GSU Quality Assurance System Handbook

QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM HANDBOOK

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION GRAMBLING STATE UNIVERSITY

April 2021

(Revised Spring 2023)

Adapted from the University of Alabama in Huntsville

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

Development of the Quality Assurance System (QAS)

Relationship of the QAS to the Institution and EPP Missions

Relationship of the QAS to the Conceptual Framework

Quality Assurance System

Transition Points

Key Assessments

Common Rubric........................................................................................................

Integration of the QAS with the EPP Governance System ...................................................

Multiple Levels of Assessment...................................................................................

Faculty Assessment...................................................................................................

The EPP Quality Assurance System Panel.......................................................

Portal Committees and Advisors................................................................................

Procedures for Ensuring Fairness, Accuracy, Consistency, and Avoidance of Bias..

Using Technology in the QAS

Quality Assurance System Graphic

Figure 1 QAS Model Graphic (Initial)

Figure 2 QAS Model Graphic (Advanced)

Conceptual Framework

Table 1

Appendix A

Conceptual Framework

Conceptual Framework Tree Graphic and Strands

Appendix B Alignment of National, Professional, and EPP Standards

EPP Quality Assurance System

Appendix C QAS Transition Points and Measures Crosswalk

Appendix D: Key Assessments Used for Assessment Plans (Annual) and Internal Program Reviews (3-yrs)

Appendix E Data Collection, Analysis, and Review Plan

Appendix F Table of Program Stakeholder Committee Members

Appendix G Faculty Activity Reporting Guide

Appendix H Faculty Performance Evaluation Form

Appendix I Assessment Planning and Program Review Forms

Appendix J Educator Disposition Assessment

Appendix K Follow-Up Survey

EPP Organization

Appendix L EPP Organizational Chart

Introduction

The Department of Curriculum and Instruction is charged with the responsibility for both initial and advanced educator preparation programs. The EPP designed the Quality Assurance System (QAS) to assess candidate progress, completer accomplishments, and operational performance The Table of Current Program Key Assessments-Appendix D is used to offer evidence that the EPP meets all applicable standards, including those of CAEP The ideology "Catalysts for Change" guides initial and advanced programs as they educate successful educators who are facilitators of learning, enhancers and nurturers of affective behaviors, and subject matter content experts

Content knowledge, pedagogy, critical thinking, diversity, communication, and professionalism are candidate competencies The Educator Preparation Program Mission Statement, "To develop educators who demonstrate competency in their respective areas of responsibility, exhibit reflective practitioner characteristics, utilize research and best practices, make informed decisions and advocate for children, and hold themselves accountable to their clients, the community, and the profession,” guides and informs the work of all programs.

There is an evaluation process in place for each program that addresses the applicable national, state, and professional criteria. These standards at the program level are congruent with and associated with the broader EPP candidate outcomes. The assessment evaluations are aligned with the Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) and the Louisiana Teacher Preparation Competency indicators, which are mostly derived from the professional standards of the content-specific organizations (NSTA, NCTM, CEC, etc )

The EPP has adopted and continues to refine its QAS as part of continuous improvement The Quality Assurance System was developed and implemented in accordance with the CAEP definition of an assessment system as "a comprehensive and integrated set of evaluation measures that provides information for use in monitoring candidate performance and managing and improving EPP operations and programs for the preparation of professional educators" (QAS)

Development of the Quality Assurance System

The university's assessment procedures and protocols were updated in the fall of 2018 to better align with SACSCOC accreditation standards Programs identified and reviewed key assessments to ensure alignment with specific program and operational objectives The EPP had been creating annual reports for the Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE) and submitting annual reports to Title II and CAEP before the university implemented the practice of collecting SACSCOC annual evaluation reports The Louisiana Department of Education also mandates comprehensive program reviews every five years The present QAS and individual program assessment plans reflect this long-standing commitment to evaluation and ongoing improvement to comply with the state-mandated redesign to the one-year residency. Many guiding principles went into the creation and implementation of the QAS.

Characteristics of the system components are:

1. Systematic and coherent with multiple decision points;

2. Integrated with other existing evaluation/assessment requirements;

3 Comprehensive and reflect the Conceptual Framework;

4 Flexible;

5 Include assessments that are aligned with state-specific and SPA knowledge and skill standards;

6 Participatory in development and implementation

7 Based on data from multiple sources that are based on carefully selected evaluation criteria;

8. Developed from simple to complex;

9. Committed to fairness, accuracy, consistency, and the avoidance of bias;

10.Inclusive through stakeholder (content faculty, professional education faculty, P-12 faculty and administrators, candidates, and graduates/alumni) involvement in system development and management;

11. Continuously supported and managed; and

12.Formally reviewed and revised as needed on a regular basis.

The definition of assessment adopted by the EPP includes three major processes: data collection from a comprehensive and integrated set of assessments, analysis of data for forming judgments, and use of analysis in making decisions In light of these three procedures, assessment is operationally defined as a process in which data and information are gathered, compiled, and examined as a foundation for making decisions Decisions about the continual improvement of our programs are then made on the basis of judgments

Figure 1: QAS Model Graphic (Initial)

The QAS evolved through a process of systematic thought and work focused on assessing education candidates and their programs Assessment of candidates and programs aligns unit requirements with institutional, state, and national standards and leads to measured decisionmaking involving candidates, programs, and faculty Since implementing state-mandated program redesigns in the fall of 2018, the faculty has taken incremental steps toward revising old NCATE-aligned rubrics for key assessments to meet CAEP sufficiency Fall 2021 marked the end of the 3-year cycle for completing validity and reliability studies for EPP-created assessments IRR studies were completed on all of the common key assessments for initial

Figure 2: QAS Model Graphic (Advanced)

programs; however, the validity study revealed that rubrics needed further revisions to meet CAEP sufficiency standards Additionally, the content validity study of the instruments was postponed in order to ensure that the constructs of the assessments were in line with CAEP standards

Seminars and training are held with university and local school district partners (superintendents, central office personnel, alumni, teachers, and supervisors) to review the use of instruments and be certain that terminology definitions are consistent and clear. Continuous review and revision of the instruments occur as data are aggregated. Primary sources for this review and revision are faculty members and external stakeholders including members of the PK-16+ Advisory Council (PK16).

This developmental approach to assessment creates a connected, expanded system that encompasses all required assessments This approach allows collected data to be viewed by various parties as input gathered for judgments and decisions regarding how teacher candidates are prepared at GSU Thus, the data are collected in a systematic and purposeful manner to be used for various studies such as CAEP, specialized professional associations (SPAs), the institution, SACSCOC, Title II reporting, the Louisiana State Department of Education (LDOE), the state inspectorate agency, Class Measures, and other agencies as needed

Relationship of the QAS to the Institution and EPP Mission

The EPP is committed to providing initial candidates with innovative assignments and clinical experiences to enhance their ability to think critically about the profession and about the students with whom they interact. Teacher candidates engage in discourse on societal

challenges that affect schools and explore how teachers can address or overcome them through discussions, seminars, journaling, reflection on practice, and the application of learning to future situations

The EPP assures that these opportunities for practice and reflection are assessed in ways that yield data to improve both program and candidate performance The mission of the university and the mission of the EPP relate to advanced programs by incorporating the provision of an array of degree and professional development programs, continuing education opportunities, and services designed to address the needs of adult learners.

These programs and services are largely designed for the convenience of adults with full-time employment. The advanced candidates that the EPP works with are typically early- or mid-career professionals who are dedicated to developing their careers and professional networks These goal-oriented adults possess a broad and diverse range of teaching experiences and seek an advanced license in order to develop expertise in an area of specialization In order to ensure that the advanced programs produce effective educators and completers, the EPP designs its programs and services to meet the needs of its students and their districts and communities

The QAS reflects the mission of the EPP regarding the preparation of teachers by assessing the preparation of these individuals and their development in programs as measured by EPP and program standards Because the EPP provides education and related services for a society that is open, complex, demanding, and evolving, each program features distinct methods to assess candidate progress. The EPP also provides professional learning opportunities for teachers and

other school personnel in a wide range of disciplines at both the initial and advanced program levels Collaborative ventures also provide professional learning opportunities for teachers and other school professionals

Relationship of the QAS to the Conceptual Framework

The EPP conceptual framework (Table 1: Conceptual Framework) is aligned with state and professional standards (Appendix A: Conceptual Framework Tree Graphic and Strands, Appendix B: Alignment of National, Professional and EPP Standards) and serves as the foundation for the EPP Quality Assurance System (QAS) The key assessments are aligned with the conceptual framework This alignment ensures that the assessment system collects information on candidate proficiencies as articulated in the conceptual framework, and the state, national, and the professional standards for both initial and advanced programs The alignment also enables us to be efficient and focused on the data that are collected, which maximizes our ability to grow a culture of data-driven decisions in the EPP The QAS is a blueprint for fostering a continuous cycle of planning, implementation, and evaluation that ultimately documents that the EPP produces knowledgeable, skilled, and compassionate educators and other school professionals The QAS is a centralized system that is comprehensive in its assessment of the EPP operations, the quality of its initial and advanced programs, the performance of its candidates, and the professional competencies of its graduates.

Table

1. Masters of Subject Matter Content: The Unit has established for this outcome the following program objectives:

1 1 Demonstrate knowledge of content that underlies

1 2 Apply knowledge of best pedagogical practices for use

1 3 Create learning experiences that utilize

1: Conceptual Framework

professional competencies in the instructional process implementing reading specific to the content area

diverse strategies for interrelating disciplines and supporting content-specific literacies in the instructional process

2. Facilitators of Learning: Candidates should exhibit the following proficiencies/ competencies to facilitate learning within classrooms, buildings, and districts:

2 1 Plan and deliver effective standards-based lessons that demonstrate effective delivery strategies through the use of technology infusion for diverse populations to promote creative thinking, construct knowledge, and develop innovative products and processes using technology

2 2 Create and maintain effective, theory-based management strategies (organization of time, space, resources, and activities

2 3 Collect and interpret multiple measures of assessment to devise activities that promote active involvement, critical/creative thinking, and problem-solving skills for diverse students

3. Enhancers and Nurturers of Affective Behaviors: The expectation is that candidates and graduates exhibit the following competencies/proficiencies:

3 1 Develop personal, professional, and curricular values that promote a positive attitude and mutual respect toward students, parents, and colleagues

3 2 Reflect on the value of practices, knowledge, inquiry, and critical thinking behaviors to make data-driven instructional decisions as a commitment to the improvement of student learning and school improvement

3 3 Practice inclusion of the many facets of diversity to aid the development of healthy mental, physical and social lifestyles through school, family, and community partnership

Quality Assurance System

The QAS is intended to go beyond the classroom and include other factors that influence teaching and learning. The QAS incorporates evaluations from a variety of institutional, state, and national entities. Concurrently, the assessment system's focus is both quantitative and qualitative, and it is purposefully designed to use multiple data sources and assessment strategies. All assessment measures have been classified as focusing on candidate

performance, program effectiveness, faculty effectiveness, or EPP operations Assessment processes are tailored to the community's and candidate population's characteristics Initial candidates bring to the classroom their recent knowledge of public schooling and a desire to become professional educators as beginning post-secondary education candidates Candidates study course topics in relation to educational theory and the integration of theory in the classroom from the start of the initial programs As candidates work toward licensure in various fields, assessment is focused on performance assessments in courses and clinical settings.

Initial programs prepare candidates to become knowledgeable, skilled, and compassionate educators who are catalysts for change. The curriculum for all beginning candidates has three important parts:

1) general education, which provides a developing view of the world and the general skills necessary to become successful;

2) a teaching field specialization, which provides the depth of content necessary to become licensed as a teacher, and

3) professional education courses that provide both content pedagogy and general pedagogy for quality teaching and learning

Candidates in the initial programs have specified courses and clinical experiences to satisfy the requirements for licensure A prescribed knowledge base and institutional, state, and national standards undergird each initial licensure program Candidates are asked to reflect, analyze, plan, and assess to ensure all students learn The QAS includes coursework assessments, a series of performance tasks, and assessments for field-based and clinical experiences The performance tasks are related to what teachers know and are able to do and are embedded in the coursework in order to create a record of candidates' progress through programs

Embedded in-field assessments for initial programs are disposition indicators that reflect

candidate understanding and demonstration of identified dispositions Initial licensure candidates also demonstrate performance competency as teachers by meeting standards-based rubric requirements in Block I courses and field experiences, major clinical experiences (including subject-specific methods courses), and a residency or internship experience

The EPP advanced programs reflect distinct philosophical and operational distinctions between graduate and undergraduate education. Undergraduate education is expected to provide a broad knowledge base that will result in a well-informed individual with interests, knowledge, and expertise in a specific field of study and, in most cases, initial licensure as a professional educator. Advanced programs expand the candidate's knowledge and skills by building on this foundation. Advanced curricula provide a theoretical orientation in a field of specialization, breadth, and depth of knowledge not found in entry-level programs, and a research and problem-solving skills emphasis that addresses the needs of the experienced, employed professionally as well as the application of theory to practice Candidates for advanced programs are prepared for specialized expertise and roles Each program has its own knowledge base, disposition indicators, the body of research, and professional practice component Candidates in advanced programs bring a wide range of professional experiences and a focus on specific career objectives to the classroom as experienced, employed professionals

Assessment processes reflect applicable standards and program goals and objectives from the point of application through program completion and into practice in the specialization

Multiple assessment techniques are used to evaluate both initial and advanced candidate

performance, program effectiveness, faculty effectiveness, and EPP operations Data are collected, analyzed, and used to improve candidate performance, curricula, instruction, delivery, and operations Continuous improvement, as well as corrective action, is a desired outcome of the assessment process

Transition Points

The EPP transition points, along with the program requirements and key assessments, are depicted in Appendix C: QAS Transition Points and Measures Crosswalk and are designed to provide a practically comparable structure across programs and levels. Candidate passage through a transition point is dependent upon the candidate’s presentation of the qualifying data that allows progression to the next level of the program. The assessments used to monitor and make decisions about candidate performances at each transition point are outlined in Appendix E including program requirements (e.g., admissions criteria) and key assessments used as multiple measures of candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Assessments by program for each point are identified and outlined in Appendix C EPP Quality Assurance System

Transition Points

As depicted in Appendix C, at each point and for each program, each candidate submits the required documents to the appropriate undergraduate, initial, or graduate portal review committee The committee then reaches a consensus regarding candidate performance and may elect to take an action: 1) candidate passage through the portal, 2) candidate provisional passage to the next level, 3) candidate additional coursework, counseling, or delay of passage through the portal, or possibly 4) candidate professional growth plan developed collaboratively with the candidate, formalizing the recommendations to be tracked by the candidate’s advisor

during the ensuing semester Portal requirements are used to determine candidate proficiencies,which impact candidate matriculation,and to examine EPP and operations quality

(Appendix 5 Data Collection, Analysis, and Review Plan)

Key Assessments

Each program has identified six to eight key assessments (Appendix D: Table of Current Key Program Assessments) Key assessment data are used internally to determine candidate proficiencies, which impact candidate matriculation, to measure program quality, and to improve EPP operations and programs (Appendix E: Data Collection, Analysis, and Review Plan) At each portal and for each program, each candidate submits key assessments in TaskStream to the faculty member designated as the course instructor of record. Faculty evaluate and grade candidate work before submitting the candidate’s final grade. Each candidate can see his/her scores and faculty/supervisor comments as soon as the evaluation is released after grading. At each decision point, each candidate is informed of the decision relative to matriculation through the program.

Integration of the QAS with the EPP Governance System

The QAS has been designed as an integrated component of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction and the COE institutional governance systems. Integration ensures multi-level review and feedback. Oversight for the QAS is the responsibility of the Head of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction (C&I), working in collaboration with the CAEP and assessment coordinators, program leads, faculty, and staff The C&I department head, CAEP coordinator, and assessment coordinator are responsible for coordinating and implementing the QAS The C&I department head also coordinates his/her work with the Dean’s Administrative Council, the

Director of the Office of Institutional Planning, Assessment, Research, and Effectiveness, and other appropriate units (e g , the Registrar, the Office of Information Technologies, etc ) The annual departmental goals and objectives form (Appendix I: Assessment Planning and Program Review Forms) is used to guide the planning and operations of each department and is used as an indicator of EPP and program operations quality Each fall, departmental faculty set goals, objectives, strategies, and performance measures for the upcoming fiscal year and evaluate performance measures from the previous year.

The EPP recognizes the importance of continuous review to ensure that collected data is appropriately aligned with program standards and outcomes, as well as to facilitate and support continuous improvement. The assessment coordinator is responsible for compiling evidence, reporting data from across the EPP, and collaborating with faculty and program leads to improve the quality of assessments and rubrics, strengthen intentional data collection and analysis aligned to program standards, and create a calendar of assessment tasks and responsibilities to guide the work This includes conducting more rigorous statistical studies of the validity and reliability of assessments on a regular basis

As the COE continues to develop assessments, it regularly plans faculty meetings and professional development to focus on the state program approval process (State Inspectorate-Class Measures) and the quality of evidence-based on CAEP sufficiency rubrics

Beginning in the fall of 2021, the group created a rotating schedule to address the quality of assessments and evidence The intention is to review all assessments within a 3-year period, working with faculty to improve all measures of assessment for use in the next CAEP accreditation cycle.

Multiple Levels of Assessment

The EPP maintains a Data Collection, Analysis, and Review Plan (Appendix E) that details when assessments are administered, the frequency of data collection, the responsibility for data collection, the frequency of data analysis and summary, the responsibility for data analysis and summary, the responsibility for evaluation and monitoring of the use of data, and how data are used.

Assessment data are collected at multiple points, and multiple assessments are used, including both internal and external data. Data are regularly compiled, summarized, analyzed, and used. For example, candidate data are used by programs to make decisions regarding candidate admission, matriculation, and program completion. Program assessments are used internally to measure program quality and manage and improve EPP operations and programs SPA program reports are external evaluations used to strengthen the overall performance of the EPP and ensure that graduates have the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to meet program standards SPA program approval reflects on EPP and operations quality Employer surveys are used to ascertain candidate proficiencies in the workplace as well as EPP and operations quality Follow-up surveys also provide data for the improvement of EPP operations (Appendix K: Follow-up Survey)

Faculty Assessment

Faculty members undergo multiple assessment processes, including those conducted by candidates, the administration, and peer committees Each semester, students evaluate the faculty members Course and instructor evaluations are completed by candidates and compiled

by IT Results of these evaluations are shared with faculty members to improve the teaching and learning environment and are used by Department Head during annual faculty evaluations as well as an indicator of EPP and program operations quality These data are collected by the Institutional Planning, Assessment, Research, and Effectiveness through Banner and Canvas and shared with the COE Dean, Department Head, and faculty to be used in annual faculty reports Program faculty are constantly reflecting on and evaluating candidate progress, program effectiveness, and individual practice. This ongoing assessment, as well as the resulting data-driven programmatic decision-making, serves as the foundation for their Annual Faculty Reports. Faculty submit the Annual Faculty Report (Appendix G: Faculty Activity

Reporting Guide). Faculty evaluations by Department Head are conducted annually (Appendix

H: Faculty Performance Evaluation Form) and feedback is used to improve faculty productivity and to assist faculty in meeting tenure and promotion goals. Data also provide evidence of EPP and program operations quality. Tenure-track faculty are evaluated for tenure and promotion based on criteria following procedures established in the GSU Faculty Handbook Faculty are also evaluated by peers

The following evaluations are completed at the end of each semester: 1) resident evaluation of GSU supervisor and mentor teacher, 2) mentor teacher evaluation of GSU supervisor and resident, and 3) GSU supervisor evaluation of mentor teacher and resident

The EPP Quality Assurance System Panel

The EPP Quality Assurance System Panel consists of subject-matter experts, clinical educators, staff members, and administrators that serve the panel at large and also have subcommittee appointments (see Appendix F: Table of Stakeholder Committee Members) The purpose of the Quality Assurance System Review Panel is to provide oversight in the implementation of the QAS, approve amendments to the QAS; recommend policy and procedures supporting

assessment, and review data, reports, and recommendations Full Quality Assurance System Review Panel meetings shall be held within the first six weeks of every fall and spring semester

Committee meetings shall be held monthly if new business is pending Full Quality Assurance

System Review Panel meetings, both formal and informal, may be called by the COE dean and/or by the assessment coordinator (adopted Spring 2010)

Transition Committees and Advisors

Clearly defined procedures are in place to guide candidates through their programs with opportunities for both input and feedback The undergraduate transition committee and graduate program leads are charged with the responsibilities of guiding candidates through the transition review process and reviewing program data. Additionally, candidates are advised every term and advisors review and complete updated Program Progression Update (PPUs) forms and Advising Contracts with personal notes and directives to help candidates navigate the matriculation process. Catalogs and handbooks provide both faculty members and candidates with guidelines, resources, timelines, and forms to successfully perform their assigned duties:

InitialandAdvancedPrograms

GSUGeneralCatalog,UndergraduateandGraduate

GSUCodeofStudentConductHandbook

GSUFacultyHandbook

InitialProgramHandbooks

GSUResidency MentorAndSupervisorHandbook

AdvancedProgramHandbooks

COEC&IGraduateHandbook

Policy and Practice Changes

The following procedures were proposed by the Quality Assurance System Review Panel and adopted in the fall of 2021 Policy and practice changes, including changes in program and EPP

assessments, are presented to the dean and QAS Review Panel These changes may be initiated at various levels: 1) by program faculty, 2) by Department Head or the dean, and/or 3) by committees such as the Recruitment and Retention Committee, the Departmental Curriculum Committee, or the PK-16+ Council The initiating entity must: 1) provide a rationale for the change; 2) collect, analyze, and summarize quantitative or qualitative data; 3) provide evidence that the change was approved by program faculty and by the department head; 4) present the change with required documentation to the EPP QAS Panel. COE Dean and Provost have veto power.

Procedures for Ensuring Fairness, Accuracy, Consistency, and Avoidance of Bias

The EPP and its programs take multiple steps to ensure procedures are fair, accurate, consistent, and free from bias:

Candidates at both initial and advanced levels are informed of program requirements at the time of program admission and during academic advisement each semester (see the Program Progression Update). These requirements are detailed in the General Catalog, available online, and in various program handbooks.

During the yearlong residency program redesign faculty members standardized course syllabi, and aligned course performance objectives and rubrics with the conceptual framework and state and professional standards Program faculty provide candidates with course syllabi and rubrics at the beginning of each semester Candidates also have “due process” procedures at the university, EPP, and program levels There is an appeals process for candidates stipulated in the GSU catalog Faculty also provide assessment accommodations for candidates registered with the Student Intervention Resource Center

The EPP uses multiple measures Assessments are reviewed by program faculty to ensure they are free of racial and ethnic stereotypes, poorly conceived language and task situations, and other forms of cultural sensitivity that could unintentionally favor one candidate over another or impact candidates’ performance Discussion between supervising faculty and cooperating teachers addresses issues of fairness, accuracy, consistency, and avoidance of bias at the start of each semester during clinical practice The diversity of the faculty in the EPP also helps to ensure the elimination of bias.

Standardized test scores on the ACT, SAT, GRE, and PRAXIS II tests as well as Louisiana Department of Education teacher evaluation COMPASS data provide the EPP with data based upon consistent, reliable, and nationally validated criteria on candidate performance to be used in comparative analyses and assurance of candidate mastery of content. The key assessment for residents and interns (ED 455 Residency I/Intern Evaluation) is the previously validated Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument When possible, multiple raters are used and the data are triangulated to ensure validity and reliability For example, several assessments at the initial level are panel reviewed by members internal and external to GSU (ED 452, ED 453, and ED 455 Resident Evaluations; ED 455 Showcase Portfolio; and MUS 411 Juried Panel Recital) Advanced candidates' comprehensive exams use multiple raters

Using Technology in the QAS

When the State of Louisiana terminated its use of Passport, the EPP adopted and implemented

TaskStream as the electronic portfolio system used by two degree programs: 1) Doctor of Education in Curriculum and Instruction and 2) Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership

These programs were attached to the Louisiana Education Consortium (LEC); GSU was one of three institutions in this consortium In Fall 2018, during the program redesign, an internal

review of the EPP operations was conducted As a result, the EPP revised the DRF templates and programs in TaskStream for all CAEP-reviewed programs, with full implementation for programs with students in the pipeline in the fall of 2020 TaskStream, through its portfolio system, enables the EPP to collect candidate data, to provide faster feedback to candidates, and to communicate with candidates post-graduation Systematic and periodic checkups are performed every semester to ensure candidates submit the required assessments (e g , key assessments, surveys, portal reviews) and faculty and supervisors evaluate the assessment on time. Submission and evaluation irregularities are reported to the department head.

Faculty, candidate, and mentor teacher initial training entails the utilization of the TaskStream system as well as familiarization with the Conceptual Framework, KSD, portal requirements, and key assessments. Instructors have both email and direct communication opportunities facilitated by TaskStream’s capability to push tasks, surveys, and announcements to users and to provide feedback on candidate submissions upon request The TaskStream system is Internet-based, enabling candidates to interact with instructors from off-campus settings The inherent advantages of TaskStream are its ability to facilitate data collection and analysis for EPP and program improvement, and its compatibility with Excel export data

One impediment to the consistent and accurate reporting of course-based key assessment data has been the university’s transition to a new learning management system (LMS) GSU previously used Moodle, which integrated with Taskstream and provided a seamless import of data from course-based assessments into Taskstream The new LMS, Canvas, does not support the same integration Therefore, students must submit key assessments twice: once in

Canvas for evaluative purposes and again in Taskstream for assessment purposes This has resulted in missing data in Taskstream

Appendix B: Alignment Matrix of National, Professional, and EPP Standards

*CEC 2020- used for subsequent SSRs and visits.

Alignment Matrix of National, Professional, and EPP Standards

*CEC 2020- used for subsequent SSRs and vis

Initial Pre-Program Admission Requirements

● COE Admission Application

● GPA ≥ 2.0

● ≥ 24 credit hours (grades ≥ C) [ENG 101; ENG 102; MATH 131, 147 or 153; MATH 132, 148 or 154; ED 111 and 112, and 10 additional hours

Degree Program Admission Requirements

● Admission COE

● GPA ≥ 2 5

● Grades ≥ “C” in Education, core courses

● Professional Conduct Form

● Degree Program Application

Appendix C: QAS Transition Points and Measures Crosswalk

Admission to Residency

I Requirements

● Application for Admission to Residency I

● GPA ≥ 2.5

● GET 300 Rising Junior Exam

● Grades of ≥ C in specialized & professional education courses

Requirements

● Passed PLT & Specialty Area Exam(s) (State required)

● ≥ 2.5 GPA

● Document ≥ 180 hours of direct teaching & a ≥ 270 total hours of residency (Hours required by state)

Requirements

● Application to Graduate

● Application for Louisiana Teacher Certification

● Resident Evaluation of Mentor Teacher

● Resident Evaluation of University Supervisor

● Mentor Teacher

Follow-up Survey

Employer Survey

Self- Report Disposition Inventory Survey #1 (Candidate)

Taskstream Account

ED 162- Educational Phil

● Passed PRAXIS I or exempt with ACT Composite ≥ 22 SAT Reading & Math = ≥ 1030-removed this as a requirement for certification and graduation- Fall 2022

● Interview by Portal II Committee

Proficient Writing Sample

Professional Conduct Form

Mathematics & English courses

● 180 hours of observation and participation

● Completed all required coursework

201 Disposition Inventory Survey #3

● Completion of Residency I and II

Common Key Assessments (Showing Knowledge, Skills & Dispositions)

ED 402:Tech-Infused Unit Plan

ED 452/ ED 453: Written Lesson Plan

Evaluation of University Supervisor

● University Supervisor

Evaluation of Mentor Teacher

Exit Survey

Disposition Inventory Survey #2 (Faculty)

Disposition Inventory Survey/ Educator

Master of Arts in Teaching (Integrated to Merged)

Alternate Certification Program Elementary

Grades 1-5 and Secondary Grades

6—12

Requirements

• Bachelor’s Degree from accredited institution

• ≥ 2 3 GPA

• Passed PRAXIS I or exempt with ACT

Composite ≥ 22 SAT

Reading & Math = ≥ 1030 state legislature followed by BESE approval has removed this as a requirement

National Criminal Background Check

Evidence of membership

Professional Teachers’ Organization- Proof of Insurance

Disposition Inventory Survey/ Educator Disposition Survey #1 (Self-Report)

Requirements

• Formal admission to School of Graduate Studies

• MAT Application

• Pass MAT Selection

Admission requirements:; Writing Sample; Personal Interview; Philosophy Statements; Resume; 20 hours classroom

observation with written narrative’ three letters of recommendation

Requirements

• Completed twelve semester hours in summer prior to internship

• Application for Louisiana Teacher

Certification – PL3

Foundation Core

EDPT 515

EDPT 516

EDPT 552

EDPT 553

EDPT 541

EDPT 542

ED 452/ ED 453: Resident Teacher Evaluation

ED 455: Final Resident Teacher Evaluation

ED 455: Impact on Student Learning

ED 455: Showcase Portfolio

Disposition Survey #2 (Self-Report)

Disposition Inventory Survey #1 (Mentor Teacher)

Requirements

• Completed internship I & II

• Practitioner teacher evaluation by university supervisors

Common Key Assessments (Showing Knowledge, Skills & Dispositions)

EDPT 514:Assessment Plan Impact Project

EDPT 515: Classroom and Behavior Management Plan

EDPT 528: Case Study Project

Requirements

• Passed PRAXIS II

PLT and Special Education: Core Knowledge and Mild to Moderate Applications

• Application for Louisiana Teacher Certification – Level 1

Follow-up Survey

Employer Survey

for certification and graduation- Fall 2022 or have a Master’s Degree

• Passed PRAXIS II Content Specific Exam(s) (State required)

EDPT 552: Educational Practicum/Internship Residency I Evaluation

EDPT 553: Educational Practicum/Internship Residency II Evaluation

Requirements

· Formal admission to School of Graduate Studies

·

Mild/Moderate 1-5 and 6-12

Requirements

● Graduate School Admission Application

● Bachelor’s or Master’s degree from an accredited institution

● Three Letters of Recommendation (Principal, Superintendent or Designee, University Faculty or Supervisor)

Program Admission Application

· ≥ GPA minimum

· Level 1 Teacher Certificate or equivalent

· Interview

· Two Letters of Recommendation (teaching colleagues, supervisors)

· GRE scores on file (No longer required as of Spring 2023)

· Interview Plan of Study Foundation Core

Requirements

Signature Assessments (Reading Concentration)

Signature Assessments (Special Education Mild/Moderate Concentration)

Key Assessments (Special Education Early Intervention Concentration)

Key Assessments (Special Education Autism Spectrum Disorders Concentration)

Requirements

ED 599

EDPT 599: Teacher Toolkit Project Master of Education in Curriculum and Instruction (M.Ed.) –Reading Concentration And Master of Education in Special Education (M. Ed)

Comprehensive Exam

Requirements

Request for Certification Change And/or Action

Follow-up Survey

Employer Survey

ED 576

DEED 634

● GRE Score on file

● GPA ≥ 3.0 demonstrated on the official

NAEYC-

Dr

Simmons,

Dr. Obadiah Simmons, Ms. Barbara Lewis, Dr. Larry Proctor

Dr. Obadiah Simmons, Ms. Barbara Lewis, Dr. Larry Proctor

5 Classroom and Behavior Management Plan

EDPT 515: Classroom and Behavior Management for Diverse Learners

Dr. Danielle Williams

6 Educational Practicum/Internship Residency I Evaluation

7 Educational Practicum/Internship Residency II Evaluation

8 Teacher Toolkit Project

EDPT 552 Educ Practicum & Residency I

EDPT 553 Educ Practicum & Residency II

Dr. George Noflin

Dr George Noflin

EDPT 599: Special Topics DrCheyrl M Ensley

Initial Undergraduate (UG) Program Admission

Appendix E: Data Collection, Analysis, and Review Plan

Administered continuously as candidates apply for, matriculate through College of Education Admission to Program Admission

Continuous. Data are generated constantly and systematically as candidates apply for, matriculate through College of Education

Admission to Program

Admission via Taskstream

University staff enter applicant/candidate qualification data onto the Program Progression Update Forms (PPU); and candidates are advised; teacher education students upload applications and corroborating evidence into EPP assessment management system, Taskstream, where data are collected electronically as required admission tasks, grades, etc. are completed.

Data Analyzed Annually Certification Specialist

COE Dean, Department Head, Progrsam Leads

Applicant Qualifications Program Enrollments

Justification for Praxis Lab Operations Funding

Retention Plan

Initial UG Clinical Admission

Administered each semester as candidates apply for Residency I and II through the Office of Professional Laboratory Experiences

Collected via Taskstream each semester as candidates apply for Residency I and II through the Office of Professional Laboratory Experiences

Office of Professional Laboratory Experiences (O.P.L.E.)

Each Semester Portal Admission Committees

Certification Specialist

COE Dean, Departmental Chair

Applicant Qualifications Program Matriculation

UG Program Course-Based Key Assessments

candidates by department faculty assigned to teach course each semester

Data are generated constantly and systematically as candidates apply for, matriculate through program

Analyzed

Annually for Title II Report

Head Candidate

each semester by departmental faculty assigned to teach course

MAT

Continuous. Annually Program Lead COE Dean, Department Head Applicant Qualifications Program Matriculation 47

Collected each semester by departmental faculty assigned to teach course

Faculty/Department Head

Each semester Departmental

Faculty/Department Head

year

Department Head

Proficiencies

Coordinator

COE Dean,

Department Head

Advamced Program

Data Analyzed Annually for Title II Report

Coordinator

Continuous. Data are generated constantly and systematically as candidates apply for, matriculate through Graduate School COE

Dean,

Applicant Qualifications Program Enrollments Funding EPP and

operations quality

Admission to Applicant

Administered each semester as candidates apply for candidacy 48

Each Semester Assessment

Clinical or Candidacy through program lead through program lead EPP

Graduate Follow-Up

Questionnaire Supervisor Survey

Graduate Program

Course-Based Key Assessments

Administered to employers and program graduates by Departmental Program Staff

Administered to advanced candidates by department faculty assigned to teach course each semester

and evaluated in Taskstream each semester by departmental faculty assigned to teach course

Program Staff/Department Head

Candidate

Evaluation of Course and Instructor Evaluation

Administered to candidates electronically through Banner through department

Faculty Peer Evaluation At least once an academic year, peer faculty evaluate other faculty within the department

Annual Faculty Report & Evaluation

Faculty complete annual report in May each academic semester

complete each semester

Faculty/Department Head

Effectiveness

At least once an academic year Departmental Faculty/Department Head

annually

to annual faculty report)

Department Head

operations quality

operations quality

Faculty complete annually in May

Departmental Faculty/Department Head

Department Head

EPP and operations quality

Teaching and Learning

EPP and operations quality

and operations quality

Supervisor and Mentor Teacher

Evaluations are completed by university faculty and mentor teacher and by resident in Taskstream Annually Assessment Coordinator COE Dean, Department Head Applicant Qualifications Program Matriculation EPP and operations quality

Department

Professional Laboratory

Dr. Cheyrl Ensley

Interim Department Head, Dept. of Curriculum and Instruction

Grambling State University

PO Box 4282

Grambling, LA 71245

(318) 274-2238

ensleyc@gram edu

Ms. Leisa Edwards

H. R. Director, Caddo Parish Schools

P.O. Box 32000

Shreveport, LA 71130-2000

(318) 603-6300

ledwards@caddoschools.org

Mr. Ricky Durrett, Superintendent Lincoln Parish Schools

410 South Farmerville St. Ruston, LA 71270

(318) 255-1430

rdurrett@lincolnschools.org

TBA, Director, Office of Professional Laboratory Experiences) OPLE

Dept. of Curriculum & Instruction

Grambling State University

PO Box 1186

Grambling, LA 71245

(318) 274-2772/2184

Dr. Brent Vidrine, Superintendent

Monroe City Schools

2101 Roselawn Ave.

P.O. Box 4180 Monroe, LA 71201

(318) 325-0601 Ext. 3002

Brent.vidrine@mcschools.net

Dr. Kathryn Newman

CAEP Coordinator

Grambling State University

P.O. Box 4281

Grambling, LA 71245

(318) 274-2548

newman@gram.edu

Mrs. Tiffany Jackson, Instructor/ Assess. Coord

Dept. of Curriculum & Instruction

Grambling State University

PO Box 4282

Grambling, LA 71245

(318) 274-6543

jacksonti@gram edu

Mr. William Wysinger, Superintendent

Bienville Parish Schools

P.O. Box 418

1956 First Street Arcadia, LA 71001 (318) 263-9416

wwysinger@bpsb.us

Dr. Obadiah Simmons

Department Head

Kinesiology, Sports and Leisure Studies

Grambling State University

GSU Box 4244

Grambling, LA 71245

simmonso@gram.edu

Appendix F: Table of Program Stakeholder Committee Members

PK-16+ Council Members as of 5-5-23

Dr. Bobby Burkes, Interim Head Chemistry Department

Grambling State University

P. O. Box 4218

Grambling, LA 71245 (318) 274-3720

burkesb@gram.edu

Dr. Debbie Thomas, Dean College of Education

Grambling State University

P.O. Box 4219

Grambling, LA 71245 (318) 274-2231

thomasd@gram.edu

Ms. Melanie Monroe, Certification Specialist

Grambling State University

P. O. Box 4282

Grambling, LA 71245 (318) 274-3702 monroemr@gram edu

Mr. Gordan Ford, Principal Lincoln Preparatory School

123 RWE Jones Dr. Grambling, LA 71245 318-242-8788

gford@lincolnprep.school

Dr. Theodore Lamar Goree, Superintendent Caddo Parish Schools

P.O. Box 32000 Shreveport, LA 71130-2000 (318) 603-6300

tlgoree@caddoschools.org

Dr. Nikole Roebuck, Interim Head Music Department /Asst. Dir. of Bands

Grambling State University

P.O. Box 4258

Grambling, LA 71245

(318) 274-2254

roebuck@gram.edu

Mr. Samuel Andrews, Principal Gibsland-Coleman High School

P. O. Box 70 501 10th Street Gibsland, LA 71028

(318) 843-6247

samuel.andrews@bpsb.us

Ms. Muriel Williams, Principal Griffin Middle Academy 1205 Charles Jones Blvd

Lake Providence, LA 71254 (318) 559-1395

mwilliams@e-carrollschools.org

Dr. Stacey Duhon, Dean College of Arts & Sciences

Grambling State University

P. O. Box 4276

Grambling, LA 71245

(318) 274-3225

duhons@gram.edu

Mr. Billy Rogers, Principal

Bienville High School

PO Box 212

Bienville, LA 71008

(318) 385-7591

brogers@bpsb us

Mr. David Gray Superintendent

Morehouse Parish Schools

P.O. Box 872

Bastrop, LA 71221-0872

(318) 281-5784

dgray@mpsb.us

Dr. Beatrice McKinsey, Associate Professor

English and Foreign Languages

Grambling State University

P.O. Box 4232

Grambling, LA 71245

(318) 274-4488

mckinseyb@gram.edu

Mrs. Phyllis Belk, Curriculum Coordinator

Mooretown PDS Academy (PK-3)

3913 Powell Street Shreveport, LA 71109

(318) 631-7297

pbelk@caddoschools.org

Ms. Jacqueline Sampson

Personnel and Secondary Supervisor

Bienville Parish School Board

P.O. Box 418

1956 First Street Arcadia, LA 71001

(318) 263-9416

jacqueline.sampson@bpsb.us

Ms. Martha Patten

Professional Development Bossier

Parish Schools

P. O. Box 2000

Benton, LA 71006-2000 (318) 549-6788

martha patten@bossierschools org

Ms. Lisa Mangum

Lincoln Parish Schools

410 South Farmerville St. Ruston, LA 71270

(318) 255-1430

lmangum@lincolnschools.org

Downey, Superintendent

Bossier Parish Schools

P. O. Box 2000

Benton, LA 71006-2000

(318) 549-5000

mitch.downey@bossierschools.org

Dr. Karen Eason Peace Recruiter, Caddo Parish Schools

P.O. Box 32000

Shreveport, LA 71130-2000

(318) 603-6465

kpeace@caddoschools.org

Mr. Terry Matthews

Dept. of Family & Consumer Science

Grambling State University

P.O. Box 4248

Grambling, LA 71245

(318) 274- 2311

Matthewst@gram.edu

Ms. Bridget Bridges, Principal (Chancellor)

Mooretown PDS Academy (PK-3)

3913 Powell Street Shreveport, LA 71109 (318) 631-7297

bbridges19@caddoschool.org

Ms. Rosiland Russell Residency Coordinator

Dept of Curriculum & Instruction

Grambling State University

P.O. Box 4282

Grambling, LA 71245

(318) 274-2184

russellr@gram.edu

Mrs. Tiffany Winzer

Director, C A R E Center

Dept. Curriculum & Instruction

Grambling State University

PO Box 4282

Gramblng, LA 71245

(318) 274- 2710

mixonti@gram edu

Mrs. Tiffany Jackson

Instructor/ Assess. Coord.

Dept. of Curriculum & Instruction

Grambling State University

(318) 274-6543

jacksonti@gram.edu

Dr. Debbie Thomas

Dean, College of Education

Grambling State University (318) 274-2231

thomasd@gram.edu

TBA, Director, Office of Professional Laboratory Experiences) OPLE

Dept. of Curriculum & Instruction

Grambling State University

(318) 274-2772/2184

Data Collection Committee

Dr. Connie Walton Provost, Vice President of Academic Affairs

Grambling State University (318) 274-6200 waltoncr@gram.edu

Mrs. Tiffany Winzer

Director, C.A.R.E. Center Dept. Curriculum & Instruction

Grambling State University (318) 274- 2710 mixonti@gram.edu

Mrs. Peggy Hanley

Director of Administrative Computing Information Technology Center

Grambling State University (318) 274-6546 peggy@gram.edu

Ms. Melanie Monroe

Certification Specialist

Grambling State University

(318) 274-3702

monroemr@gram.edu

Assessment System Policy and Procedure Committee

Mrs. Tiffany Jackson, Instructor/ Assess. Coord.

Dept. of Curriculum & Instruction

Grambling State University

(318) 274-6543

jacksonti@gram.edu

Dr. Cheyrl Ensley Interim Department Head, Dept. of Curriculum and Instruction

Grambling State University

(318) 274-2238

ensleyc@gram.edu

Dr. Obadiah Simmons

Department Head

Kinesiology, Sports and Leisure Studies

Grambling State University

simmonso@gram.edu

Dr. Larry Proctor

Assistant Professor, Coordinator

Department of Kinesiology, Sport & Leisure Studies

Grambling State University (318) 274-2712 or (318) 274-2294 proctorl@gram.edu

Dr. Dagne Hill

Department Head, Department of Biologic Science

Grambling State University (318) 274- 3739

hilld@gram.edu

Mr. Terry Matthews

Dept. of Family & Consumer Science

Grambling State University (318) 274- 2311

matthewst@gram.edu

Mr. Cordara Harper

Assistant Professor of Music Education & Choir Director

Department of Music

Grambling State University (318) 274- 2106 haperc@gram.edu

Dr. Kathryn Newman

Porfessor, CAEP Coordinator, Dept. of Curriculum & Instruction

Grambling State University (318) 274-2548

newman@gram.edu

Dr. Mary Ghongkedze

Associate Professor, Dept. of Curriculum & Instruction

Grambling State University (318) 274- 2126

ghongkedzem@gram.edu

Dr. Waneene Dorsey

Profesor of Biological Science

Department of Biologic Science

Grambling State University (318) 274- 3741

dorseywc@gram.edu

Dr. Bobby Burkes

Dr. Harrison Jones, IV

Assistant Professor, Dept Curriculum & Instruction

Grambling State University (318) 274- 2438

joneshar@gram.edu

Action Research Committee

Dr. Edward Holt

Interim Department Chair, Assistant Professor

Department of History

Grambling State University (318) 274-6418

holte@gram.edu

Mrs. Tiffany Jackson, Instructor/ Assess. Coord.

Dept. of Curriculum & Instruction

Grambling State University

(318) 274-6543

jacksonti@gram.edu

Mrs. Amy Martin Mentor Teacher

Monroe City Schools, J. S. Clark Magnet

1207 Washington ST

Monroe, LA 71201

(318) 322-8976

amy.martin@mcschoosl.net

Mr. Gordan Ford, Principal Lincoln Preparatory School

123 RWE Jones Dr.

Grambling, LA 71245

318-242-8788

gford@lincolnprep.school

TBA, Director, Office of Professional Laboratory Experiences) OPLE

Dept. of Curriculum & Instruction

Grambling State University

(318) 274-2772/2184

Ms. Rosiland Russell Residency Coordinator

Dept. of Curriculum & Instruction

Grambling State University

(318) 274-2184

russellr@gram.edu

Mrs. Teresa Williams Mentor Teacher

Caddo Parish, Queensborough Elementary

2701 Catherine

Shreveport, LA 71109

(318) 631-8784 - (318) 364-3479

terwilliams@caddoschools.org

Dr. Karen Eason Peace Recruiter, Caddo Parish Schools

P.O. Box 32000

Shreveport, LA 71130-2000

(318) 603-6465

kpeace@caddoschools.org

Special Education Advisory Board

Mr. Samuel Andrews, Principal Gibsland-Coleman High School

P. O. Box 70 501 10th Street

Gibsland, LA 71028

(318) 843-6247

samuel.andrews@bpsb.us

Mr. Willie Butler

Inclusion English Teacher

Ruston Jr. High School

481 Tarbuttun Road

Ruston, La. 71270

318-251-1601

Willie.butler@lincolnschools.org

Mrs. Candace Westbrook Science Teacher

Green Oaks Performing Arts Academy

2550 Thomas E. Howard Drive

Shreveport LA 71107

601-927-9350

candacetanicka@hotmail.com

Mrs. Danielle Copeland Principal

Jonesboro-Hodge Elementary

2105 South Polk Avenue

Jonesboro, LA 71251

318-259-4489 ext. 8101 work 214-500-0156 cell

Kindergarten Teacher

Glenview Elementary

1601 Bittersweet Ave

Ruston,LA 71270

318) 514-8855

Deidra.Dunbar@lincolnschools.org

Teacher of Chemistry and Integrated Science and Head of Science Department

Edward P. Yorke High School

Princess Margaret Drive

Belize City, Belize 501-2244554

epyorke@yahoo.com

Reading Advisory Board

danielle.copeland@jpsbschools.us

Tiffany Curry, M.Ed Principal Dubach Elementary School

7710 Fellowship Rd, Dubach, LA 71235 318 -777-3470

tcurry@lincolnschools.org

Delta Elementary

7661 Mer Rouge-Collinston Rd. Mer Rouge, LA 71261 318-647-3443

jejones@mpsb.us

Retired Associate Professor

Dept. of Curriculum & Instruction

Past President, North Louisiana Reading Council

Grambling State University 37 Lakeview Drive Monroe Louisiana 71203 318557-3425

fosterelaine750@gmail.com

5th Grade Math/ Science Teacher

Ruston Elementary School

200 N Bernard St

Ruston, LA

(862) 754-9009

laurie.fernandez@lincolnschools.org

Brittani Mandigo

4th grade ELA/ SS teacher and campus mentor

Westwood Elementary, Caddo Parish Schools

7325 Jewella Ave, Shreveport, LA 71108 318-686-5489

bmandigo@ymail.com

Mrs. Deidra D Scott

Mrs. Camille Diane Ellis

Mrs.

Mrs. Jericka Jones Interventionist

Dr. Elaine Foster

Mrs. Laurie Fernandez

Appendix G: Faculty Activity Reporting Guide

Appendix I: Assessment Planning and Program Review Forms

Grambling State University

ELEM ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT PLAN

Requirements

1. Send a copy of the Assessment Plan to the Assessment Coordinator.

2 Update the Program Assessment Plan based on Program/Periodic Review

Basic Information

Program Name: Elementary Education GR 1-5

College: College of Education

Department: Curriculum and Instruction

Program Level (check all that apply) ❏ Associate's

Bachelor's ❏ Undergraduate Certificate

❏ Master's

❏ Doctoral

❏ Graduate Certificate

Date Plan Submitted:

College Dean & email: Dean Debbie Thomas, thomasd@gram.edu

College Curriculum Committee Chairperson & email: Dr. Obadiah Simmons, simmonsoj@gram.edu

Department Chairperson & email: Dr. Cheryl Ensley, ensleyc@gram.edu

Department Curriculum Committee Chairperson & email: Dr. Mary Ghongkedze, ghongkedzem@gram.edu

1. Introduction (identify college,unit,and degree programs)

● Purpose

● Unit Mission Statement

2 Student Outcomes (may use accreditation standards for learning outcomes)

● Learning Outcomes by Program(focused on student performance, clearly stated, and measurable)

● Accreditation Standards/Outcomes by Program(if applicable)

3. Assessment Cycle

● Assessment Cycle will be determined with assistance from the Assessment Coordinator

4. Curriculum Map

● The Completed Elementary Program Assessment Matrix

5 Assessment Methods and Measures(Formative and Summative recommended)

● Record the assessment measure(s)that evaluate each student learning outcome (note: each learning outcome should have an associated assessment measure)

○ C&I ELEM Table 2016-2019 Template

● Direct Methods/Measures Preferred/Used at the Course and Program Levels (examples: writing examples, oral examinations, internships, clinicals, quizzes, test, team/group projects and presentations)

● Indirect Methods/Measures Preferred/Used at the Course and Program Levels (examples: surveys, quantitative data, course grades, alumni surveys, student evaluation of instruction)

6. Data Collection and Review

● When will data be collected for each outcome?

● How will data be collected for each outcome?

● What will be the benchmark/target for each outcome?

● What individuals/groups will be responsible for data collection?

7 Participation in the Assessment Process

● Who will participate in carrying out the assessment plan?

● What will be their specific role/s?

8. Data Analysis

● How and will the data and findings be shared with faculty?

● Who was involved in analyzing the results?

● How are results aligned with outcomes and benchmarks?

9 Plan for Using Assessment Results to Improve Program

● How will you use the results to improve your program?

10 What are the plans to evaluate students' postgraduate success?

11 What are the plans to evaluate teaching effectiveness?

12 Appendices-Required...Curriculum Maps by Program, Assessment Tools (examples: Rubrics, Surveys, Tests,etc.), any other important materials/documentation

13. Submit Assessment Plan

● Send completed form electronically to Mrs Tiffany Jackson at jacksontif@gram edu and CC: Dr Ensley at enselyc@gram edu and Dr Thomas at thomasd@gram edu

Unit/Division

Curriculum and Instruction- Elementary Education

Outcome Means of Assessment (Measures)

What will you do to collect data or evidence to show how well you have achieved the intended outcome?

Outcome: 1.1

Demonstrate knowledge of content that underlies professional competencies.

(Cognitive)

Praxis I / ACT Test Scores

Assessment Year

Achievement Target

What’s percentage or rate will indicate the outcome has been achieved?

Assessment Results summary (Findings)

Use of Results

What’s your plan for continued improvement?

(Provide Documentation)

Praxis II: Content Test Scores

Outcome: 1.5

Plan effective lesson procedures and demonstrate effective delivery strategies.

(Cognitive, Psychomotor)

Praxis II: PLT Test Scores

ED 402 Technology Infused Lesson Plan

ED 455 Student Teacher Portfolio

Outcome: 2.2

Create and maintain effective management strategies (organization of time, space, resources, and activities. (Cognitive, Psychomotor)

Outcome: 2.11

Utilize technology in planning and presenting lessons, research, and professional development.

(Cognitive, Psychomotor)

Outcome: 3.3

Display sensitivity to diverse learning styles and multiple intelligences.

(Affective, Psychomotor)

ED 455 Student Teacher Portfolio

ED 402 Technology Infused Lesson Plan

Pre-Dispositional Survey

Program Disposition Survey

Outcome: 3.8

Display a classroom climate that is conducive to learning. (Affective, Psychomotor)

Pre-Dispositional Survey

Name:

Evaluator:

Appendix J: Educator Disposition Assessment Educator Disposition Assessment

Date :

Directions: Please use the following numbers to rate the individual on each aspect of disposition based on the following scale by checking the corresponding number in the cell

1 = Emerging: no evidence of understanding and commitment to the disposition

2 = Developing: some evidence of understanding and commitment to the disposition

3 = Meets Expectation: considerable evidence of understanding and commitment to the disposition

4 = Exceeds Expectation: complete evidence of understanding and commitment to the disposition

Please check any behaviors listed under each aspect of disposition that need to be addressed if ratings are at the 1 or 2 level. The listed indicators provide reviewers with an operational definition of each dispositional component.

Dispositional and Associated Indicators

1. Demonstrates effective oral communication skills

Danielson:3a; Marzano:30; InTASC:3(r)

Models Standard English

Varies oral communication to motivate students

Makes appropriate comments in the classroom

Communicates at an appropriate level

2. Demonstrates effective written communication skills

Communicates respectfully with all stakeholders

Comments regarding strengths/areas

Demonstrates appropriate spelling and grammar

Focuses all written communications positively

3. Demonstrates Professionalism

Danielson: 4f; Marzano:30; InTASC:9(o)

Responds to emails promptly

Exhibits punctuality and attendance

Maintains professional boundaries with students

Keeps personal life at home

Functions as a team player

Turns in work promptly

Avoids inappropriate conversations inside and outside of the classroom

Respects and adheres to the ethical standards of practice

4. Demonstrates a positive and enthusiastic attitude

Marzano: 29

Goes above and beyond requirements

Demonstrates an appropriately positive affect with students

Seeks solutions to problems instead of complaining Encourages students

Tries new things that are suggested

Engages openly and actively with students

5. Demonstrates preparedness in teaching and learning

Danielson: 1e; 3e, 4a; InTASC: 3(p)

Accepts constructive feedback

Learns and adjusts from experience and reflection

Comes to class planned and with needed materials

Alters lessons in progress when needed

6. Exhibits an appreciation of and value for Cultural & academic diversity

Danielson: 1b, 2a, 2b; Marzano: 36, 39; InTasc:2(m), 2(n), 2(o), 3(o), 9(m), 10(q)

Demonstrates awareness of traditional and non-traditional family contexts including family status

Embraces all diversities/differences to include racial, SES and learning styles

Creates a ‘safe classroom’ with zero tolerance of negativity to others

Plans activities to raise student awareness and acceptance of differences

Understands the importance of a positive school experience

7. Collaborates effectively with stakeholders

Danielson: 4c; Marzano: 55,56; InTASC: 1(k), 3(n), 3 (q), 7(o)

Engages parental and guardian involvement

Disagrees respectfully

Possesses social awareness

Uses Flexibility

Listens to what stakeholders are saying as evidenced by considered response

Maintains a respectful tone at all times

Shares successful teaching strategies

Refrains from profanity

Exhibits a sense of equality

8. Demonstrates self-regulated learner behaviors/takes initiative

Danielson: 4e; Marzano: 57; InTASC: 9(I), 9(n) 10(r), 10(t)

Recognizes own weaknesses and asks for support

Comments regarding strengths/areas for growth:

Ask questions proactively and is self-directed

Researches and implements different and most effective teaching styles

Takes responsibility for knowing students and/or colleagues

9. Exhibits the social and emotional intelligence to promote personal and educational goals/stability

Marzano: 37, 38

Demonstrates appropriate maturity and self-regulation when discussing sensitive issues and can remain calm

Does not overreact to criticism or other situations

Demonstrates perseverance and resilience (grit)

Demonstrates the ability to communicate personal issues with superiors, but does not use them as excuses

Demonstrate sensitivity to feelings of others

Additional comments:

Appendix K: Follow-Up Survey

Grambling State University College of Education

Curriculum and Instruction Department

Follow-up Survey of Curriculum and Instruction Graduates

INSTRUCTIONS

We are asking you to complete this survey as graduates from the Curriculum & Instruction program and are currently teaching in the P-12 school setting. Data from the study will be used for planning, research and EPP annual report; individuals will not be identified in any analysis or report. Please answer as many items as you can. We will use your answers to improve our programs for those who come after you. We want to find out what we did well, and what we need to work on based on your responses.

· Please answer all questions about your degree from Grambling State University.

· Complete the survey online and email to monroemr@gram.edu.

Questions about the survey? Call (318) 274-3702 or email to monroemr@gram edu

Your responses will be kept strictly confidential Data from the study will be used for planning, research and EPP annual report; individuals will not be identified in any analysis or report. Please answer as many items as you can

· To make sure that our survey records are correct, please indicate below your semester/year of graduation, major, teaching certification status and gender If you had more than one major, write in the area of your greatest interest or involvement. 1.

If no, please specify reason

5 Optional: Second major area Yes or No

Thank you

Grambling State University

Curriculum and Instruction Department

c/o Melanie Monroe

GSU Box 4282

Grambling, Louisiana 71245

I Demographics

Graduate Follow-Up Survey

Name as it appears on your diploma: Last First MI Maiden Name change Yes No

Primary Phone ( ) Email

Current School Information: Name of School

Address of School: City State Zip Code Phone ( ) Fax: ( )

Job Title/Position

Please check one: Full-time employee Part-time employee

Employment Date: mm/dd/yyyy

Are you presently teaching in the subject area for which you studied?

Indicate reason: Please check most appropriate answer. Could not find work in my teaching field, or no openings for my area of study

I am currently in graduate school

Other:

ASSESSMENT OF TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAM AT GSU

Overall Satisfacation with Your Major Field of Study

1 How satisfied are you with the education you received from the Teacher Preparation Program at Grambling State University?

1 - Very Dissatisfied

2 – Dissatisfied

3 – Satisfied

4 – Very Satisfied

Additional Comments:

RATINGS OF THE EDUCATOR PREPARATION PROVIDER (EPP) AND ITS PROGRAMS

2 How satisfied are you with your teacher preparation experiences at Grambling State University Please indicate:

1. My knowledge of subject area (content knowledge) InTASC standard 4

2 My mastery of instruction and pedagogical content knowledge InTASC standards 5, 6, 7, 8

3 My ability to teach diverse P-12 students (Differentiated Instruction). InTASC standards 1, 2

4 My ability to teach P-12 students with diverse/special needs InTASC standard 2

5 My ability to create a safe and managed learning environment in my classroom InTASC standard 3

6 My ability to align my teaching with state and national standards. InTASC standard 5

7. My ability to encourage family and community engagement in my classroom InTASC standard 10

8 My ability to assess P-12 student learning. InTASC standard 6

9 My ability to utilize technology in the classroom InTASC standards 7, 8

10 My ability to engage in professional learning opportunities and communities InTASC standard 9

11. My ability to engage in leadership and mentoring activities to assist other teachers InTASC 10

10 Other (specify)

3 Since your Grambling State University graduation, have you: (Check one for each)

Taken a course at a vocational/technical school

Been enrolled in a formal training connected with your employment

Taken college or university undergraduate classes (Specify)

Enrolled in a graduate/professional degree program (i e , MEd, MS, MA, etc ) (Specify)

Yes No

4 Please list below the colleges and other educational institutions you have attended since receiving your Grambling State University degree, regardless of whether or not you were seeking a degree (Write in If none, write “none ”)

5 During the last six months have you: (Check either yes or no for each line)

Professional Development

1. Subscribed to a professional or trade magazine or journal

Yes No

2. Joined professional, scholarly, or trade organization

3 Attended a professional conference workshop

4. Presented at a professional conference and/or workshops

7 Please list Awards and/or Recognitions (i e , Teacher of the Year, etc )

Award Year State/School

8 What can the Curriculum and Instruction Department at Grambling State University do to improve the Program?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ASSISTANCE

Appendix L: Grambling State Univerity Organizational Chart