|
Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions
1a. Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates
Initial programs
As emphasized in the CF, teacher education candidates at
Southeastern Louisiana University acquire content knowledge
through a series of content-based courses, professional
development activities, and field/clinical experiences.
Quantitative evidence of content knowledge of initial teacher
education documenting competence is derived from four sources: 1)
performance on PRAXIS specialty tests, 2) coursework performance,
3) professional development activities, and 4) performance-based
assessments in field experiences (FXs) and clinical practice.
Artifacts from each area are uploaded into PASS-PORT to be used in
the development of Unit portfolios.
Specialized Program Association (SPA) reports provide detail
on each source by program.
PRAXIS
Initial candidates are required to pass a specialty area of the
PRAXIS Examination. Table 3: Pass Rates on Content Tests for
Initial Teacher Preparation (Exhibit
1a.1) provides evidence of content knowledge for all initial
degree programs. PRAXIS passing rates are used as part of the
Louisiana Board of Regents’ evaluation of teacher education
programs in the state. On the academic content area specialty
exams, Southeastern had a 100% pass rate. In comparison to other
public and private universities within the state, Southeastern’s
scores rank within the top quartile for the state. The SPA
reports indicate that all completers taking the PRAXIS II Content
Knowledge Tests within their major areas met or exceeded the state
cut scores.
Course performance
Initial candidates must earn a grade of “C” or better in
specialized content area courses in their major. Content
knowledge competence is also demonstrated by achieving a
cumulative or degree GPA of 2.50 or better, this being a criterion
for eligibility to enroll in senior-level professional education
coursework. In Fall 2007, all candidates were in the 2.50-4.00
range, supporting an indication of competence of content knowledge
in their respective majors. The percentage of candidates fully
admitted to the COEHD ranging between 2.50 and 2.99 was 12.93%.
It is of particular interest to note that 87.07% were well above
the minimum requirement of 2.50.
Professional development
activities (PDAs)
Candidates are required to complete and document a minimum of
25 hours of professional development.
Exhibit 1a.2: Professional Development Activities provides
evidence of acquisition of content knowledge through the portfolio
evaluation process. Item # 5 on the E-Folio rubric states
“required hours are documented in PASS-PORT. PDAs reflect
acquisition of knowledge and/or skills.”
Exhibit 1a.3: Initial E-Folio Results shows that 397
candidates submitted portfolios during Fall 2007. Four, or 1%,
did not meet the required PDA hours. However, 202, or 51%, met
the required hours, and 191 (48%) exceeded the specified hours.
These activities range from field trips to historic sites to
Dyslexia Simulation Workshops and the COEHD Conversation on
Diversity series, increasing candidates” content knowledge through
experiences outside of the classroom.
Performance-based
assessments
Candidates’ content knowledge is assessed through evaluations
of lesson plans and observations of teaching performance in their
professional teacher education content and methods courses.
Initial candidates are also evaluated several times during the
student teaching and/or internship semester. Unit assessment
rubrics used in these courses include items indicating competence
of content knowledge and are documented in assessments of lesson
plans and summative evaluations of teaching performance. The data
in
Exhibit 1a.4: Content Knowledge indicate that our candidates
plan, teach, and evaluate content exceptionally well and have
steadily improved in these areas over the past three years with an
overall content knowledge score on 1-4 scale of 3.80 for Fall
2007.
Initial follow-up surveys
The 2006 Follow-Up Survey of principals (N=26) and mentor
teachers (N=28) regarding teacher education graduates at the
initial certification level reveals principals rated Southeastern
graduates on a 4-point scale most effective in their Content
Knowledge as relevant/up-to-date content including concepts,
principles, relationships, methods of inquiry, and key issues
(3.63) and Content Knowledge: Louisiana State Content Standards
and Benchmarks (3.74). The mentor teachers (N=28) rated graduates
as most prepared in the area of Content Knowledge: relevant
up-to-date, content including concepts, principles, relationships,
methods of inquiry, and key issues (3.73) (LASS
1.15).
The 2005-2006 Follow-Up
Survey (LASS
1.16) of employees who are first year teachers (N=28) provides
self-reported information by graduates at the initial
certification level. The self-reported data reveal that on a
4-point scale graduates perceived themselves most effective in
their Content Knowledge in the areas of Student Achievement (3.89)
and Content Knowledge: relevant up-to-date, content including
concepts, principles, relationships, methods of inquiry, and key
issues (3.73).
The 2006-2007 Follow-up
Survey (LASS
1.15) yielded a response from 46 principals in regards to 60
first year teachers that the graduates were effective in their
Content Knowledge in the areas of Student Achievement (3.48) and
Content Knowledge: relevant up-to-date, content including
concepts, principles, relationships, methods of inquiry, and key
issues (3.44).
1a. Content Knowledge for Teacher
Candidates
Advanced programs
Experienced teachers in advanced level programs build upon and
extend their knowledge base to improve their own teaching and
student learning through a variety of content-based courses
specific to each concentration within the degree program.
Throughout the programs, continuing teacher education candidates
engage in critical analysis, synthesis, and inquiry as evidenced
by artifacts inclusive of, but not limited to, 1) course
performance and projects, 2) professional development activities,
3) written comprehensive exams, and 4) electronic portfolios.
Course performance and
projects
Advanced level teacher education candidates must earn a
cumulative GPA of 3.0 or better in all graduate coursework with no
more than six -hours of coursework with a grade of “C.” The
cumulative GPA of 3.0 or better in all graduate coursework is a
criterion for graduation. Additionally, Unit assessment rubrics
used in critical courses (SPED
612,
EDUC 657/658) include items indicating competence on content
knowledge and are documented in Unit portfolios. For example,
EDF 600, a required core course for all advanced level
candidates in the degree program, provides evidence for competence
of content knowledge.
Exhibit 1a.5: EDF 600 Project in example of candidate work.
Professional development
activities (PDAs)
Candidates are required to complete and document a minimum of
25 hours of PDAs. During 2006-2007, advanced candidates (N=44)
engaged in a variety of PDAs including community service,
conferences, and workshops, as well as training programs and
actual courses.
Exhibits 1a.6 and
1a.7 document in detail the number of hours by activity type.
The PDAs provide evidence of acquisition of content knowledge
through the portfolio evaluation process. Item # 5 on the E-Folio
rubric states that “required hours are documented in PASS-PORT and
PDAs reflect acquisition of knowledge and/or skills,” and must be
evident to meet Unit level expectations.
Exhibit 1a.8: Advanced PDA Results reveals that these
activities occurred at two portal assessment levels in the
candidates’ academic program(s). The Proficiency Portfolio
(Portal 8) assessment of candidates had no “unacceptable” PDAs, an
improvement over the candidates assessed at the lower level
(Portal 7) Emerging Portfolio.
Written comprehensive
examinations
The comprehensive exam, taken during the final semester,
includes knowledge in candidates’ concentration areas as well as
research methods. Ninety-four percent of candidates who took the
comprehensive exam in 2006-2007 passed.
Exhibit 1a.9: Comprehensive Examinations (2006-2007) provides
information for each concentration area. These data indicate that
candidates have mastered the content knowledge required by their
degree plans. For candidates scoring below the acceptable
standard, remediation is provided through a committee of
University faculty who individualize the remediation program
according to the candidate’s needs. Remediation can include such
tasks as additional coursework, independent study, observations,
or conferences with faculty as indicated in the individual
remediation plan.
Advanced level portfolios
Advanced level candidates in a degree program are required to
submit three Unit level portfolios: 1) Emerging, 2) Proficiency,
and 3) Capstone. Each folio requires demonstration of content
knowledge which is assessed by the advanced folio rubric item
numbers one and two. Item one requires candidates to submit
artifacts as evidence of progress in the acquisition of content
knowledge. Item two requires candidates to connect artifacts to
appropriate program national and institutional standards and
justify reasons for choosing standards, providing evidence of a
clear understanding of content related standards. The number of
candidates meeting expectations is detailed in
Exhibit 1a.10: Advanced E-Folio Results.
Advanced follow-up surveys
The Employer Survey is administered by the Office of
Institutional Research and Assessment every two years. In the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the survey was delayed; thus, the
2004 Employer Survey, completed and posted in 2007, is the most
current data available. Unit graduates were assessed on 31
characteristics which were grouped into four areas: Communication
Skills; Technical Skills; Workplace Knowledge and Skills; and
Professional Traits and Attitudes. The survey was returned by 41
% of those employers surveyed (N= 146). Graduates–both initial
and advanced completers (N=285)–identified employers. The largest
percentage (36%) of employers responding to the survey–PK-12
education employers (N=53)–were highly favorable regarding
Southeastern’s graduates. In general, 75 % of employers reported
that our graduates were “better prepared for employment compared
to other employees.” Specific to content knowledge, the vast
majority of the Unit’s graduates were rated “Very Good” (4) or
“Excellent” (5) in ability to apply mathematical, scientific, and
computer skills and were able to integrate knowledge from diverse
areas.
The 2005-2006 Graduate
Programs Curriculum & Instruction and Special Education Employee
Follow-up Survey (Exhibit
1a.11) is an 11 item survey using a 4-point scale where 1=
Unsatisfactory and 4= Exemplary. Data from this survey of
advanced candidates (N=9) indicated that 89% perceived their
knowledge of content to be exemplary. They indicated they
understood the content they are to teach as well as the history,
structure and real-world applications of that content. They felt
prepared to teach content including prior knowledge students bring
to the classroom. Also, 100% of the advanced candidates indicated
that they are prepared to use professional standards to develop
knowledge, skills and dispositions to become an effective
educator.
1b.
Pedagogical Content Knowledge for
Teachers in Initial Programs
Performance-based
assessments.
Assessment data from two Unit instruments, the classroom
management plan and lesson plan, indicate that on a 4-point scale,
candidates in the initial program use skills in connection to
pedagogical content knowledge appropriately and consistently with
a high degree of competence and confidence in all areas as shown
in the high mean scores for individual items as well as the
overall average of scores for Fall 2006, Spring 2007, and Fall
2007.
Exhibit 1b.1: Pedagogical Knowledge provides data from several
individual items of these two instruments. Candidates
demonstrated pedagogical content in classroom management by
scoring 3.54 or higher, indicating competency in planning
classroom procedures, individual and group motivation and rewards,
preventive and supportive discipline, and parental involvement.
Candidates demonstrated knowledge in lesson planning by scoring
3.53 or higher, showing competency in planning lesson objectives,
introductions, procedures, closure, assessment, and materials; as
well as in planning lessons that provide developmentally
appropriate, student-centered learning opportunities that meet the
diverse needs and varied learning styles of learners.
SPA reports provide program specific data, as well as PRAXIS
PLT results.
Course performance
Candidates learn mathematical content through courses including
topics in elementary number structure, geometry, data analysis,
and probability. In the methods courses, candidates use their
knowledge of reform mathematical content and pedagogy to
effectively teach lessons and assess student knowledge. The
foundation course,
EDUC 320, requires candidates to tutor a student in a
one-on-one situation and complete a case study furthering their
knowledge of possible mathematical weaknesses in students. These
courses focus on the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)
content and process standards and principles, as well as the
Louisiana Mathematical strands and pervasive themes, including use
of manipulatives and application of content to real life
situations to impact student learning. Data are provided in
Exhibit 1b.2: NCTM Addendum for secondary student teachers’
competency in meeting these expectations. These data provide
evidence that the LASS A4 (b) Mathematics has been addressed and
met with success.
All candidates utilize the
Louisiana Reading Competencies in PK-12 classrooms to impact
student learning including topics in phonemic awareness, phonics,
vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and writing. In methods
courses, candidates use their knowledge of these reading
competencies and other literacy content and pedagogy to
effectively teach lessons and assess students’ knowledge. The
reading foundation courses,
EDUC 304 and
EDUC 308, require candidates to tutor a student in a
one-on-one setting and interact with PK-12 students in a variety
of settings across the methods and practicum experiences (Exhibit
1b.3: Education 304 Pre-assessment). Content area reading and
informational literacy skills are identified through state and
national standards and addressed through instruction and
assessment to impact student learning. These data provide
evidence that the LASS A4 (a) Reading has been addressed and met
with success. Our state review noted that the State Board of
Elementary and Secondary Education (SBESE) Reading Competencies in
our courses are aligned with the Louisiana English/Language Arts (ELA)
content standards, benchmarks, and Grade Level Expectations (GLEs),
as well as with International Reading Association/National Council
of Teachers of English (IRA/NCTE) standards.
Technology pedagogical
content knowledge
Initial candidates have multiple opportunities to obtain
knowledge and skills for infusing technology into the content area
of their programs of study. Prior to student teaching, candidates
are required to take
ETEC 306 or
ETEC 475 where technology knowledge and skills are merged with
pedagogical content knowledge in the computer lab environment.
Additionally, candidates are required to complete a minimum of 10
clock hours of FX infusing technology into direct instruction in a
PK-12 classroom. The ETEC 306 Technology Portfolio (Exhibit
1b.4) provides evidence of technological knowledge.
Initial candidates are
assessed through Unit based assessment within PASS-PORT,
specifically the Lesson Plan Assessment, the Final Report on
Student Teaching and the PEC Technology Self-Assessment. The data
from these two instruments in
Exhibit 1b.5: Technology Pedagogical Knowledge show a trend of
gradual improvement over the course of the three semesters
reported. For example, the Lesson Plan Item # 8 shows a rating of
3.47 (n=94) for Fall 2006, 3.69 (n=194) for Spring 2007, and 3.70
(n=140) for Fall 2007.
Initial candidates also are
required to complete a survey, PEC Technology Self-Assessment,
where they assess their technology knowledge and skills. The
2006-2007 academic year assessment results (Exhibit
1b.6) show that candidates report they have a high level of
confidence and that their technology knowledge and skills are both
adequate and functional for use in the PK-12 classroom.
Initial follow-up surveys
Using a 4-point scale for initial level teacher candidates,
the 2006-2007 Teacher Education Graduate Follow-Up Survey (LASS
1.15) reports data from principals (N=46) in two school
districts. These data indicate that candidates were most
effective in the following areas: Instruction (3.44), Content
Knowledge: Louisiana Content Standards and Benchmarks (3.44),
Content Knowledge: relevant up-to-date, content including
components, principles, relationships, methods of inquiry, and key
issues (3.44).
1b. Pedagogical Content Knowledge for
Teachers in Advanced Programs
Within our conceptual
framework and aligned with the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards (NBPTS), advanced teacher candidates enhance
their pedagogical content knowledge through Master of Education
degrees in Special Education (SPED) and Curriculum and Instruction
(C&I). They acquire this knowledge through Core Courses (15
hrs.), Concentration Area Courses (9-18 hrs.) and Support Courses
(3-12 hrs). Thus evidence of pedagogical content knowledge of
advanced teacher candidates’ mastery is provided from four
sources: 1) course performance, 2) performance-based assessments,
3) written comprehensive examinations or the action research
project, depending upon candidate entrance to the degree program,
and 4) Unit-level portfolios.
Course performance
Advanced candidates must earn a grade of “C” or better in each
course in the major and a maximum of 6 hours with a grade of “C.”
Content knowledge competency is also demonstrated by achieving a
cumulative GPA of 3.0 or better in all graduate coursework, this
being a criterion for graduation. Advanced candidates for the
2006-2007 academic year achieved an overall GPA of 3.7.
Performance-based
assessments
Examples of assessments include checklists, exams, portfolios,
projects, self-evaluations, case studies, presentations,
reflective journals, and administrative interviews. In
EDUC 660, candidates demonstrate the ability to apply
knowledge about diversity in the culminating exam (Exhibit
1b.7: EDUC 660 Exam). During courses involving FXs,
pedagogical content knowledge is assessed along with a variety of
other areas via evaluations of written materials and observations
of teaching performance. In
EDUC 661, reading concentration candidates demonstrate this
knowledge through planned interventions for low-progress readers
in case studies which provide evidence for a wide range of
Louisiana Reading Competencies.
Written comprehensive
examinations
The comprehensive exam, taken during the final semester,
includes pedagogical knowledge. Ninety-four percent of candidates
who took the comprehensive exam in 2006-2007 passed.
Exhibit 1a.9: Comprehensive Examinations, indicates that
candidates have mastered the pedagogical content knowledge
indicated by their degree plans. For candidates scoring below the
acceptable standard, remediation is provided by a committee of
faculty who individualize remediation. Remediation can include
additional coursework, independent study, observations, and
conferences with faculty.
Advanced level portfolios
Advanced level candidates submit three Unit level portfolios
that demonstrate pedagogical knowledge. Candidates are required
to upload in PASS-PORT artifacts as well as Reflections of
Learning that show clear understandings of pedagogical content
knowledge used to create their portfolios. In Reflections of
Learning, required at each of the three portfolio levels,
candidates reflect on their pedagogical content knowledge and
skills and connect these to standards demonstrating their in-depth
understanding of the subject matter they teach through various
best practices so that all students can learn. Specifically, item
number two states “all artifacts connect to appropriate standard(s);
justifies reasons for choosing standard(s); and a clear
understanding of the standard(s) is indicated.”
Exhibit 1a.10: E-Folio Results Advanced documents 89% of
candidates during the 2006-2007 academic year met or exceeded
expectations on artifacts connected to standards which document
pedagogical knowledge. The results for the Fall 2007 semester
indicate the percentage increased to 95% meeting or exceeding
expectations.
Technology pedagogical content knowledge
Advanced candidates are required to successfully integrate
technology in to their instruction with PK-12 students as well as
their coursework. Course projects provide additional
opportunities for utilization of technology. From these
course-based artifacts candidates then build the required
portfolio. For example, in
EDUC 652 students construct a concept map on a science topic
using inspiration software and upload it into the pass-port system
(Exhibit
1b.8: Concept Map).
Exhibit 1b.9: Power Point Presentation represents another
sample. With respect to technology, candidates are required to use
PASS-PORT and Blackboard, as well as word processing,
spreadsheets, PowerPoint and multimedia in various assignments
throughout their programs. All candidates are required to use a
variety of technologies in the delivery of all papers, projects
and presentations. The culminating Action Research Project
presentation is another example of using technology.
In addition, some candidates
complete a specific course which is primarily computer technology
based.
EDL 600 and
ETEC 620 provide extensive exposure of the infusion of
technology into instruction. The courses are taken by some
advanced candidates in order that the knowledge and skills
developed can be used throughout the candidate’s academic
program. The passage rate has been extremely successful and can
be reviewed in
Exhibit 1b.6. Key technology knowledge is obtained from all
advanced programs and evidence of this is in samples of
portfolios.
Advanced follow-up surveys
Data from the 2004 Employer Survey indicate that the vast
majority of the Unit’s graduates were rated “Very Good” (4) or
“Excellent” (5) in critical thinking skills, organizational
skills, ability to plan projects, ability to identify problems,
ability to solve problems, and ability to think creatively, skills
that are indicative of pedagogical content knowledge. Data
from the 2005-2006 Graduate Programs Curriculum & Instruction and
Special Education Employee Follow-up Survey (Exhibit
1a.11), using a 4-point scale where 1= Unsatisfactory and 4=
Exemplary, indicated 100% of advanced candidates (N=9) perceived
that their use of technological tools and/or products of
technology to promote learning and expand instructional options
were above average or exemplary. Also, 100% of the advanced
candidates indicated that they are prepared to use professional
standards and were able to incorporate national, state, and
institutional standards into their practice as well as 100%
indicated that they are committed to their students and learning
such as respecting diversity, addressing self-concept, motivation,
peer relationships and character and civic responsibility.
1c. Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge
and Skills for Initial Programs
As a reflection of the CF and
assessment system, candidates’ skills are assessed in relation to
the INTASC standards and correlated with the Louisiana Components
of Effective Teaching (LCET). The LCET encompass the following
important aspects of teaching for all teacher candidates:
Planning, Management, Instruction, Assessment, Technology, and
Professional Development. The LCET are introduced early in the
initial degree programs, fostered during the methods courses, and
met with a high degree of competence and confidence during student
teaching/internship as a final assessment of a candidate’s
knowledge and skills. Details of the Final Student
Teaching/Internship Assessment can be found in
Exhibit 1c.1. Program specific data are available in each SPA
report.
The Unit also gathers
information about candidates’ professional and pedagogical
knowledge and skills through artifacts that are evaluated and
submitted as part of a candidate’s Introductory, Developing, and
Competency level portfolios. Candidates must relate artifacts to
appropriate INTASC standards and write a brief reflection on the
chosen standard. These artifacts are evaluated, and the portfolio
as a whole is evaluated as well (Exhibit
1a.3: Initial E-Folio Results).
INTASC Standard 2 addresses
candidates’ knowledge of the ways children and adolescents develop
and the relationship to learning. The Unit measures this
knowledge/skill through item Instruction #13 of the Final Report
on Student Teaching (Competency) and item # 23 of the Summative
Evaluation (Competency). In addition, candidates must connect
INTASC Standard 2 to a specific artifact of their choosing, often
the Assessment Plan or the Lesson Plan.
The Unit gathers information
on candidates’ knowledge of professional ethics, laws, and
policies and information on candidates’ knowledge of the roles and
responsibilities of the professional communities through items #
22, #23, #24 of the Professional Attributes and Characteristics
Scale (Competency) on a scale of 1-6. These items assess
Knowledge of School Improvement Planning, Knowledge of Louisiana
School and District Accountability System (LSDAS), and Knowledge
of the Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (LEAP 21). In
addition, item #2 of the rubric for the Lesson Plan assesses to
what degree the lesson connects to state content standards,
benchmarks, and Grade Level Expectations (GLEs) (Exhibit
1.c2).
INTASC Standard 9 addresses
candidates’ knowledge and skills in the use of research in
teaching, and the Unit measures this knowledge/skill by
Instruction item #4 of the Final Report on Student Teaching. In
addition, candidates must connect this standard to a specific
artifact of their choosing, often a Professional Development
Activity. Finally, addenda to the Final Report on Student
Teaching, one addendum for each specific program, assesses this
knowledge as well; see, for example, items #8.5 and #8.6 on the
NCTM addendum (Exhibit
1b.2): “Participates in professional mathematics organizations
and uses their print and on-line resources” and “Demonstrates
knowledge of research results in the teaching and learning of
mathematics.”
INTASC Standard 2 (2.1),
Standard 3 (3.5), and Standard 8 (8.6) address candidates’
knowledge and skills in relation to the consideration of school,
family, and community contexts and the prior experience of
students. The Unit assesses this knowledge/skill through item
Other #6 of the Final Report on Student Teaching. In addition,
candidates must relate these standards to specific artifacts.
The Louisiana Supplement
Standards (LASS) are aligned with both the LCET and INTASC
standards. Thus, candidates demonstrate their skills regarding
each of the LASS as evidenced in the Final Report on Student
Teaching/Internship/Practicum (LASS
1.17). Using a four-point scale, University supervisors and
mentor teachers rated teacher candidates at a high level of
competence. For 2006-2007, initial level candidates demonstrated
their skills regarding the LASS A1-Planning by scoring 3.65 or
higher; LASS-A2-Management 3.59 or higher; LASS A3-Instruction,
and LASS 4 Curriculum A4 (a) Reading and A4 (b) Curriculum
Mathematics 3.43 or higher; LASS A5 Technology 3.68 or higher; and
LASS A6 Professional Development 3.69 or higher in demonstrating
the ability to reflect and improve their performance and in
showing an awareness of purpose of professional organizations.
Initial level candidates demonstrated their skills regarding the
LASS A7–School Improvement (awareness of the School Improvement
Plan) by scoring 3.73 (N=124) Fall 2006 and 3.79 (N=152) Spring
2007, and 3.67 (N=124) Fall 2006 and 3.66 (N= 152) regarding the
ability to plan lessons using the School Improvement Plan.
Candidates were also rated high 3.68 (N=124) Fall 2006 and 3.72
(N=152) Spring 2007 for their skill in grade level and subject
area curriculum planning and evaluation (LASS B1–LSDAS and B2–LEAP
21). The 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 teacher candidate data indicate
comparable performance levels.
Initial follow-up surveys
The 2006-2007 three-year Teacher Education Graduate Follow-Up
Survey data (4-point scale) from the principals (N=46) in two
school districts reported on 133 third year teachers indicate that
they perceived Southeastern graduates to be most effective in
Student Achievement (3.65), Instruction (3.65), Planning (3.65),
Collaboration (3.60), and Management (3.60). The lowest scores
(3.23) were reported for Diversity and (3.30) for professional
development, but still provide evidence of successfully using
professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills (LASS
1.15: Summary: Teacher Education Graduate Follow-up Survey for
2006-2007).
1c. Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge
and Skills for Advanced Programs
Evidence of professional and
pedagogical knowledge and skills of advanced teacher candidates’
mastery is provided from primarily course performance and
projects, the final action research project, for those candidates
who entered the degree program in Summer 2006 or later, and
electronic portfolios (Exhibit
1a.10: Advanced E-Folio Results). Various projects and
assignments are identified for inclusion in the portfolio as
evidence of candidate competency. Selected artifacts and portal
Reflections of Learning are uploaded into PASS-PORT to be used in
the evaluation of Unit portfolios. In Reflections of Learning,
advanced level candidates are required to reflect on their
professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills and connect
these to NBPTS aligned with the conceptual framework/institutional
standards.
All advanced candidates
address all the LASS (A1-A6) through these assessments embedded
within the elements of Standard 1. Advanced courses are aligned
with the SBESE Reading Competencies which are aligned with the
Louisiana ELA content standards, benchmarks, and GLEs, as well as
with IRA/NCTE standards. When advanced candidates connect
course-based and unit-based assessments with state and national
standards, the connection with SBESE Competencies is also present
(LASS
1.14). Unique to Louisiana are the LASS (A7, B1, B2).
Evidence that the LASS (A7, B1, B2) have been addressed and are
met is based on the Advanced Dispositions Form assessment and
other key assessments (LASS
1.3, Fall 06 & Spring 07 Data;
LASS 1.21, 2006-2007 Faculty Evaluations).
Course performance and
projects
Advanced candidates learn mathematical content through courses
that foster knowledge of reform mathematical content and pedagogy
to effectively teach lessons and assess student knowledge. The
content and pedagogy are aligned with the NCTM content and process
standards and principles, as well as the Louisiana Mathematical
strands and pervasive themes which include use of manipulatives
and application of content to real life situations to impact
student learning.
All advanced candidates in
C&I redesigned programs first implemented Summer 2006 explore
teacher leadership and engage in an action research project during
EDUC 695, which may address one or more of the LASS. In
EDUC 693, Leadership for Change advanced Elementary and
Secondary concentration candidates develop leadership skills (LASS
1.4) and a school improvement plan (LASS
1.5) which is implemented in
EDUC 688, Practicum in Elementary and Secondary Education that addresses not only educational improvement in school
settings but also professional and pedagogical knowledge and
skills. Advanced candidates have the ability to reflect on
their practice making adjustments to facilitate and enhance PK-12
student learning.
One example of advanced
program candidates addressing these standards as well as the LASS
is in
EDUC 678, Dyslexia and Related Disabilities in the Classroom,
where candidates conduct mini-research projects (LASS
1.6) in the schools to determine how to best teach students
with characteristics of dyslexia. Candidates share these findings
with their peers as evidence of collaboration and impact on school
improvement and professional and pedagogical knowledge and
skills. Advanced candidates in both SPED and C&I programs know
how students learn and facilitate PK-12 student understanding.
Evidence that SPED advanced program candidates address LASS is
provided through the CEC SPA report.
Through the English as a
Second Language (ESL) concentration in C&I, advanced candidates
enhance their abilities to impact educational improvement by
addressing the needs of English Language Learners. In
EDUC 516, Methods for Teaching English as a Second Language,
and
EDUC 528, Curriculum Design for Teaching English as a Second
Language, candidates address issues of curriculum and instruction
in meeting the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse
learners who represent subgroups in schools where annual yearly
progress goals are directly related to school improvement.
LASS 1.22 provides evidence of advanced candidates’ knowledge
and performance related to the LASS.
Advanced level portfolios
Overwhelming evidence that advanced candidates consider the
culture of school, family and community contexts in connecting
concepts to PK-12 students’ prior experience and applying the
ideas to real-world problems can be evidenced in portfolios
through selected course artifacts as well as in the previous
examples (Exhibit
1a.10: Advanced E-Folio Results).
National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS)
Advanced level degree programs are structured such that
candidates build upon and extend their knowledge base to improve
their own teaching and student learning through a variety of
course requirements and experiences addressing the five
propositions of the NBPTS: Teachers are committed to
students and their learning; teachers know the subjects they teach
and how to teach those subjects to students; teachers are
responsible for managing and monitoring student learning; teachers
think systematically about their practice and learn from
experience; teachers are members of learning communities.
Advanced level artifacts
selected in each course are submitted as part of candidates’
portfolios to demonstrate professional knowledge and skills for
teachers in the C&I and SPED programs. The assessment used to
evaluate these artifacts and provide Unit information in this
element uses six indicators, on a scale of 1-3, aligned with NBPTS
Propositions 1-5. An overall average (2.21) and details of
candidates’ competencies during the 2006-2007 academic year are
provided in
Exhibit 1c.3: NBPTS Summary. The assessment data indicate that
advanced level candidates in both programs exhibit professional
and pedagogical knowledge and skills for teachers at a level
slightly above Approaching Expectations in the five NBPTS areas.
Candidates are strongest in the areas of knowledge of subjects
they teach (2.23), application of specialized knowledge through a
variety of teaching strategies (2.23), and the consideration of
experiences, experts and research in planning and/or
implementation (2.23). The lowest mean score (2.17) was in the
demonstration of collaboration with colleagues,
parents/caregivers, and/or consideration of community resources.
Data related to foundations
of education and the ways children and adolescents develop and the
relationship to learning is reflected in Items 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Artifacts are assessed on the extent to which they reflect
understanding of how diverse students learn in a variety of
settings; the creation, organization, connection, and application
of knowledge; and how pedagogical knowledge is used to maximize
learning in the classroom. Information regarding candidates’
knowledge of professional ethics, laws, and policies is based on
Items 4 and 5 where the artifact is assessed on the extent to
which it considers experiences, experts, and research as well
collaboration with members of learning communities (e.g.
colleagues, parents, community). Item 4 provides information on
the use of research in teaching. Knowledge and skills in relation
to the diversity of student populations is shown in Item 1 and in
relation to families and communities in Item 5. The consideration
of school, family, and community contexts is shown in Item 5 and
the prior experiences of students in Item 4.
Advanced follow-up surveys
Data from the 2004 Employer Survey indicate that the vast
majority of the Unit’s graduates were rated “Very Good” (4) or
“Excellent” (5) in ability to work with persons from diverse
ethnic and cultural backgrounds as well as work ethics. They
received this same high rating in listening, written
communication, reading, public speaking, and interpersonal skills
which all contribute to professional and pedagogical knowledge and
skills. There is a 97% general satisfaction rate (N=141) with
Southeastern candidates. One employer acknowledged her
satisfaction with Southeastern’s programs: “I have found SLU
graduates to be some of the ‘best prepared’ for the ‘real’
teaching world!!” Advanced graduates indicated in the 2005-2006
Southeastern Exit Survey data that 95% were satisfied or very
satisfied with their real-world experiences in or out of the
classroom (LASS
1.11–Table 18).
Data from the 2005-2006
Graduate Programs Curriculum & Instruction and Special Education
Employee Follow-up Survey (Exhibit
1a.11), using a 4-point scale where 1= Unsatisfactory and 4=
Exemplary, indicated 100% of advanced candidates (N=9) perceived
that they are above average or exemplary in managing and
monitoring student learning, in thinking systematically about
teaching and in serving as members of learning communities.
1d. Student Learning in Initial Programs
Candidates develop and
implement assessment plans that measure student learning several
times during their program, modeled from the required Louisiana
Teacher Assistance and Assessment Program (LaTAAP). Candidates
plan pre- and post-tests that measure the progress of students in
learning lesson objectives and goals. Assessment plans are
implemented in the methods course(s), and student
teaching/internship. Results indicate that candidates are meeting
expectations for impacting student learning during FXs and
clinical practice. For the past three semesters, candidates have
been evaluated on the following items related to their assessment
plans: 1) Develops well constructed assessment instruments/
procedures/ performances, 2) Uses appropriate and effective
assessment techniques, 3) Produces evidence of student academic
growth under his/her instruction, and 4) Interprets and utilizes
standardized/non-standardized test results. Candidate scores
indicate that they are having a significant impact on student
learning as evidenced by the results found in
Exhibit 1d.1: Assessment Plan Summary.
Evidence that the Louisiana
Supplement Standards (A7, B1, B2) have been met at the initial
level is provided in
LASS 1.1. This data set for 2006-2007 includes both
undergraduate and alternate certification candidates their student
teaching or internship semester. Self-reported data from the LASS
survey indicate that the majority of candidates feel that they
have adequate knowledge or are well-informed about this
performance standard required of Louisiana teacher candidates and
teachers. Using their knowledge of the School Improvement Plan,
candidates write a reflection about a teaching experience with
students in a FX and describe the impact on student achievement.
These constructed responses indicate that candidates use Grade
Level Expectations (GLEs) in planning and implementing lesson
plans, and that there is a positive impact on student learning.
LASS 1.2 provides examples of constructed responses of initial
level candidates.
Initial follow-up
surveys.
The 2006-2007 three-year Follow-Up Survey data (4-point
scale) from the principals (N=46) in two school districts
reported on 133 third year teachers indicating that they perceived
Southeastern graduates to be most effective in seven areas which
included student learning. Candidates received a high rating on
Student Achievement (3.65)
LASS 1.15: Summary: Teacher Education Graduate Follow-up
Survey for 2006-2007. Self-reported data reveal that on a 4-point
scale, graduates perceived themselves most effective in their
Content Knowledge as it impacts student learning (3.89) as
evidenced in
LASS 1.16. Additionally, comments from the districts confirm
candidate impact on student learning.
1d. Student Learning in Advanced Programs
Advanced candidates’
performances of student learning are measured using the NBPTS.
Specifically, Proposition 2, Teachers know the subjects they teach
and how to teach those subjects to students, and Proposition 3,
Teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student
learning, are used to assess student learning in the field through
a variety of artifacts (e.g., case studies, assessments, lesson
plans etc.). Results of the NBPTS show that candidates meet
expectations on a scale of 1-3 for Proposition 2 (2.23) and
Proposition 3 (2.20). For further insight into advanced
candidates’ performances of student learning see
Exhibit 1c.3: NBPTS Summary.
Responses from advanced
teacher candidates during their last semester at Southeastern
indicate high levels of knowledge about the LASS A7, B1 and B2,
which impact student learning. Fall 2006 results (N=45) on a
6-point self-assessment document school improvement planning
(5.61), the Louisiana School and District Accountability System
(5.48) and the Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (5.43).
Spring 2007 results for the advanced candidates (N=62) document
school improvement planning (5.2), the Louisiana School and
District Accountability System (B1=4.4) and the Louisiana
Educational Assessment Program (4.8) (LASS
1.3: Fall 06-Spring 07 Data).
LASS 1.21 provides faculty evaluation results for 2006- 2007
for all advanced program candidates (N=208) from the Advanced
Dispositions Form. These results provide evidence that candidates
in advanced programs have met the LASS (A7, B1, B2). Using a
6-point scale, data indicate that candidates have outstanding
knowledge about school improvement planning (5.49), the Louisiana
School and District Accountability System (5.48) and for the
Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (5.72).
Additionally, the SPED
program uses teacher work sample methodology to measure student
learning. The purpose of the Teacher Work Sample (TWS) assignment
is to demonstrate candidates’ ability to plan an appropriate
sequence of instruction based on pre-assessment data obtained,
provide instruction, conduct assessments to document student
learning, and reflect on student achievement and possible changes
in teaching that might impact student learning. Candidates
complete the TWS during an assessment practicum that links
assessment to instruction. Results indicate that candidates
enrolled in the advanced special education program have a positive
impact on student learning by meeting or exceeding expectations.
Evidence of advanced candidate functioning with regard to student
learning can be reviewed in
Exhibit 1d.2: Teacher Work Sample.
Advanced follow-up surveys
The 2004 Follow-up Survey, supported by public
comments, indicates that employers and graduates are
overwhelmingly positive about the impact of Southeastern
candidates on PK-12 learning. This survey is important in that it
helped the Unit plan and implement changes in the curriculum.
Data indicate that the vast majority of the Unit’s graduates were
rated “Very Good” (4) or “Excellent” (5) in ability to integrate
knowledge and info from different areas, and interpersonal skills
as well as ability to work with persons from diverse ethnic and
cultural backgrounds. Examples of comments included “SLU graduates
are better prepared and make fewer mistakes when they enter a
classroom,” and “SLU graduates are very prepared to work with
students at all levels.”
From the 2005-2006 Graduate
Programs Curriculum & Instruction and Special Education Employee
Follow-up Survey (Exhibit
1a.11), using a 4-point scale where 1= Unsatisfactory and 4=
Exemplary, data indicated 100% of advanced candidates (N=9)
perceived that they are prepared to have a positive impact on
student learning. Further data indicated that 89% perceived
themselves to be above average or exemplary in being prepared to
take an active role in school improvement in decision-making and
creating relevant partnerships for school improvement as well as
89% perceived themselves to be above average or exemplary in being
prepared to contribute to testing and measurement practices for
the LEAP and overall, Louisiana School and District Accountability
System take an active role in school improvement in
decision-making and creating relevant partnerships for school
improvement. These follow-up survey data provide further evidence
of candidates addressing the LASS.
1e. Professional Knowledge and Skills for
Other School Professionals
Four advanced programs within
the COEHD prepare candidates to work with students in PK-12
settings: Educational Leadership (Master’s and Doctoral),
Technology Leadership, and School Counseling, which is accredited
by
CACREP. Additionally, the College of Nursing and Health
Sciences (NHS) offers a Master of Science degree in Communication
Science and Disorders which provides candidates opportunities to
prepare to work in PK-12 school settings as Speech-Language
Pathologists and is accredited by
ASHA. The candidates also have opportunities to work with
children and adults in medical and rehabilitation settings. The
results of required state licensure exams and/or national
certification exams for Educational Leadership, School Counseling,
and Speech-Language Pathology are available in Table 4 (Exhibit
1e.1).
Educational Leadership
The Department of Educational Leadership & Technology (ELT)
offers three degrees: Master of Education in Educational
Leadership (EDL), Master of Education in Educational Technology
Leadership (EDT), and Doctorate of Education in Educational
Leadership. A recent report issued by the Southern Regional
Education Board (SREB) cited Southeastern and the other
universities for making progress in six key policy areas
evaluated.
There are common Unit
assessments for all three degrees in ELT as well as program
specific assessments. Additionally, the University
Office of Institutional Research & Assessment conducts a
number of assessments on degree programs. An Exit Survey of all
program completers is conducted after each semester. Summary data
on these assessments common to all ELT programs can be found in
Exhibit 1e.2.
Exhibit 1e.3 displays a summary of assessments conducted for
the Master in Educational Leadership. Candidates must pass the
School Leadership Licensure Assessment (SLLA) for program
completion. The results of the SLLA for the candidates in
2006-2007 are found in
Exhibit 1e.4. Another key assessment is the Case Study in
EDL 660.
Exhibit 1e.5 displays the results and summary statement for
the Case Study. Master’s level candidates are required to conduct
an action-research project which is evaluated (Exhibit
1e.6). The Master’s Degree Program in EDL addresses
diversity, culture, and climate in all of its seminars (Exhibit
1e.7). The electronic portfolio is assessed using the Unit
rubric (Exhibit
1e.8: School Leader E-Folio Results). Program assessments and
results can also be viewed in the
ELCC SPA report.
The Doctor of Education in
Educational Leadership requires all candidates to successfully
complete portfolios in PASS-PORT.
Exhibit 1e.9 contains a summary of the portfolio assessment
for doctoral candidates completing the Emerging Level portfolio.
To date no candidates have submitted the Proficiency or Capstone.
The program addresses the issue of diversity through content in a
number of courses. Specifically,
EDL 811, Management of Educational Organizations, requires
candidates to conduct an Environmental Scan of their communities.
Exhibit 1e.10 contains the template and rubrics for the
Environmental Scan, which has specific diversity related content.
With respect to the Unit’s
emphasis on technology, ELT candidates in both programs are
required to use PASS-PORT and Blackboard, as well as word
processing, spreadsheets, PowerPoint and multimedia (video and
podcasts) in assignments. All candidates are required to use a
variety of technologies in the delivery of papers, projects and
presentations.
EDL 600 is especially designed for the Master’s program, and
ETEC 812, Leadership in the Integration of Emerging
Technologies, for the doctoral program. An example of candidate
work is available in
Exhibit 1e.11: EDL Technology Work Sample.
Technology Leadership
This newest advanced degree program did not come into
existence until April 2007. Therefore, no advanced candidates
were permitted to enroll in the new program until August 2007.
The candidates that populated educational technology courses
during this period of review and redesign were assessed as a part
of the overall Unit assessment system and counted as a part of the
total data aggregated and reported. Candidates who took
educational technology courses did successfully complete
technology portfolios that were assessed using
national/international standards and appropriate rubrics.
Complete access to assessed portfolios successfully completed in
the degree program as a concentration can be viewed at
http://pangea.tec.selu.edu/.
School Counseling
Southeastern’s school counseling program is accredited by the
Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational
Programs (CACREP).
To earn a master’s degree in counseling with a concentration in
school counseling, candidates must pass the Counselor Preparation
Comprehensive Exam (CPCE) during their final semester. This exam
is distributed by the Center for Credentialing and Education, Inc.
(CCE), and is designed to assess the candidates’ knowledge of
counseling in the eight core areas defined by CACREP. The state’s
licensing exam for mental health counseling is the National
Counselor Examination (NCE). However, not all school counselors
elect to take this post-graduate exam since it is not required to
practice school counseling. The CPCE and the NCE both measure
counseling knowledge in the eight core areas defined by CACREP.
Six of the eight core areas
of the CPCE directly assess the school counseling candidates’
knowledge of their students, families, and communities: Human
Growth and Development, Social and Cultural Foundations, Helping
Relationships, Group Work, Career and Lifestyle Development, and
Professional Orientation and Ethics. Successful completion of the
basic skills course (CED
605) also provides evidence that the candidate can interface
with candidates, families, and communities in an effective
manner. The use of current research to inform practice is
demonstrated through successful completion of each of the
counseling videotapes required to enter the practicum and
internship experiences. Research competency is also demonstrated
by the 100% pass rates on the CPCE in the area of Research and
Program Evaluation. Data also suggest that candidates use
technology in their practice, as measured by the CPCE core areas
of Appraisal and Career and Lifestyle Development. The
implementation of both core areas requires the infusion of
technology.
Exhibit 1e.12 provides detailed results of the CPCE assessment
of counseling candidates.
Candidate progress is
continually assessed throughout the program. In addition, it is
formally assessed on four specific occasions: 1) Candidates must
earn at least a “B” in the introductory counseling skills course,
CED 605: Pre-practicum/Counseling Techniques, in order to
advance in the program; 2) Candidates must be interviewed by
faculty and satisfactorily complete a counseling videotape before
being admitted to practicum; 3) Candidates must satisfactorily
complete a counseling videotape and receive faculty approval
before being admitted to internship; and 4) Candidates must pass
the Counselor Preparation Comprehensive Exam (CPCE) in their final
semester in order to graduate.
Speech-Language Pathology
The
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders provides
professional services to school systems, medical, and
rehabilitation facilities within the University’s community to
assist in strengthening their programs for individuals with
communication disorders. Undergraduate students may complete the
program with the necessary hours to obtain a license from the
Board of Examiners of Speech-Language Pathology & Audiology (LABESPA)
or a certificate from the Louisiana State Department of Education
to practice as a speech-language pathology assistant (SLPA).
Graduate students majoring in speech-language pathology obtain
academic and clinical training required for the Certificate of
Clinical Competency (CCC) in Speech-Language Pathology granted by
the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. The program
leading to a master’s degree in speech language pathology is
accredited by the
Council on Academic Accreditation in Audiology and Speech-Language
Pathology (CAA) of the American Speech Language-Hearing
Association (ASHA)
(Exhibit
1e.13). Advanced candidates complete all course work and
clinical practicum courses required for state licensure and
national certification and pass the national examination in
speech-language pathology (PRAXIS) (Exhibit
1e.1) prior to earning the certificate of clinical
competence. Advanced candidates successfully complete a clinical
practicum course,
CSD 611; assessment of those candidates during 2006-2007 can
be found in
Exhibit 1e.14 which provides evidence of knowledge and skills.
Evidence that the
Speech-Language Pathology program candidates are competent in
knowledge and skills for other school professionals is provided in
the CSD Application Form 2005-2006 (LASS
1.18) that is submitted to the accrediting body. Candidates
are evaluated in their clinical experiences using the Clinical
Skills Competency Checklist (LASS
1.19) and the Knowledge and Skills Action Form (KASA) (LASS
1.20). The average scores for advanced candidates’ (N=11)
performance indicate a high level of performance in the clinical
practicum course (CSD
611) as all scores were 4.75 or greater on a five-point scale
for 2006-2007 (LASS
1.13).
Advanced follow-up surveys
Follow-ups are conducted on all degree program completers and
alumni as noted previously. However, because of the recent
beginning of ELT programs, no program completers have been
included in these surveys as yet. The degree program
administrators are working with the director of
Office of Institutional Research & Assessment to include
targeted questions specific to each degree program in these
follow-up surveys in the future. The Alumni Survey was conducted
in 2003-2004 and results may be found in
Exhibit 1e.15. However, all degree programs offered in the
2006-2007 year have not yet had program completers; the next
Alumni Survey is scheduled to be conducted in 2008-2009. In
addition to surveys conducted by the Office of Institutional
Research & Assessment, the Master in Educational Leadership has a
specific survey (Exhibit
1e.16).
1f. Student Learning for Other School
Professionals
In the EDL master’s program,
Seminars 1 and 4 address culture and climate at the building level
as impacting student learning through creating a positive
environment. See the syllabi for
EDL 660,
661,
662,
663 for specific course objectives. Successful completion of
these courses indicates that this element has been addressed.
Advanced candidates in Educational Leadership programs
successfully address the LASS (A7, B1, B2) through key assessments
(e.g., Case Study, School Improvement Plan) and follow-up survey
data as evidenced in
LASS 1.7,
LASS 1.8 and
LASS 1.9 and cited in the
ELCC SPA report. In the doctoral program through coursework
and web-based projects, candidates explore multiple means of
creating environments conducive to learning at both building and
district levels,
In addressing LASS A7 with
regard to School Improvement, candidates in the counseling program
address CACREP standards that stipulate all candidates in the
school counseling track complete a 600 hour internship (CED
690) in a school (K-12) setting under the supervision of a
licensed mental health provider and/or certified school
counselor. This experience requires the candidate to engage in
the day-to-day activities of a practicing school counselor.
Therefore, candidates are required to take active roles in school
improvement efforts, high stakes testing (LEAP 21), school and
district accountability (LSDAS), and to work with the supervisor
to create community partnerships aimed at enhancing the
comprehensive school counseling program. In addition, advanced
candidates are provided an overview of their role and various
accountability measures that will be encountered in area schools
in
CED 611, School Counseling and Consulting. During the
internship experience, candidates provide a multitude of services
designed to assist students taking this exam, including classroom
guidance units on calming test anxiety, time management and
test-taking strategies, and effective study skills.
The Speech-Language Pathology
program is accredited by the CAA of the ASHA. Candidates who work
in school settings are members of various teams (e.g., School
Improvement, IEP, and School Building Level) in an effort to
impact student learning and enhance school improvement thus
addressing the LASS which targets the goal of student learning.
The average scores for advanced candidates’ (N=11) performance in
these areas indicate a high level of performance in the clinical
practicum course (CSD 611) as all scores were 4.75 or greater on a
5-point scale for 2006-2007 (LASS
1.13).
Advanced follow-up surveys
The
Employer 2004 Survey for all advanced programs for other
school professionals conducted by Institutional Research is
available for review. Program follow-up survey data from
2003-2007 for candidates in the Educational Leadership program
indicate that both employees and employers view Southeastern
graduates as competent or exemplary using a four-point scale (LASS
1.10).
Institutional research
reported in February 2007 for the Employer 2004 graduates that
there is a 97% general satisfaction rate (N=141) with Southeastern
candidates. Advanced graduates indicated in the 2005-2006
Southeastern Exit Survey data that 95% were satisfied or very
satisfied with their real-world experiences in or out of the
classroom in that 100% of the advanced graduates indicated they
were satisfied or very satisfied about their internship (LASS
1.11–EDL & Technology-Table 16; Counseling–Table 17; Speech
Pathology-Table 20).
Follow-Up Survey data for
advanced candidates in Speech-Language Pathology indicate that
both graduates and employers view Southeastern graduates as
competent in their ability to create positive environments for
student learning. See the 2005-2006 CSD Application Form (LASS
1.18).
1g. Professional Dispositions
The COEHD, in collaboration
with our partner colleges and partner schools are responsible for
preparing candidates who have the acquired knowledge, skills, and
dispositions expected of effective professionals. Faculty and
school personnel evaluate the demonstration of dispositions and
feedback is provided about candidate progress. Dispositions are
defined as the values, commitments, and professional ethics that
influence behavior toward students, families, colleagues, and
communities affecting student learning, motivation, and
development as well as the educator’s own professional growth.
Dispositions are guided by beliefs and attitudes related to values
such as caring, fairness, honesty, responsibility, and social
justice (NCATE, 2001).
The Unit adopted four major
categories of dispositions: 1) Professional Attributes, 2)
Professional Characteristics, 3) Professional Relationships, and
4) Fairness. Punctual attendance and personal presentation are
professional attributes, an important key to becoming an effective
educator. Confidence, adaptability, and ambition are professional
characteristics increasing the likelihood of accepting leadership
roles in the educative community. Additionally, candidates’
positive interaction with students, peers, faculty, and community
persons ensures us of their ability to build professional
relationships. As the fourth category of our disposition
assessment is fairness, it is incumbent upon our candidates to
display characteristics promoting their belief in the fact all
children can learn. These four categories of dispositions are
expected of all teacher education candidates and other school
professional candidates in both the University classroom and \
field settings. Candidates at both initial and advanced levels
are assessed using the Professional Attribute and Characteristic
Scale.
Initial candidates’
dispositions
More than 80% of candidates completing methods courses during
Fall 2006 achieved high ratings on the components of the four main
categories of dispositions (Exhibit
1g.1). Candidates’ results during Spring 2007 show similar
results (Exhibit
1g.2). Although each main category indicated greater than 60%
of the candidates achieved each component of the four main
categories, the strongest scores are in categories three and four
with greater than 80% of the candidates achieving each of those
components. With the initial candidates’ dispositions being
addressed during the methods courses’ FXs then evaluated by the
instructor at the conclusion of these experiences, we are assured
each component of becoming an effective educator described by our
conceptual framework is addressed. A final assessment,
Professional Attributes Scale, is completed during the student
teaching/internship; results are available in
Exhibit 1g.3 for a three-year period. Item numbers 1–15 are
specific to the Unit’s dispositions.
Advanced candidates’
dispositions
As part of its assessment plan, the Unit requires advanced
candidates to respond to the Professional Attributes Scale as a
pre-assessment readiness survey for Portal 7 and a post-assessment
survey in Portal 9. Results are reported to the Unit. The
2006-2007 surveys of advanced candidates’ self reporting reveal
that they are responsive to the Unit’s four clusters of
dispositions: Professional Attributes; Professional
Characteristics; Professional Relationship; Fairness. Fall 2006
candidates averaged over 5.5 on all items on a 1-6 scale with 6
being the highest level response on the Pre-Disposition and
Post-Disposition Surveys (Exhibit
1g.4). The Unit also collects data on the Professional
Attributes Scale instrument where advanced candidates (N=151) are
evaluated by faculty on dispositions in 2006-2007 (Exhibit
1g.5).
Advanced follow-up surveys
The 2004 Employer Survey is the most current data available
and indicates that the vast majority of the Unit’s graduates were
rated “Very Good” (4) or “Excellent” (5) in professionalism,
working in an ethical manner, work attitude, dependability,
punctuality, willingness to accept new responsibilities,
decision-making, ability to work independently, and ability to
work under pressure. From the 2005-2006 Graduate Programs
Curriculum & Instruction and Special Education Employee Follow-up
Survey (Exhibit
1a.11), using a 4-point scale where 1= Unsatisfactory and 4=
Exemplary, data indicated 100% of advanced candidates (N=9)
perceived that they exhibit professional dispositions of an
effective educator. |
