School-of-Education-Assessment-Handbook

ASSESSMENT HANDBOOK Department of Human Development and Family Life Education Department of Teacher Education Department of Curriculum and Instruction Department of Educational Leadership Version 3.0 Approved by Faculty and Staff, November 15, 2018 PURPOSE OF THIS HANDBOOK Samford University’s Orlean Beeson School of Education’s (herein, The School) mission is “to guide, develop and challenge students academically, professionally, personally and spiritually to prepare leaders who will positively influence and shape society.” The purpose of this handbook is to articulate the importance of the role of assessment and describe the school’s assessment system Through our assessment system, we obtain objective information We use that information to identify strengths and growth areas at the student, program, and school-wide level This information thus helps us develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of students to achieve our mission The School has been continuously accredited by NCATE since 1954, so this Handbook has been through many versions in its history Many of the previous versions were written for specific departments or shared with portions of the school We based the current Assessment Handbook on the most comprehensive of these previous versions, incorporating revisions and best features of others It is intended to encompass all departments of the School, to ensure that assessment becomes a permanent part of our School culture, and to assist with assessment and accountability THE SCHOOL’S ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE Our school consists of four departments, each under the leadership of a chair: Teacher Education (TE), Curriculum & Instruction (C&I), Human Development and Family Life Education (HDFE), Educational Leadership (EdL) Across each department, our programs are housed under the leadership of a director Appendix A contains a table listing the programs associated with each department and degree offered, along with each program’s associated specialized organization (if any) Appendix B contains a short description of each specialized organization, elsewhere called Specialized Professional Associations (SPAs) The Dean has a Leadership Committee, composed of those who serve as chairs of each department This committee meets once a month The School meets a minimum of once per semester for an entire “data day” devoted to assessment In addition, every month, the School conducts a forum for faculty and staff, using assessment data to focus on continuous improvement and on maintaining relationships and communication required to facilitate changes The Assessment Committee meets a minimum of once each semester to address concerns with assessment, improve processes, collaborate with the School Curriculum Committee as needed, and maintain this Assessment Handbook The Assessment Committee is composed of faculty representatives from each department and staff central to assessment The Extended Assessment Advisory Committee includes all members of the Assessment Committee and incorporates stakeholders from the community (e.g., PreK-12 professionals, candidates, alumni, faculty, adjuncts, and support staff) The Extended Assessment Advisory Committee meets at least once each semester to receive input from these stakeholders, receive feedback advice, and improve processes THE SETTING Samford University’s main campus is located in Homewood, Alabama, near Birmingham We also have operations at off-site locations for two programs in the Department of Educational Leadership Providing instruction at off-site locations minimizes travel for the candidates, with instructors traveling sometimes two nights per week to these locations to conduct classes These off-site programs inhabit buildings owned by other organizations and the locations may change every year, depending upon where faculty and staff focus recruitment We anticipate these regular changes, and we see a trend toward more online instruction to avoid the overhead costs associated with travel and maintenance of off-site facilities KEY EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS Samford University is accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACSCOC; See Appendix B) As a part of that process, each program submits annual program reviews to the University Director of Assessment Programs leading to licensure/certification require regular review to maintain approval or accreditation The Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP; See Appendix B) is a professional accreditation organization requiring rigorous review of education preparation providers Specialized professional associations (SPAs) define and review the content area standards by program Approval by a SPA results in national recognition for a program Educational preparation programs that not have SPA approval must have approval by the Alabama Department of Education’s Continuous Improvement in Educator Preparation (CIEP) program CIEP Program Review is defined by the 2015 Educator Preparation Chapter, Alabama Administrative Code (click link to access) ASSESSMENT PHILOSOPHY AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES We define assessment as the gathering of evidence from multiple data sources and using that evidence to make recommendations about the characteristics of programs, departments, or the School The School embraces an assessment philosophy that posits for each person ownership in assessment as we strive for a model of excellence, embracing and promoting a culture of assessment characterized by evidence-based decisions All faculty and staff—and, where applicable, candidates and partners—participate in this dynamic assessment environment We adhere to seven principles agreed upon by faculty and staff to guide our assessment system: ✓ We use multiple measures and methods in assessing our outcomes The triangulation of these sources allows us to make better inferences ✓ We employ flexible systems that reflect (1) our shared vision, (2) institutional, state and professional standards, and (3) program goals/outcomes The flexible systems include both formal and informal approaches, to allow us to be responsive to the changing needs of candidates we serve, the field/clinical experiences, the organizational structure of the School, and our professional fields ✓ We commit to continuous assessment beyond accreditation and program reviews As individuals, we each share this commitment to continual program improvement based upon frequent collection and analysis of key data, and evaluation of outcomes ✓ We consistently improve the assessment system through a shared vision among the members of the Assessment Committee, the faculty, adjuncts, and staff ✓ We emphasize assessment where learning is influenced most – at the course level ✓ We ensure clarity in procedures for data collection, disaggregation, analysis, interpretation, dissemination, and use of assessment data ✓ We maintain scientific and ethical excellence in methods and measures (see below) TECHNICAL PROPERTIES When we develop key assessment tools in-house, we examine them systematically for technical adequacy, focusing on validity, reliability, fairness, and freedom from bias (AREA, APA, & NCME, 2014) Test validity is the extent to which an assessment accurately measures what it is supposed to measure Our studies focus on content validity, the degree to which an assessment measures knowledge of the intended domain Reliability is the degree to which an assessment tool produces stable and consistent results Our studies focus on inter-rater reliability (also called inter-rater agreement, inter-rater concordance, and inter-observer reliability) It is a score of how much homogeneity, or consensus, there is in various evaluators’ ratings Fairness, an essential quality of an assessment, is broadly defined as equitable treatment of all test-takers during the testing process, absence of measurement bias, equitable access to the constructs being measured, and justifiable validity of test score interpretation for the intended purpose(s) We focus on freedom from bias Bias is a tendency to lean in a certain direction, often to the detriment of an open mind KEY COMPONENTS OF OUR ROBUST ASSESSMENT SYSTEM Three main parts comprise the structure of our assessment system: (1) standards we use to align the system, (2) a platform to gather, record, and report data, and (3) key assessments to generate the data We describe the structure below, and the processes of our dynamic system in the following section We use standards to align our assessments with curriculum, instruction, and accountability Each specific assessment aligns with national/state/institutional standards and/or well thoughtout student learner objective(s) In some cases, these standards come from the specialized professional associations (SPAs; see Appendix B) This alignment approach allows us to thoughtfully integrate and connect components of schools as systems Alignment is also supported by research as a best practice (see Appendix C) An assessment platform aids in the gathering of data and presentation of data tables The assessment platforms we use are Watermark’s Taskstream and Qualtrics (for course evaluations only) In addition to course assessments, we have program key assessment, and CAEP key indicators Our key assessments generally include the following: Alabama State Licensure Exams and/or Content Knowledge Assessment Samford Planning Rubric Samford Student Learning Rubric Internship Evaluation Educator Disposition Assessment rubric Employer Survey Completer Survey Technology Integration Assessment Thus, the Assessment Committee evaluates assessment using the following checklist: ✓ Each assessment aligns to appropriate standards (State, SPA, CAEP/InTASC) ✓ Assessment is routine and timely ✓ Each performance-based task has a standard (outcome)-aligned three-point scoring rubric We consistently use this “1” to “3” scale for all Key Assessment scoring rubrics in our course, dispositional, and clinical experiences to allow for comparisons among programs, as deemed appropriate ✓ We examine technical properties of in-house constructed performance tasks and scoring rubrics for valid alignment with standards and reliable implementation ✓ Candidates enter artifacts tied to Key Assessments into TaskStream/Watermark for grading by instructors and clinical educators ✓ Our assessment system captures data at transition points established by each program ✓ Candidate evidence supports assessment purpose, alignment to appropriate standards, and attainment of learning outcomes ✓ Regular analysis and interpretation of data lead faculty in making data-driven decisions ✓ Annual program review encompasses assessment review and planning for continuous improvement KEY PROCESSES OF OUR ROBUST ASSESSMENT SYSTEM To enact the assessment system, we also align our assessment plan with the collection and reporting processes required by regional and national accreditation agencies using state and national standards Appendix B of this document includes the Assessment Operation Plan table of standards, times, and responsible parties for conducting each assessment Internally, the School uses the four-phase continuous improvement model for assessment: plan, implement, analyze, and report/revise The first phase includes a clear plan, purpose, and defined outcomes The implement phase includes a systematic approach to data collection involving all stakeholders The analysis phase centers on careful distillation of the data collected The report/revise phase includes the ongoing use of assessment to improve programs and services often referred to as “closing the loop.” This final stage includes evaluation and improvement of the assessment process itself Continuous Improvement Cycle TRANSITION POINTS: MONITORING CANDIDATE PROGRESS Faculty in each program establishes assessment transition points, representing gateways through which candidates must pass to proceed to the next level of their program of study Typically, transition points correspond to admission to the program, a mid-point of the program, and at the end of the program Programs vary based upon external requirements, duration, and level Appendices E-G include transition details for each department ON-GOING REVIEW OF THE PLAN The Assessment Committee reviews the assessment system and this handbook annually and conducts a comprehensive review at least once every three years A summary report of the review will contain a report of the findings, a review of accomplishments and opportunities for growth (including needs identified by the Extended Assessment Advisory Committee), each program’s self-assessment of the plan, and results of a focused discussion at the regular meeting of the School about the status of this assessment system APPENDIX A: DEPARTMENTS/PROGRAMS WITH ASSOCIATED DEGREES AND SPECIALIZED ORGANIZATIONS Depart Program HDFE Human Development & Family Science (HDFS) HDFS w/ concentration is Child Life HDFS w/concentration in Child Development Education HDFS w/ concentration in Gerontology ESEC (P-6): Elementary Early Childhood Early Childhood Special Education Elementary Collaborative Elementary with Christian Education and Missions Concentration (K-6) Mathematics (6-12) French (6=12) German (6-12) Spanish (6-12) French (P-12) German (P-12) Spanish (P-12) Music (P-12) English / Language Arts (6-12) History (6-12) History/General Social Science (6-12) Secondary Alt A History (6-12) Secondary Alt A English/Language Arts (6-12) Secondary Alt A General Social Studies (6-12) Secondary Alt A Collaborative Special Education (6-12) Alt A Collaborative Special Education (K-6) Alt A Physical Education (P-12) Early Childhood/Elementary Early Childhood/Elementary Secondary Alt A Spanish (6-12) Secondary Alt A Mathematics (6-12) Secondary Alt A Mathematics (6-12) Secondary Alt A General Science Secondary Alt A Biology Special Education Gifted Education Instructional Leadership Instructional Leadership Instructional Leadership Instructional Leadership TE EdL Degree* BA BA BA BA BSE Type (Initial or Advanced) Initial Initial Initial Initial Initial Specialized Org**, if any NCFR NCFR NCFR NCFR ACEI NAEYC CEC BSE Initial NAEYC BSE BSE BSE BSE BSE BSE BSE BSE BSE BSE BSE MSE MSE MSE MSE BSE MSE MSE MSE MSE BSE MSE MSE MSE MSE MSE EdS EdD MSE MSE Initial Initial Initial Initial Initial Initial Initial Initial Initial Initial Initial Initial Initial Initial Initial Initial Initial Initial Initial Initial Initial Initial Initial Initial Advanced Advanced Advanced Advanced Advanced Advanced CEC ACTFL ACTFL ACTFL ACTFL ACTFL ACTFL NASM NCTE NCSS NCSS NCSS NCTE NCSS CEC CEC NASPE ACEI NAEYC ACTFL NCTM NCTM NSTA NSTA NAGC/CEC ELCC ELCC ELCC ELCC *Degree (Bachelor/Master/Specialist); Type (Initial/Advanced/Other); ** Specialized Organizations are listed below by Acronym See Appendix B for detailed description: NCFR – National Council on Family Relations; ACEI – Association for Childhood Education International; ACTFL – American Council on the Teaching of a Foreign Language; CEC – Council for Exceptional Children; NCSS – National Council for the Social Studies; ELCC – Educational Leadership Constituent Council; NAEYC – National Association for the Education of Young Children; NAGC – National Association for Gifted Children/Council for Exceptional Children; NASPE – National Association for Sport and Physical Education; NCTE – National Council of Teachers of English; NCSS – National Council for Social Studies; NSTA – National Science Teachers Association; APPENDIX B: DESCRIPTION OF EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS THE SOUTHERN ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND SCHOOLS (SACS) COMMISSION ON COLLEGES (SACSCOC) SACSCOC is “the regional body for the accreditation of degree-granting higher education institutions in the Southern states It serves as the common denominator of shared values and practices among the diverse institutions in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Latin America and other international sites approved by the SACSCOC Board of Trustees that award associate, baccalaureate, master’s, or doctoral degrees The Commission also accepts applications from other international institutions of higher education.” (http://www.sacscoc.org/) COUNCIL FOR THE ACCREDITATION OF EDUCATOR PREPARATION – CAEP (Formerly NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR ACCREDITATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION – NCATE) CAEP is a national accrediting body for schools, colleges, and departments of education authorized by the U.S Department of Education CAEP determines which schools, colleges, and departments of education meet rigorous national standards in preparing teachers and other specialists for schools Accreditation, once granted, is continuous as long as the institution fulfills its responsibilities under the continuing accreditation process Continuing accreditation status is granted after an institution has been accredited Continuing accreditation requires institutions to file annual reports and host an on-site Board of Examiners team in a defined cycle CAEP encompasses administrator education, school counseling, school psychology, speech, and teacher education in various fields such as elementary, English, mathematics, social studies, world languages, and special education Each of these areas has sponsoring agencies that are noted below Each area has been aligned with this Assessment Plan ASSOCIATION FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL (ACEI) The Elementary Teacher Education program is a Specialty Professional Association (SPA) through the Association for Early Childhood Education International (ACEI), which is a constituent member of CAEP ACEI is responsible for the Program Review process for CAEP ACEI requires that teacher preparation programs must have a broad foundation in the sciences, humanities and social sciences, with advanced study in at least one specialty area to be able to optimally expand children's abilities to grow and develop in all areas There are 11 broad areas of preparation for elementary teachers Additionally, ACEI looks for evidence of learning in the areas of foundations, child development, and learning and teaching Perhaps most importantly, ACEI notes that teacher preparation programs for pre-service elementary teachers should provide carefully administered, sequenced and supervised clinical/field experiences in all areas of the elementary curriculum Pre-service teachers should have gradually increased responsibilities in the classroom They should be provided with opportunities to work with children at various grade levels, with a variety of culturally diverse backgrounds, and with different capabilities, including mainstreamed or included special education children, and in activities that link course content to practice They should be expected to critically select and use appropriate materials, resources and technology, and to have experiences with classroom management and a variety of evaluation techniques Collaboration with other professionals in the school setting should be encouraged to develop team building skills and utilization of all resources to enhance children's learning The elementary education program at this School strives to offer each candidate experiences consistent or exceeding the ACEI standards NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF ENGLISH (NCTE) The National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) has articulated the standards for future English language arts teachers and is a SPA through CAEP The NCTE Program Standards for the preparation of English language arts teachers (Grades 7-12) are comprised of four components: Program Structure: Candidates follow a specific curriculum and are expected to meet appropriate performance assessments for pre-service English language arts teachers Candidate Attitudes: Through modeling, advisement, instruction, field experiences, assessment of performance, and involvement in professional organizations, candidates adopt and strengthen professional attitudes needed by English language arts teachers Candidate Knowledge: Candidates are knowledgeable about language; literature; oral, visual, and written literacy; print and non-print media; technology; and research theory and findings Candidate Pedagogy: Candidates acquire and demonstrate the dispositions and skills needed to integrate knowledge of English language arts, students, and teaching Six to eight assessments are required as evidence for demonstrating pre-service teacher competence across the NCTE Program Standards NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF MATHEMATICS (NCTM) The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has supplied the standards for future Prekindergarten-12 teachers of mathematics since 1982 and is a SPA through CAEP The NCTM identifies 10 standards of mathematic achievement to be carried through four divisions (Prekindergarten-2, 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12) of the education system The standards are divided into both Content Standards and Process Standards that are accompanied by two to four specified goals and multiple indicators that apply across each grade level To meet NCTM Program Standards, program reports must be submitted to NCATE and reviewed by NCTM-trained reviewers The program report must demonstrate that 80% of indicators are addressed with at least one indicator in each of the 10 Standards Each program must also provide evidence of a state-required licensure or certification exam Unless using the Praxis II mathematics content exam, which has already been aligned to the NCTM Standards and Indicators, programs must show evidence of alignment to the NCTM Standards and Indicators by providing a thorough description of the exam with specific explanations as to how it aligns to the NCTM Standards and Indicators This is in alignment with the School’s Assessment Plan NATIONAL SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION (NSTA) The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), a SPA through CAEP, has articulated the standards for future K-12 science teachers even before the publication of the National Science Education Standards in 1996 Because “science teacher” represents a broad array of disciplines, the NSTA Standards for Science Teacher Preparation have relied upon recommendations supplied by the American Association of Physics Teachers, the American Chemical Society, the National Association of Biology Teachers, and the National Earth Science Teachers Association Consequently, areas under review include Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Earth Science, and General Science—all at the secondary level The NSTA Standards fall into these categories: content knowledge, instructional preparation, field experiences, as well as content specific considerations (e.g., safety and welfare, conducting scientific research) The expectation is that teacher candidates will be assessed through a combination of standardized test performance (Praxis), transcript analysis (for content courses), and field experience evaluations (especially student teaching and internship), along with demonstrations of an ability to prepare instructional materials (lesson plans and EPP designs) This is in alignment with the School’s Assessment Plan NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR THE SOCIAL STUDIES (NCSS) The National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) provides the standards for future Social Studies teachers and is a SPA through CAEP The Program Standards apply to all initial programs for the preparation of secondary social studies teachers, Grades 7–12 To meet the NCSS Program Standards, pre-service social studies education students in the Teacher Preparation program at our institution are assessed through a variety of data sources including, but not limited to the Praxis Exam (standardized test performance), field experience evaluations, analysis of transcripts, demonstrations of ability to prepare instructional materials and work with diverse populations of students (lesson plans and EPP designs), and capacity for research and reflective teaching This is in alignment with the School’s Assessment Plan NATIONAL COUNCIL ON FAMILY RELATIONS (NCFR) The National Council on Family Relations, founded in 1938, is the oldest nonprofit, nonpartisan, multidisciplinary professional association focused solely on family research, practice, and education… “NCFR established and administers the internationally Certified Family Life Educator (CFLE) credential Approximately 125 college and university Family Science degree programs in the U.S and Canada use NCFR Family Life Education curriculum standards as guidelines for their undergraduate and graduate students.” (https://www.ncfr.org/index.php/about) INTERNATIONAL LITERACY ASSOCIATION - ILA (Formerly INTERNATIONAL READING ASSOCIATION – IRA) The International Literacy Association (ILA) has managed the standards for future reading professionals including paraprofessionals, classroom teachers, reading specialists, teacher educators, and administrators A SPA through CAEP, ILA has managed these standards through its partnership with NCATE/CAEP since 1980 10 There are six Core Standards presented by the ILA: foundational knowledge; curriculum and instruction, assessment and evaluation; diversity; literate environment; and, professional learning and leadership The ILA requires that candidates provide contextual information about the program, examples of assessments (seven to eight, with scoring guides), a Standards assessment chart (showing which assessments connect with which Standards), evidence for meeting the Standards, and evidence that the assessment results are used to improve candidate and program performance State-licensure or certification exams should be presented as an example of assessment alongside the other seven to eight assessments NATIONAL POLICY BOARD FOR EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION (NPBEA) - EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP CONSTITUENCIES COUNCIL (ELCC) The National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA) is used for the Educational Leadership for Candidates seeking Administration & Supervision Intermediate Certification The standards and indicators used are adapted from the Educational Leadership Constituencies Council (ELCC) by NPBEA as approved by CAEP The ELCC Standards were developed to assist current and future school administrators meet the changing demands of society and schooling The ELCC Standards were developed from the wellknown ISLLC (Interstate Leaders Licensure Consortium) Standards They address the need to prepare leaders who value and are committed to educating all students to become successful adults, responsible for creating and articulating a vision of high standards for learning, and requires their willing to examine their own assumptions, beliefs, and practices; understand and apply research; and foster a climate of continuous improvement among all members of the educational staff Leaders will commit themselves to high levels of personal and organizational performance in order to ensure implementation of this vision of learning Additionally, the standards address the need position teaching and learning at the focal point of schools, and ensure decisions about curriculum, instructional strategies (including instructional technology), assessment, and professional development are based on sound research Among the various standards is that all educational leaders must capitalize on diversity to create a school culture that promotes respect and success for all students and that all members of the school community should have confidence in the integrity of the decision-making process for school improvement and the appropriateness of that process, thus ensuring dignity and respect for all This is all aligned with the College’s assessment plan as outlined in this Handbook INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION (ISTE) For more than 20 years, International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) has served as one of 22 national organizations charged with developing the standards that the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP, formerly known as NCATE) uses to accredit colleges of education throughout the United States ISTE has helped transform teacher preparation programs through the use of its standards for integrating technology into learning, teaching, and leading The refreshed Computer Science Educator Standards are pending CAEP approval These build on the original Technology Facilitator, Technology Leader, and Secondary Computer Science Educator Standards 11 The Technology Facilitation Standards are broken into eight individual standards The expectation is that candidates will be assessed through a combination of assessments throughout the completion of their coursework in educational technology This is in alignment with the School’s Assessment Plan NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR GIFTED CHILDREN (NAGC/CEC) The National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) in conjunction with the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) developed national standards in programming and services and teacher preparation to guide high quality education for the nation’s estimated to million gifted and talented students Standards provide a basis for policies, rules, and procedures that are essential for providing systematic programs and services to any special population of students While standards may be addressed and implemented in a variety of ways, they provide important direction and focus to designing and developing options for gifted learners Effective spring 2018, the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) is the Specialty Professional Association (SPA) for gifted and talented education programs This means that gifted education teacher preparation programs can be considered for National Recognition by CEC by submitting program reports for CEC’s review that demonstrate teacher candidate mastery of the NAGC-CEC Teacher Preparation Standards 12 APPENDIX C: ASSESSMENT OPERATION PLAN The chart below provides an overview of key assessments, responsibilities, and timelines The CAEP Coordinator and Data Manager provide management oversight of the responsible parties and schedule DEFINITION CAEP DATA DATA SCHEDULE BY St 1, Prior to Program program admittance/ completion Content knowledge assessment State certification tests, comprehensive exams, final exams, transcript analyses Planning Evaluation rubric Key Assessment & (initial & advanced) EPP key assessment; Initial programs St 1, edTPA rubrics 1-5, Advanced programs i.e plan of action Clinical Internship/ Residency/ Practicum Evaluation rubric Effect (Impact) on Student Learning Evaluation rubric Content specialty rubrics needed to meet standards Program completer exit survey Completer survey Key Assessment (initial & advanced) EPP key assessment: Required data to evaluate components of teaching/leadership performance St 1, 3, End of program Key Assessment (initial & advanced) EPP key assessment; Initial programs St 1, edTPA rubrics 11-15, Advanced 3, 4, programs i.e action research Key Assessment (initial & advanced) Program key assessments St 1, These key assessments meet content standards not met by Assessments 15 EPP key assessment; survey data St 4, End of program *(Initial & Advanced teaching programs based on InTASC Instructional Leadership programs based on ELCC) EPP key assessment; survey data St 4, Each spring, 12*(Initial & Advanced teaching 18 months programs after 13 DATA ENTERED ETS (Praxis), admission committee, course instructor Program Course instructor RESPONSIBLE PARTIES Admission Committee, Department Chairs, Certification Officer Department Chairs Program University supervisors Department Chairs Program Course instructor Department Chairs Program Course instructor Department Chairs EPP Program completers EPP Alumni CAEP Coordinator, Data Manager, and Department Chairs CAEP Coordinator, Data Manager, and Employer survey Diversity integration survey or rubric Technology integration rubric based on InTASC Instructional Leadership programs based on ELCC) EPP key assessment; survey data *(Initial & Advanced teaching programs based on InTASC Instructional Leadership programs based on ELCC) EPP key assessment; diversity EPP key assessment; technology program completion St 4, St Department Chairs Each spring, EPP 12-18 months after program completion EPP St 1, EPP ISTE Dispositions: Transition Point survey Dispositions: Transition Point survey Dispositions: Transition Point survey EPP key assessment; Disposition forms completed by former general education faculty who know student work for UG Graduate forms completed by employers or former faculty EPP key assessment; faculty assist candidates in understanding wide range of professional behaviors beyond those on data collection instruments that constitute disposition EPP key assessment; faculty assist candidates in understanding wide range of professional behaviors beyond those on data collection instruments that constitute disposition Employers CAEP Coordinator, Data Manager, and Department Chairs Course CAEP instructor Coordinator, Data Manager, and Department Chairs Course Department instructor Chairs, and Program Director Evaluations and Report Former gen ed Graduate faculty, Admissions former Office, employers Department (SLATE) Chairs TP St Prior to program admittance EPP TP St 1, Midprogram EPP Program Department faculty Chairs collaboratively assess TP St 1, End of program EPP University Department supervisor or Chairs Course instructor 14 APPENDIX D: EMPIRICAL SUPPORT FOR ASSESSMENT PRACTICES According to Linn and Herman (1997), standards-led alignment should use local content standards as the focal point to: • Foster the use of multiple assessment sources and methods, • Describe how classroom and accountability assessments relate to each other, • Align accountability, professional development needs, and classroom assessment with learner outcomes, • Identify staff development needs in alignment with improvement priorities and that these needs are addressed with appropriate professional learning opportunities, and • Ensure that educators use appropriate forms of assessment, are skilled in interpreting data, can plan for re-teaching activities using data, and can evaluate the impact of specific programs and instructional strategies See the following resources for more information: https://www.aalhe.org/page/AdditionalResources https://www.aacu.org/resources/assessment-and-value http://www.higher-ed.org/resources/Assessment.htm http://www.learningoutcomesassessment.org/MeasuringQuality.html 15 APPENDIX E: TRANSITION POINTS FOR TEACHER EDUCATION INITIAL PROGRAMS TEACHER EDUCATION INITIAL PROGRAMS: UNDERGRADUATE Four transition points are pivotal in Teacher Education undergraduate programs These transitions include the first field experience, acceptance into the professional program, acceptance into the clinical internship, and completion of the program First Field Experience In this assessment, Teacher Education faculty evaluate potential candidates on dispositions Admission into the Program In this assessment, Teacher Education faculty complete the Level Field evaluation Faculty again evaluate pre-education candidates on general abilities and dispositions for admittance to their selected program They also must complete certain courses with a minimum GPA, clear a background check and faculty interview, and complete an orientation as well as tests over key Praxis Core Academic Skills for Educators Acceptance into the Clinical Internship Once formally admitted to the program, candidates are evaluated on content knowledge, skills, and dispositions related to appropriate planning, developing and using a repertoire of instructional strategies, differentiating and adapting instruction and assessment for diverse learners, communicating effectively, and connecting decision-making to a personal teaching philosophy In addition, the faculty assess candidates’ completion of their General Education Credits and conduct Field Evaluations Completion Assessment During clinical Internship, candidates are evaluated on their knowledge, skills, and dispositions and abilities to design and implement instruction independently; collaborate with peers and colleagues; align the processes of planning, instructing, and assessing students; make and defend qualitative judgments about children’s learning; provide solutions for challenges in teaching, and communicate effectively with students, parents, and school community partners The School supervisor in collaboration with the cooperating teacher completes another dispositions assessment at the end of each internship placement prior to graduation 16 APPENDIX F: TRANSITION POINTS FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION HUMAN DEVELOPMENT & FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION: UNDERGRADUATE Faculty evaluate candidates for the HDFS program at three transition points: the Beginning of their coursework, the Middle level, and at Completion of their course work Beginning Assessment When a student enters the HDFS major, the program’s advisor(s) will meet with the student and assess that student’s career goals, the alignment of their intentions with the goals of the HDFS program, and the student’s understanding of the major In the student’s early terms as a HDFS major, the student will enroll in Professional Perspectives, and faculty evaluate the student’s professional dispositions and academic success in the early coursework Middle Assessment During the middle level of coursework, candidates’ professionalism is assessed during Practicum, including feedback from practicum site supervisors Completion Assessment During the final terms of the students’ major, they enroll in the research sequence of HDFE 331 (Family Dynamics)/HDFE 383 (Research Methods), and HDFE 483 (Senior Research), generating a prototypical empirical journal article and professional presentation as a capstone project Faculty evaluate this project as a final assessment as the student is near completion of the major 17 APPENDIX G: TRANSITION POINTS FOR ADVANCED PROGRAMS CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION / ADVANCED PROGRAMS EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP / ADVANCED PROGRAMS Admissions Through the admission and Transcript Analysis process, candidates are evaluated on their knowledge, skills, and dispositions as evidenced in prior courses and degrees Through interview, dispositions, and transcript review, candidates are assessed critically regarding their coursework and degree, GPA, communication abilities, and their early demonstration of professionalism Middle Assessment During the first year coursework, candidates are evaluated on content knowledge, skills, and dispositions related to appropriate planning, developing and using a repertoire of instructional strategies, differentiating and adapting instruction and assessment for diverse learners, communicating effectively, and connecting decision-making to a personal teaching philosophy Completion Assessment During Mentored Residency/Practicums, candidates are evaluated on their knowledge, skills, and dispositions and abilities to design and implement instruction independently; collaborate with peers and colleagues; align the processes of planning, instructing, and assessing students; make and defend qualitative judgments about children’s learning; provide solutions for challenges in teaching, and communicate effectively with students, parents, and school community partners 18