Quality Assurance System Manual 2019

Page|1

Page|2 Table of Contents I.

Executive Summary………………………………………………………...pp. 3-5

II.

Definition and Purposes………………………………………………………..p. 6

III.

Assessment System Development…………………………………………pp. 7-23

IV.

System Components .................................................................................... ….p. 23 • • • • • •

Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions ........................... ….p. 23 Standards ......................................................................................... ….p. 23 Multiple Measures ........................................................................... ….p. 23 Data Collection, Analysis, and Data-Based Decision Making…pp. 24-37 Unit Assessments Aligned with CAEP, InTASC and Danielson.pp.37-45 Assessment Forms…………………………………………………pp.46-71

Revised Summer 2019

Page|3 I.

Executive Summary: •

•

The University of Arkansas – Fort Smith (UAFS) School of Education (SOE) assessment system, based on the SOE conceptual framework (see SOE Conceptual Framework Diagram Appendix A), represents an ongoing process that uses authentic, comprehensive, and integrated assessment measures to evaluate the achievement of the SOE mission and goals. This system was created through the collaborative efforts of SOE faculty and school personnel. In developing the assessment system, university faculty and staff and the Pre K12 community integrated ideas from their respective knowledge and experience backgrounds. The interdependent components of the system described in this document include: • Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions for Candidates • Professional, State, and Institutional Standards • Multiple Assessment Measures • Data Collection, Analysis, and Data-Based Decision Making The SOE assessment system provides data for use in decision making to: • Determine applicant qualifications. • Interpret aggregated data to monitor, evaluate, and improve instructional programs. • Ensure and maintain the quality of candidates and graduate performance. • Manage and improve unit operations. The SOE assessment system is designed to monitor candidates as they progress through their approved programs. Monitoring is achieved through ongoing assessment of the content knowledge, pedagogical and other professional knowledge and skills, and core dispositions of the candidates throughout their enrollment at UAFS. Both qualitative and quantitative data related to candidate and graduate performance are utilized in making needed changes in all aspects of the teacher preparation program. All unit assessments show face validity through consistent alignments with CAEP, TESS and ISTE standards. The Lawshe method for content validity will be used to assess all rubrics currently being utilized in the SOE, after appraising subject expert agreement of each criterion as being essential/nonessential to the chosen assessment. As data resulting from the assessments are all housed in LiveText, analytics are run to determine the statistics from each electronically-scored rubric. Inter-rater reliability is also found within the LiveText reporting tools. Policies and Procedures: The purpose of the following policies and procedures is to establish a system for the review, analysis, evaluation and use of assessment data to help inform decisions about the UAFS SOE educator preparation program and overall unit improvement. UAFS SOE Assessment Student/Faculty/Mentor Assignments are sent out each semester, to ensure all faculty members are aware of unit assessments in each course. • The data resulting from each semester is compiled according to the various gates. The following listing indicates responsibilities of staff/faculty members in gathering the data:

Page|4

Assessment Coordinator – o edTPA External Evaluations o UAFS School of Education Exit Interview o Graduate and Employer Surveys o Mean Cumulative GPA for Entry, Exit and Area of Specialization o Novice Teacher Survey Results o Graduates’ Impact on Student Learning Data (Employer Survey) o Impact on Student Learning (Graduate Survey) o Impact on Student Learning (Employer Survey 3-years After Graduation) Administrative Analyst – o Structured Team Interview for Admission to Teacher Education Program o Self-Evaluation of Dispositions o Candidate’s Reflection upon Lesson Planning o Diversity Case Study Performance o Intended Candidate Outcomes (ICOs) by Clinical Practice Supervisors and University Supervisors o Candidate Dispositions Combined from Selected Courses o edTPA Assignments for Practicum I, Practicum II and Internship (Local Evaluations) o edTPA Tasks 1-3: Percentage of Students Scoring Basic, Proficient and Distinguished (Local Evaluations) o Internship Placement Interview Results o Evaluation of the Internship Experience (Placement Site Evaluation by Intern) o Evaluation of the Internship Experience (University Supervisor Evaluation by Intern) o Student Advising Questionnaire Completed after Internship o Gates 4, 5, 6 – Danielson FFT Formative Observation Results (Practicum II) o Danielson FFT Formative Observation Results (Internship) o Danielson FFT Summative Observation Results (Internship) o Lesson Plan Rubric in assigned courses (Piloted Spring 2017) o E-Portfolio Rubric (Piloted Spring 2017) Administrative Specialist, Educator Preparation Program Admissions – o Cumulative GPA upon Admission to EPP o Composite ACT Mean upon Admission to EPP o Praxis Core/ACT Mean Scores for Those Admitted to the EPP

Page|5 Administrative Specialist, Teacher Licensure and Field Placement – o Graduate and Employer Surveys (Assessment Coordinator compiles data) o Mean Praxis II Content Knowledge Exam Results o Mean Praxis II Pedagogy Exam Results o Survey to Clinical Supervisor/Mentor Teacher and University Supervisor (Assessment Coordinator compiles data) o Graduates’ Impact on Student Learning Data (Employer Survey) (Assessment Coordinator compiles data) o Impact on Student Learning (Graduate Survey) (Assessment Coordinator compiles data) o Impact on Student Learning (Employer Survey 3-years After Graduation) (Assessment Coordinator compiles data) • The Assessment Coordinator will create a semester report and present it to the Education Coordinators’ Council (ECC) and the SOE faculty. The report will be reported by cohort (fall, spring). The Assessment Coordinator will meet with the Coordinators (ELEM, MLED and Secondary) and faculty of each program area to review the data from the previous semester to identify strengths and weaknesses. The Assessment Coordinator will document the strengths and weaknesses of the program in addition to the plans for improvement. The Assessment Coordinator will present a summary of each program's identified strengths, weaknesses, and goals for improvement to the ECC, SOE and Teacher Education Council (TEC) each fall. • The Assessment Coordinator will create an Annual Assessment report. A summary of the Assessment Report and all related data will be posted on the School of Education website. The annual assessment report will be presented to the TEC each fall (previous year cohort). • The Assessment System is reviewed each spring by ECC, SOE and TEC. Any changes will be noted by the Assessment Coordinator, and the Assessment Manual will be updated to reflect the changes. The Assessment Manual will be presented to the TEC each fall. .

Page|6 II.

Definition and Purpose •

•

The SOE assessment system, based on the SOE Conceptual Framework is defined as an ongoing process that uses authentic, comprehensive, and integrated assessment measures to evaluate the achievement of the SOE mission and goals. This mission, as revised in fall 2003, is defined as: “…..to graduate professionals who are united in their commitment to ensure continuous learning, leading to both student and teacher success.” The SOE goals, when considered as a whole, contribute to the overall success of the SOE in achieving its mission. The SOE overarching goals are as follows: • To use inquiry and reflection as a means to initiate, analyze, and sustain change in teaching and learning. • To prepare educators in sound curriculum and instructional practices. • To recognize the linguistic and cultural diversity of the population as assets. • To use technology as a means of transforming teaching and learning, infusing it across the curricula. The interdependent components of the assessment system described in this document include: • Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions for Candidates • Professional, State, and Institutional Standards • Multiple Assessment Measures • Data Collection, Analysis, and Data-based Decision Making The purpose of the SOE assessment system is to provide data for use in decisionmaking relative to: • Determining applicant qualifications. • Interpreting disaggregated data to monitor and improve instructional programs. • Ensuring and maintaining the quality of candidate and graduate performance. • Managing and improving unit operations. During their tenure in the Educator Preparation Program, candidates will be exposed to a variety of internal and external assessment activities conducted at the course, program, college, university, and state levels. Data collected and aggregated from these assessment activities provide the basis for maintaining, strengthening, and revising each individual program offered within the Educator Preparation Program, strengthening the unit as a whole.

Page|7 III.

Assessment System Development •

•

The assessment system developed in stages beginning in 2002 and continued through to the final viewing of the document by the TEC in August, 2003. It was acknowledged that this is a “living” document that will be continually evaluated and revised annually if necessary. The following events comprise the historical timeline: • Spring 2002 – Fall 2002 • Initial Unit conceptual framework revised and outcome competencies established. • Assessment system and framework established and infused into conceptual framework. • Unit faculty reviewed, modified and approved conceptual framework and draft assessment system and framework. • Spring 2003 • Draft assessment system revised. • Assessment system presented to area school administrators for review and input. • Summer 2003 • Final draft of assessment system developed. • Final assessment system presented to Teacher Education Council. • Fall 2003 – Fall 2004 • Assessment data collected and analyzed. • Syllabi reviewed, modified and submitted. • Assessment system revised to reflect new assessments at gates. • Spring 2005 – NCATE BOE visit, with successful accreditation of SOE • Fall 2008-Spring 2009 • NCATE committees met monthly. • Reviewed standards. • Reviewed 2005 Institutional Report. • Located data and other information related to individual standards. • Fall 2009-Spring 2010 • NCATE committees met bi-monthly throughout the academic year. • 2010 Institutional Report was written and logistics for BOE visit were established. • 2010 – NCATE BOE visit with successful accreditation of SOE Major revisions in the Quality Assurance System began in 2013-2014: • Dispositions • New dispositions and a new rubric were created in the fall of 2013. • Implementation began in spring 2014. • Portfolio Defense • New format began in spring 2014.

Page|8 •

•

Old Assessment (2003-2013): Candidates completed assignments related to the understanding and implementation of the InTASC standards. Candidates aligned self-selected artifacts to illustrate their competencies in the ten InTASC standards and were asked to defend their selections before a committee of two faculty members and one administrator from K-12 public schools. New Assessment (2014-2015): The portfolio went through revisions to address concerns from the teacher candidates and secondary faculty members to begin in the spring 2014. However, based on the recommendation of accreditation consultant, Lance Tomei, the revised portfolio defense was determined to be ineffective: In your new portfolio defense process, the combination of (1) the use of self-selected artifacts, (2) the use of a sampling approach (three questions), (3) the less than explicit alignment to InTASC Standards, and (4) the use of a generic (non-Standard specific) and relatively subjective grading scale poses a difficult challenge when it comes to ensuring the validity and reliability of associated assessment data. Based on this feedback, the assessment was eliminated.

• edTPA • Exploratory phase in spring 2014. • Local evaluator training provided online. • Piloted for internship assessments. • On August 7, 2015, the SOE and Secondary Education faculty members who supervise interns in the disciplines were trained to be local evaluators for edTPA. They also participated in a Danielson inter-rater reliability exercise. • Interim assessments in Practicum courses were aligned to edTPA. • Internship edTPA portfolios were randomly selected at the end of the semester spring 2015, to be externally evaluated and establish inter-rater reliability with university evaluators. • UAFS SOE faculty members attended edTPA meetings at the Arkansas Department of Education, September 9, 2015. • After several of the randomly-selected internship portfolios failed to be accepted for external evaluation due to incomplete components, the process was revised for fall 2015 internship candidates. Internship edTPA portfolios have most recently been selected as examples of target products and submitted for external evaluation to establish inter-rater reliability. • Danielson Framework for Teachers • Observation evaluations were transitioned from PathWise (2013) to edTPA (spring 2014) to Danielson Framework for Teachers (fall 2014) based on Arkansas Department of

Page|9 Education Legislation and changes in program leadership. • Teacher Evaluation Support System (TESS) training was provided to faculty in fall 2014 to support implementation of the Danielson Framework for Teachers evaluation as required by Arkansas Department of Education. • Danielson recalibration training is held each academic year, for faculty and supervisors. The scoring results are submitted for external evaluation to establish inter-rater reliability. • Training is provided each semester for Clinical Supervisors/Mentor Teachers who have not completed Danielson. • In spring 2015, accreditation consultant, Lance Tomei, was hired to prepare a proposed action plan for the unit. Following his recommendations, the SOE faculty members attended a three-day summer retreat to address his concerns. The faculty analyzed, revised and reconstructed the assessments and rubrics and made significant changes beginning in fall 2015. • Goal #1: Establish a master rubric template, using a common direction of flow and the same performance level labels and point values in all rubrics. Recommend a four-level design that includes two developmental levels for formative assessments at two mid-program transition points plus a single level of mastery reflecting programs’ target learning outcomes. • The Master Template Design was developed during the faculty retreat. • All of the assessment rubrics will be updated to reflect the new rubric design. • Faculty will follow this template when constructing rubrics for courses, SPA assessments and unit assessments. • Goal #2: Revise Intended Candidate Outcomes (Form #7) to reflect the final target learning outcomes. This form then needs to be converted into rubric format with critical indicators identified for each standard (using InTASC standards indicators and, when desired, indicators based on the Danielson Framework) and performance descriptors written for each level of performance. • Executive Director of Education, Dr. Glenda Ezell, contacted CAEP officials to see if the unit could align ICOs (InTASC and ADE Standards) with Danielson, revising Form #7 as recommended. Dr. Ezell followed up with an e-mail to Dr. Stevie Chepko, Senior Vice President, Accreditation, who informed her that it would be acceptable to use the Danielson assessment and rubrics to assess the ICOs. Interpretation of the unit MOU with ADE to use the 2007 Danielson rubrics at the component level confirmed that the unit may use the components if uploaded in a secure, password protected location. • Faculty Committee aligned the rubrics and the observation form. The rubric was shared with the faculty at the fall 2015 edTPA

P a g e | 10 training. It is now loaded into LiveText and will be used in the Assessment for Form #7 • Goal #3: Critically review the quality of all existing rubrics and revise as needed, using the meta-rubric provided as a guide. Strongly suggest that you invite your P-12 partners to work with you on this review and revision work. • This work began on day two of the faculty retreat. The SOE P12 partners began the work of reviewing the rubrics. Faculty members facilitated the discussion, but this task was not completed. • Great strides were made as all stakeholders voted on the use of edTPA in the UAFS SOE programs. Piloting of edTPA had begun in 2014 with the faculty members weighing the advantages and disadvantages. • Advantage – edTPA is a proprietary assessment to be used for CAEP. • Concerns – Costs to the teacher candidates and the lack of training for the faculty. • Concerns about the cost were minimized when faculty were informed that they could locally evaluate the candidates’ work and submit selected work to be assessed by Pearson. • Faculty requested face-to-face training so they could interact and collaborate as they assessed the work. • Goal #4: Ensure that all programs have curriculum maps in place, then expand all curriculum maps into curriculum and assessment maps that show not only where all applicable competencies are taught, but also where they are assessed—both formatively (twice) and summatively (reflect all key summative assessments, including Praxis). • This work began on day three of the faculty retreat but was not completed for all programs. Representatives from Secondary English, Secondary Mathematics and Music K-12 were in attendance. • The Secondary Education Coordinator will meet with the secondary faculty on a regular basis collectively by program. The Assessment Coordinator will also meet with them on a regular basis to review their assessment data. • Goal #5: Once curriculum and assessment maps are completed for all programs, conduct a gap analysis to identify any additional assessments needed to ensure that all competencies are being assessed both formatively (twice) and summatively (with multiple summative assessments). Develop new assessments as needed to fill any gaps. This work is likely to be heavily, if not exclusively, focused on formative assessments. • This is an area that has been overlooked during the past 2-3 years. In the future, all programs will meet annually to review

P a g e | 11 assessment data to identify gaps in the curriculum. • Faculty are encouraged to take the Praxis exams for their disciplines to identify the competencies addressed in the assessments and make programmatic changes as needed. The School of Education will pay for the assessments. • Goal #6: Review and either eliminate or redesign your portfolio defense assessment. As currently designed, it is unlikely to offer much value-added since resulting data are unlikely to be valid and reliable for the purpose for which those data are used. • Faculty led the discussion on this task. Several faculty members “liked” this assessment very much and believed it served a purpose in the preparation of our candidates. However, by day three and with the input from the Secondary Education faculty, it was determined the assessment had outlived its value. The assessment and rubric design were flawed and provided little quality data. • The faculty unanimously voted to discontinue this assessment, particularly in light of using the edTPA Portfolio. • Additional goals identified by faculty members during the summer 2015 faculty retreat: • Create a common syllabus format that will add all the additional components that NCTQ has identified as pertinent to quality educator preparation programs: • The faculty began the common syllabus format and continued this work into the summer. • A syllabus template was submitted to the faculty for implementation during the fall 2015 semester. • Update the lesson plan template. • During the summer, the Coordinator of Field Experience contacted public school personnel for feedback concerning their expectations for lesson plans. • The Coordinator of Field Experience met with program level faculty to identify components for a common lesson plan template. • Combined feedback was used to create a lesson plan template that meets the expectations across disciplines and licensure levels. • Fall 2015 Goals: • Ensure that all key internal formative and summative assessments for which rubrics are needed have high quality rubrics in place and are housed in LiveText™. • Establish well-documented policies and procedures for the review, analysis, evaluation, and use of assessment data to inform decisions about program and unit improvement. • The university supervisors used the revised Intended Candidate Outcomes form for the first time, after being trained to refine the use of

P a g e | 12 the instrument. Target levels of performance were identified at the two formative levels of Practicum I and II, as well as the summative levels of internship. There are two summative assessments during internship, to demonstrate inter-rater reliability. • In spring and summer 2016, the UAFS SOE assessment system was completely updated, to address the final draft of CAEP standards requirements, released in March: • Created an alignment chart to align all key assessments (Danielson, edTPA, Disposition Assessment, Diversity Case Study) to INTASC Standards, SOE Intended Candidate Outcomes, Arkansas Teacher Standards, and CAEP Components. • Updated the Assessment Report to reflect all assessment data from spring 2013 – spring 2016. All data tables were aligned to CAEP Components, InTASC Standards and Danielson’s FFT Elements. The data collection now reflects expectations set forth by the CAEP Accreditation Handbook, March 2016. • Aligned all assessment rubrics to CAEP Components, InTASC Standards and Danielson’s FFT Elements. • Updated the LiveText Assessment System to show the alignments: All LiveText documents have been aligned to CAEP Components, InTASC Standards and Danielson’s FFT Elements. • Created a three-year Strategic Plan, documenting goals for 2016-2019. • Created a Retention and Recruitment Plan, providing documentation of the need to recruit a diverse and highly-qualified faculty and student population. • Created a plan for CAEP 4.1 Impact on Student Learning Case Study, gained IRB approval to follow the progress of teacher graduates for a three-year period. Faculty members have agreed to continue providing mentoring and training to teacher graduates. In return, the novice teachers have signed on to provide the UAFS SOE their evidence of impact on student learning in their classrooms. • Trained faculty to be edTPA Local Evaluators and conducted interreliability trainings • Sent teacher graduate edTPA portfolios to be externally-evaluated, ensuring that the various disciplines and programs were represented in the sample. • Revised the Employer and Graduate Surveys to collect data on Impact on Student Learning and Teacher Effectiveness. • Created and implemented an Intern Exit Interview and Clinical Supervisors/Mentor Teacher and University Supervisor survey, to investigate perceptions of professional experiences provided. • The Executive Director of the School of Education conducted interreliability trainings and activities for Danielson Framework for Teaching. • Faculty attended an ETS workshop with Kathy Pruner to become more proficient in assessment analysis. • Faculty attended a LiveText workshop to become more proficient in the

P a g e | 13 use of the UAFS SOE assessment system. • Partnership with the Guy Fenter Educational Cooperation for teacher recruitment, retention, and mentoring - teacher licensure. • Updated the Assessment Manual to reflect the changes in the assessment system during the transition from NCATE to CAEP requirements. • Fall 2016: o In response to the CAEP Formative Feedback Report, the faculty met to address each standard, including Standard 5, over the Quality Assurance System (QAS): • Beginning with Fall 2016 data, analyses will be provided in the assessment report after each semester: Summarize patterns, trends and issues after collaboratively meeting with School of Education faculty and secondary-level content area faculty. • The question was asked to the ability of the EPP to have the capacity to manage the QAS: Initially, assessments and accompanying rubrics were used for objectivity. Currently, a reduction in load for the assessment coordinator is being considered. A new position of Administrative Analyst (Fall, 2015) was added to assist the Assessment Coordinator with data collection in order to support the QAS. Since this infrastructure has been established, the SOE should be able to maintain the QAS. • EPP has established face validity through alignment to standards and review by external consultants. Has the unit used additional methods to establish validity of its instruments? Has the EPP analyzed the data on a routine basis or relied on external consultants? o SOE reviews and analyzes data (minutes from Faculty meetings, Faculty Retreat, TEC); however, we are in transitional stages with new programs, in MLED, ELEM and Secondary. Consultations will follow with math faculty and the UAFS Director of Academic Assessment and Accountability. o With the transition from NCATE to CAEP, the UAFS SOE felt the need to seek advice from outside consultants in regard to the current direction of programs and unit assessments. Before that time, the SOE and secondary education faculty members analyzed the data each semester with input from the TEC. o Many of the UAFS SOE assessments are proprietary and were aligned with EPP standards required by the Arkansas Department of Education. The EPP-created assessments are also all aligned with CAEP and state teaching standards (InTASC). • The Praxis II scores are being addressed in multiple ways: o Title II reporting will encourage more effective monitoring of programmatic progress.

P a g e | 14

•

o A new course has been created by math content faculty for secondary and middle-level math majors. This will be implemented Spring, 2017 and will specifically address Praxis II math content. o Social Studies Curriculum Instruction and Assessment is a new course developed to support elementary and middle-level Praxis II content in Social Studies. This will be implemented Spring 2017. o STEM Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment is a new course developed to support elementary and middle-level Praxis II science content. This will be implemented Spring 2017. The UAFS SOE is working on and will continue to establish inter-rater reliability. Exercises will be conducted in using the Danielson and edTPA rubrics in Spring 2017, and results will be available in LiveText so that faculty and assessment personnel can use the reporting tools. The following initiatives have been implemented to recruit and retain more diverse candidates: o The recruitment plan (Spring 2016) was implemented Fall 2017 o Data from Plans of Action to show retention o Teacher Cadet programs (Alma) for recruitment At-Risk Candidate Analysis o The plan-of-action describes the process the SOE uses to identify at-risk students in collaboration with SOE faculty and administration, advisors, teacher candidates and school partners.  The UAFS SOE Policy and Procedures Manual outlines the protocol followed to support at-risk teacher candidates.  The protocol (as described in the Policy and Procedures Manual) was developed by SOE faculty and administration in collaboration with school partner administrators (TEC and TCSC members).  Candidate areas of growth are identified, an individualized plan-of-action is developed in order to support teacher candidate improvement. Impact on Student Learning o School of Education Support System (SOESS) had its first meeting in October 2016. All fall 2015 – spring 2016 graduates were invited to participate. As none of the employed

P a g e | 15 graduates had been evaluated at that time, the plan is to gather the data from Spring 2017 administrator Danielson evaluations. o Participants will be added to the pilot project each semester so that the numbers of participants will increase the data base. •

Spring 2017: Faculty revised the diversity and e-portfolio rubrics, developed a lesson plan rubric and an intern interview rubric. All show face validity after being aligned to CAEP, TESS and ISTE standards, and will go through the Lawshe method for content validity. o The SOE faculty met to discuss the progression of unit assignments in new programs of study. They discussed the options that would be most advantageous for the candidates while providing the scope, sequence, and consistency required to ensure candidate success. They discussed the progression of skills required as candidates matriculate through the programs of study and aligned curricular objectives and tasks for the following courses: • EDUC 2752 Introduction to Education: Instructors will give an overview of the InTASC Standards, Arkansas Teacher Standards, Danielson Domains (TESS), UAFS SOE Candidate Outcomes (InTASC), UAFS SOE Dispositions, edTPA Tasks • ELML 2013 Educational Technology and Digital Literacy and EDUC 3302 Introduction to Educational Technology: Introduce ISTE standards and reinformce alignment of SOE ICOs, InTASC, Danielson (TESS), edTPA; Dispositions • Note – ALL Education courses will reinforce the alignments as candidates progress through the program • ELML 3202 Practicum I and EDUC 3221 Practicum I: Focus is Planning: edTPA Task I Planning and Danielson Domain I, Lesson Planning (use Lesson Plan rubric to score the taught lesson), demonstrate alignment of Danielson Rubrics to edTPA and InTASC; Candidates will create three lesson plans and teach one; edTPA Task I scored in LiveText; Parent Workshop implemented. Reinforce use of technology standards (ISTE). SIP Plan objectives are implemented during this time and SOE faculty will continue to provide opportunities for candidates to interact with parents and families. SOE will collect data for the SIP Plan. • ELML 4102 Practicum II and EDUC 4211 Practicum II: Focus is Instruction: edTPA Task II Instruction and Danielson Domain 2; Candidates will create three lesson plans and teach one, the taught lesson scored using Lesson Plan rubric and observation scored using Danielson rubrics; edTPA Task II scored in LiveText. Reinforce planning skills; alignment of ICOs, Danielson, edTPA, and InTASC; reinforce use of technology standards (ISTE); planning for diverse learners. • ELML 4303 STEM Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment and EDUC 4222 Assessment: Focus is Assessment: edTPA Task III Assessment, Danielson Domains 1-4 assessment in planning, implementation, instruction, reflection; edTPA Task III assignments scored in LiveText; differentiation and assessment for diverse learners; technology in documenting impact on student learning. Reinforce planning skills; alignment of ICOs, Danielson, edTPA, and InTASC;

P a g e | 16

•

reinforce use of technology standards (ISTE); planning for diverse learners. EDUC4802 Seminar in Education and EDUC 490A Internship: Focus is on edTPA Tasks 1-3; Danielson/TESS Domains 1-4; ICO’s 1-10; Lesson Planning (use Lesson Plan rubric to score the summative observation lesson); impact on student learning. Reinforce: Candidates will meet or exceed expectations on all required unit assessments including: edTPA Tasks 1-3 and Danielson Domains 14. Assignments will be scored in LiveText. A grade will be attached to the edTPA Professional Portfolio. SIP Plan objectives will be monitored throughout the programs of study. SOE faculty will continue to provide opportunities for candidates to interact with parents and families. SOE will collect data for the SIP Plan. April, 2017 – successful completion of accreditation process, concluding with the visit by the on-site CAEP team. The team chair recommended zero AFIs, with the findings to become official after the CAEP board meets in the fall of 2017.

Fall 2017: With the transition within the office of Executive Director of the School of Education, the entire SOE assessment system went through a semester of review. All of the assessments within the Gates have been analyzed by the Assessment Committee, with the following actions taken: o October 23, 2017 – CAEP’s Accreditation Council determined that the UAFS SOE had earned accreditation based on the CAEP Standards, and upheld the on-site team’s recommendation of zero AFIs. o E-Portfolio Rubric has been added to the assessment reports, but not added as a Gate requirement. o Lesson Plan Rubric has been added to the assessment handbook, but not reported on as a key assessment. o Survey to Clinical Supervisor/Mentor Teacher and University Supervisor has been added to the Assessment Report o Tables were prepared for the University Learning Outcomes (ULO) assessments (Quantitative Reasoning and Ethical Decision Making) for AAS/ELEM/MLED o Changes to Gates • ELEM degree is not in NCATE (needs to be changed to CAEP) assessment system • ELML classes added to Gates • Gate 5: Praxis II Scores for ELEM (3554) and MLED 4-8 (3515)  Test codes and required scores (4 required codes and scores for ELEM) • Gate 5: PLT Scores for ELEM (3554) and MLED 4-8 (3515)  Test codes and required scores • Gate 5: Literacy exam for ELEM (3554)  Test codes and required scores  First group to take it are currently in the first two READ classes – talk to Pam Fout to see if the gate can be updated for Spring 2018  No subscores on this test – one passing score of 229 • ECED major needs to be eliminated from gates (after Spring 2018)  Replace with ELML prefix classes

P a g e | 17 •

o o

o o o

o o o o

Diversity Rubric needs to be clarified (Gate 4). Currently showing ECED class • Portfolio still in Gate 5, needs to be changed to Practicum I (edTPA Task 1) and Practicum II (edTPA Task 2) • PLT in Gate 6, needs to be changed to Gate 5 Table 4: Gate 3: Praxis Core or Qualifying ACT Scores (disaggregate beginning with Fall 2017 data) Developed Ethical Decision Making Pilot Assessment for Educational Technology Classes • Tied to AR Educators’ Code of Ethics • Social Networking addendum • Created scenarios where students will define which piece of the code should be referenced for decision-making Tables 5: Gates 3, 4, 6: Self-Evaluations of Dispositions • Continue to compile by semesters, but additional table to address individual cohorts of students longitudinally (Fall 2017) Table 6: Candidates’ Reflection Upon Lesson Taught • Continue to compile by semesters, but additional table to address individual cohorts of students longitudinally (Fall 2017) • Name changed on Table after eliminating LiveText Form 12 and adding Danielson performance tool and rubrics (Fall 2018) Table 7: Gate 4: Diversity Case Study Performance – Address discrepancies in rubrics with Secondary and ELML coordinators. Table 8: Gates 4 & 6: ICOs transferred into Danielson checklist – decision made to maintain this assessment to show longitudinal Danielson data. Table 9: Gates 3, 4, & 6: Candidate Dispositions Combined from Selected Courses • Currently showing Intro. To Education numbers and then all of the other numbers according to ELEM, MLED and SEC • Decision made to maintain format and reporting, as at-risk students are being identified and counseled through advising and plans-of-action. Table 13: Gate 5: Internship Placement Interview Results • Disaggregated by program beginning with the Fall 2017 data Table 22: Beginning Fall 2017, First formative observation will be from Practicum I, second from Practicum II, third from beginning of internship and summative from final observation in internship Move Form 6 (Student Advising Questionnaire) to seminar beginning Spring 2018 • Look at Spring 2017 numbers for education advisor ratings. Interns to complete the forms in the final capstone course. • Advising questionnaire to be added to capstone seminar, rather than the field experience module. • Evaluation of Placement/Mentor/Supervisor • Graduate Survey • Form 7 - ICO/Danielson elements (question about eliminating this assessment for 2018-19 academic year). Exit Interviews (MLED is written to the AMLE SPA and does not match the ELEM and SEC interview data. The MLED students must also complete the capstone

P a g e | 18 interview data, so that the Exit interviews would more appropriately be used as a unit assessment. Goal for spring 2018 - align all exit interviews.) o Investigate SOE use of Lawshe method for content validity o MLED Changes in Program of Study should be considered: • 2 hrs. elective is difficult – make it free elective hours, if possible, so that students have more choices and so that the plan is friendlier to those students who have changed majors and/or have transferred. • Add READ Foundations course (per April Evans) o Questions about the internship classes all having the EDUC prefix, but containing ELEM, MLED and SEC interns – this was a curriculum change, and would have to be addressed with program degree cleanup. o Lesson plan decisions • edTPA academic language added to lesson plan • SOE faculty agreed to revise lesson plan format, eliminating checked boxes. o edTPA Tasks: • Practicum I – Task 1 • Practicum 2 – Task 2 • STEM Assessment – Task 3 • ELEM edTPA Task 4 will be added to MATH course, Math Curriculum Instruction and Assessment o SEC students – Executive Director will meet with Content Department Heads, to discuss having the content education faculty be the only ones advising Secondary education students. o All EDUC students will be required to attend an orientation to the education programs. o Guy Fenter Educational Co-op will provide student impact data: • Currently training recent UAFS graduates, who will be required to bring evidence from a unit of instruction, to share with the UAFS SOE. Will include Pre- and Post-test items. • Interest in developing program in which UAFS teacher candidates could be mentors and tutors for ACT scores to be brought up. Students in participating high schools would apply to participate. Spring 2018: • In an effort to use student disposition data in a more proactive, formative manner, spring 2018 piloted the following modifications: o Disposition meetings (faculty, SOE administration and student) to be held for all students in the following classes:  Foundations of Clinical Practice – team of faculty met with each student individually during one class period, and then asked for feedback from the students. The students felt like they were being supported by a team and felt like everyone was there to help them, giving them no need to feel defensive. They did recommend that students be notified in advance about the meetings so they could dress professionally, and that they be allowed to identify areas of selfimprovement prior to the meetings.  Practicum I

P a g e | 19 Practicum II Internship – the same form that is being used in the disposition meetings will be used in the internship interviews, for consistency. o Disposition meetings will continue in future semesters, to identify support areas for students throughout their time in the Educator Preparation Program. Program Learning Outcomes (PLO) reports due April 1st, 2018 o Year 5  PLOs 1 and 3  Five year summary  Plan for upcoming cycle o PLO Goals Cycle 3 plans due November 1, 2018  

•

  

•

University Learning Outcomes (ULOs) revised for upcoming assessment five-year cycle: o

•

Years 1 and 3 report on PLOs 1 and 3 goals (2018-2019) & (2020-2021) Years 2 and 4 report on PLOs 2 and 4 goals (2019-2020) & (2021-2022) Year 5 summarize the PLO Cycle 3 and set the PLO goals for PLO Cycle 4 (2022-2023

Analytical Skills remains the ULO, but now with two goals: Critical Thinking Skills and Quantitative Reasoning; two separate rubrics with objectives. Programs will select either critical thinking skills or quantitative reasoning to report on. Changed the title of Ethics to Ethical Decision Making; use the current rubric.  After interdisciplinary faculty members had gone through several norming exercises in the usage of the rubric, the SOE course ELML 2013: Introduction to Educational Technology and Digital Literacy was part of the piloting project for using the assessment tools in Blackboard.

o Deleted Technological Skills; now included throughout the other ULOs, to reflect current student usage of technology. o Annually, each associate’s or bachelor’s program will be required to report on one of the four (see schedule below) ULOs and summarize and analyze the findings in the fifth year.  Ethical Decision Making (2018-2019)  Global and Cultural Perspectives (2019-2020)  Communication Skills (2020-2021)  Analytical Skills (2021-2022) • Quantitative Reasoning • Critical Thinking Skills  Summarize and analyze the finding and create a ULO plan for the next ULO Cycle 4 (2022-2023) o All general syllabi must be updated to reflect the updated ULOs Assessment Committee reflections on Annual CAEP Report: o Standard 1: Strength of SOE o Standard 2: Review CAEP Standard Two Plan (evidence piece #24) o Standard 3: Strength of SOE

P a g e | 20 o

Standard 4: Initial plan was a failure, due to lack of graduate response. Relationship with Guy Fenter Cooperative may be helpful with providing data through the state mentorship program. Other possibilities include:  Graduate survey/employment survey: The assessment committee decided to

 



use the Title II cohort group, which should be all our first year teachers and where they are employed. We will send out the 1st year surveys and continue to work that list until we have met the CAEP required 40% return rate. We will save the same Title II cohort group and use to submit the 3rd year out graduate survey and work that list until we meet the required 40% return rate. Continue to ask faculty if they know where students are employed, and possibly call cell phone numbers to get correct email addresses for graduates. Committee discussed having a first and third year electronic birthday card created by Marketing that would have the link to the survey embed in the card. Student workers to send out postcards to the new National Board Certified Teachers.

Fall 2018: • • • •

•

• • •

CAEP Elementary Standards added to program syllabi 2017-2018 PLO reports received “Exemplary” scores for AAS/ELEM/MLED programs AAS/ELEM/MLED five-year plans submitted in LiveText AAS/ELEM/MLED ULO Memos submitted to UAFS administration and curriculum committee, containing all program syllabi reflecting changes to the university learning outcomes and how they are being addressed in the individual courses. All of the UAFS SOE edTPA three-point rubrics have been revised to reflect changes in the programmatic handbooks. The edTPA resources have all been updated in the faculty shared drive, and a course has been set up in Edmodo to disseminate the information. The faculty went through a Danielson recalibration course in LiveText, with the following comparison and analysis:

o Fall 2017 – Point spread was fairly wide, except for Secondary observation, 2a and 2d (.246 standard deviation). Mode was 3.00 in all components. Means ranged from 2.514 – 3.065. N= 33? o Fall 2018 – Similar results with point spread. Lowest standard deviations were in Video 1, 2d (.266) and Video 2, 2a (.392). Mode for Video 1 was 3.00 in all components, Mode for Video 2 ranged from 2.00-3.00. N=13 o The past two exercises have revealed large discrepancies and outliers in scoring. o Danielson recalibration for fall 2019 will be 4 hours (Noon – 5:00), and will entail true inter-rater reliability. Provide immediate feedback at the time of scoring.

The Danielson rubrics and expectations were evaluated by faculty members and SOE stakeholders. The Higher Learning Commission (HLC) SOE narrative has been written and evidence tagged, for submission in the Assurance Argument June 2019. CAEP/SPA reflections:

P a g e | 21 o

o o

o o o o o

Standard 1: Content and Pedagogical Knowledge through our SPAs:  Foreign Language – ACTFL  Middle Level – AMLE  Science – NSTA  English – NCTE  Social Studies – NCSS  Math – NCTM  Music – NASM (The teacher licensure program does not have to do a music SPA, as they have an entire accreditation piece around their programs)  Emphasize to faculty that unit assessments must be those that are taken by all SOE graduates. SPAs are able to use some of the unit assessments to feed into their process, but other assessments are program-specific. Standard 2: Clinical Partnerships include all relationships maintained through the Field Experience Office and our Teacher Education Council. Standard 3: Candidate Quality, Selectivity and Progression. ADE no longer has the requirement of the Praxis Core, or ACT for licensure. However, CAEP has a requirement that says you have to have an average score on a normed assessment per cohort. This is conversation we could have around GPA and cut scores in the future. Standard 4: Results of Preparation – proof of student learning from our graduates for the first three years. Standard 5: Provider Quality Assurance and Continuous Improvement Diversity and technology should be woven throughout the EPP. Discussion of who writes SPAs in Elementary, Middle Level and Secondary Education, as well as the receiving the training to write them. Assessment Coordinator and Executive Director of the SOE to write a mini CAEP report at the end of each academic year.

Spring 2019: • • •

• • •

Faculty began the semester with an all-day training around edTPA. Discussion to change SOE fees to bring in enough funding to pay for the national scoring ($300 per teacher candidate). PLO year 1 reports due in LiveText by April 1, for the AAS/ELEM/MLED programs o All EPP programs received exemplary scores for PLO reports. For the second year, ELML 2013: Introduction to Educational Technology and Digital Literacy was part of the piloting project for using the assessment tools in Blackboard to assess the Ethical Decision Making ULO. Assessment Coordinator and Executive Director of the SOE participated in the Arkansas EPP CAEP Consortium, for consistency in expectations statewide. Faculty members reminded to complete family involvement assessments, as part of our CAEP Self-Improvement Plan. Danielson Rubric GPA Changes: Executive Director proposed a change in the GPA policy to only include courses on the EPP degree plan, not all classes a student has taken. Students with GPA between 2.70 and

P a g e | 22 2.75 will be able to appeal to take a semester of classes requiring admission while working on their GPA. If the GPA does not go up, they cannot appeal for GPA again. Summer 2019 •

Executive Director and Assessment Coordinator met to go over Assessment Manual: Data Collection, Analysis and Data-Based Decision Making; Unit Assessments table; and Assessment Forms. The following suggestions need to be voted on by faculty members: o edTPA – continue with local evaluations, investigate the options for moving towards national scoring (student fees would have to be changed to address scoring charges) o Danielson – move towards greater inter-rater reliability through fall workshop. Send out two videos in advance, allowing faculty members time to score them accordingly. During University Days, go over each component of Domain two and three, discussing evidence found, reasons for individual scoring. Provide normed scores, and then come to general consensus through discussion. o Exit Interview – include rubric for exit interviews; teacher candidates enter own data; Field Experience Coordinator facilitates in LiveText; Develop question? o Graduate Survey – ADE has approved our request to use their graduate survey for Standard 4, eliminating the need for surveying our Arkansas graduates. We will only survey our out-of-state novice teachers. o Lesson Plan Rubric and Electronic Portfolio Rubric both need to be added to the Assessment manual and assessment chart. o Review Gates 3, 4 & 6 tables as a faculty o Form 11 – Teacher Candidate Self-Evaluation of Dispositions  Only assess 4 times  Create 4 indicators  Put same form in all published documents (Candidate manual, assessment manual, etc.)  Assign course numbers o Form 12 – Teacher Candidate Reflection of Lesson Planning  Use Task 1 reflection in place of???  If not, align indicators  Assign course numbers o Form 14 – Diversity Case Study  Speak with assigning faculty members about directions and rubric o Form 7 – Intended candidate outcomes  Remove NA  Determine points of evals and person evaluating  Remove self eval from courses.  Melanie no longer pulls data for Intern Self eval? o Form 1 – Faculty evaluation of candidate disposition  Create 4 indicators  Intro. to Ed. – as is

P a g e | 23 

Field Placement courses – Faculty meet twice per semester to plan for disposition meetings

Fall 2019 Needs: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

IV.

Add 2016 ISTE standards to syllabi? AMLE standards in syllabi? Add ADE report to the UAFS assessment web page Birth-Five licensure AAT degree PLO Cycle 3 Updates due November 1, 2019 ULO – Global and Cultural Perspectives identified courses due November 1, 2019 ULO information due in LiveText by June 1, 2020 PLO (Outcomes 2 and 4) due in LiveText by April 1, 2020

System Components A. Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions: The SOE assessment system is designed to measure candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions derived from professional, state, and institutional standards. B. Standards: Candidates are expected to demonstrate competency in all ten InTASC standards, the Danielson Framework for Teaching Domains and Components and the ISTE standards for enhancing student learning through technology. C. Multiple Measures - Gates i. The assessment system is represented by a series of gates that must be cleared by candidates as they move through the program. By successfully meeting the requirements at each gate (decision point represented by a gate), candidates meet designated standards and complete their programs. Candidates meet the program exit criteria and enter a continuous learning process. Professional, state, and institutional standards and multiple assessment measures provide the support for the process and provide multiple assessment measures which provide continual feedback data for analysis at each level. ii. Tables 1-7 appear on the following pages and illustrate the decision points in the educator preparation program. The gate decision points indicate how candidates’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions are assessed at each decision point.

P a g e | 24 Assessment System and Educator Preparation Program Evaluation Gate 1: University General Admission Assessment Assessment System Information/ Benchmarks Test Scores

Transcripts

Data Collection, Analysis And Evaluation

Evidence Skill/Knowledge Area Relationship

Link to InTASC Principles

Data Collector/ Role

Use of Results

ACT and placement Ability to do college tests used for work and to be a advisement and successful teacher. placement. Must have a minimum 19 ACT score for unconditional admission.

#4 Content Knowledge University Records Office

General admission criterion

Used for descriptive purposes and advisement. All entering freshmen or transfer students must have a GPA of 2.00.

#4 Content Knowledge University Records Office

General admission criterion

Ability to do college work and to be a successful teacher. Ability to do college work and to be a successful teacher.

GPAs #4 Content Knowledge University Records General admission Entering â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Office criterion Minimum 2.0 Transfer â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Minimum 2.0 Assessment of Evidence and Use of Results: Relationship between course history and knowledge of subject matter is used to design curriculum. There is some attempt to ensure that general studies and teaching field courses are complementary to the high school curriculum. Results are used to provide feedback to the unit and to the SOE partners in P-12. Test scores and other information is entered in the Student Information System and used for descriptive purposes only.

P a g e | 25 Assessment System and Unit Evaluation Gate 2: Pre-Professional Assessment – EDUC 2752, Introduction to Education, Assessment System Information/ Benchmarks Grade of “C” or better

Data Collection, Analysis Evidence Skill/ Knowledge Area And Evaluation Relationship Transcript record of C or better for EDUC 2752

Link to InTASC Principles

Data Collector/Role

Use of Results

Ability to do college #4 Content Knowledge work. Oral and written language skills. Know content and skills that teacher candidates should know.

Administrative Specialist – SOE Admissions

Program admission criterion

DHS Maltreatment The Arkansas Child Background Check Maltreatment Central Registry contained no Form record under the candidate’s name in a true report of child maltreatment.

Evidences no prior maltreatment of children.

#9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

Administrative Specialist – SOE Admissions

Program admission criterion

Completion of Self- Evaluation of Dispositions FORM #11

Professionalism; has ideas for making a positive impact on learning.

#9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice; #10 Leadership and Collaboration

Candidates are required to self-assess their dispositions four times throughout the educator preparation program: Introduction to Education, Child Development/ Human Development, Diversity/Survey of Diverse Populations and Internship.

Provides evidence of professionalism and importance of appropriate dispositions in the classroom.

Candidates completed selfrating on program dispositions

Assessment of Evidence and Use of Results: The results are used to monitor general education; provide feedback to institution and the SOE partners in P-12; to identify those who may have difficulty early and provide help; evaluate unit requirements; and monitor enrollment. Requiring the DHS Maltreatment Background Check Form at Gate 2 ensures that all SOE teacher candidates have been cleared prior to any field placements.

P a g e | 26 Assessment System and Unit Evaluation Gate 3: Admission to Educator Preparation Program ELML 2013 Education Technology and Digital Literacy and EDUC 3002 Introduction to Educational Technology Assessment System Information/ Benchmarks Formal application submitted

Cumulative GPA of 2.75

Data Collection, Analysis and Evaluation Signed “Verification Receipt of the Teacher Candidate Manual,” “Candidate Field Experience, Practica and Internships Waiver,” and “UAFS School of Education Affirmation Statement.” Application evaluated and information used to describe candidate demographics. Transcript record evaluation

Evidence Skill/Knowledge Area Relationship

Link to InTASC Standards

Data Collector/Role Use of Results

Evidences diversity in the program and professional dispositions of learning initiative and responsibility in submitting required documentation.

#2 Learner Differences #9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

Administrative Specialist – SOE Admissions

Program admission criterion

Knowledge of content.

#4 Content Knowledge

Administrative Specialist – SOE Admissions

Program admission criterion

Grades demonstrate skills #4 Content Knowledge and knowledge in basic area; potential for leading student learning. Basic skills knowledge #4 Content Knowledge and skills; potential for leading student learning.

Administrative Specialist – SOE Admissions

Program admission criterion

Administrative Specialist – SOE Admissions

State requirement for teacher licensure

Grade of “C” of better in all coursework on the degree plan Praxis Core Scores for Tests of Reading, Writing, and Math; ADE cut scores or above or qualifying ACT

Transcript record of completion of required coursework at required criteria level

Verification of professional Behavior

UAFS disciplinary record

Indicates the potential for #9 Professional being appropriate role Learning and Ethical Practice model.

University Records Results verify Office candidates’ appropriateness for teacher education

Extended open-ended questions; Candidate’s performance on dispositions and work to this point

Knowledge range of learning in the classroom; ideas on how to influence learning in the classroom.

Faculty and School Administrators complete interviews and submit rubrics in LiveText.

Basic skills scores from ETS

Satisfactory completion of e-portfolio New Form Satisfactory evaluation on structured team interview FORM #2

#4 Content Knowledge; #9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

Results verify candidates’ appropriateness for teacher education

P a g e | 27 Assessment System Information/ Benchmarks Disposition Rating Scale used by faculty to evaluate dispositions FORM #1

Data Collection, Analysis and Evaluation Faculty completed rating on dispositions of standards

Evidence Skill/Knowledge Area Relationship Professionalism; has ideas for making a positive impact on learning.

Link to InTASC Standards #1 Learner Development; #2 Learning Differences; #8 Instructional Strategies #9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

Data Collector/Role Use of Results Faculty begin assessing student dispositions in Introduction to Education, and continue in all education courses. Submitted LiveText.

Results are used to identify those who may have difficulty early and to provide guidance.

Assessment of Evidence and Use of Results: The application provides evidence on each candidateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s progress prior to admission to the Educator Preparation Program. Provides evidence of professionalism and importance of appropriate dispositions in the classroom. Results verify candidatesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; appropriateness for teacher education; results are used to identify those who may have difficulty early and provide help (See SOE Policies and Procedures Manual for assistance process); evaluate unit requirements so appropriate changes can be made.

P a g e | 28 Unit Evaluation Gate 4: Interim Assessment Assessment System Information/ Benchmarks GPAs checked at the completion of each grading cycle. Minimum 2.75 in the courses on the education degree plan must be maintained. Verification of professional behavior

Link to InTASC Data Collection, Evidence Standards Analysis and Skill/Knowledge Evaluation Area Relationship GPA to point in the Preparation in general #1 Learner Development; program studies, professional #2 Learning Differences; studies, and teaching #4 Content Knowledge; field continues to be #8 Instructional Strategies adequate. #9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

Data Collector/Role

Use of Results

Administrative Specialist â&#x20AC;&#x201C; SOE Admissions

Progression criterion

Results verify candidatesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; appropriateness for teacher education Results are used to identify those who may have difficulty and to provide guidance.

UAFS disciplinary Indicates candidate record continues to be appropriate role model. Faculty completed Professionalism; has ideas for making a rating on positive impact on dispositions of learning. standards

#9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

University Records Office

#1 Learner Development; #2 Learning Differences; #8 Instructional Strategies #9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

Faculty continues assessing student dispositions in all education courses. SOE Administrative Analyst oversees submissions. Submitted in LiveText.

Completion of Self- Evaluation of Dispositions FORM #11

Candidates completed selfrating on program dispositions

Professionalism; has ideas for making a positive impact on learning.

#9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice; #10 Leadership and Collaboration

Candidates are required to continue self-assessing their dispositions throughout the educator preparation program. SOE Administrative Analyst oversees submissions. Submitted in LiveText.

Provides evidence of professionalism and importance of appropriate dispositions in the classroom.

Candidate Reflection on Lesson during Practicum I & II FORM #12

Candidate completed selfrating on a lesson taught

Ability to self-analyze lessons to determine strengths, weaknesses, and plan for future instruction.

#2 Learning Differences; #5 Application of Content; #6 Assessment; #7 Planning for Instruction; #8 Instructional Strategies

Candidates are required to self-assess their lesson plans three times throughout the educator preparation program. SOE Administrative Analyst oversees submissions in LiveText.

Provides evidence of being a reflective practitioner and ability to plan developmentally appropriate lessons.

Diversity Rubric used in ECED 3053 and SPED 3022/3003 (revised 2017) FORM #14

Instructors complete rubric on each candidate.

Indicates understanding of diversity and ability to make appropriate instructional modifications.

#2 Learning Differences

Instructors submit assessment via LiveText. SOE Administrative Analyst oversees submissions.

Provides evidence that teacher candidates satisfactorily analyze a case study for appropriate practices dependent upon the type of diversity presented.

Disposition Rating Scale used by faculty to evaluate dispositions FORM #1

P a g e | 29 Assessment System Information/ Benchmarks

Data Collection, Analysis and Evaluation

Evidence Skill/Knowledge Area Relationship

Link to InTASC Standards Data Collector/Role Use of Results

Satisfactory evaluation of field work with standardsbased rubrics

Completed evaluation of work in field experience

Ability to work with students; potential for effective teaching.

#1 Learner Development; #2 Learning Differences; #3 Learning Environments; #4 Content Knowledge; #5 Application of Content; #6 Assessment; #8 Instructional Strategies #9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice; #10 Leadership and Collaboration

University Assist candidates who supervisors submit may be having Danielson-based difficulty in the field observation and to continue to instruments via encourage and support LiveText. candidates who show SOE Administrative promise in becoming Analyst oversees capable teachers. submissions.

Intended Candidate Outcomes – InTASC Standards aligned with Danielson FFT Components FORM #7

Teacher candidates evaluated by Clinical Supervisors/ Mentor Teachers and University Supervisors

Ability to demonstrate elements of effective teaching as the teacher candidate’s progress through the educator preparation program.

#1 Learner Development; #2 Learning Differences; #3 Learning Environments; #4 Content Knowledge; #5 Application of Content; #6 Assessment; #7 Planning for Instruction; #8 Instructional Strategies #9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice; #10 Leadership and Collaboration

Clinical Clinical Supervisors/mentor Supervisors/mentor teachers and teachers evaluate the University teacher candidates’ Supervisors submit abilities to demonstrate Danielson-based the components of forms via LiveText. effective teaching. SOE Administrative Teacher candidates are Analyst oversees assessed four times over submissions. the course of the educator preparation program.

Practicum I edTPA Task I: Planning

Instructors complete rubrics on each candidate

Evaluation of teacher candidate’s ability to plan a unit of instruction.

#1 Learner Development; #2 Learning Differences; #4 Content Knowledge; #5 Application of Content #8 Instructional Strategies #9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

Instructors in Practicum I submit rubrics via LiveText. SOE Administrative Analyst oversees submissions.

Results are used to assist candidates who may be having difficulty in their course work and to continue to encourage and support candidates who show promise in becoming capable teachers.

Practicum II edTPA Task II: Instruction

Instructors complete rubrics on each candidate.

Evaluation of teacher candidate’s ability to implement a unit of instruction.

#1 Learner Development; #2 Learning Differences; #4 Content Knowledge; #5 Application of Content; #8 Instructional Strategies; #9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

Instructors in Practicum II submit rubrics via LiveText. SOE Administrative Analyst oversees submissions.

Results are used to assist candidates who may be having difficulty in their course work and to continue to encourage and support candidates who show promise in becoming capable teachers.

DANIELSON OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT

P a g e | 30 Assessment System Information/ Benchmarks

Data Collection, Analysis and Evaluation

Instructors ECED 3263, EDUC 4222 edTPA Task III: complete rubrics on each candidate. Assessment and ELML 4303: STEM Curriculum Instruction Assessment

Evidence Skill/Knowledge Area Relationship Evaluation of teacher candidateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to assess studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; learning of unit objectives and to evaluate their impact on student learning.

Link to InTASC Standards Data Collector/Role Use of Results

#1 Learner Development; #2 Learning Differences; #4 Content Knowledge; #5 Application of Content; #8 Instructional Strategies; #9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice.

Instructors in Practicum II submit rubrics via LiveText. SOE Administrative Analyst oversees submissions.

Results are used to assist candidates who may be having difficulty in their course work and to continue to encourage and support candidates who show promise in becoming capable teachers.

Lesson Planning Rubric New Lesson Plan Aligned to edTPA Rubric pending

Assessment of Evidence and Use of Results: Information is used as an interim assessment to monitor candidate preparation in general studies, professional studies, and teaching field. Results are used to assist candidates who may be having difficulty in their course work or in the field and to continue to encourage and support candidates who show promise in becoming capable teachers. See SOE Policies and Procedures Manual for assistance process.

P a g e | 31

Assessment System Information/ Benchmarks Formal application submitted.

Assessment System and Unit Evaluation Gate 5: Admission to Internship

Data Collection, Analysis and Evaluation

Evidence Skill/Knowledge Area Relationship Internship applications are Potential for leading submitted. The information is student learning is checked relevant to admission verified. criteria. Teacher candidates are notified of any deficiencies.

Link to InTASC Standards

#1 Learner Development; #2 Learning Differences; #4 Content Knowledge; #8 Instructional Strategies; #9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

Data Collector/Role

Use of Results

Administrative Internship Specialist – SOE admission criterion Admissions

A minimum of twelve Transcripts of completed work (12) semester hours in are evaluated. Status related to residence at UAFS completion of professional and teaching fields.

Documentation that the candidate is ready to enter the classroom and take charge under supervision.

Administrative Internship #1 Learner Development; Specialist – SOE admission criterion #4 Content Knowledge; Admissions #6 Assessment #7 Planning for Instruction; #8 Instructional Strategies; #9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice.

Successful completion All unit assessments analyzed of all unit assessments each semester to ensure that teacher candidates are at Target level performing at target level: Practicum I = Basic Practicum II = Basic/Proficient Internship = Proficient

Documentation that the candidate is ready to enter the classroom and take charge under supervision.

#1 Learner Development; SOE Administrative #2 Learning Difference; Analyst #4 Content Knowledge; #8 Instructional Strategies; #9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

Evidences no prior maltreatment of children.

#9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

Administrative State requirement Specialist – SOE for teacher Admissions licensure.

Administrative Internship Specialist – SOE admission criterion Admissions

Arkansas FBI background check/DHS Maltreatment Background Check Form

The Arkansas FBI background check/DHS Child Maltreatment Central Registry contained no record under the candidate’s name in a true report of child maltreatment.

Minimum cumulative 2.75 GPA and Teaching GPA of 2.75.

Transcripts of completed work are evaluated.

Status related to overall preparation and preparation in professional education and teaching field are evaluated.

#1 Learner Development; #2 Learning Differences; #4 Content Knowledge; #8 Instructional Strategies; #9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

Required coursework must be completed in professional and teaching fields. This includes all methods courses and appropriate reading courses.

Transcripts of completed work are evaluated. Status related to completion of professional and teaching fields.

Documentation that the candidate is ready to enter the classroom and take charge under supervision.

Administrative #1 Learner Development; Specialist – SOE #4 Content Knowledge; Admissions #6 Assessment #7 Planning for Instruction; #8 Instructional Strategies; #9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice.

Scores indicate teaching area knowledge and potential for leading student learning.

#4 Content Knowledge; #8 Instructional Strategies

Praxis II Scores for Institutional score from ETS Specialty Area Assessment and Principles of Learning and Teaching (PLT) as required by ADE.

Rubrics are used to evaluate knowledge, dispositions, and performances, and identify areas of strength and professional development plan needs.

Administrative State requirement Specialist – SOE for teacher Admissions licensure.

Assessment System Information/ Benchmarks

Data Collection, Analysis and Evaluation

Evidence Skill/Knowledge Area Relationship

Link to InTASC Standards

Data Collector/Role

P a g e | 32

Use of Results

Transcript evaluation related A minimum grade of to teaching field and “C” will be earned in each teaching field and professional studies. professional studies course prior to admission to the internship

Evaluation reveals adequate teaching field and pedagogical knowledge.

#1 Learner Development; Administrative Specialist – SOE #2 Learning Difference; Admissions #4 Content Knowledge; #8 Instructional Strategies; #9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

Verification of professional Behavior

UAFS disciplinary record

Indicates the potential for being appropriate role model.

#9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

University Records Office

Results verify candidates’ appropriateness for teacher education

Completion of Self- Evaluation of Dispositions FORM #11

Candidates completed selfrating on program dispositions

Professionalism; has ideas for making a positive impact on learning.

#9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice; #10 Leadership and Collaboration

Provides evidence of professionalism and importance of appropriate dispositions in the classroom.

Internship Placement Interview with Field Experience Coordinator FORM #4

Rubrics completed by Field Experience Coordinator.

Professionalism; elaborates on ability to contextualize content knowledge and pedagogy.

#1 Learner Development; #2 Learning Differences; #4 Content Knowledge; #6 Assessment; #8 Instructional Strategies; #9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

Candidates are required to continue selfassessing their dispositions throughout the educator preparation program. SOE Administrative Analyst oversees submissions. Field experience coordinator submits forms to administrative specialist. SOE Administrative Analyst oversees submissions.

Documentation that the candidate is ready to enter the classroom and take charge under supervision.

Results are used to provide feedback to unit, institution, and SOE partners in P-12

Assessment of Evidence and Use of Results: The application to the professional internship includes all transcripts documenting that the candidate is ready to enter the classroom and take charge under supervision. Results are used to provide feedback to unit, institution, and SOE partners in P-12; the evaluations of unit requirements are used to make appropriate changes to programs. Rubrics are used to evaluate knowledge, dispositions, and performances, and identify areas of strength and professional development plan needs.

Assessment System Information/ Benchmarks Satisfactory completion of all coursework for the bachelor’s degree.

Data collection, Analysis and Evaluation Transcript record of completion of required coursework at required criteria Transcripts of completed work are evaluated.

Assessment System and Unit Evaluation Gate 6: Internship Assessment Evidence Link to InTASC Skill/Knowledge Area Principles Relationship Grades demonstrate skills #4 Content Knowledge and knowledge in basic area; potential for leading student learning.

P a g e | 33 Data Collector/Role Use of Results Administrative Specialist – SOE Admissions

University graduation Criterion

Status related to overall preparation and preparation in professional education and teaching field are evaluated.

#1 Learner Development; #2 Learning Differences; #4 Content Knowledge; #8 Instructional Strategies; #9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

Administrative Specialist – SOE Admissions

Program completion criterion

Institutional score from ETS

Scores indicate teaching area knowledge and potential for leading student learning.

#4 Content Knowledge; #8 Instructional Strategies

Administrative Specialist – SOE Admissions

State requirement for teacher licensure.

Score of “proficient” or Coordinator of above on the Professional Licensure and Field Interview Packet Placement assesses assignment, as assessed readiness for by the Coordinator of effective classroom Licensure and Field instruction. Placement.

Teacher candidates demonstrate they have the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to be recommended for initial teaching licenses.

A minimum 2.75 cumulative GPA and a minimum 2.75 GPA in the area of specialization.

Successful completion of all required Praxis Core and Praxis II exams.

#1 Learner Development; SOE Administrative Program completion #2 Learning Differences; Analyst criterion #4 Content Knowledge; #8 Instructional Strategies; #9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

Intended Candidate Outcomes – InTASC Standards aligned with Danielson FFT Components FORM #7

Teacher candidates evaluated by Clinical Supervisors/Mentor Teachers and University Supervisors

Ability to demonstrate elements of effective teaching as the teacher candidates’ progress through the educator preparation program.

University supervisor evaluations and candidate dispositions FORM #1

Satisfactory candidate dispositions and evaluation by university supervisors. University supervisor evaluation forms.

Knowledge and skills related to all InTASC standards and Danielson’s Framework for Teaching

#1 Learner Development; #2 Learning Differences; #3 Learning Environments; #4 Content Knowledge; #5 Application of Content; #6 Assessment; #7 Planning for Instruction #8 Instructional Strategies; #9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice; #10 Leadership and Collaboration

Mentor teachers and Mentor teachers and University university supervisors Supervisors submit evaluate the teacher Danielson-based candidates’ abilities to forms via LiveText. demonstrate the SOE Administrative components of Analyst oversees effective teaching. submissions. Teacher candidates are assessed four times over the course of the educator preparation program. Supervisors submit University supervisors Danielson-based evaluate the teacher forms via LiveText. candidates’ abilities to SOE Administrative demonstrate the Analyst oversees components of submissions effective teaching.

P a g e | 34

Assessment System Information/ Benchmarks Mentor Teacher evaluations FORM #1,7

Data collection, Analysis and Evaluation Satisfactory evaluations by Clinical Supervisors/ Mentor Teachers during the Internship experience. Mentor teacher evaluation forms.

Evidence Link to InTASC Skill/Knowledge Principles Area Relationship #1 Learner Development; Knowledge and skills #2 Learning Differences; related to all InTASC #3 Learning Environments; standards and Danielson’s Framework #4 Content Knowledge; #5 Application of Content; for Teaching #6 Assessment; #7 Planning for Instruction #8 Instructional Strategies; #9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice; #10 Leadership and Collaboration

Data Collector/Role Use of Results Mentors submit Danielson-based forms via LiveText. SOE Administrative Analyst oversees submissions

Mentor teachers evaluate the teacher candidates’ abilities to demonstrate the components of effective teaching.

Candidate Reflection on Candidate Lesson Planning completed selfevaluation of a FORM #12 lesson taught

Ability to describe, analyze and reflect on lessons to determine strengths, weaknesses, and plan for future instruction.

#2 Learning Differences; #6 Assessment #7 Planning for Instruction #8 Instructional Strategies; #9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

Candidates are required to selfassess their lesson plans three times throughout the educator preparation program. SOE Administrative Analyst oversees submissions.

Provides evidence of being a reflective practitioner and ability to plan developmentally appropriate lessons.

Exit Professional Portfolio Assessment

Overall evaluation of impact on student learning, as shown through planning, instruction and assessment of unit implementation.

#1 Learner Development; #2 Learning Differences; #4 Content Knowledge; #5 Application of Content; #8 Instructional Strategies; #9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

Student portfolios are scored by university supervisors. Samples are sent to edTPA for external scoring. SOE Administrative Analyst oversees submissions.

Evaluations, test scores, disposition ratings, and the edTPA portfolios identify areas of strength and growth areas for future professional development.

Knowledge and skills related to all InTASC standards and Danielson’s Framework for Teaching

edTPA local evaluation rubrics and external scores

Two Formative Completed by Observations, One university Summative Observation supervisor and Summative Conference based on Danielson’s Framework for Teaching DANIELSON OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT

Lesson Planning Rubric FORM Pending

University supervisors score teacher candidates’ lesson observations in LiveText. SOE Administrative Analyst oversees submissions.

Teacher candidates demonstrate they have the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to be recommended for initial teaching licenses.

Mentor/Supervisor Evaluations

Completed by Supervisor and Mentor

Successful completion of the application for teacher licensure, ADE required trainings, evaluation of transcript related to approved program.

Application for licensure. Transcript record of completion.

#1 Learner Development #4 Content Knowledge; #8 Instructional Strategies; #9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

P a g e | 35

SOE Administrative State requirement for Specialist tracks licensure licensure data.

Assessment of Evidence and Use of Results: The internship experience represents the capstone of the program. Teacher candidates demonstrate they have the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to be recommended for initial teaching licenses. Evaluations, test scores, disposition ratings, and the edTPA portfolios identify areas of strength and growth areas for future professional development. Results provide feedback to SOE unit, institution, and P-12 partner schools for evaluation of the unit and suggested changes needed.

Assessment System Information/Benchmarks

P a g e | 36

Assessment System and Unit Evaluation Gate 7: Post-Graduate Assessment

Data Collection, Evidence Analysis and Skill/Knowledge Evaluatio Area State report card. Title II report Report to state on test Knowledge and skills to state and Federal Department results for completers relevant to teaching; of Education. ability to plan, implement and assess student learning objectives.

Link to InTASC Principles Data Collector/Role

Use of Results

#1 Learner Development; #2 Learning Differences; #4 Content Knowledge; #8 Instructional Strategies; #9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

SOE Administrative Analyst

Reported to Arkansas Department of Education, for state EPP progress reports. Comparison to other state EPPs.

SOE Administrative Analyst

Used to examine teacher graduates’ impact on P-12 learning.

Teacher Evaluation and Support System (TESS)

Results of TESS Evaluations by principals

Knowledge and skills relevant to teaching; ability to plan, implement and assess student learning objectives.

#1 Learner Development; #2 Learning Differences; #4 Content Knowledge; #5 Application of Content; #6 Assessment; #8 Instructional Strategies; #9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

Educator Preparation Program follow-up studies including graduate survey and employer survey FORM #5,6,9,10

Collected follow-up information

Knowledge and skills relevant to teaching; ability to plan, implement and assess student learning objectives.

#1 Learner Development; SOE #2 Learning Differences; Administrative #4 Content Knowledge; Specialist #6 Assessment; #8 Instructional Strategies; #9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

Results are presented to SOE faculty and the Teacher Education Council for discussion of possible changes in policy, procedures, or curriculum to address weaknesses.

Survey to determine Relationship between the Survey to Clinical Clinical Supervisors/Mentor Teachers Clinical Supervisors/Mentor Supervisors/Mentor and University Supervisor Teachers’ and Teachers and the university supervisors’ university supervisors is perceptions about their investigated to determine collaboration in if they were able to create working with teacher an environment in which candidates. the UAFS SOE teacher candidates were able to successfully complete all internship requirements.

#3 Learning Environments; SOE #9 Professional Learning Administrative and Ethical Practice; Specialist #10 Leadership and Collaboration

Impact on Student Learning graduate survey and employer survey

#1 Learner Development; SOE #2 Learning Differences; Administrative #3 Learning Environments; Specialist #4 Content Knowledge; #5 Application of Content; #6 Assessment; #7 Planning for Instruction #8 Instructional Strategies; #9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice; #10 Leadership and Collaboration

Results are presented to SOE faculty and the Teacher Education Council for discussion of possible changes in policy, procedures, or curriculum to address weaknesses. Results are presented to SOE faculty and the Teacher Education Council for discussion of possible changes in policy, procedures, or curriculum to address weaknesses.

Surveys to examine perceptions of teacher graduates’ impact on student learning in the P-12 classroom.

At the end of the first year of teaching, employers and graduates reflect on the impact UAFS teacher graduates are having in their classroom.

Novice Teacher Survey Results (ADE)

Completed after first full year of teaching.

Survey is designed to collect information on how well the teacher graduates feel their EPP prepared them to teach.

#1 Learner Development; Arkansas #2 Learning Differences; Department of #3 Learning Environments; Education #4 Content Knowledge; #5 Application of Content; #6 Assessment; #7 Planning for Instruction #8 Instructional Strategies; #9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practice; #10 Leadership and Collaboration

P a g e | 37 The evaluations are used to monitor the program and to document candidate mastery of the knowledge base in their field.

Assessment of Evidence and Use of Results: The evaluations are used to monitor the program, to document candidate mastery of the knowledge base in their field and to document graduate and employer perceptions of graduates’ impact on student learning in the P-12 classrooms. Results are presented to SOE faculty and the Teacher Education Council for discussion of possible changes in policy, procedures, or curriculum to address weaknesses.

D. Summary of Assessment Process for Program Improvement – Data Collection, Analysis, and Decision-Making: Data derived from GPA, course grades, interview rubrics, portfolio rubrics, internship exit surveys, graduate surveys, employer surveys, University Supervisor and Clinical Supervisors/Mentor Teacher evaluations, disposition rating scales, and Praxis results are compiled and formally reported by the Assessment Coordinator to faculty and administrators semi-annually (fall and spring semesters). Faculty and administrators make recommendations to the Executive Director regarding program changes based upon their analysis of the data. In addition, the Teacher Education Council analyzes the data semi-annually and makes formal recommendations to the Executive Director. E. Unit Assessments Aligned with CAEP, InTASC, and Danielson – All UAFS SOE assessments are submitted via the LiveText data system. The following table details the EPP-Created and Proprietary assessments used as unit assessments.

P a g e | 38

Title of Assessment Teacher Candidate Self-Evaluations of Dispositions (EPP-Created Assessment)

Teacher Candidate Reflection Upon Lesson Planning (EPP-Created Assessment)

Diversity Case Study (EPP-Created Assessment)

Assessment Timeline Gate 3: Admission to EPP Gate 4: Interim Assessment (Practica I and II) Gate 6: Internship

Gate 4: Interim Assessment (Practica I and II) Gate 6: Internship

Gate 4: Interim Assessment (ECED 3053 and SPED 3022 Case Study Assignment)

Training in Usage/Directions Provided Teacher candidates are required to self-assess their professional dispositions four times throughout their progress through the EPP. Using the provided rubric, candidates are asked to rate their dispositions on a four-point scale: 0=NA; 1=Emerging; 2=Proficient; 3=Advanced. After each question, candidates are encouraged to reflect on selections via open response items: “Give at least one personal example from this semester that supports how you rated yourself in this disposition.” Teacher candidates are required to self-assess their lesson planning three times throughout their progress through the EPP. Candidates are asked to rate their lesson planning on a four point scale: 0=Absent; 1=Present but weak; 2=Good with most; 3=Excellent with all.

Skills Measured Professional dispositions (Collaboration, Reflection, Integrity, Learning Initiative, Responsibility, Respect and Diversity). This assessment provides evidence of professionalism and importance of appropriate dispositions in the classroom.

Validity Longitudinal data demonstrate how candidates are progressing in professional skills and dispositions. All of the selfassessment items were aligned to Danielson components and the accompanying CAEP and InTASC standards.

The seven-item lesson-planning reflection provides evidence of being a reflective practitioner and the ability to plan developmentally-appropriate lessons.

The assignment is modeled and detailed throughout the semester, with the scoring rubric and the following directions provided to the teacher candidates:

A diversity case analysis assessment is utilized to measure candidates’ appreciation of diversity as well as their knowledge of instructional adaptations to meet students’ varying needs. Candidates must submit the project to the LiveText platform.

Progress checks throughout the program: Longitudinal data demonstrates how candidates are progressing in their abilities to plan appropriate learning opportunities for their assigned grade level. All of the lessonreflection items were aligned to Danielson components and the accompanying CAEP and InTASC standards. The project is assessed according to rubrics aligned with the Danielson components, as well as the CAEP and InTASC standards.

I. Case Study- You will be provided with a detailed case study. Your task is to design a case study analysis report (analytical essay) that addresses the needs of this student and his/her family. The following tasks must be included in the analysis. a. Review the information in the case study report. Referencing your knowledge base of family theory and research as well as the assessment data, create a chart that identifies the academic, social, language and socio-economic needs to the student and his/her family. b. Research several community agencies that might be able to provide services or assistance to meet the needs of the student and his/her family. Faith-based

P a g e | 39 organizations can also be appropriate. c. Research support school personnel that might be able to provide services or assistance to meet the needs of the student and his/her family. d. Design a chart that identifies possible resources to meet each of the needs of the student and his/her family. e. Using your resource list, identify 5 different agencies that you feel would be best to assist the child and his/her family. Find out as much as possible of the following - how these agencies run, what information and services they provide, the costs, eligibility requirements, and a name/phone number of a contact person within the agency. f. Compile a “reader friendly” newsletter or information sheet to share with the family. g. Identify the one goal and at least three objectives to meet the child and family needs. h. Write a case study report and present the case to the class, referencing and articulating NAEYC’s Code of Ethical Conduct throughout the case study process. II. General Case Study Directions – These directions are to get you started on the project. A detailed rubric will be forthcoming to help you with the report writing. a. What will you do to meet Cesar’s needs in the general education classroom during the content area subjects of health, science, math, social studies? Please address all categories of teaching: Content, Process, and Products. b. How will you collaborate with Mrs. Baker to provide for Cesar’s needs in your classroom? What questions do you need to ask her in order to plan for Cesar’s needs? Specifically, what will you do in this collaboration? (team teach, provide lesson plans, coordinate assignments, etc.) c. What local community resources will you investigate to gain information on ways to meet the Cesar’s family needs? d. What classroom strategies will you use to meet Cesar’s social and emotional needs given his isolation from peers?

P a g e | 40

Intended Candidate Outcomes(ICOs) (Proprietary)

Faculty Assessment of Teacher Candidate Dispositions

Gate 4: Interim Assessment (Practica I and II) Gate 6: Internship

Positive dispositions are critical for candidates to be successful. Dispositions are assessed in every class taught in the SOE and EPP. Therefore some students might be assessed by more than one faculty member in a particular semester.

Formative and summative assessment: The Clinical Supervisors/Mentor Teachers evaluate teacher candidates during the clinical experiences of Practicum I, Practicum II and Internship, and the University Supervisors evaluate the candidates during the final clinical experience of internship.

Full-time and adjunct faculty are provided the following directions, prior to completing the disposition rubrics: The following dispositions are expected of students applying to, or enrolled in the School of Education at UAFS. Please select your rating based on the criteria described for each disposition. Mark the disposition for which the candidate has met all of the criteria. For example, if a candidate meets some of the criteria for an "Advanced" rating, but not all of the criteria for that rating, the candidate should be marked as "Proficient".

Clinical Supervisors/mentor teachers evaluate the teacher candidates’ abilities to demonstrate the components of effective teaching. Teacher candidates are assessed four times over the course of the educator preparation program.

Professional dispositions (Collaboration, Reflection, Integrity, Learning Initiative, Responsibility, Respect and Diversity). This assessment provides evidence of professionalism and importance of appropriate dispositions in the classroom.

The ICO form was revised to reflect the domain components of Danielson’s Framework in Summer 2015. Target levels of performance were identified at the two formative levels of Practicum I and II, as well as the summative levels of internship. There are two summative assessments during internship, to demonstrate inter-rater reliability. The faculty members were trained, to refine the use of the instrument. Using Danielson’s Framework for Teaching rubrics, this assessment is proprietary. Data submitted via LiveText. Summaries of data submissions are pulled each semester, determining inter-rater reliability among faculty scores.

Select your rating based on your observations of the candidate's behavior. As appropriate, provide comments to support your ratings of "Emerging" or "Advanced" and to provide constructive feedback to the candidate. edTPA Task I: Planning (Proprietary)

Gate 4: Interim Assessment (Practicum I) Gate 6: Internship

The following directions are provided for the students via LiveText, which is an edTPAsupported platform:

Evaluation of teacher candidate’s ability to plan a unit of instruction.

Proprietary Assessment utilizing validity and reliability measures established by Pearson. All university supervisors and

P a g e | 41 Select one class or group of children for your edTPA and provide relevant context information. Identify a learning segment (3–5 consecutive learning experiences) to plan, teach, and analyze children’s learning. Determine a central focus for your learning segment that will allow you to address children’s language and literacy development in an interdisciplinary context through active and multimodal learning experiences. Write and submit a plan for each learning experience within the learning segment. Select and submit key instructional materials. Identify the vocabulary3 children need to know and use to engage in the learning experience. Identify the learning activity where children are supported to use this vocabulary. Respond to commentary prompts prior to teaching the learning segment. Submit copies and/or directions for all planned assessments from the learning segment (see Assessment Task 3 for directions on the common assessment and collection of work samples). Identify 2 focus children (see Instruction Task 2 and Assessment Task 3 for directions on choosing the focus children, video evidence, and work samples).

edTPA Task II: Instruction

Gate 4: Interim Assessment (Practicum II)

edTPA Task 1: Review edTPA handbook for your program area. The following will be evaluated by rubrics 1-5 in your handbook: 1) Planning Task 1 Part A – Context for Learning Information (template provided) 2) Planning Task 1 Part B – Lesson Plans for Learning Segment (3 segmented lesson plan provided by UAFS SOE). 3) Planning Task 1 Part C – Instructional Materials (provide all that were used in each lesson) 4) Planning Task 1 Part D – Assessments (only blank samples) 5) Planning Task 1 Part E – Planning Commentary (template provided – completed prior to teaching learning segments). Must provide APA citations for the sources of all materials you did not create at the end of the Planning Commentary Form. The following directions are provided for the students via LiveText, which is an edTPA-

faculty members are trained as local evaluators, and go through assessments to establish interrater reliability.

Evaluation of teacher candidate’s ability to implement

Proprietary Assessment utilizing validity and reliability measures

P a g e | 42

(Proprietary)

Gate 6: Internship

supported platform: edTPA Task 2: 1) Read all requirements for edTPA Task 2. Pay close attention to lesson requirements, video time requirements and commentary requirements. 2) Obtain required permission for video recording. 3) Thoroughly read all edTPA rubrics (6-10) that will be used to evaluate this assignment. 4) Prepare to teach an appropriate integrated, multimodal lesson to students at your Practicum II site. Focus on literacy and language development. 5) If any parents/guardians do not agree that his/her child can be recorded, please adjust your video camera to exclude those students from the video. 6) Videotape this integrated teaching/learning experience (suggestion – videotape two of your lessons and then pick your best). 7) After videoing, provide 2 video clips (totaling no more than 15 minutes) and submit them on LiveText. Clip 1 should show large-group teaching/interaction, and Clip 2 should show smallgroup interaction or interaction with one student. It is highly suggested that you use Flips for your videoing. They are available for check-out in MS 108. They are also available for check-out from Boreham Library. If other forms of technology are used, assistance from educational technology faculty will not be provided. 8) Provide evidence of children’s language use via the videos and/or through the children’s work samples. Please be certain that the audio and video components, both audio and visual, are sufficient for viewing. If the sound quality is not sufficient, include a transcript with the information in your commentary. 9) Write the commentary by responding to all prompts in the edTPA handbook. Reread edTPA Task 2 rubrics (6-10). Complete and submit all requirements included in this task.

a unit of instruction.

established by Pearson. All university supervisors and faculty members are trained as local evaluators, and go through assessments to establish interrater reliability.

P a g e | 43 edTPA Task III: Assessment (Proprietary)

Gate 4: Interim Assessment (Practicum II) Gate 6: Internship

The following directions are provided for the students via LiveText, which is an edTPAsupported platform: Respond to the prompts below (no more than 10 single-spaced pages, including prompts) by typing your responses within the brackets following each prompt. Do not delete or alter the prompts. Commentary pages exceeding the maximum will not be scored. Attach the assessment you used to evaluate student performance (no more than 5 additional pages) to the end of this file. If you submit feedback as a video or audio clip and your comments to focus students cannot be clearly heard, attach transcriptions of your comments (no more than 2 additional pages) to the end of this file. These pages do not count toward your page total. 1) Analyzing Children’s Learning a. Identify the specific language and literacy learning objectives for the common assessment you chose for analysis. b. Provide a graphic (table or chart) or narrative that summarizes the class/group’s learning for the common assessment. c. Use the class/group summary you provided in prompt 1b to analyze the patterns of language and literacy learning for the class/group. d. Analyzed the patterns of learning for the 2 focus children. Reference the 3 sources of evidence you collected for each of the 2 focus children (consider children’s strengths – what children understand and do well – and areas of learning that need attention – e.g., common errors, confusions, need for greater challenge). e. If video or audio evidence of learning or a video or audio work sample occurs in a group context (e.g., discussion), provide the name of the clip and clearly describe how the scorer can identify the focus children (e.g., position, physical description) whose work is portrayed. 2) Feedback to Guide Further Learning – Refer to specific evidence of submitted feedback to support your explanations.

Evaluation of teacher candidate’s ability to assess students’ learning of unit objectives and to evaluate their impact on student learning.

Proprietary Assessment utilizing validity and reliability measures established by Pearson. All university supervisors and faculty members are trained as local evaluators, and go through assessments to establish interrater reliability.

P a g e | 44 a. Identify the format in which you submitted your evidence of feedback for the 2 focus children. (Delete choices that do not apply.) b. Explain how the feedback provided to the 2 focus children addresses their individual and developmental strengths and needs relative to language and literacy development. c. Describe how you will support each focus child to understand and use this feedback to further their learning related to learning objectives, either within the learning segment or at a later time. 3) Evidence of Vocabulary Understanding and UseWhen responding to the prompt below, use concrete examples from the video clips and/or children’s work samples as evidence. Evidence from the video clips may focus on one or more children. a. Explain how children were able to use the key vocabulary to support their learning of the content.

Danielson Observation Instrument (Proprietary)

Exit Interview

Gate 4: Interim Assessment (Practicum II – formative) Gate 6: Internship (two formative observations, one summative observation and a summative conference based on Danielson’s Framework for Teaching (FFT) Gate 6: Internship, prior to graduation date.

4) Using Assessments to Inform Instruction a. Based on your analysis of children’s learning presented in prompts 1b-c, describe next steps for instruction: For the class/group; for the 2 focus children and other individuals/groups with specific needs. b. Explain how these next steps follow from your analysis of children’s learning. Support your explanation with principles from research and/or developmental theory. University supervisors submit Danielson-based observation instruments via LiveText, after receiving training in scoring observations. Recalibration of observation supervisors occurs bi-annually.

Students are asked to rate the UAFS SOE on a scale of 1-5 (5=highest) in the areas of: Faculty

Knowledge and skills related to all InTASC standards and Danielson’s Framework for Teaching. Teacher candidates demonstrate they have the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to be recommended for initial teaching licenses.

Beginning spring 2016, teacher candidates completing

Proprietary assessment utilizing Danielson’s FFT rubrics. All faculty members, university supervisors and clinical supervisors/mentor teachers receive training in scoring the observation instruments, and then are assessed to determine inter-rater reliability.

P a g e | 45 (EPPCreated)Instrument)

Survey Instruments (EPP-Created Instruments)

dispositions; Practica I-II; Internship; Capstone; SOE activities; and overall experience.

Gate 7: Post-Graduate Assessments

1) Survey to determine Clinical Supervisors/Mentor Teachers’ and university supervisors’ perceptions about their collaboration in working with teacher candidates. 2) Surveys to examine perceptions of teacher graduates’ impact on student learning in the P-12 classroom. 3) Survey designed to collect information on how well the teacher graduates feel their EPP prepared them to teach.

internship participated in an exit interview with the Director of Field Placement, to investigate perceptions of professional experiences provided. The evaluations are used to monitor the program and to document candidate mastery of the knowledge base in their field.

P a g e | 46

Form #1 – Dispositions Rubric The following dispositions are expected of students applying to, or enrolled in the School of Education at UAFS.

Please select your rating based on the criteria described for each disposition. Mark the disposition for which the candidate has met all of the criteria. For example, if a candidate meets some of the criteria for an "Advanced" rating, but not all of the criteria for that rating, the candidate should be marked as "Proficient". Select your rating based on your observations of the candidate's behavior. As appropriate, provide comments to support your ratings of "Emerging" or "Advanced" and to provide constructive feedback to the candidate.

Rubric

Emerging (1 pt.)

Proficient (2 pts)

Advanced (3 pts)

COLLABORATION

CandidateDemonstrates a lack of motivation or unwillingness to interact with faculty, peers, learners, families and other professionals. • Communicates poorly or inappropriately. • Contributes to group efforts in ways that are not always positive or effective. • Makes inappropriate responses to the ideas of others. • Fails to access appropriate professional resources in order to improve the overall learning of students. • Is uncooperative with or unresponsive to University, school and/or community personnel who seek resolution to problems.

CandidateModels and encourages positive interaction with faculty, peers, learners, families and other professionals to achieve a common goal. • Communicates effectively and appropriately. • Makes positive contributions to group efforts. • Responds to requests for collaboration in a positive manner. • Responds without bias to the ideas of others. • Collaborates with other professionals to improve the overall learning of students • Cooperates with University, school, and/or community personnel to seek resolution to problems in a respectful and reflective manner.

CandidateMeets expectations for all of level two plus: • Models exceptional communication skills. • Seeks out opportunities to make substantive and meaningful contributions to the group effort. • Volunteers to participate in collaborative efforts. • Responds respectfully and consistently to the ideas of others.

REFLECTION

Candidate: Responds negatively to constructive feedback or does not make changes to address legitimate concerns. • Communicates a lack of appreciation for the feedback of others. • Demonstrates a lack of appreciation for the ideas and opinions of others. • Loses emotional control when presented with concerns.

Candidate: Responds constructively to professional feedback, making appropriate changes to address legitimate concerns. • Makes others aware that feedback is valued. • Considers the ideas and opinions of others with an open mind. • Maintains emotional control when presented with concerns.

Candidate: Meets expectations for all of level two plus: • Solicits feedback from others. • Seeks clarification and/or assistance as needed.

INTEGRITY

Candidate: • Engages in behavior that negatively impacts the appearance of honest and forthright behavior in activities and dealings with university faculty, peers, students, teachers, and/or school personnel, thus giving an appearance of the lack of personal integrity.

Candidate: Demonstrates recurrent honest and forthright behavior in activities and dealings with university faculty, peers, students, teachers, and school personnel. • Exhibits no evidence of lying, cheating, plagiarizing, or any other type of deception. • Gives no appearance of the lack of personal integrity. • Maintains appropriate confidentiality at all times. • Complies with all rules and regulations appropriate to the school setting. • Follows professional code of ethics • Maintains appropriate interpersonal relationships in all settings.

Candidate: Meets expectations for all of level two plus: • Demonstrates unfailingly honest behavior in all activities and dealings with university faculty, peers, students, teachers, and school personnel • Gives his/her all in ensuring that there is no appearance of lack of personal integrity • Demonstrates a pure sense of honesty, integrity, and ethics in any context.

The act of working with another person or group in order to achieve or do something. CAEP-2013.1 INTASC-2012.1 INTASC-2012.10 INTASC-2012.3 INTASC-2012.9

Serious thought or consideration. CAEP-2013.1 INTASC-2012.9

The ability to demonstrate truthfulness to oneself and to others; demonstrate moral excellence, trustworthiness, professional and ethical behavior in all activities and dealings with university faculty, peers, students, teachers, and school personnel. CAEP-2013.1 INTASC-2012.10 INTASC-2012.9

P a g e | 47

Emerging (1 pt.)

Proficient (2 pts)

Advanced (3 pts)

LEARNING INITIATIVE

Candidate: • Makes little attempt to gain knowledge beyond what is assigned. • Completes some but not all assignments. • Shows no interest in professional opportunities. • Exhibits little initiative for scholarly activity. • Projects a negative self-image or lack of concern for engaging in dialog with others.

Candidate: • Demonstrates a commitment to remain current in knowledge of subject area content. • Completes all assignments on time and at acceptable performance levels. • Attends professional development programs as required and/or recommended by faculty or administration. • Reads professional journals and researches topics as needed to participate in content area or grade level discussions. • Exhibits a positive self-image as reflected in appropriate appearance, speech, and behaviors.

Candidate: Meets expectations for all of level two plus: • Exceeds expectations in consistently identifying and participating in opportunities to increase or extend both personal and professional learning. • Demonstrates leadership in scholarship by presenting at local, state, or national meetings/ conferences and/or publishing in professional journals. • Exemplifies a high degree of selfefficacy in interacting with others.

RESPONSIBILITY

Candidate: • Misses class frequently (more than twice during the semester), and/or was absent from an assigned training session or field experience. • Was late for class or left early on more than two occasions. • Turned in assignments late on more than one occasion. • Does not demonstrate appropriate demeanor or fails to follow class norms such as not texting and not personal web surfing during class even after directed by the instructor. • Does not maintain professional appearance appropriate to the setting. (Higher expectations for this during the internship). • Does not attend to personal hygiene.

Candidate: • Misses at least one class, and/or one training session or field experience. • Arrives to class late or left early at least once during the semester. • At least once during the semester, turned in assignments late. • Demonstrates appropriate demeanor frequently, and follows class norms such as not texting and personal web surfing after being directed by the instructor. • Maintains professional appearance and hygiene appropriate to the setting after direction from the instructor.

Candidate: • Is always present for class, and/or training sessions and field experiences. • Arrives to class on time and stays for the duration of class. • Turns in assignments on time without fail. • Demonstrates appropriate demeanor in class at all times; maintains focus and attention on learning without direction from the instructor. • Maintains unfailing professional appearance and hygiene appropriate to the setting without directions from the instructor.

RESPECT

Candidate: Exhibits lack of respect for self and others. There is minimal evidence or no evidence of appreciation for the knowledge and expertise of others. • Addresses others without use of proper titles. • Demonstrates a lack of regard for the opinions of others. • Argues with those in authority and/or fails to adjust behavior based upon professional feedback. • Exhibits lack of self-control, especially in stressful situations. • Resists following established channels of communication. • Misuses the property of others.

Candidate: Models behavior that is respectful of self and others. • Uses proper titles when addressing others. • Considers the opinions of others without bias. • Accepts decisions made by those in authority and adjusts behavior based upon professional feedback. • Maintains self-control and a positive perspective even in stressful situations. • Follows established channels of communication. • Respects the property of others.

Candidate: Meets expectations for all of level two plus: • Demonstrates deference and appreciation of the knowledge and expertise of others, including teachers, supervisors, peers, and students.

DIVERSITY

Candidate: • Does not participate in conversations about diversity in positive ways • Makes comments that indicate frustration and irritation towards issues of diversity in the classroom. • Exhibits interest in exploring cultural and diverse perspectives, but does so from own experiences and perspective. • Struggles with different views eventually dismissing them as something the candidate will not have to deal with.

Candidate: • Makes comments that recognize different perspectives • Actively encourages value differences as a topic of conversation • Welcomes ideas of diversity • Includes references towards diversity in conversation

Candidate: Meets expectations for all of level 2 plus • Seeks out, respects and applies multiple perspectives • Actively uses diverse views in class planning and conversations. • Recognizes own bias and understands impact of own beliefs.

The power or ability to begin or to follow through energetically with a plan or task for learning. CAEP-2013.1 INTASC-2012.10 INTASC-2012.9

The act of being accountable for a duty or task that one is required or expected to do. CAEP-2013.1 INTASC-2012.1 INTASC-2012.9

Due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others. CAEP-2013.1 INTASC-2012.1 INTASC-2012.2 INTASC-2012.3

Differences among groups of people and individuals based on ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, gender, exceptionalities, language, religion, sexual orientation, and geographical area. CAEP-2013.1 INTASC-2012.10 INTASC-2012.2 INTASC-2012.3 INTASC-2012.9

Form #1 – Dispositions

P a g e | 48

(1) Enter UAFS ID (2) Term (3) Major

(4) Course Name/Number (5) Disposition 1: COLLABORATION – The act of working with another person or group in order to achieve or do something. (CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 4d) See rubric for specific examples. Demonstrates a lack of motivation or unwillingness to interact with faculty, peers, learners, families and other professionals. Models and encourages positive interaction with faculty, peers, learners, families and other professionals to achieve a common goal. All from #2 plus: Models exceptional communication skills. Seeks out opportunities to make substantive and meaningful contributions to the group effort. Volunteers to participate in collaborative efforts. Responds respectfully and consistently to the ideas of others.

(6) Disposition 2: REFLECTION – Serious thought or consideration. (CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a) See rubric for specific examples. Responds negatively to constructive feedback or does not make changes to address legitimate concerns. Responds constructively to professional feedback, making appropriate changes to address legitimate concerns. All from #2 plus: Solicits feedback from others. Seeks clarification and/or assistance as needed. (7) Disposition 3: INTEGRITY – The ability to demonstrate truthfulness to oneself and to others; demonstrate moral excellence, trustworthiness, professional and ethical behavior in all activities and dealings with university faculty, peers, students, teachers, and school personnel. (CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4b, 4e, 4f) See rubric for specific examples. Engages in behavior that negatively impacts the appearance of honest and forthright behavior in activities and dealings with university faculty, peers, students, teachers, and/or school personnel, thus giving an appearance of the lack of personal integrity. Demonstrates recurrent honest and forthright behavior in activities and dealings with university faculty, peers, students, teachers, and school personnel. All of #2 plus: Demonstrates unfailingly honest behavior in all activities and dealings with university faculty, peers, students, teachers, and school personnel. Gives his/her all in ensuring that there is no appearance of lack of personal integrity. Demonstrates a pure sense of honesty, integrity, and ethics in any context. (8) Disposition 4: LEARNING INITIATIVE – The power or ability to begin or to follow through energetically with a plan or task for learning. (CAEP 1.1; InTASC 1, 2, 6, 7; Danielson 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f)

See rubric for specific examples. Makes little attempt to gain knowledge beyond what is assigned. Completes some but not all assignments. Demonstrates a commitment to remain current in knowledge of subject area content. Completes all assignments on time and at acceptable performance levels. Exhibits a positive self-image. All of #2 plus: Exceeds expectations in participating in opportunities to increase or extend both personal and professional learning. (9) Disposition 5: RESPONSIBILITY – The act of being accountable for a duty or task that one is required or expected to do. (CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4e, 4f)

See rubric for specific examples. Misses class frequently (more than twice during the semester), and/or was absent from an assigned training session or field experience. Was late for class or left early on more than two occasions. Turned in assignments late on more than one occasion. Misses at least one class, and/or one training session or field experience. Is always present for class, and/or training sessions and field experiences. Arrives to class on time and stays for the duration of class. Turns in assignments on time without fail.

(10) Disposition 6: RESPECT – Due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others. (CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 7; Danielson 2a) See rubric for specific examples. Exhibits lack of respect for self and others. There is minimal evidence or no evidence of appreciation for the knowledge and expertise of others. Models behavior that is respectful of self and others. All of #2 plus: Demonstrates deference and appreciation of knowledge and expertise of others, including teachers, supervisors, peers, and students. (11) Disposition 7: DIVERSITY – Differences among groups of people and individuals based on ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, gender, exceptionalities, language, religion, sexual orientation, and geographical area. (CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.4; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 7, 10; Danielson 2a, 4c) See rubric for specific examples. Does not participate in conversations about diversity in positive ways. Makes comments that indicate frustration and irritation towards issues of diversity in the classroom. Makes comments that recognize different perspectives. Actively encourages value differences as a topic of conversation. Welcomes ideas of diversity. All of #2 plus: Seeks out, respects and applies multiple perspectives. Actively uses diverse views in class planning and conversations. Recognizes own bias and understands impact of own beliefs.

P a g e | 49

Form #2 - Admission Interview UAFS ID Candidateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Name Evaluator Code 1.

Imagine that you are teaching a student: Choose one: (a)How will you handle a student who is confused with instruction; (b)How will you ensure a student follows the classroom rules; (c)How will you respond to difficult questions from the student; (d)How will you motivate the student to value learning (low interest in learning). CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 5, 8; Danielson 3c ____ Unsatisfactory ____ Basic ____ Proficient ____Distinguished

Have you ever had experiences with children? What did you learn from these experiences? Describe the experience(s). CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 7; Danielson 2a

____ Unsatisfactory

____ Basic

____ Proficient

____Distinguished

Identify two characteristics that you possess which will enable you to be an effective teacher. Tell why you selected these characteristics. CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a, 4e ____ Unsatisfactory ____ Basic ____ Proficient ____Distinguished

What were the qualities of a teacher that you admired as a student and why did you admire these qualities? CAEP 1.2. 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a, 4e

____ Unsatisfactory 5.

____ Basic

____ Proficient

____Distinguished

Why did you choose your teaching interest area? (Indicate you choice of major) CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a, 4e

____ Unsatisfactory 6.

____ Basic

____ Proficient

____Distinguished

What current technology do you use that could be used in your future classroom? How would you use technology to improve your instruction and how would this improve student achievement? CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 5, 8; Danielson 3c

____ Unsatisfactory

____ Basic

____ Proficient

____Distinguished

Describe an instance in which you have led others. CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4d, 4f ____ Unsatisfactory ____ Basic ____ Proficient ____Distinguished

How do you see yourself as a learner? Address ethical and professional behaviors within your response. CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4e

____ Unsatisfactory 9.

____ Basic

____ Proficient

____Distinguished

Observation: Language and communication skills. CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4f ____ Unsatisfactory ____ Basic ____ Proficient ____Distinguished

10. Observation: Professional behavior(s). CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4f

____ Unsatisfactory

____ Basic

____ Proficient

____Distinguished

11. Observation: Professional appearance. CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4f ____ Unsatisfactory ____ Basic ____ Proficient ____Distinguished 12. Interview Score: ____ Unsatisfactory 13. Comments:

____ Basic

____ Proficient

____Distinguished

P a g e | 50 ADMISSION TO EDUCATOR PREPARATION PROGRAM INTERVIEW RUBRIC Questions being assessed

Unsatisfactory

Basic

Proficient

Distinguished

Section I

The candidate is unclear or vague in his/her explanations of the question.

The candidate made general statements in reference to question but little justification for response.

The candidate clearly understood teaching situation(s) and gave good justification for response.

The candidate used problemsolving & decision-making to give a well-thought out response.

The candidate has not had substantial experiences and activities with children. Unclear description of what was learned from experiences.

The candidate has had experience with children, but only in nonschool settings. Limited description of what was learned from experiences

The candidate has had some experiences with children in school settings and has worked with youth in more than one activity. Clear description of what was learned from experiences.

The candidate has had considerable, high quality experiences with children in school settings and some excellent experiences in nonschool settings. Described in-depth what was learned from experiences.

The candidate is unclear or vague in his/her explanation of the question.

The candidate identifies one characteristic with some justification for the response.

The candidate names two characteristics and a good justification for the response.

The candidate names two characteristics with a clear and convincing justification for the response.

The candidate is unclear in describing characteristics of an exceptional teacher.

The candidate identifies one quality of an exceptional teacher.

The candidate gives two qualities with a good justification response related to qualities of an exceptional teacher.

The candidate shows passion and respect for qualities through a strong response for qualities of an exceptional teacher.

The candidate has vague ideas about the teaching career and why it was chosen. The focus is on an easy career with benefits (summers, easy coursework, anyone can be a teacher).

The candidate has a passion for children but offers little substantial reasons for wanting to teach.

The candidate not only has a passion for children but believes she/he has an ability to influence childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; lives and their success in learning.

The candidate has a passion for children, believes She/he can influence children, is committed to student success academically and socially and emotionally.

The candidate has limited knowledge of using technology for use in a classroom. Most experience is in social networking.

The candidate has limited knowledge of how to use current technology in their future classroom.

The candidate demonstrated current knowledge of how to use technology in their future classroom. Gave good examples.

The candidate showed a passion for using technology to enhance their future classroom and gave examples that would have students using creative and critical thinking skills.

CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 5, 8; Danielson 3c #2 CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 7; Danielson 2a

#3 CAEP 1.2. 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a, 4e #4 CAEP 1.2. 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a, 4e #5 CAEP 1.2. 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a, 4e

#6 CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 5, 8; Danielson 3c

Score

P a g e | 51 Questions being assessed

Score

Unsatisfactory

Basic

Proficient

Distinguished

Section I

#7 CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4d, 4f

The candidate is rarely one to take the lead; therefore, could not give a clear answer to question.

The candidate has limited leadership roles, but did give an example.

The candidate gave several examples of leadership, but gave little information on how that helped others or led to success of the group.

The candidate showed a passion for leadership and how she/he would involve her/his future students in learning how to lead.

#8 CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4e

The candidate is unclear how she/he sees herself/himself as a learner. Does not address ethical & professional behaviors.

The candidate discusses some general ways she/he sees herself/himself as a learner, but does not clearly tie it to ethical & professional behaviors.

The candidate clearly addresses how she/he sees herself/ himself as a learner and addresses the ethical and professional behaviors within response.

The candidate shows a real passion as a self -learner. She/he goes into depth in explaining it thoroughly addressing ethical & professional behaviors.

INTERVIEW OBSERVATIONS Questions being assessed

Score

Unsatisfactory

Basic

Proficient

Distinguished

Section II

#1 Language & Communication Skills CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4f

Candidate uses inappropriate vocabulary and grammar. Speech is difficult to understand.

Candidateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s speech is too soft or she/he mumbles. Some grammatical errors are noted.

Candidate has good volume, grammar, and vocabulary used.

Candidate has excellent volume, grammar, and vocabulary. Speaks with a determined confidence.

#2 Professional Behaviors CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4f

Candidate does not demonstrate an understanding and valuing of the teacher profession.

Candidate demonstrates some understanding of and valuing of the teacher profession. Gave limited examples.

Candidate understands and values his/her role in the teacher profession. Clear examples were shared.

Candidate shows a passion and clearly demonstrates the meaning, significance, & commitment of being in the teacher profession.

#3 Professional Appearance CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4f

Candidate is not dressed appropriately; inappropriate body language.

Candidate wears appropriate clothing; some inappropriate body language.

Candidate wears appropriate clothing; no inappropriate body language.

Appropriate dress and manners are used; appropriate body language; professional appearance.

P a g e | 52

Form #4 - Internship Interview 1. 2. 3. 4.

UAFS ID Candidate’s Name Evaluator Code Does the candidate appear to have the attitudes and beliefs necessary to be a successful teacher? (CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a, 4e, 4f)

(a) What beliefs are important to be a successful teacher? (b) What can teachers do about the self-image of the many children who do not score well on norm-referenced tests and/or the benchmark (criterion) tests? ____ Unsatisfactory 5.

____ Basic

____ Proficient

____Distinguished

Does the candidate demonstrate sufficient knowledge of the curriculum? (CAEP 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 4; Danielson 1a) (a) What three courses were most important to you in learning basic content? Tell us why these were selected. (b) How well prepared are you in your major field of study? Please give some examples. ____ Unsatisfactory

____ Basic

____ Proficient

____Distinguished

Does the candidate demonstrate knowledge of good teaching techniques? (CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8; Danielson 3b, 3c) (a) What is the best way to teach communication skills (reading if early childhood) to students? (b) Outline for us if you would teach a unit of study. You select the grade level and the subject you are teaching. Assume that this is a heterogeneous class. ____ Unsatisfactory

____ Basic

____ Proficient

____Distinguished

Does the candidate exhibit knowledge of the importance of reflective practice? (CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a) (a) Reflection is used in the military as well as in education. Tell us why reflection is important and tell us the process you use to reflect after lessons are taught. (b) What do you do after a unit has been completed? ____ Unsatisfactory

____ Basic

____ Proficient

____Distinguished

Does the candidate evidence an understanding of the importance of communication with colleagues, parents, and students? (CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 4c, 4d)

(a) How will you react if you find that your supervising teacher has a teaching style quite different from yours? (b) If we were to talk with a group of your high school friends, college/work colleagues and then students whom you have worked with in field experiences, what common theme would emerge in their comments about your communications skills? (c) How important is it to be a good listener? Please give me an example illustrating when you were a good listener. ____ Unsatisfactory 9.

____ Basic

____ Proficient

____Distinguished

Does the candidate demonstrate a sufficient understanding of child/adolescent development? (CAEP 1.1, 2.3; InTASC 1,2,7; Danielson 1b) (a) How did you determine if a student in your class has developmental lags? (b) At each stage of development, students have maturational issues. How will you treat immature behavior? If possible, give an example relative to the grade level for which you are preparing to be a teacher. ____ Unsatisfactory

10.

____ Basic

____ Proficient

____Distinguished

Does the candidate demonstrate knowledge of assessment? (CAEP 1, 2; InTASC 6; Danielson 1f) (a) What is the role of assessment in learning? (b) In a unit consisting of three to five lessons, where in the unit would you formally and informally assess? (c) If you had a question about where a new transfer student was in the subject you were teaching and also whether the student had learning difficulties, and if no records or specialists were available, how would you go about assessing that student’s learning styles? ____ Unsatisfactory

11.

____ Basic

____ Proficient

____Distinguished

Are the candidate’s dress and non-verbal skills appropriate? (CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4f) (a) If you were the school administration, what rules for professional dress would you establish? (b) Why is it important to dress professionally? In your first teaching position, what will parents say about your dress? Does it matter what they say? (c) Tell us about your classroom demeanor. (d) If I were watching a film of you teaching for a three-hour block, but the sound was turned off, what would I conclude about your teaching? ____ Unsatisfactory

12.

____ Basic

____ Proficient

____Distinguished

Are the candidate’s verbal skills proficient for a classroom teacher? (CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4f) (a) How well do students listen to what you say? How do you know this? (b) Do you use correct verb tenses when you speak? Do you avoid slang? (c) What do you say and what is the tone of your voice when you are frustrated or angry? ____ Unsatisfactory

13.

____ Basic

____ Proficient

____Distinguished

Does the candidate evidence an understanding of the importance of respecting all individuals? (CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 1,3,4,7; Danielson 2a) (a) How would you react if you were assigned to teach a class in which 60% of the students were either from minorities and/or came from homes where a language other than English was spoken? (b) As a teacher, what would you do to create unity in your class while still cherishing the differences in people (i.e. diversity)? (c) Is it true that, in general, students who come from low-income homes have lower test scores than students who come from high-income homes? ____ Unsatisfactory

14.

____ Basic

____ Proficient

____Distinguished

Does the candidate appear to correctly utilize technology? (CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 5, 8; Danielson 3c) (a) Would you explain how technology is being-or-can be misused in classrooms? (b) Give me an example of how you would use the computer in class (i.e. power point, research, professional associations, e-mail pen pals). ____ Unsatisfactory

15.

____ Basic

____ Proficient

____Distinguished

Does the candidate appear prepared to begin an internship? (CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4f) (a) Please tell us why you think that you will be an effective teacher. (b) What do you expect to learn from this internship? ___ Unsatisfactory ____ Basic ____ Proficient ____Distinguished

P a g e | 53 1.

Form #5 Evaluation of Internship Experience Candidate’s Name

UAFS ID

Year/Term

Location of Internship: Please write the name of the school where you completed your internship. Mentor Teacher: Please rate the performance level of your mentor teacher (Unsatisfactory, Basic, Proficient, Distinguished) with respect to the questions below.

Mentor Question 1: The mentor teacher’s engagement in cooperative planning with me was? CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 4d

Mentor Question 2: The mentor teacher’s openness to allow me to take initiative in class was?

Mentor Question 3: The mentor teacher's level for serving as a good instructional role model for me would be rated?

CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8; Danielson 3e CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4f

Mentor Question 4: The mentor teacher's supervision of me in the classroom was? CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 4d

Mentor Question 5: The mentor teacher view of the importance of the content discipline was? CAEP 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 4; Danielson 1a

10. Mentor Question 6: The mentor teacher's daily feedback provided to me was? CAEP 1.2; InTASC 6; Danielson 3d

11. Mentor Question 7: The mentor teacher's modeling of good classroom management skills was? CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2c, 2d, 2e

12. Mentor Question 8: The mentor teacher encouragement for the students to respect me was? CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2d

13. Mentor Question 9: The accuracy of the mentor teacher's assessment of my progress was? CAEP 1.2; InTASC 6; Danielson 3d

14. Mentor Question 10: The mentor teacher's positive attitude toward children was? CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 7; Danielson 2a

15. Mentor Question 11: The mentor teacher's level for allowing me to develop my own teaching style was? CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8; Danielson 3e

16. Mentor Question 12: The mentor teacher appreciation for results of educational research would be rated? CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4e

17. Mentor Question 13: The mentor teacher's level for modeling good professionalism was? CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4f

18. Mentor Question 14: The mentor teacher's understanding PATHWISE mentoring was? CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 4d

19. Experience Question 1: My overall internship experience was? CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a

20. Experience Question 2: The quality of my relationship with my mentor teacher would be rated? CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 4d

21. Experience Question 3: The quality of the relationship between my university supervisor/mentor teacher would be rated? CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 4d

22. Experience Question 4: The quality of my relationship with the school principal would be rated? CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 4d

23. Experience Question 5: The quality of my internship planning would be rated? CAEP 1.1; InTASC 1; Danielson 1c

24. Experience Question 6: The quality of my internship classroom management would be rated? CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2c, 2d, 2e

25. Experience Question 7: I would rate my communication with my mentor teacher as? CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 4d

26. Experience Question 8: The quality of the conferences and feedback with my mentor teacher was? CAEP 1.2; InTASC 6; Danielson 3d

27. Experience Question 9: The quality of the range of teaching experiences provided for me was? CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a

28. Experience Question 10: A what level do you feel your internship experience met your expectations?

CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a

P a g e | 54

Quality and Improvement: How could the internship experience be improved?

University Supervisor: Please rate the performance level of your supervisor (Unsatisfactory, Basic, Proficient, Distinguished) with respect to the questions below.

29. Supervisor Question 1: The quality of the orientation provided to me regarding visits and reports. CAEP 1.1; InTASC 1; Danielson 1c

30. Supervisor Question 2: The communication level for specific expectations and requirements was? CAEP 1.1; InTASC 1; Danielson 1c

31. Supervisor Question 3: Observed my teaching at least four times during the semester. CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 4d

32. Supervisor Question 4: The quality of the effort applied to individualize my internship experience by helping me establish appropriate behavioral objectives was? CAEP 1.1; InTASC 1; Danielson 1c

33. Supervisor Question 5: The level of conferencing with me by supervisor during each visit would be rated. CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2a

34. Supervisor Question 6: The level of recognition and value that my supervisor gave my point of view when discussing observed lessons was. CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 7; Danielson 2a

35. Supervisor Question 7: The level of help in arranging for me to visit and/or with other teachers was. CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 4d

36. Supervisor Question 8: Demonstrated knowledge of his/her subject and related field. CAEP 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 4;

37. Supervisor Question 9: The level of support in my efforts for planning to use of innovative and creative materials and techniques in the classroom was. CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8; Danielson 3e

38. Supervisor Question 10: The level of assistance provided to me in examining my teaching behavior in various instructional situations was. CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a

39. Supervisor Question 11: The level of examination provided toward my teaching behavior through the use of specific criteria (checklists, interaction analysis, audio or video, other) coupled with follow-up discussion was. CAEP 1.2; InTASC 6; Danielson 3d

40. Supervisor Question 12: The quality of assistance to me to analyze teaching and learning situations in terms of PATHWISE Domains was. CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a

41. Supervisor Question 13: The quality of the constructive criticism, encouragement, and alternative suggestions would be rated. CAEP 1.2; InTASC 6; Danielson 3d

42. Supervisor Question 14: The level of assistance to help me understand and develop plans for handling discipline problems was. CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2d

43. Supervisor Question 15: The level of guidance to me for understanding how values relate to teacher behavior was. CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4e

44. Supervisor Question 16: The level of effort given to establish a professional and friendly relationship with me was. CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2a

45. Supervisor Question 17: The effort applied to prevent exploitations of my time and services while interning was. CAEP 1.1, 1.2, InTASC 10; Danielson 4d

46. Supervisor Question 18: The assistance to help me evaluate my internship progress through identifying strengths and weaknesses on each visit was. CAEP 1.2; InTASC 6; Danielson 3d

47. Supervisor Question 19: The quality of the exit conference to discuss total progress made with specific references to strengths and weaknesses still needing attention was. CAEP 1.2; InTASC 6; Danielson 3d

48. Additional Comments:

Form #6 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Student Advising Questionnaire

P a g e | 55

1. Gender 2. Age 3. GPA

4. Attendance: I have attended classes at UA Fort Smith for: 5. Major: My major is: 6. Advising Question 1: CAEP 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 4; Danielson 1a Overall, the personnel from non-academic offices at UA Fort Smith are knowledgeable and helpful. ____Strongly Disagree ____Disagree ____Agree ____Strongly Agree 7. Advising Question 2: CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2a Education support staff members (secretaries and student workers) are helpful and courteous. ____Strongly Disagree ____Disagree ____Agree ____Strongly Agree 8. Advising Question 3: CAEP 1.3, 1.4; InTASC 5; Danielson 3a Overall, I would rate the quality of the academic advising from the School of Education as adequate. ____Strongly Disagree ____Disagree ____Agree ____Strongly Agree 9. Advising Question 4: CAEP 1.3, 1.4; InTASC 5; Danielson 3a For Secondary majors, I would rate the quality of the academic advising in my discipline area as adequate. ____Strongly Disagree ____Disagree ____Agree ____Strongly Agree 10. Advising Question 5: CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8; Danielson 3e Generally, the accessibility of education faculty members for advising was sufficient. ____Strongly Disagree ____Disagree ____Agree ____Strongly Agree 11. Advising Question 6: CAEP 1.1, 2.3; InTASC 1, 2, 7; Danielson 1b Generally, Professional Education classes have been offered in sufficient numbers and at convenient times for my scheduling needs. ____Strongly Disagree ____Disagree ____Agree ____Strongly Agree 12. Advising Question 7: CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8; Danielson 3e Generally, Professional Education classes have been offered in sufficient numbers and at convenient times for my scheduling needs. ____Strongly Disagree ____Disagree ____Agree ____Strongly Agree 13. Advising Question 8: CAEP 1.1, 2.3, InTASC 1, 2, 7; Danielson 1b My education advisor kept me adequately informed about my progress. ____Strongly Disagree ____Disagree ____Agree ____Strongly Agree 14. Advising Question 9: CAEP 1.3, 1.4; InTASC 5; Danielson 3a My education advisor solicited feedback about my university experience. ____Strongly Disagree ____Disagree ____Agree ____Strongly Agree 15. Advising Question 10: CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 7; Danielson 2a My education advisor was available for non-academic advising and was willing to discuss my feelings and emotions. ____Strongly Disagree ____Disagree ____Agree ____Strongly Agree 16. Advising Question 11: CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4e My education advisor suggested that I set a timetable for teaching my goals. ____Strongly Disagree ____Disagree ____Agree ____Strongly Agree 17. Advising Question 12: CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4e My education advisor asked me to articulate my goals and/or aspirations. ____Strongly Disagree ____Disagree ____Agree ____Strongly Agree

18. Advising Question 13: CAEP 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 4; Danielson 1a My education advisor demonstrated knowledge of rules/regulations of the university in my advising. ____Strongly Disagree ____Disagree ____Agree ____Strongly Agree

P a g e | 56

19. Advising Question 14: CAEP 1.3, 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2b My education advisor challenged me to achieve higher academic performance. ____Strongly Disagree ____Disagree ____Agree ____Strongly Agree 20. Advising Question 15: CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4f My education advisor expected me to arrive at advising meetings with well-formulated questions, request, or plans. ____Strongly Disagree ____Disagree ____Agree ____Strongly Agree 21. Advising Question 16: CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 1d My education advisor demonstrated knowledge of postgraduate opportunities in my advising. ____Strongly Disagree ____Disagree ____Agree ____Strongly Agree 22. Advising Question 17: CAEP 1.2; 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a My education advisor, when advising me on a specific concern, discussed its impact on my total academic program. ____Strongly Disagree ____Disagree ____Agree ____Strongly Agree 23. Strengths What would you say are the strengths of the student advising program in the School of Education? 24. Improvements Please list any areas of the student advising program in the School of Education that you feel need improvement. 25. Suggestions What are your suggestions to improve the areas that you listed in response to #24? ____ Candidateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Name Please enter your First and Last Name.

FORM # 7 – Intended Candidate Outcome (ICO)

Domain 1: Planning and Preparation

Component

N/A (0.00 pt.)

Unsatisfactory (1.000 pt.)

Basic (2.000 pt.)

1a: Demonstrating knowledge of content and pedagogy CAEP 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 4

No opportunity for teacher candidate to complete this component

Teacher’s plans and practice display little knowledge of the content, prerequisite relationships between different aspects of the content or of the instructional practices specific to that discipline.

1b: Demonstrating knowledge of students CAEP 1.1, 2.3; InTASC 1, 7

No opportunity for teacher candidate to complete this component

Teacher demonstrates little or no knowledge of students’ backgrounds, cultures, skills, language proficiency, interests, and special needs, and does not seek such understanding.

1c: Setting instructional outcomes CAEP 1.1; InTASC 1

No opportunity for teacher candidate to complete this component

Instructional outcomes are unsuitable for students, represent trivial or low-level learning, or are stated only as activities. They do not permit viable methods of assessment.

1d: Demonstrating knowledge of resources CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10

No opportunity for teacher candidate to complete this component

Teacher demonstrates little or no familiarity with resources to enhance own knowledge, to use in teaching, or for students who need them. Teacher does not seek such knowledge

1e: Designing coherent instruction CAEP 1.1, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 1, 7

No opportunity for teacher candidate to complete this component

The series of learning experiences are poorly aligned with the instructional outcomes and do not represent a coherent structure. They are suitable for only some students.

No opportunity for teacher candidate to complete this component

Teacher’s plan for assessing student learning contains no clear criteria or standards, is poorly aligned with the instructional outcomes, or is inappropriate to many students. The results of assessment have minimal impact on the design of future instruction.

Teacher’s plans and practice reflect some awareness of the important concepts in the discipline, prerequisite relations between them and of the instructional practices specific to that discipline. Teacher indicates the importance of understanding students’ backgrounds, cultures, skills, language proficiency, interests, and special needs, and attains this knowledge for the class as a whole. Instructional outcomes are of moderate rigor and are suitable for some students, but consist of a combination of activities and goals, some of which permit viable methods of assessment. They reflect more than one type of learning, but teacher makes no attempt at coordination or integration. Teacher demonstrates some familiarity with resources available through the school or district to enhance own knowledge, to use in teaching, or for students who need them. Teacher does not seek to extend such knowledge The series of learning experiences demonstrates partial alignment with instructional outcomes, some of which are likely to engage students in significant learning. The lesson or unit has a recognizable structure and reflects partial knowledge of students and resources. Teacher’s plan for student assessment is partially aligned with the instructional outcomes, without clear criteria, and inappropriate for at least some students. Teacher intends to use assessment results to plan for future instruction for the class as a whole.

1f: Designing student assessments CAEP 1.2; InTASC 6

Component

N/A (0.00 pt.)

Unsatisfactory (1.000 pt.)

2a: Creating an environment of respect and rapport CAEP 1.1, 1.4 InTASC 3

No opportunity for teacher candidate to complete this component

2b: Establishing a culture for learning CAEP 1.3, 1.4; InTASC 5

No opportunity for teacher candidate to complete this component

Teacher displays little or no energy and conveys low expectations for student achievement. The students themselves show little or no pride in their work.

No opportunity for teacher candidate to complete this component

Much instructional time is lost due to inefficient classroom routines and procedures, for transitions, handling of supplies, and performance of non-instructional duties.

No opportunity for teacher candidate to complete this component

There is no evidence that standards of conduct have been established and little or no teacher monitoring of student behavior. Response to student misbehavior is repressive or disrespectful of student dignity.

No opportunity for teacher candidate to complete this component

The physical environment is unsafe, or some students don’t have access to learning. There is poor alignment between the physical arrangement and the lesson activities.

2c: Managing classroom procedures CAEP 1.4 InTASC 3 2d: Managing student behavior CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3 2e: Organizing physical space CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3

Negativity, insensitivity to cultural backgrounds, sarcasm, and put-downs characterize interactions both between teacher and students and among students.

P a g e | 57 Proficient (3.000 pt.)

Distinguished (4.000 pt.)

Teacher’s plans and practice reflect solid knowledge of the content, prerequisite relations between important concepts and of the instructional practices specific to that discipline.

Teacher’s plans and practice reflect extensive knowledge of the content and of the structure of the discipline. Teacher actively builds on knowledge of prerequisites and misconceptions when describing instruction or seeking causes for student misunderstanding.

Teacher actively seeks knowledge of students’ backgrounds, cultures, skills, language proficiency, interests, and special needs, and attains this knowledge for groups of students.

Teacher actively seeks knowledge of students’ backgrounds, cultures, skills, language proficiency, interests, and special needs from a variety of sources, and attains this knowledge for individual students.

Instructional outcomes are stated as goals reflecting high-level learning and curriculum standards. They are suitable for most students in the class, represent different types of learning, and are capable of assessment. The outcomes reflect opportunities for coordination.

Instructional outcomes are stated as goals that can be assessed, reflecting rigorous learning and curriculum standards. They represent different types of content, offer opportunities for both coordination and integration, and take account of the needs of individual students.

Teacher is fully aware of the resources available through the school or district to enhance own knowledge, to use in teaching, or for students who need them.

Teacher seeks out resources in and beyond the school or district in professional organizations, on the Internet, and in the community to enhance own knowledge, to use in teaching, and for students who need them.

Teacher coordinates knowledge of content, of students, and of resources, to design a series of learning experiences aligned to instructional outcomes and suitable to groups of students. The lesson or unit has a clear structure and is likely to engage students in significant learning.

Teacher coordinates knowledge of content, of students, and of resources, to design a series of learning experiences aligned to instructional outcomes, differentiated where appropriate to make them suitable to all students and likely to engage them in significant learning. The lesson or unit’s structure is clear and allows for different pathways according to student needs.

Teacher’s plan for student assessment is aligned with the instructional outcomes, using clear criteria, is appropriate to the needs of students. Teacher intends to use assessment results to plan for future instruction for groups of students.

Teacher’s plan for student assessment is fully aligned with the instructional outcomes, with clear criteria and standards that show evidence of student contribution to their development. Assessment methodologies may have been adapted for individuals, and the teacher intends to use assessment results to plan future instruction for individual students.

Domain 2: The Classroom Environment

Basic (2.000 pt.)

Proficient (3.000 pt.)

Distinguished (4.000 pt.)

Interactions, both between the teacher and students and among students, reflect only occasional insensitivity or lack of responsiveness to cultural or developmental differences among students. Teacher’s attempt to create a culture for learning is only partially successful; both teacher and students appear to be only “going through the motions.” Teacher displays minimal commitment to the work and only moderate expectations for student achievement. Students themselves display little pride in their work.

Civility and respect characterize interactions, between teacher and students and among students. These reflect general caring and are appropriate to the cultural and developmental differences among groups of students.

Students play an important role in ensuring positive interactions among students. Relationships between teacher and individual students are highly respectful, reflecting sensitivity to students’ cultures and levels of development.

The classroom culture is positive and is characterized by high expectations for most students, genuine commitment to the work by both teacher and students, with students demonstrating pride in their work.

High levels of student energy and teacher passion for the subject create a culture for learning in which both students and teacher share a belief in the importance of the subject, and all students hold themselves to high standards of performance, initiating improvements to their work.

Some instructional time is lost due to only partially effective classroom routines and procedures, for transitions, handling of supplies, and performance of non-instructional duties.

Little instructional time is lost due to classroom routines and procedures, for transitions, handling of supplies, and performance of noninstructional duties, which occur smoothly.

Students contribute to the seamless operation of classroom routines and procedures, for transitions, handling of supplies, and performance of non-instructional duties.

It appears that the teacher has made an effort to establish standards of conduct for students. Teacher tries, with uneven results, to monitor student behavior and respond to student misbehavior. The classroom is safe, and essential learning is accessible to most students, and the teacher’s use of physical resources, including computer technology, is moderately effective. Teacher may attempt to modify the physical arrangement to suit learning activities with partial success.

Standards of conduct appear to be clear to students, and the teacher monitors student behavior against those standards. Teacher response to student misbehavior is appropriate and respects the students’ dignity. The classroom is safe, and learning is accessible to all students; teacher ensures that the physical arrangement is appropriate to the learning activities. Teacher makes effective use of physical resources, including computer technology.

Standards of conduct are clear with evidence of student participation in setting them. Teacher’s monitoring of student behavior is subtle and preventive, and teacher’s response to student misbehavior is sensitive to individual student needs. Students take an active role in monitoring the standards of behavior. The classroom is safe, and the physical environment ensures the learning of all students, including those with special needs. Students contribute to the use or adaptation of the physical environment to advance learning. Technology is used skillfully as appropriate to the lesson.

Component

N/A (0.00 pt.)

3a: Communicating with students CAEP 1.3, 1.4; InTASC 5

No opportunity for teacher candidate to complete this component

3b: Using questioning and discussion techniques CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8

No opportunity for teacher candidate to complete this component

3c: Engaging students in learning CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 5, 8

3d: Using Assessment in Instruction CAEP 1.2; InTASC 6

3e: Demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8

Component 4a: Reflecting on Teaching CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9

No opportunity for teacher candidate to complete this component

N/A (0.00 pt.)

Domain 3: Instruction

Unsatisfactory (1.000 pt.)

Basic (2.000 pt.)

Expectations for learning, directions and procedures, and explanations of content are unclear or confusing to students. Teacher’s use of language contains errors or is inappropriate to students’ cultures or levels of development. Teacher’s questions are low-level or inappropriate, eliciting limited student participation and recitation rather than discussion. Activities and assignments, materials, and groupings of students are inappropriate to the instructional outcomes or students’ cultures or levels of understanding, resulting in little intellectual engagement. The lesson has no structure or is poorly paced. Assessment is not used in instruction, either through students’ awareness of the assessment criteria, monitoring of progress by teacher or students, or through feedback to students. Teacher adheres to the instructional plan, even when a change would improve the lesson or students’ lack of interest. Teacher brushes aside student questions; when students experience difficulty, the teacher blames the students or their home environments.

Unsatisfactory (1.000 pt.)

Assessment is occasionally used in instruction, through some monitoring of progress of learning by teacher and/or students. Feedback to students is uneven, and students are aware of only some of the assessment criteria used to evaluate their work. Teacher attempts to modify the lesson when needed and to respond to student questions with moderate success. Teacher accepts responsibility for student success but has only a limited repertoire of strategies to draw upon.

Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities

No opportunity for teacher candidate to complete this component

Teacher does not accurately assess the effectiveness of the lesson and has no ideas about how the lesson could be improved.

No opportunity for teacher candidate to complete this component

Teacher’s systems for maintaining both instructional and non-instructional records are either non-existent or in disarray, resulting in errors and confusion.

4c: Communicating with Families CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10

No opportunity for teacher candidate to complete this component

Teacher communication with families, about the instructional program, or about individual students is sporadic or culturally inappropriate. Teacher makes no attempt to engage families in the instructional program.

4d: Participating in a Professional Community CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10

No opportunity for teacher candidate to complete this component

Teacher avoids participating in a professional community or in school and district events and projects; relationships with colleagues are negative or selfserving,

4e: Growing and Developing Professionally CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9

No opportunity for teacher candidate to complete this component

Teacher does not participate in professional development activities and makes no effort to share knowledge with colleagues. Teacher is resistant to feedback from supervisors or colleagues.

4f: Demonstrating Professionalism CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9

No opportunity for teacher candidate to complete this component

4b: Maintaining Accurate Records CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9

Expectations for learning, directions and procedures, and explanations of content are clarified after initial confusion; teacher’s use of language is correct but may not be completely appropriate to students’ cultures or levels of development. Some of the teacher’s questions elicit a thoughtful response, but most are low-level, posed in rapid succession. Teacher’s attempts to engage all students in the discussion are only partially successful. Activities and assignments, materials, and groupings of students are partially appropriate to the instructional outcomes, or students’ cultures or levels of understanding, resulting in moderate intellectual engagement. The lesson has a recognizable structure but is not fully maintained.

Teacher has little sense of ethics and professionalism and contributes to practices that are self-serving or harmful to students. Teacher fails to comply with school and district regulations and timelines.

Basic (2.000 pt.)

Teacher provides a partially accurate and objective description of the lesson but does not cite specific evidence. Teacher makes only general suggestions as to how the lesson might be improved. Teacher’s systems for maintaining both instructional and non-instructional records are rudimentary and only partially successful. Teacher adheres to school procedures for communicating with families and makes modest attempts to engage families in the instructional program. But communications are not always appropriate to the cultures of those families. Teacher becomes involved in the professional community and in school and district events and projects when specifically asked; relationships with colleagues are cordial. Teacher participates in professional development activities that are convenient or are required, and makes limited contributions to the profession. Teacher accepts, with some reluctance, feedback from supervisors and colleagues. Teacher is honest and well-intentioned in serving students and contributing to decisions in the school, but teacher’s attempts to serve students are limited. Teacher complies minimally with school and district regulations, doing just enough to “get by.”

P a g e | 58 Proficient (3.000 pt.) Expectations for learning, directions and procedures, and explanations of content are clear to students. Communications are appropriate to students’ cultures and levels of development Most of the teacher’s questions elicit a thoughtful response, and the teacher allows sufficient time for students to answer. All students participate in the discussion with the teacher stepping aside when appropriate. Activities and assignments, materials, and groupings of students are fully appropriate to the instructional outcomes, and students’ cultures and levels of understanding. All students are engaged in work of a high level of rigor. The lesson’s structure is coherent with appropriate pace. Assessment is regularly used in instruction, through self-assessment by students, monitoring of progress of learning by teacher and/or students, and through high quality feedback to students. Students are fully aware of the assessment criteria used to evaluate their work. Teacher promotes the successful learning of all students, making adjustments as needed to instruction plans and accommodating student questions, needs and interests.

Proficient (3.000 pt.)

Distinguished (4.000 pt.) Expectations for learning, directions and procedures, and explanations of content are clear to students. Teacher’s oral and written communication is clear and expressive, appropriate to students’ cultures and levels of development, and anticipates possible student misconceptions. Questions reflect high expectations and are culturally and developmentally appropriate. Students formulate many of the high-level questions and ensure that all voices are heard. Students are highly intellectually engaged throughout the lesson in significant learning and make material contributions to the activities, student groupings, and materials. The lesson is adapted as needed to the needs of individuals, and the structure and pacing allow for student reflection and closure. Assessment is used in a sophisticated manner in instruction, through student involvement in establishing the assessment criteria, self-assessment by students and monitoring of progress by both students and teachers, and high quality feedback to students from a variety of sources. Teacher seizes an opportunity to enhance learning, building on a spontaneous event or student interests. Teacher ensures the success of all students, using an extensive repertoire of instructional strategies.

Distinguished (4.000 pt.)

Teacher provides an accurate and objective description of the lesson, citing specific evidence. Teacher makes some specific suggestions as to how the lesson might be improved.

Teacher’s reflection on the lesson is thoughtful and accurate, citing specific evidence. Teacher draws on an extensive repertoire to suggest alternative strategies and predict the likely success of each.

Teacher’s systems for maintaining both instructional and non-instructional records are accurate, efficient and successful.

Students contribute to the maintenance of the systems for maintaining both instructional and non-instructional records, which are accurate, efficient and successful

Teacher communicates frequently with families and successfully engages them in the instructional program. Information to families about individual students is conveyed in a culturally appropriate manner.

Teacher’s communication with families is frequent and sensitive to cultural traditions; students participate in the communication. Teacher successfully engages families in the instructional program as appropriate.

Teacher participates actively in the professional community and in school and district events and projects, and maintains positive and productive relationships with colleagues. Teacher seeks out opportunities for professional development based on an individual assessment of need and actively shares expertise with others. Teacher welcomes feedback from supervisors and colleagues. Teacher displays a high level of ethics and professionalism in dealings with both students and colleagues and complies fully and voluntarily with school and district regulations. Teacher complies fully with school and district regulations.

Teacher makes a substantial contribution to the professional community, to school and district events and projects, and assumes a leadership role among the faculty. Teacher actively pursues professional development opportunities and initiates activities to contribute to the profession In addition, teacher seeks out feedback from supervisors and colleagues. Teacher is proactive and assumes a leadership role in ensuring the highest ethical standards and seeing that school practices and procedures ensure that all students, particularly those traditionally underserved, are honored in the school. Teacher takes a leadership role in seeing that colleagues comply with school and district regulations.

Form #9 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Graduate Survey

P a g e | 59

Completed at Exit

Dear Graduate: The University of Arkansas - Fort Smith administration and faculty are interested in your evaluation of your effectiveness as a teacher. Your feedback will assist us in our quest to provide outstanding educational training. As a relatively new teacher, rate the quality of your preparation with regard to each question below. 1. Know the subject you were trained to teach? CAEP1.3, 1.5; InTASC 4; Danielson 1a ____Unsatisfactory ____Basic ____Proficient ____Distinguished 2. Understand the developmental needs of the children assigned to you? CAEP 1.1, 2.3; InTASC 1, 2, 7; Danielson 1b ____Unsatisfactory ____Basic ____Proficient ____Distinguished 3. Adapt instruction to the individual needs of all children? CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8; Danielson 3e ____Unsatisfactory ____Basic ____Proficient ____Distinguished 4. Utilize multiple instructional strategies? CAEP 1.1, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8; Danielson 3b ____Unsatisfactory ____Basic ____Proficient ____Distinguished 5. Maintain appropriate discipline? CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2d ____Unsatisfactory ____Basic ____Proficient ____Distinguished 6. Communicate effectively both verbally and in writing? CAEP 1.3, 1.4; InTASC 5; Danielson 3a ____Unsatisfactory ____Basic ____Proficient ____Distinguished 7. Plan effectively considering the subject, standards, student progress, and curricular goals? CAEP 1.1, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 4; Danielson 1e ____Unsatisfactory ____Basic ____Proficient ____Distinguished 8.

Utilize assessment both to evaluate and enable forward progress? CAEP 1.2; InTASC 6; Danielson 3d

Work effectively with parents, colleagues, and the community? CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 4c, 4d

____Unsatisfactory ____Basic ____Proficient ____Distinguished ____Unsatisfactory ____Basic ____Proficient ____Distinguished

10. Practice mutual respect with two-way communication the norm? CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 7; Danielson 2a

____Unsatisfactory ____Basic ____Proficient ____Distinguished

11. Maintain a classroom characterized by enthusiasm for learning? CAEP 1.3, 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2b

____Unsatisfactory ____Basic ____Proficient ____Distinguished

12. Utilize technology to enhance student learning and professional growth? CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 1d

____Unsatisfactory ____Basic ____Proficient ____Distinguished

13. Exhibit professional behavior in terms of integrity and professional ethics? CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4f

____Unsatisfactory ____Basic ____Proficient ____Distinguished

14. Exhibit professional behavior in terms of promptness and appearance? CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4f

____Unsatisfactory ____Basic ____Proficient ____Distinguished 15. Appreciation

What did you most appreciate regarding your education at the University of Arkansas â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Fort Smith? _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ 16. Suggestions

What suggestions do you have for us to improve our educator preparation program? _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________

P a g e | 60

Form #9 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Graduate Survey Completed 1-Year Out

Know the subject you were trained to teach?

Understand the developmental needs of the children assigned to you?

Adapt instruction to the individual needs of all children? CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8; Danielson 3e

Utilize multiple instructional strategies?

Maintain appropriate discipline?

Communicate effectively both verbally and in writing?

Plan effectively considering the subject, standards, student progress, and curricular goals?

Utilize assessment both to evaluate and enable forward progress? CAEP 1.2; InTASC 6; Danielson 3d

Work effectively with parents, colleagues, and the community? CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 4c, 4d

10.

Practice mutual respect with two-way communication the norm? CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 7; Danielson 2a

11.

Maintain a classroom characterized by enthusiasm for learning? CAEP 1.3, 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2b

CAEP1.3, 1.5; InTASC 4; Danielson 1a

____Unsatisfactory ____Basic ____Proficient ____Distinguished ____Unsatisfactory ____Basic ____Proficient ____Distinguished

CAEP 1.1, 2.3; InTASC 1, 2, 7; Danielson 1b

____Unsatisfactory ____Basic ____Proficient ____Distinguished

CAEP 1.1, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8; Danielson 3b

____Unsatisfactory ____Basic ____Proficient ____Distinguished

CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2d

____Unsatisfactory ____Basic ____Proficient ____Distinguished

CAEP 1.3, 1.4; InTASC 5; Danielson 3a

____Unsatisfactory ____Basic ____Proficient ____Distinguished

CAEP 1.1, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 4; Danielson 1e

____Unsatisfactory ____Basic ____Proficient ____Distinguished ____Unsatisfactory ____Basic ____Proficient ____Distinguished ____Unsatisfactory ____Basic ____Proficient ____Distinguished ____Unsatisfactory ____Basic ____Proficient ____Distinguished

12. Utilize technology to enhance student learning and professional growth? CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 1d

____Unsatisfactory ____Basic ____Proficient ____Distinguished

13. Exhibit professional behavior in terms of integrity and professional ethics? CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4f

____Unsatisfactory ____Basic ____Proficient ____Distinguished 14.

Exhibit professional behavior in terms of promptness and appearance? CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4f

____Unsatisfactory ____Basic ____Proficient ____Distinguished

15. Differentiate methods, materials, and activities for diverse learners?

____Unsatisfactory ____Basic ____Proficient ____Distinguished 16. Did you have a positive impact on student learning?

____Yes ____No

17. If the answer to number 16 is yes, please check the types of evidence you documented to demonstrate a positive impact on student learning: (please check all that apply). Standardized test scores Pre-post test scores Case studies Action research projects Criterion referenced assessments Other 18. How did your administrator rate your overall teaching effectiveness on your last evaluation?

____Unsatisfactory ____Basic ____Proficient ____Distinguished

P a g e | 61 Form #9 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Graduate Survey Completed 3-Years Out