacher Standards. In addition,students use the midterm dispositions of theCooperating Teacher to write a plan forProfessional Growth.The data show that most of our students are ableto self-assess and use feedback to make a planfor improvement. Out of 75 students in theRichmond and Corbin elementary methodscourses, 50 students received a score of 4(exemplary); 24 of our students received a scoreof 3 (satisfactory); only one student received ascore of 2 (making progress). Because 74 out of75 students ranked at satisfactory or above, we donot anticipate making any change to this keyassessment measure at this time.Result/Observation Type: StrengthResult Status:Result Open-Further action needednotes:The Plan for Professional Growth wasexamined by each student?s assigned fieldinstructor. Students conducted a selfevaluation at the beginning and at the endof the semester. In addition, they used themidterm feedback received from theCooperating Teacher to write a plan forimprovement. The PGP was submitted onTaskstream and the evaluation is locatedthere for inspection.

Related Documents:NCATEKA6_PGP_ELE_EMG.docx

candidates.

Assessment Method:Analysis of Professional Growth Plan scoresincluded in the Presentation Portfolio at exitfrom student teaching (TP 3). Scored with acommon rubric.Assessment Method Category:Portfolio Review


http://tracdatvm.eku.edu:8081/tracdat/viewDocument?y=DPueOLpWrwke


Criterion:An average score of 3.5 with no individualsbelow 3.
