college of education and human sciences - at the end of the ... folio... · web view3.78 1 physics...

Nebraska Department of Education Rule 24 ReportEARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

(Content Area)Educator Preparation Content Program Review

Name of institution University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Date Submitted 3.20.2017

Contact Person Thomas Wandzilak

Phone/Fax 402-472-8626

Email [email protected]

Folio type: X Regular Mini Advanced Program

Program(s) Covered by this Folio Press tab in last column to add rows

Endorsement(s) Type Grade Level Program Level

List EndorsementsSupplemental PK-3 Baccalaureate

Post-Baccalaureate

Early Childhood Education,Grades PK-3

Is the endorsement offered at more than one site? Yes X NoIf yes, list additional sites where endorsement is offered:

Institution Accreditation Status: X National X StateIs this a Nationally Accredited Program? X Yes No

If Yes, list Accrediting Organization: CAEP Attach National Letter to Cover Sheet

Report to the Nebraska Department of Education

University of Nebraska—LincolnFolio Initial Level—June 2017

INTRODUCTION AND WELCOMEThe purpose of this section is to provide general background information on the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and the College of Education and Human Sciences. In addition, information is provided on the teacher education program, admission and retention standards, the field experiences in which students participate, and information on the key assessments used in Section 2 concerning data that have been collected in support of our programs.

Here is a list of websites that can provide some additional information on the university, the college, and our teacher education program:

http://www.unl.edu/This is the University of Nebraska-Lincoln website.

https://bulletin.unl.edu/undergraduate/This is the link for the undergraduate bulletin.

https://bulletin.unl.edu/undergraduate/college/Education+%26+Human+SciencesThis is the link for the College of Education and Human Sciences section in the Undergraduate Bulletin.

http://www.unl.edu/gradstudies/bulletinThis is the link for the Graduate Bulletin.

http://cehs.unl.edu/The is the link for the website for the College of Education and Human Sciences

http://cehs.unl.edu/ssc/undergraduate-advising/

http://cehs.unl.edu/ssc/undergraduate-advising/

http://cehs.unl.edu/

http://www.unl.edu/gradstudies/bulletin

https://bulletin.unl.edu/undergraduate/college/Education+%26+Human+Sciences

https://bulletin.unl.edu/undergraduate/

http://www.unl.edu/

This is the link for our program sheets for all of the programs offered through the College of Education and Human Sciences. Program sheets will also be available for multiple years.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact Tom Wandzilak, Certification Officer, College of Education and Human Sciences at:

402-472-8626 or [email protected]

SECTION 1: CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION NARRATIVE

SECTION 1A: ENDORSEMENT PROGRAM/CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION

The link to the Rule 20 Folio is:http://cehs.unl.edu/cehs/nde/Rule20.pdf

Mission Statement ion StatementThe University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL), chartered by the Legislature in 1869, is the part of the University of Nebraska system that serves as both the land-grant and the comprehensive public University for the State of Nebraska.

Through its three primary missions of teaching, research, and service, UNL is the state's primary intellectual center providing leadership throughout the state through quality education and the generation of new knowledge. UNL's graduates and its faculty and staff are major contributors to the economic and cultural development of the state. UNL attracts a high percentage of the most academically talented Nebraskans, and the graduates of the University form a significant portion of the business, cultural, and professional resources of the state. The quality of primary, secondary, and other post-secondary educational programs in the state depends in part on the resources of UNL for curricular development, teacher training, professional advancement, and enrichment activities involving the

http://cehs.unl.edu/cehs/nde/Rule20.pdf

University's faculty, museums, galleries, libraries, and other facilities. UNL provides for the people of the state unique opportunities to fulfill their highest ambitions and aspirations, thereby helping the state retain its most talented youth, attract talented young people from elsewhere, and address the educational needs of the nontraditional learner.

The University of Nebraska-Lincoln has been recognized by the Legislature as the primary research and doctoral degree granting institution in the state for fields outside the health professions. Through its service and outreach efforts the University extends its educational responsibilities directly to the people of Nebraska on a state-wide basis.

The College of Education and Human SciencesThe College of Education and Human Sciences (CEHS) was founded on August 18, 2004, by Teachers College and The College of Human Resources and Family Sciences with each founding college contributing extensive history and tradition. The College of Education and Human Sciences offers excellent educational advancement to both undergraduate and graduate students, serving approximately 2,800 undergraduates and 1,000 graduate students each year.

Education courses first became a part of the University curriculum in 1895 with the organization of a Department of Education designed to prepare students for teaching careers. On Valentine’s Day, 1908, the Board of Regents established a Teachers College. Since that time, the College has been highly respected for its programs preparing teachers, administrators, and specialists for the education of children, youth, and adults. The quality of these programs is reflected in outstanding educational leadership in communities across the state and in the nation in teaching, administration, communication disorders, special education, and educational psychology.

Teacher Education Programs Teacher education programs are found in five departments in CEHS as well as in two other colleges on campus. The College of Fine and Performing Arts (CFPA) oversees Music Education whereas Agriculture Education, Horticulture Education, and Industrial Technology are located in the College of Agricultural

Sciences and Natural Resources. Even though these programs are housed outside of CEHS, they must comply with state rules and regulations tied to teacher education. The majority of the teacher education programs are located in the Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education (TLTE). There are currently 40 endorsement areas offered at the undergraduate and graduate levels through the University. Options exist for students to complete initial teacher certification and teaching endorsements at the undergraduate and graduate levels. All programs leading to an initial teaching certificate will also require the completion of an undergraduate or graduate degree. Individuals interested in adding one or more teaching endorsements may do so without pursuing a degree.

1B. STANDARDS OF ADMISSION, RETENTION, TRANSITION, AND COMPLETION

Admission to the University of Nebraska-LincolnAdmission to the University is based on a student’s demonstrated academic preparation for University-level work (see Appendix—Table 1). Admission standards to the University are established by the University of Nebraska Board of Regents and apply to all new, first time, degree-seeking students. This includes freshman as well as transfer students. The admission standards apply to general admission to the University as well as admission to the College of Education and Human Sciences.

Admission to the Teacher Education Program (TEP)Admission to the College of Education and Human Sciences does not guarantee admission to a teacher education program. Admission to the advanced phases of teacher education is selective and, in some endorsements, highly competitive. Selection to a TEP is based upon the following criteria:

1. Completion of at least 30 credit hours (Elementary Education) or 42 credit hours (Secondary Education) with a minimum 2.5 GPA.

2. Completion of TEAC 331 or 430 or 431 or 434 or 437 or 496 (3 hrs.) or approved course, and EDPS 250 or 251 with a 2.5 cumulative average in the two classes, no grade lower than a C.

3. Documentation of proficiency in reading, writing, and mathematics through successful completion of a basic skills examination that meets the Nebraska Department of Education competency requirement.

4. Completion of one course in communication studies selected from COMM 109, 205, 209, 210, or 341, or an approved substitute.

5. Faculty recommendations.6. Demonstration of attaining particular learning outcomes in the program.7. Completion of a personal and professional fitness self-disclosure form.

Admission to Student TeachingAll students who are candidates for an appropriately endorsed Nebraska Teacher’s certificate are required to student teach. Students who plan to student teach in the fall semester must complete the student teaching application form and submit it by the preceding March 1 to the Director of Field Experiences in 104 Henzlik Hall; students planning to student teach in the spring semester must apply by the preceding October 1. The basic program for student teaching provides for a full-day experience on a semester basis. Students enrolled in an elementary education dual major will compete requirements for student teaching in both majors. Admission to student teaching requires the following:

1. Matriculation in a teacher education program in the College of Education and Human Sciences, the Graduate College, or dual matriculation in the College of Education and Human Sciences and another college.

2. Admission to a teacher education program.3. Senior standing (89 hours or more) with a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.75.4. Application for and completion of a senior check.5. Minimum average of 2.5 in each endorsement area (in the case of Middle Grades Endorsement, a

2.5 in each academic area) with no grade below C.6. A minimum grade point average of 2.5 in pre-professional and professional education courses with

no grade below a C in pre-professional education courses and no grade below a C+ in professional education courses.

7. Completion of a criminal history check that will be conducted by an independent party (lab fee required).

Retention1. Must maintain a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.75.2. Must maintain a minimum average of 2.5 in each endorsement area (in the case of Middle Grades

Endorsement, a 2.5 in each academic area) with no grade below C.3. Must maintain a minimum grade point average of 2.5 in pre-professional and professional

education courses with no grade below a C in pre-professional education courses and no grade below a C+ in professional education courses.

4. Must meet student teaching application deadlines.5. Must meet criminal history requirements at all times.

Transition PointsA summary of the transition points can be found in the Appendix in Table 2.

Requirements to Complete the Teacher Education Program1. Successful completion of student teaching.2. Successful completion of all remaining courses as identified in the senior check with grades

meeting the minimum requirements as identified in the “Admission to Student Teaching” section as described above.

3. Satisfy any additional requirements as described under teacher education in the undergraduate bulletin.

4. Address all financial obligations tied to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.5. Apply for the degree.

The Student Advising Sheet for the program(s) associated with this Folio can be found at:http://cehs.unl.edu/ssc/undergraduate-advising

1C. FIELD EXPERIENCES

http://cehs.unl.edu/ssc/undergraduate-advising

The link to the Rule 20 Folio is:http://cehs.unl.edu/cehs/nde/Rule20.pdf

Field experience “courses” can be divided into the following areas:Early Childhood, Inclusive, Elementary Education, Elementary Education/Mild Moderate Disabilities, and Secondary Education. Practicum experiences at the 200 level are initial experiences in the schools for our students. They can be placed in a classroom with a teacher at the appropriate grade level for their respective content area. Secondary students are placed individually in middle grades or secondary classrooms whereas elementary students are placed in pairs in elementary classrooms. In all instances university students have opportunities to work with K-12 learners individually or in small groups. In some instances, they may be given full-class opportunities to work with learners. Students completing 397 level practica have expanded responsibilities where they will have greater classroom responsibilities that will include the teaching of multiple lessons as a requirement for the experience as well as teacher assistant roles during each day. The 497 experience is student teaching where the university student takes on more and more responsibilities that would be equivalent to those taken on by the classroom teacher. These responsibilities include, but are not limited to, the preparation of lesson plans and materials for teaching and assessment, the teaching of classes, grading formative and summative materials, working with students after class, attending staff/faculty meetings, and speaking with parents where necessary, all under the guidance of a cooperating teacher. Please see Table 3 in the Appendices for a summary of the Field Experience hour requirements associated with each practicum course and the related endorsements.

http://cehs.unl.edu/cehs/nde/Rule20.pdf

1D. PROGRAM COMPLETERS

Table 4 – Program Completers

Program Completers and Level – Content AreaAcademic Year Number of Endorsement Program Completers

Bac Post BacAlternate

Route Masters

Ed. Specialis

t PhD

2014 to 20 15 7 1

2015 to 20 16 9 1

SECTION 2: ENDORSEMENT PROGRAM KEY ASSESSMENTS AND RELATED DATA

ARTIFACT 1Table 5

Summary Table of Endorsement Program Key AssessmentsREGULAR FOLIOS

Name of Assessmentused for the following areas:

Type or Form of Assessment

Brief Description of Assessment, including indicated information obtained from Assessment

When Assessment is Administered

Specific Items

1Content-Praxis II or GPA

Cumulative GPASummative

Numerical computation of grades based onquality points earned divided by credithours completed

Ongoing—throughout one’s college career. Cumulative GPA is what is reported.

Specific to content area

Praxis II Comparison to a Standard

For elementary students, this test has been

Just before or during clinical practicum (student


used todocument one being highly qualified (minimumscore of 159) for No Child Left Behind.For secondary students, we piloted results for the2014-2015 academic year. Results will be used as a requirement fro teacher certification at all levelsstarting September 1, 2015.

teaching)

CEHS Student Teaching Instrument

Summative This instrument consists of 14 items that is completedby the student teacher supervisor and cooperatingteacher on the basis of one being proficient, basic orunsatisfactory on each item.

At the end of the Clinical Experience

Item 1

Administrator Survey

Summative This is a 21-item instrument that is completed by

In March/April at the end of the candidate’s first

Standards 4.1, 4.2, 4.3

school administrators at the end of a candidate’sfirst year of teaching. It is now administered bythe Nebraska Department of Education.

year of teaching

Candidate Teacher Survey

Summative This is a 23-item instrument that is completed byprogram completers at the end of the first year ofteaching. It is administered by the College ofEducation and Human Sciences at UN-L.

In March/April at the end of the candidate’s first year of teaching

Items 1 & 2

2 Content - Knowledge

Cumulative GPA Summative Numerical computation of grades based onquality points earned divided by credithours completed

Ongoing—throughout one’s college career. Cumulative GPA is what is reported.


Praxis II Comparison to a Standard

For elementary students, this test has been used todocument one being highly qualified

Just before or during clinical practicum (student teaching)


(minimumscore of 159) for No Child Left Behind.For secondary students, we piloted results for the2014-2015 academic year. Results will be used as a requirement fro teacher certification at all levelsstarting September 1, 2015.




Item 1


Summative This is a 21-item instrument that is completed byschool administrators at the end of a candidate’s


Standards 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2

first year of teaching. It is now administered bythe Nebraska Department of Education.




Item 14

3 Learner/Learning Environments




Items 2 & 3


Summative This is a 21-item instrument that is completed byschool

In March/April at the end of the candidate’s first

Standards 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3,

administrators at the end of a candidate’sfirst year of teaching. It is now administered bythe Nebraska Department of Education.

year of teaching 3.1, 3.2, 3.3




Items 3 & 4

4 Instructional Practices - Knowledge




Items 2, 3, & 6

Administrator Summative This is a 21-item In March/April at Standards

Survey instrument that is completed byschool administrators at the end of a candidate’sfirst year of teaching. It is now administered bythe Nebraska Department of Education.

the end of the candidate’s first year of teaching

7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3




Items 7, 8, 9, 16, 17 & 20

5 Instructional Practices - Effectiveness


Summative This instrument consists of 14 items that is completedby the student teacher supervisor and cooperatingteacher on the basis of one being proficient, basic or


Items 2, 3, & 5

unsatisfactory on each item.


Summative This is a 21-item instrument that is completed byschool administrators at the end of a candidate’sfirst year of teaching. It is now administered bythe Nebraska Department of Education.


Standards 6.1, 6.2




Item 10

6 Professional Responsibility


Summative This instrument consists of 14 items that is completedby the student teacher supervisor and cooperating


Items 12 & 14

teacher on the basis of one being proficient, basic orunsatisfactory on each item.


Summative This is a 21-item instrument that is completed byschool administrators at the end of a candidate’sfirst year of teaching. It is now administered bythe Nebraska Department of Education.


Standards 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 10.1, 10.2




Items 12 & 15

7 Overall Proficiency


Summative This is a 21-item instrument that is completed byschool administrators at


Standard 11.1

the end of a candidate’sfirst year of teaching. It is now administered bythe Nebraska Department of Education.




Item 23

8 Optional Assessment

REQUIRED RULE 24 FOLIO APPENDICES

Table 1UN-L Admission Requirements

English 4 units of EnglishAll units must include intensive reading and writing experience

Mathematics 4 units of mathematicsMust include Algebra I, II. Geometry and one additional unit that builds on a knowledge of algebra or geometry.

Natural Science

3 units of natural sciencesIncluding at least 2 units selected from biology, chemistry, physics, and earth sciences. One of the units must include laboratory instruction.

Social Studies

3 units of social studiesAt least one unit of American and/or world history and one additional unit of history, American government and/or geography

Foreign Language

2 units of foreign languageMust include 2 units of the same foreign language. Students who are unable to take two years of foreign language in high school may still qualify for admission. Such students will be required to take two semesters of foreign language at the University of Nebraska. These students are required to complete 16 units of academic courses for admission.

Class Rank or ACT/SAT

For assured admission you must also graduate in the upper half of your class, or have an ACT composite score of 20 or higher, or an SAT combined score of 950. All freshman applicants under the age of 23 are required to submit an official ACT or SAT score.

Transfer For assured admission, in addition to completion of core course requirements, you must also show a C average (2.0 on a 4.0 scale) for your cumulative grade point average and a C average on your most recent term of college enrollment

Table 2Major Transition Points

Acceptance into University(Prior to Freshman year)

Acceptance into Teacher Education program(Sophomore year)

Acceptance into Student Teaching(Semester before Student Teaching)

Program Completion/Graduation(After Student Teaching)

-- Completion of specific number of

--Credit hour minimum--Minimum

-- Admission to TEP-- Credit Hour /overall 2.75 GPA minimum

-- 120 + credit hours-- successful

high school units.-- Appropriate ACT /SAT score

grades in specific courses-- PPST-- Faculty recommendations-- Completion of Prof. & Personal Fitness Form-- Criminal History check

-- 2.5 GPA in content areacourses, no grade below a C--2.5 GPA in Prof. ed – specific grade requirements for methods courses-- Criminal History check

completion of Student Teaching-- Maintain GPA minimum requirements-- Completion of a senior check--Met all financial obligations-- Apply for degree

Table 3Summary Table of Practicum and Clinical Experiences

Course

Cr

Days/Wk

Hrs/Day

Weeks

Total Hrs

ELED

Sec. Ed.

ELED/SPED

ECE Unif

ELED/ECE

TEAC 297A

1 2 3 14 84 84 84 84 84

297B 2 2 7 14 140 140 140 140EDPS 297

1 2 1 14 25

397A 3 2 7 14 196 196 196 196

497A 12

5 8 16 640 640 640 640

297 1 2 1 10 20 20397 3 5 2 12 120 12

0397D 3 2 8 15 240 240497 1

25 8 16 640 64

0497A 6 5 8 40 400 400SPED 397

3 3 4 12 144 120

SPED 496Y

1 2 4 14 56 56

497M 9 5 8 10 400 400CYAF 270L

2 1 4 14 52 52 52

271L 1 1 3 12 36 36 36374L 1 1 3 15 45 45 45497A 9 5 4 16 320 320 320Total -- ----- -------

---------- ------- 106

0780

1340 1473

1513

Instruments Used in Key Assessments:

In order to view the instruments used for the different surveys the provided data for this report, go to the “Instruments” folder at the State Approval website and select each of the following:

Student Teaching Final Evaluation used in Fall 2014–Spring 2015—All Program Completers

Student Teaching Final Evaluation used in Fall 2015–Spring 2016—All Program Completers

NDE First-Year Administrator Survey

First-Year Teacher Survey

SECTION 2: KEY ASSESSMENTS AND FINDINGS — Artifact 2

1. Content KnowledgeBelow are the measures used specifically for addressing the content knowledge for teacher candidates at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln.

Table 1AGrade Point Average in the Content Area and Cumulative GPA

Year Endorsem Subject Cumulative GPA Total Students

ent Area/Content GPA2014-2015

Secondary Education

3.49 3.56 95

Elementary Education

3.43 3.57 125

Special Education

3.82 3.68 59

Early Childhood

3.81 3.70 25

Content area

2015-2016

Secondary Education 3.54250 3.55747 108Elementary Education 3.36632 3.56379 153Special Education 3.80480 3.64881 72Early Childhood Education

3.74777 3.5820340

Content area

Table 1BGrade Point Average in the Content Area and Cumulative GPA

Year Code Subject Area/Content GPA

Cumulative GPA

Total Students

Notes

2014-2015

BECE 3.21 2.79 1 Business & Cooperative Education

BMIT 3.35 3.32 6 Business, Marketing & Information EducationCYEC 3.85 3.74 18 Inclusive Early Childhood EducationCYFC 3.37 3.24 4 Family & Consumer Science Education 6-12ECED 3.57 3.65 6 Elementary Education & Early Childhood

EducationELED 3.43 3.52 83 Elementary Education K-6EMATH

3.25 3.61 13 Mathematics 7-12

ENGL 3.79 3.78 15 EnglishESPAN 3.67 3.58 9 SpanishLART 3.63 3.67 4 Language ArtsNTSC 3.50 3.64 12 Science (Field endorsement)PHSC 3.67 3.78 1 PhysicsSPEN ( 3.44 3.54 1 English and Speech ( old program)SPM7 3.29 3.68 37 Elementary & Special Education K-6SPM8 3.65 3.47 4 Special Education 7-12SSCI 3.40 3.49 27 Social Science Education 7-12

2015-16AEDU 3.45000 3.43140 10 Agriculture EducationCYEC 3.77413 3.62275 24 Inclusive Early Childhood EducationCYFC 3.64486 3.60000 7 Family & Consumer Science, 6-12ECED 3.58122 9 Elementary Education & Early Childhood

EducationELAT 3.80000 3.68300 1 English/language ArtsELED 3.36632 3.54869 103 Elementary EducationENGL 3.66375 3.65475 12 EnglishERSS 3.13100 3.09600 1 Earth and space Science

MATH 3.25427 3.48267 15 MathMUED 3.57743 3.54290 21 Music EducationNTSC 3.13850 3.40900 4 Science (formerly natural science)(old endorsement)SCIE 3.38650 3.52800 2 Science (new science endorsement)SENG 4.00000 3.99000 1 Secondary English????SPAN 3.77157 3.61343 7 SpanishSPM7 3.63335 37 Elementary and Special Education, K-6SPM8 3.87173 3.75764 11 Special Education, 7-12SSCI 3.56767 3.59950 12 Social Science

Table 2APraxis II – September 2014 – August 2015

Pass Rate Based on Nebraska Cut Score

Praxis II – September 2014 – August 2015Pass Rate Based on Nebraska Cut Score

Endrsmnt

Test #

Cut Score

UN-L N

UN-L # Passing

UN-L # Failing

UN-L %age Pass

UN-L Mean

State N

State %age Pass

StateMean

National N

National %age

National Mean

Curr Sup.

None

Principal

5411 145 1 1 0 100 123

93.5 163.85

2778

83.59 164.95

Supt 6021 152 1 1 0 100 163 26 96.15 167.23

637 96.39 168.15

Unified 5024 160 17 16 1 94.2 174.47

101

77.23 168.15

1917

78.87 167.57

Agric Ed

5701 147 19 18 1 94.74 166.53

20 95 166.65

436 95.64 167.52

BMIT 5101 154 8 8 0 100 174.25

36 100 174.64

1848

89.72 170.45

ELED 5017 153 151 142 9 94.04 170.66

803

90.78 167.94

4491

91.27 168.74

FACS 5122 153 12 7 5 58.33 158.42

17 58.82 160.00

630 77.46 160.21

ITE NoneMath 5161 146 30 26 4 86.67 163.8

7101

77.23 158.12

8090

65.7 153.20

Music 5114 152 20 20 0 100 173.90

61 88.52 164.28

1178

85.48 164.50

Science 5435 148 12 12 0 100 176.25

53 94.34 173.00

3091

81.11 163.75

Biology 5235 148 3 3 0 100 160.67

21 80.95 159.62

3910

83.43 162.16

Chemistry

5245 140 1 1 0 100 176.00

7 100 161.57

1582

84.39 159.79

Earth & Space Sc

5571 147 2 2 0 100 162.00

3 67 157 816 84.44 164.48

Physics 5265 131 1 1 0 100 169 6 83.33 147.50

951 80.34 150.34

LA & Sec. English

5039 168 22 18 4 81.82 175.86

109

76.15 173.33

2831

75.27 173.28

Soc. Sci. 5081 154 27 23 4 85.19 168 88 77.27 165.02

6037

79.41 165.57

SPED 5354 151 42 42 0 100 175.4 23 98.33 172.0 582 95.91 171.8

0 9 8 5 5SPED HH

5272 160 10 10 0 100 173.9 11 100 173.45

125 70.40 163.72

ECSE 5691 159 1 1 0 100 191 1 100 191 761 91.33 173.71

SPED V I

5282 163 1 1 0 100 167 1 100 167 169 73.96 167.24

SLPA 5331 162 13 11 2 84.62 173 35 91.43 174.51

8384

92.20 176.41

French 5174 162 1 1 0 100 168 5 80 175.20

482 69.92 169.59

German 5183 163 1 1 0 100 183 2 100 182 122 70.49 170.50

Latin 5601 155 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 84.62 175.30

Russian NoneSpanish 5195 156 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 178School Counslr

5421 156 0 0 0 0 0 31 96.76 169.97

3196

90.18 168.57

School Psychlgst

5402 147 7 7 0 100 175.29

23 100 170.83

2633

97.27 169.02

TOTAL 403 373 30 92.56%

Table 2BPraxis II – September 2015 – August 2016

Pass Rate Based on Nebraska Cut ScoreEndrsmnt

Test #

Cut Score

UN-L N

UN-L # Passing

UN-L # Failing

UN-L %age Pass

UN-L Mean

State N

State %age Pass

StateMean

National N

National %age

National Mean

Curr Sup.

None

Principal 5411 145 21 20 1 95.24 171.33

286

98.25 166.33

3070

94.40 164.17

Supt 6021 152 3 3 0 100.00 171.67

27 100 169.59

658 94.68 168.32

Unified 5024 160 27 26 1 96.30 173.93

110

84.55 167.56

2450

79.63 167.25

Agric Ed 5701 147 5 5 0 100.00 170.00

7 100.00 167.29

398 96.98 168.69

BMIT 5101 154 6 5 1 83.33 172.33

35 97.14 174.31

1821

88.69 169.89

ELED 5017 153 197 190 7 96.45 171.98

849

94.35 168.85

4996

92.77 169.15

FACS 5122 153 20 19 1 95.00 165.65

31 96.77 164.48

1049

80.46 160.84

ITE None

Math 5161 146 25 22 3 88.00 166.32

102

86.27 159.63

7961

66.66 153.77

Music 5114 152 27 26 1 96.30 175.41

92 92.39 167.29

1191

85.14 164.58

Science 5435 148 15 15 0 100.00 175.87

53 98.11 175.34

2848

81.85 164.12

Biology 5235 148 13 12 1 92.31 165.23

31 93.55 164.65

3556

85.18 163.10

Chemistry

5245 140 3 2 1 66.67 159.67

6 83.33 165.33

1545

84.53 158.76

Earth & Space Sc

5571 147 3 2 1 66.67 156 4 75.00 156.00

721 84.60 164.47

Physics 5265 131 2 2 0 100.00 167 9 100.00 165.11

844 81.52 150.77

LA & Sec. English

5039 168 24 23 1 95.83 177.58

130

89.23 176.12

2943

76.79 173.51

Soc. Sci. 5081 154 18 18 0 100.00 170.06

90 90.00 169.38

5599

80.62 165.76

SPED 5354 151 52 52 0 100.00 176.49

316

99.68 173.80

5977

96.29 171.97

SPED HH

5272 160 2 2 0 100.00 176.00

7 100.00 170.14

136 88.97 168.82

ECSE 5691 159 7 7 0 100.00 184.29

8 100.00 182.85

816 93.01 173.88

SPED VI 5282 163 4 3 1 75.00 168.75

4 75.00 168.75

142 71.13 166.97

SLPA 5331 162 4 3 1 75.00 173.25

9 77.78 167.89

9013

93.38 176.21

French 5174 162 1 0 1 0 159.00

4 50.00 168.00

407 67.57 168.57

German 5183 163 2 2 0 100.00 197.5 3 100.00 186.33

116 66.38 171.88

Latin 5601 155 - - - - - 2 100.00 174.5 52 84.62 176.02

Russian None

Spanish 5195 156 9 6 3 66.67 161.89

36 72.22 166 1842

73.13 167.22

School Counselor

5421 156 2 2 0 100.00 177.00

66 96.97 171.39

3327

89.93 168.90

School Psychlgst

5402 147 11 11 0 100.00 178.00

38 100.00 170.66

2586

97.56 169.36

TOTAL 503 478 25 95.03%

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Subject Matter Knowledge for the 2014-2015 Academic Year for Teaching in General (Item 1).

Table 3AItem 1: Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching in General

2014-2015Subject Area Scoring

Year

# Item Endorsement Unsatisfactory

Basic Proficient Grand Total

2014- 2015

1 Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching in general. Demonstrates capacity to make content knowledge accessible to students.

Early Childhood Education & Elementary Education (ECED)

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 100.00%

5

Early Childhood

0 0.0% 4 8.2% 45 91.8% 49


0 0% 0 0% 121

100% 121

Secondary Education

0 0% 9 7.5% 111

92.5% 120

Special Education

0 0% 5 10.2%

44 89.8% 49

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2015-2016 Academic Year on Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching (Item 3—Table 3B)—LIVETEXT version.

Table 3BItem 3: Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching in General


Year

# Item Endorsement Unacceptable

Emergent

Sufficient Advanced Grand Total

2015- 2016

3 Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching.

Subject matter Knowledge for Teaching. Make content

Elementary Ed & Early Childhood Ed

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 7 87.50% 8

knowledge accessible for students

Early Childhood Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 13

38.24% 21 13.00% 34


0 0.00% 3 1.63% 71

38.59% 110

59.78% 184

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 4 4.60% 48

55.17% 35 40.23% 87

Special Education

0 0.00% 2 2.35% 29

34.12% 54 63.53% 85

Responses From First Year Administrator Survey: Preparation of Candidate to Teach Content Area.

Table 4Standards 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3—Content Knowledge

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand

Information Total

4.1 --Theteacher understands thecentral concepts, tools of inquiry, and structuresof the discipline(s) s/he teaches.

2014-2015Early Childhood Education 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1

Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0.00% 2 3.23% 22 35.48% 38 61.29% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 3 5.08% 17 28.81% 39 66.10% 59Special Education 1 5.88% 1 5.88% 6 35.29% 9 52.94% 17 Total 1 0.67% 7 4.70% 48 32.21% 93 62.42% 149

2015-2016 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent TotalEarly Childhood Education 1802,

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 0 0.00% 2

ElementaryEarly Childhood Education 1830, Elementary

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 0.00% 1

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 2 0.00% 2 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.89% 0.00% 27 50.94% 25 47.17% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 1 1.45% 25 36.23% 43 62.32% 69

Special Education 0.00% 2 10.00% 10 50.00% 8 40.00% 20 Total 1 0.68% 3 2.04% 65 44.22% 78 53.06% 147

4.2 Theteacher creates learningexperiences that make these aspects of thediscipline accessible and meaningful for studentsto assure mastery of content.

2014-2015 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent TotalEarly Childhood Education 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1

Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0.00% 4 6.45% 24 38.71% 34 54.84% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 3 5.08% 24 40.68% 32 54.24% 59Special Education 0.00% 3 17.65% 4 23.53% 10 58.82% 17 Total 0.00% 11 7.38% 55 36.91% 83 55.70% 149

2015-2016 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Total

Early Childhood Education 1802, Elementary

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 0 0.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 2 0.00% 2 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.89% 3 5.66% 25 47.17% 24 45.28% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 3 4.35% 25 36.23% 41 59.42% 69

Special Education 0.00% 1 5.00% 10 50.00% 9 45.00% 20Total

4.3 Theteacher integrates NebraskaContent Standards and/or professional standardswithin instruction.


Early Childhood

0.00% 7 11.29% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 7

Elementary 0.00% 0.00% 19 30.65% 36 58.06% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 6.25% 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 1 14.29% 24 40.68% 32 54.24% 59

Special Education

1 6.25% 12 8.11% 6 37.50% 8 50.00% 16

Total 1 0.68% 1 14.29% 52 35.14% 83 56.08% 148

2015-2016 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent TotalEarly Childhood Education 1802, Elementary

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 1 50.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 0.00% 1

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.00% 3 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.92% 0.00% 20 38.46% 31 59.62% 52Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 2 2.90% 20 28.99% 47 68.12% 69


Responses From First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Preparation to Teach Content Knowledge (Item 1) and Prepared to Teach Content Area (Item 2).

Table 5Item 1: Prepared to Teach Content Area

Year # Item Endorsement

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree nor

Agree Strongly Agree

Grand Total

Disagree2014 - 2015

1 I am well prepared to teach in my content area.


0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 9 75.0%

2 16.7%

12


0 0% 3 6.1%

3 6.1% 30

61.2%

13

26.5%

49

Secondary Education

0 0% 1 2.0%

1 2.0% 33

67.3%

14

28.6%

49

Special Education

0 0% 2 9.5%

2 9.5% 11

52.4%

6 28.6%

21

2015 -

1 I am well prepared to

2016 teach in my content area.


0 0.00%

0 0.00%

1 12.50% 2 25.00%

5 62.50%

8


0 0.00%

1 2.00%

2 4.00% 30

60.00%

17 34.00%

50

Secondary Education

0 0.00%

1 1.61%

4 6.45% 44

70.97%

13 20.97%

62

Special Education

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00% 15

68.18%

7 31.82%

22



Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree


Grand

Total2014 2 I am

- 2015

confident in my level of subject matter knowledge.

. Early Childhood Education

0 0% 0 0% 3 25.0% 7 58.3% 2 16.7% 12


0 0% 3 6.1% 4 8.2% 26

53.1% 16

32.7% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 0 0% 2 4.1% 27

55.1% 20

40.8% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 3 14.3% 11

52.4% 7 33.3% 21

2015-

2 I am confident in

2016 my subject matter knowledge.


0 0.00%

0 0.00% 1 12.50% 4 50.00%

3 37.50% 8


0 0.00%

1 2.00% 3 6.00% 26 52.00%

20 40.00% 50

Secondary Education

0 0.00%

0 0.00% 6 9.68% 31 50.00%

25 40.32% 62

Special Education

0 0.00%

0 0.00% 1 4.55% 14 63.64%

7 31.82% 22

Narrative:Students who are in the Early Childhood Education/Elementary Education combined programs demonstrate content and cumulative grade point averages above a 3.50 for the 2 years in which data are presented. No Praxis II scores are available because no test is available for students completing Early Childhood Education. The number of students who were in student teaching or for whom first–year follow–up data were collected was very low. It does appear that for these individuals, they either met the

standard or had very high scores in meeting the standard. High grade point averages is considered to be one of the two primary data sources to document that this standard is being met.

2. Content Area See Tables 1-6 from Content Area #1 above (first 8 tables in that section)

Table 7Responses from First Year Administrator Survey: Application of content

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total5.1 The teacher candidate understands how to connect concepts across disciplines


Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 3 42.86% 3 42.86% 7Elementary 1 1.61% 6 9.68% 27 43.55% 28 45.16% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 3 75.00% 0.00% 1 25.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 2 2.90% 20 28.99% 47 68.12% 69



0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 1 50.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00%

0 0.00% 1


1 1.45% 9 13.04% 26 37.68% 33 47.83% 69


5.2 The teacher candidate uses differing perspectives to engage students in critical thinking, creativity, and


Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 5 71.43% 2 28.57% 7Elementary 1 1.61% 7 11.29% 24 38.71% 30 48.39% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 7 11.67% 21 35.00% 32 53.33% 60Special Education

0.00% 4 23.53% 5 29.41% 8 47.06% 17

collaborative problem solving related to authentic local and global issues

Total 1 0.67% 18 12.00% 57 38.00% 74 49.33% 150


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 1 50.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1


0.00% 9 13.04% 24 34.78% 36 52.17% 69


Responses From First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Teaching Subject Matter Materials in Ways Meaningful to Learners (Item 14).


Year # Item Endorsemen

tStrongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree nor


Grand

Disagree Total2014 - 2015

14

I teach subject matter in ways that are meaningful to learners.


0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 7 58.3% 4 33.3% 12


0 0% 0 0% 3 6.1% 27

55.1% 18

36.7% 48

Secondary Education

0 0% 2 4.1% 5 10.2% 29

59.2% 13

26.5% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 2 9.5% 10

47.6% 9 42.9% 21

2015-2016

14

I teach subject matter in ways that are meaningful to learners.


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 50.00% 4 50.00% 8


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 6 12.00% 26 52.00% 18 36.00% 50

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 7 11.48% 40 65.57% 14 22.95% 61

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 9.09% 13 59.09% 7 31.82% 22

Narrative:

Data provided from the First-Year Administrator Survey indicate that the Early Childhood Education students are able to apply content knowledge in a way that is meaningful to the learners in their classrooms. The administrators believe that most first-year teachers have frequently or consistently shown their ability to connect concepts, and can engage students in higher-level thinking related to authentic local and global issues in 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 years.

3. Learner/Learning Environments

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for the 2014-2015 Academic Year (Item 2—Table 9A).

Table 9AItem 2: Subject Planning for Learning


Year # Item Endorsement Unsatisfactory


2014- 2015

2 Demonstrates capacity to create useable

Early Childhood Education/ELED (ECED)

0 0.00% 1 20.00% 4 80.00% 5

lesson and unit plans that are based upon knowledge of the discipline, students, and curricular goals


1 2.1% 6 12.5% 41 85.4% 48


0 0% 5 4.0% 120

96.0% 54

Secondary Education

0 0% 21 17.5% 99 82.5% 120

Special Education

1 2.0% 7 14.0% 42 84.0% 50

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2015-2016 Academic Year on Planning for Learning (Item 4—Table 9B)—LIVETEXT version.

Table 9BItem 4: Planning for Learning


Year


Emergent


2015- 2016

4 Planning for learning:Creates usable lessons and unit plans based on knowledge of the discipline, students, and curricular goals


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 7 87.50% 8


0 0.00% 1 2.94% 8 23.53% 25 73.53% 34


0 0.00% 2 1.08% 53

28.65% 130 70.27% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 2 2.27% 47

53.41% 39 44.32% 88

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 24

27.91% 62 72.09% 86

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on Instructional Enactment (Item 3—Table 10A).

Table 10AItem 3: Instructional Enactment



Unsatisfactory


2014- 2015

3 Demonstrates Capacity to implement, modify, and adapt plans that are responsive to students and curricular goals

ECED 0 0.00% 1 20.00% 4 80.00% 5


0 0% 5 10.2% 44 89.8% 49


0 0% 8 6.4% 117

93.6% 125

Secondary Education

1 0.8% 12 10.0% 107

89.2% 120

Special Education

1 2.0% 5 10.0% 44 88.0% 50

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2015-2016 Academic Year on Responsive Teaching (Item 5—Table 10B). LIVETEXT version.

Table 10BItem 5: Responsive Teaching


Year


Emergent


2015- 2016

5 Responsive Teaching:Skillfully implements lessons that are flexible and intentional


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 7 87.50% 8

to meet individual student needs


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 9 26.47% 25 73.53% 34


0 0.00% 2 1.08% 58

31.35% 125 67.57% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 6 6.90% 38

43.68% 43 49.43% 87

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 1.16% 24

27.91% 61 70.93% 86

Responses From First Year Administrator Survey: Items Related to Student Development, Learning Differences, and Learning Environments: Student Development (Standards 1.1, 1.2,

and 1.3); Learning Differences (Standards 2.1 and 2.2); Learning Environments (Standards 3.1 and 3.2).

Table 11Standards 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3: Student Development

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total

1.1 The teacher understands how students grow and develop.


Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 3 42.86% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0.00% 3 4.84% 26 41.94% 33 53.23% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 2 3.33% 26 43.33% 32 53.33% 60Special Education 0.00% 2 11.76% 3 17.65% 12 70.59% 17 Total 0.00% 7 4.67% 60 40.00% 83 55.33% 150

2015-2016 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent TotalEarly Childhood Education 1802,

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 0 0.00% 2

ElementaryEarly Childhood Education 1830, Elementary

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1


0.00% 2 2.90% 32 46.38% 35 50.72% 69


1.2 The teacher recognizes that patterns of learning and development vary individually within and across the cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and physical




areas. Early Childhood Education 1802, Elementary

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 1 50.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1


1 1.45% 3 4.35% 31 44.93% 34 49.28% 69


1.3 The teacher implements developmentally appropriate and challenging learning experiences.




0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1


0.00% 5 7.25% 25 36.23% 39 56.52% 69


Table 12Standards 2.1 and 2.2: Learning Differences

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total2.1 The teacher understands individual differences and diverse cultures and communities


Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 4 57.14% 42.86% 7Elementary 0.00% 4 6.45% 27 43.55% 4 50.00% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 2 50.00% 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 6 10.17% 18 30.51% 6 59.32% 59Special Education 0.00% 0.00% 6 35.29% 64.71% 17 Total 0.00% 10 6.71% 57 38.26% 10 55.03% 149


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 0.00% 1

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 2 0.00% 2 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.89% 5 9.43% 14 26.42% 33 62.26% 53

Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 7 10.14% 25 36.23% 37 53.62% 69


2.2 The teacher ensures inclusive learning environments that enable each student to meet high demands


Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 1 14.29% 5 71.43% 7Elementary 0.00% 3 4.84% 23 37.10% 36 58.06% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 0.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 3 5.08% 24 40.68% 32 54.24% 59Special Education 1 5.88% 2 11.76% 4 23.53% 10 58.82% 17 Total 1 0.67% 10 6.71% 52 34.90% 86 57.72% 149


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 1 50.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 0.00% 1


0.00% 5 7.25% 26 37.68% 38 55.07% 69


Table 13Standards 3.1 and 3.2: Learning Environments

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total3.1 The teacher works with others to create environments that support individual and collaborative learning.


Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 1 14.29% 5 71.43% 7Elementary 0.00% 2 3.28% 21 34.43% 38 62.30% 61Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 1 25.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 5 8.62% 15 25.86% 38 65.52% 58Special Education

0.00% 2 11.76% 3 17.65% 12 70.59% 17

Total 0.00% 11 7.48% 41 27.89% 95 64.63% 147


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 1 50.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1


0.00% 6 8.82% 21 30.88% 41 60.29% 68


3.2 The teacher creates environments that encourage positive social interaction, active engagemen


Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 1 1.61% 2 3.23% 20 32.26% 39 62.90% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 3 5.17% 16 27.59% 39 67.24% 58

t in learning, and self-motivation.



0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1


0.00% 8 11.76% 19 27.94% 41 60.29% 68


3.3 The teacher manages student behavior to promote a positive learning environmen


Early Childhood 0 0.00% 1 14.29% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0 0.00% 3 4.84% 22 35.48% 37 59.68% 62Middle Grades 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 4Content 0 0.00% 7 12.07% 23 39.66% 28 48.28% 58

t. (Subject Area) EndorsementsSpecial Education 0 0.00% 2 11.76% 5 29.41% 10 58.82% 17Total 0 0.00% 13 8.78% 54 36.49% 81 54.73% 148


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 1 50.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 0.00% 4Elementary 2 3.77% 8 15.09% 20 37.74% 23 43.40% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 13 19.12% 25 36.76% 30 44.12% 68


Responses From First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Student Learning: Understands How Learners Learn (Item 3), and Adapts to Developmental Strategies of Learners (Item 4).

Table 14Item 3: Understands How Learners Learn


Strongly Disagree

Disagree



Grand Total

2014 - 2015

3 I positively impact the learning and development of all students.


0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 7 58.3% 5 41.7% 12


0 0% 1 2.0% 0 0% 22

44.9% 26

53.1% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 0 0% 3 6.1% 26

53.1% 19

38.8% 48

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 10

47.6% 11

52.4% 21

2015-2016

3 I positively impact the learning and development of all students.


0 0.00% 0 0.00%

0 0.00% 2 25.00% 6 75.00% 8


0 0.00% 0 0.00%

5 10.00% 21 42.00% 24 48.00% 50

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00%

10 16.13% 33 53.23% 19 30.65% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00%

1 4.55% 11 50.00% 10 45.45% 22

Table 15Item 4: Adapts to Developmental Strategies of Learners

Year # Item Endorsement Strongly Disagree

Disagree



Grand Total

2014 - 2015

4 I adapt to different developmental stages of learners.


0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 8 66.7%

3 25.0%

12


0 0% 0 0% 4 8.2% 22

44.9%

23

46.9%

49

Secondary Education

0 0% 0 0% 9 18.4% 29

59.2%

11

22.4%

49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 2 9.5% 10

47.6%

9 42.9%

21

2015-2016

4 I adapt to different developmental stages of learners


0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00% 3 37.50%

5 62.50%

8


0 0.00%

0 0.00%

8 16.00% 20

40.00%

22 44.00%

50

Secondary Education

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

17

27.87% 31

50.82%

13 21.31%

61

Special Education

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

1 4.55% 10

45.45%

11 50.00%

22

Narrative:Responses from the Student Teaching Instrument and from the First-Year Administrator Survey indicate that these candidates can create usable lesson plans and that they are flexible enough to be able to modify and adapt these plans when necessary. They also understand how students grow and develop, and these candidates recognize the variability in learning and developmental patterns. In addition, the individuals understand individual differences and they can create learning environments that allow all students to reach standards. As they are addressing these needs, they are still able to manage student behavior and promote a positive learning environment. Unfortunately, there were no responses from the candidates themselves on questions tied to the learning process. It does appear that the information provided by the cooperating teacher, their supervisor, and the administrator after their first year of teaching are positive in regard to learning and the learning environment.

4. Instructional Practices–Candidate Knowledge and Skills

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on Planning for Learning, Instructional Enactment (Item 2—Table 16A)

Table 16AItem 2: Subject Planning for Learning




2014- 2015

2 Demonstrates capacity to create useable lesson and unit plans that are based upon knowledge of the discipline, students, and curricular goals


0 0.00% 1 20.00% 4 80.00% 5


1 2.1% 6 12.5% 41 85.4% 48


0 0% 5 4.0% 120

96.0% 125

Secondary Education

0 0% 21 17.5% 99 82.5% 120

Special Education

1 2.0% 7 14.0% 42 84.0% 50

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for 2015-2016 Academic Year on Planning for Learning (Item 4—Table 16B)—LIVETEXT version.

Table 16BItem 4: Planning for Learning


Year


Emergent

Sufficient Advanced Grand

Total2015- 2016



0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 7 87.50% 8


0 0.00% 1 2.94% 8 23.53% 25 73.53% 34


0 0.00% 2 1.08% 53

28.65% 130 70.27% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 2 2.27% 47

53.41% 39 44.32% 88

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 24

27.91% 62 72.09% 86

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on the Learning Environment (Item 3)





2014- 2015



0 0.00% 1 20.00% 4 80.00% 5


0 0% 5 10.2% 44 89.8% 49


0 0% 8 6.4% 117

93.6% 125

Secondary Education

1 0.8% 12 10.0% 107

89.2% 120

Special Education

1 2.0% 5 10.0% 44 88.0% 50

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for the 2015-2016 Academic Year on Responsive Teaching (Item 5—Table 17B)—LIVETEXT version.



Year


Emergent


2015- 2016

5 Responsive Teaching:

Skillfully implements lessons that are flexible and intentional to meet individual student needs


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 7 87.50% 8


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 9 26.47% 25 73.53% 34


0 0.00% 2 1.08% 58

31.35% 125 67.57% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 6 6.90% 38

43.68% 43 49.43% 87

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 1.16% 24

27.91% 61 70.93% 86

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on the Learning Environment (Item 6—Table 18A).

Table 18AItem 6: Learning Environment




2014- 2015

6 Learning Environment. Demonstrates capacity to create classroom communities that invite


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 100.00% 5

students’ engagement and learning, encourages positive social interaction and self-motivation.


0 0% 1 2.0% 48 98.0% 49


0 0% 9 7.2% 116

92.8% 125

Secondary Education

0 0.0% 12 10.0% 108

90.0% 120

Special Education

0 0% 5 10.0% 45 90.0% 50

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for the 2015-2016 Academic Year on Learning Culture (Item 10—Table 18B)—LIVETEXT version.

Table 18B -- Item 10: Learning Culture2015-2016

Subject Area ScoringYear


Emergent


2015- 2016

10

Learning Culture:Creates classroom communities that invite student engagement and learning and encourage positive social interactions.


0 0.00% 0 0.00%

2 25.00% 6 75.00% 8


0 0.00% 1 2.94%

11

32.35% 22 64.71% 34


0 0.00% 1 0.55%

51

28.18% 129 71.27% 181

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00%

39

45.35% 47 54.65% 86

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 1.20%

19

22.89% 63 75.90% 83

Responses From First Year Administrator Survey: Items Related to Planning for Instruction (Standards 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3) and Instructional Strategies (Standards 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3)

Table 19

Standards 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3: Planning for Instruction

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total7.1 The teacher plans instruction that supports every student in meeting rigorous learning goals.




0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1


0.00% 5 7.25% 33 47.83% 31 44.93% 69


7.2 The teacher candidate draws upon knowledge of content areas, curriculum, cross-disciplinary skills, technology, and pedagogy.


Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 3 42.86% 3 42.86% 7Elementary 0.00% 5 8.06% 23 37.10% 34 54.84% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 1 25.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 4 6.78% 23 38.98% 32 54.24% 59Special Education 1 5.88% 3 17.65% 4 23.53% 9 52.94% 17 Total 1 0.67% 14 9.40% 54 36.24% 80 53.69% 149


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 0 0.00% 2

Early Childhood Education 1830,

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1

Elementary


0.00% 6 8.70% 29 42.03% 34 49.28%


7.3 The teacher draws upon knowledge of students and the community context.


Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 4 57.14% 3 42.86% 7Elementary 0.00% 4 6.45% 23 37.10% 35 56.45% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 1 25.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 1 1.69% 4 6.78% 24 40.68% 30 50.85% 59Special Education 1 5.88% 4 23.53% 3 17.65% 9 52.94% 17 Total 2 1.34% 13 8.72% 55 36.91% 79 53.02% 149


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 1 50.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 0.00% 1


0.00% 8 11.59% 26 37.68% 35 50.72% 69


Table 20Standard 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3: Instructional Strategies

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total8.1 The 2014-2015

teacher understands a variety of instructional strategies.

Early Childhood Education 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1

Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0.00% 7 11.29% 18 29.03% 37 59.68% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 6 10.00% 19 31.67% 35 58.33% 60Special Education 1 5.88% 2 11.76% 5 29.41% 9 52.94% 17 Total

1 0.67%16 10.67% 45 30.00% 88 58.67% 150


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 0.00% 1


0.00% 5 7.35% 27 39.71% 36 52.94% 68


8.2 The teacher uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage students to develop deep understanding of content areas and their connection and to build skills to apply knowledge in meaningful ways.


Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0.00% 7 11.29% 24 38.71% 31 50.00% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 0.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 7 11.67% 23 38.33% 30 50.00% 60Special Education 1 5.88% 2 11.76% 5 29.41% 9 52.94% 17 Total

1 0.67%18 12.00% 54 36.00% 77 51.33% 150


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 0.00% 1

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 2 0.00% 2 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.92% 3 5.77% 21 40.38% 27 51.92% 52Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject 0.00% 8 11.76% 25 36.76% 35 51.47% 68

Area) EndorsementsSpecial Education 0.00% 1 5.00% 9 45.00% 10 50.00% 20 Total 1 0.69% 1

28.28% 58 40.00% 74 51.03% 145

8.3 The teacher utilizes available technology for instruction and assessment.


Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 5 71.43% 2 28.57% 7Elementary 0.00% 4 6.45% 23 37.10% 35 56.45% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 3 75.00% 1 25.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 1 1.67% 4 6.67% 17 28.33% 38 63.33% 60Special Education 0.00% 4 23.53% 6 35.29% 7 41.18% 17 Total

1 0.67%12 8.00% 54 36.00% 83 55.33% 150


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 0 0.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 0.00% 1


0.00% 8 11.94% 24 35.82% 35 52.24% 67

Special Education 0.00% 2 10.00% 9 45.00% 9 45.00% 20 Total 1 0.69% 1

49.72% 54 37.50% 75 52.08% 144

Responses From First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Creating Effective Instructional Plans (Item 7), Working Effectively as Part of an Instructional Planning Team (Item 8), Classroom Management (Item 9), Instruction Requires Problem Solving or Critical Thinking Skills (Item 16), Instruction is Adapted to the Needs of Learners with Special Needs (Item 17), and Use of Multiple Methods to Teach (Item 20).

Table 21Item 7: Create Effective Instructional Plans


Disagree



Grand Total

2014 - 2015

7 I create effective instructional plans.


0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 8 66.7% 4 33.3% 12


0 0% 0 0% 3 6.1% 26

53.1% 20

40.8% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 1 2.1% 4 8.3% 27

56.3% 16

33.3% 48

Special Education

0 0% 1 4.8% 1 4.8% 13

61.9% 6 28.6% 21

2015-2016

7 I create effective new lesson plans


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 3 37.50% 4 50.00% 8


0 0.00% 1 2.00% 7 14.00% 28 56.00% 14 28.00% 50

Secondary Education

1 1.61% 2 3.23% 6 9.68% 37 59.68% 16 25.81% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 2 9.09% 3 13.64% 12 54.55% 5 22.73% 22

Table 22Item 8: Work Effectively as a Part of an Instructional Team


Strongly Disagree

Disagree



Grand

Total2014 - 2015

8 I work effectively as part of an instructional planning team.


0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 4 33.3% 7 58.3% 12


0 0% 2 4.1% 3 6.1% 20

40.8% 24

49.0% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 1 2.0% 10

20.4% 23

46.9% 15

30.6% 49

Special Education

0 0% 1 4.8% 1 4.8% 9 42.9% 10

47.6% 21

2015-2016

8 I work effectively as part of an instructional team


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 2 25.00% 5 62.50% 8


0 0.00% 3 6.00% 2 4.00% 23 46.00% 22 44.00% 50

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 1 1.61% 9 14.52% 27 43.55% 25 40.32% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 4.55% 4 18.18% 9 40.91% 8 36.36% 22

Table 23Item 9: Manages Classroom Management


Strongly Disagre

e

Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree


Grand

Total201 9 I apply

4 - 2015

effective methods to manage the classroom environment.


0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 6 50.0% 5 41.7% 12


0 0% 1 2.0% 4 8.2% 21

42.9% 23

46.9% 49

Secondary Education

1 2.0% 3 6.1% 11

22.4% 20

40.8% 14

28.6% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 1 4.8% 7 33.3% 13

61.9% 21

2015-

9 I apply effective

2016

methods to manage the classroom environment


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 3 37.50%

4 50.00% 8


1 2.00% 1 2.00% 8 16.00% 21 42.00%

19 38.00% 50

Secondary Education

1 1.61% 8 12.90%

15 24.19% 28 45.16%

10 16.13% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 4.55% 3 13.64% 8 36.36%

10 45.45% 22

Table 24Item 16: Instruction Requires Student Problem Solving and/or Critical Thinking Skills

Year # Item Endorsemen Strongly Disagre Neither Agree Strongly Gran

t Disagree e Agree nor Disagree

Agree d Total

2014 - 2015

16

My instruction requires student problem solving and/or critical thinking skills.


0 0% 0 0% 2 16.7% 6 50.0% 4 33.3% 12


0 0% 0 0% 6 12.2% 27

55.1% 16

32.7% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 3 6.1% 8 16.3% 23

46.9% 15

30.6% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 4 19.0% 11

52.4% 6 28.6% 21

2015-2016

16

My instruction requires student problem solving and/or critical thinking skills


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 62.50%

3 37.50% 8


0 0.00% 1 2.00% 5 10.00% 30 60.00%

14 28.00% 50

Secondary Education

1 1.61% 1 1.61% 8 12.90% 31 50.00%

21 33.87% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 9.09% 14 63.64%

6 27.27% 22

Table 25Item 17: Adapt Instruction to Meet Needs of Learners With Special Needs


Strongly Disagree

Disagree



Grand

Total2014 - 2015

17

I adapt my instruction to the needs of learners with special needs.


0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 6 50.0% 5 41.7% 12


0 0% 1 2.0% 6 12.2% 22

44.9% 20

40.8% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 2 4.1% 3 6.1% 26

53.1% 18

36.7% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 8 38.1% 13

61.9% 21

2015-2016

17

I adapt my instruction to the needs of learners with special needs.


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 3 37.50% 4 50.00% 8


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 8 16.00% 23 46.00% 19 38.00% 50

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 1 1.61% 9 14.52% 39 62.90% 13 20.97% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 4.55% 1 4.55% 9 40.91% 11 50.00% 22

Table 26Item 20: Use Multiple Methods to Teach


Disagree



Grand Total

2014 - 2015

20

I use multiple methods to teach.


0 0% 0 0% 3 25.0% 2 16.7% 7 58.3% 12


0 0% 0 0% 6 12.2% 21

42.9% 22

44.9% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 0 0% 2 4.1% 27

55.1% 2 40.8% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 4 19.0% 11

52.4% 6 28.6% 21

2015-2016

20

I use multiple methods to teach


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 37.50% 5 62.50% 8


0 0.00% 1 2.00% 4 8.00% 25 50.00% 20 40.00% 50

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 1 1.61% 4 6.45% 36 58.06% 21 33.87% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 4.55% 1 4.55% 9 40.91% 11 50.00% 22

Narrative:Responses from the Student Teaching Instrument indicate that these candidates can plan for learning and create useable lesson and unit plans that are based upon knowledge of the discipline, students, and curricular goals. They are able to implement, modify, and adapt plans when necessary. They are also able to create classroom communities that invite students’ engagement and learning, and that encourages positive social interaction. Data from the First-Year Administrator survey indicate they can plan instruction effectively to meet rigorous learning goals, they can utilize their knowledge of content, technology, pedagogy, as well as information about the student and community to create effective lessons and learning activities. These candidates are able to draw from a variety of instructional strategies to create meaningful experiences that promote learning and communication on the part of their students. In all instances, the scores from the surveys were at the high end of the scale used in each instrument.

5. Instructional Practices—Assessment that Demonstrates Effects or Impact on P-12 Student Learning

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on Planning for Learning (Item 2—Table 27A).

Table 27AItem 5: Planning for Learning




2014- 2015

2 Demonstrates capacity to create useable lesson and unit plans that are based upon knowledge of the discipline, students, and curricular goals


0 0.00% 1 20.00% 4 80.00% 5


1 2.1% 6 12.5% 41 85.4% 48


0 0% 5 4.0% 120

96.0% 54

Secondary Education

0 0% 21 17.5% 99 82.5% 120

Special Education

1 2.0% 7 14.0% 42 84.0% 50

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for 2015-2016 Academic Year on Planning for Learning (Item 4—Table 27B). LIVETEXT version.

Table 27B Item 4: Planning for Learning


Year


Emergent


Total2015- 2016



0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 7 87.50% 8


0 0.00% 1 2.94% 8 23.53% 25 73.53% 34


0 0.00% 2 1.08% 53

28.65% 130 70.27% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 2 2.27% 47

53.41% 39 44.32% 88

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 24

27.91% 62 72.09% 86

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on Instructional Enactment (Item 3—Table 28A).





2014- 2015



0 0.00% 1 20.00% 4 80.00% 5


0 0% 5 10.2% 44 89.8% 49


0 0% 8 6.4% 117

93.6% 125

Secondary Education

1 0.8% 12 10.0% 107

89.2% 120

Special Education

1 2.0% 5 10.0% 44 88.0% 50

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for 2015-2016 Academic Year on Responsive Teaching (Item 5 —Table 28B)—LIVETEXT version.



Year


Emergent


Total2015- 2016

5 Responsive Teaching:

Skillfully implements lessons that are flexible and intentional to meet individual student needs


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 7 87.50% 8


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 9 26.47% 25 73.53% 34


0 0.00% 2 1.08% 58

31.35% 125 67.57% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 6 6.90% 38

43.68% 43 49.43% 87

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 1.16% 24

27.91% 61 70.93% 86

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on Classroom Interaction With Students (Item 5—Table 29A).

Table 29AItem 5: Classroom Interaction With Students




2014- 2015

5 Demonstrates a capacity to interact with learners in supportive and constructive ways.


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 100.00% 5


0 0% 1 2.0% 48 98.0% 49


0 0% 2 1.6% 123

98.4% 125

Secondary Education

0 0% 8 6.7% 112

93.3% 120

Special Education

0 0% 1 2.0% 49 98.0% 50

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for the 2015-2016 Academic Year on Relationships With Students (Item 7—Table 29B)—LIVETEXT version.

Table 29BItem 7: Relationships With Students


Year


Emergent


2015- 201

7 Relationships with Students:Develops and


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 8 100.00%

8

6 Maintains rapport with individual and groups of students


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 11.76% 30 88.24% 34


0 0.00% 1 0.54% 27

14.59% 157 84.86% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 4 4.55% 25

28.41% 59 67.05% 88

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 1.16% 8 9.30% 77 89.53% 86

Responses From First Year Administrator Survey on Assessment (Items 6.1 and 6.2)

Table 30Standard 6.1 and 6.2: Assessment

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total6.1 The teacher understands multiple methods of assessment


Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 4 57.14% 3 42.86% 7Elementary 0.00% 5 8.06% 26 41.94% 31 50.00% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 0.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 1 1.67% 8 13.33% 24 40.00% 27 45.00% 60Special Education 1 5.88% 2 11.76% 5 29.41% 9 52.94% 17 Total 2 1.33% 16 10.67% 59 39.33% 73 48.67% 150


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 2

Early Childhood Education 1830,

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 0.00% 1

Elementary


0.00% 7 10.29% 29 42.65% 32 47.06% 68


6.2 The teacher uses multiple methods of assessment to engage students in their own growth, to monitor student progress, and to guide the teacher


Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 4 57.14% 3 42.86% 7Elementary 0.00% 4 6.45% 27 43.55% 31 50.00% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 1 25.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 1 1.67% 8 13.33% 30 50.00% 21 35.00% 60Special Education 1 5.88% 3 17.65% 5 29.41% 8 47.06% 17 Total 2 1.33% 16 10.67% 67 44.67% 65 43.33% 150


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 1 50.00% 2

candidate’s and student’s decision making.


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 0.00% 1


0.00% 8 11.76% 24 35.29% 36 52.94% 68


Responses From First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Assessment: Creates Effective Assessments to Measure Learning (Item 10).

Table 31 Standard 10: Creates Effective Assessments to Measure Learning


Strongly Disagree

Disagree



Grand

Total2014 - 2015

10

I create effective assessments to measure learning.


1 8.3% 2 16.7%

2 16.7% 5 41.7% 2 16.7% 12


0 0% 3 6.1% 4 8.2% 33

67.3% 9 18.4% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 1 2.0% 8 16.3% 33

67.3% 7 14.3% 49

Special Education

0 0% 4 19.0%

2 9.5% 11

52.4% 4 19.0% 21

2015-2016

10

I create effective assessments to measure learning


0 0.00% 0 0.00%

0 0.00% 4 50.00% 4 50.00% 8


0 0.00% 2 4.08%

5 10.20% 29

59.18% 13 26.53% 49

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 2 3.23%

10 16.13% 37

59.68% 13 20.97% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00%

2 9.09% 15

68.18% 5 22.73% 22

Narrative:Responses from the Student Teaching Instrument indicate that these candidates can design effective lesson and unit plans that promote learning. As a part of this process, data collected from the First-Year Administrator survey indicate first-year teachers understand multiple methods of assessment and they

know how to utilize assessment techniques to monitor student progress. Based on this feedback, they can then make modifications in lessons that will facilitate learning and decision-making. Finally, these candidates are able to apply what they learn through the assessment process to their own professional development.

6. Professional Responsibility

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on Collaborative Relationships (Item 12—Table 32A).

Table 32AItem 12: Collaborative Relationships and Professional Conduct




2014- 2015

12

Collaborative Relations and Professional Conduct. Demonstrates a capacity to work with other practitioners to improve teaching for the benefit of students’ learning.


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 100.00% 5


0 0% 2 4.1% 47 95.9% 49


0 0% 8 6.4% 117

93.6% 125

Secondary Education

0 0% 13 10.8% 107

89.2% 120

Special Education

0 0% 5 10.0% 45 90.0% 50

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for 2015-2016 Academic Year on Collaborative Relations and Professional Conduct (Item 13–Table 32B). LIVETEXT version.

Table 32BItem 13: Collaborative Relations and Professional Conduct


Year


Emergent


2015- 2016

13

Collaborative Relations and Professional Conduct:Uses effective communication and consultation techniques with other professionals and families


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 25.00% 6 75.00% 8

for the benefit of student learning


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 13

38.24% 21 61.76% 34


0 0.00% 1 0.54% 66

35.68% 118 63.78% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 2 2.30% 56

64.37% 29 33.33% 87

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 1.16% 28

32.56% 57 66.28% 86

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation Relationships for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on Reflection and Professional Growth (Item 14—Table 33A).

Table 33AItem 14: Reflection and Professional Growth




2014- 2015

14

Reflection and Professional Growth. Demonstrates capacity to continually evaluate how choices and actions affect students and others in the learning community and actively seeks opportunities to grow professionall


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 100.00%

5

y.


0 0% 3 6.1% 46 93.9% 49


0 0% 9 7.2% 116

92.8% 125

Secondary Education

0 0% 9 7.5% 111

92.5% 120

Special Education

0 0% 5 10.0% 45 90.0% 50

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2015-2016 Academic Year—Reflective Practices and Professional Growth (Item 14—Table 33B)—LIVETEXT version.

Table 33BItem 14: Reflective Practices and Professional Growth


Yea # Item Endorsement Unaccepta Emergen Sufficient Advanced Gran

r ble t d Total

2015- 2016

14

Reflective Practices and Professional Growth:Continually evaluates how choices and actions affects students and others in the learning community, makes necessary adjustments and actively seeks opportunities to grow professionally


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 25.00% 6 75.00% 8


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 16

47.06% 18 52.94% 34


1 0.54% 1 0.54% 66

35.68% 117 63.24% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 5 6.25% 47

58.75% 28 35.00% 80

Special Education

1 1.16% 0 0.00% 31

36.05% 54 62.79% 86

Responses From First Year Administrator Survey: Items Related to Professional Learning and Ethical Practice (Standards 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, and 9.4) and Leadership and Collaboration (Standards 10.1 and 10.2)

Table 34Standards 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, and 9.4: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total9.1 The teacher engages in ongoing professional learning.


Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 3 42.86% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0.00% 9 14.52% 12 19.35% 41 66.13% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 0.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 2 3.33% 18 30.00% 40 66.67% 60Special Education 1 5.88% 2 11.76% 3 17.65% 11 64.71% 17 Total

1 0.67%14 9.33% 36 24.00% 99 66.00% 150


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1


0.00% 2 2.90% 25 36.23% 42 60.87% 69

Special Education 0.00% 4 20.00% 4 20.00% 12 60.00% 20 Total 1 0.68% 1

06.80% 44 29.93% 92 62.59% 147

9.2 The teacher models ethical professional practice.


Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 2 28.57% 5 71.43% 7Elementary 0.00% 4 6.45% 10 16.13% 48 77.42% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 2 3.33% 14 23.33% 44 73.33% 60Special Education 0.00% 1 5.88% 4 23.53% 12 70.59% 17 Total

0.00% 7 4.67% 31 20.67%112 74.67% 150


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.89% 0.00% 14 26.42% 38 71.70% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Special Education 0.00% 1 5.00% 5 25.00% 14 70.00% 20Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 1 1.45% 8 11.59% 60 86.96% 69

Total 1 0.68% 2 1.36% 28 19.05% 116

78.91% 147

9.3 The teacher uses evidence to continually evaluate his/her practice, particularly the effects of his/her choices and actions on others (students, families, other professionals,


Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 3 42.86% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 1 1.61% 0.00% 28 45.16% 33 53.23% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 1 25.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 1 1.67% 26 43.33% 33 55.00% 60Special Education 0.00% 3 17.65% 4 23.53% 10 58.82% 17 Total 1 0.67% 5 3.33% 62 41.33% 82 54.67% 150


and the community), and adapts practice to meet the needs of each student.


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 1 50.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.00% 3 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.89% 3 5.66% 19 35.85% 30 56.60% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 4 5.80% 27 39.13% 38 55.07% 69


9.4 The teacher models professional dispositions for teaching.


Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 2 28.57% 5 71.43% 7Elementary 1 1.61% 2 3.23% 15 24.19% 44 70.97% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 4 6.78% 15 25.42% 40 67.80% 59Special Education 0.00% 2 11.76% 4 23.53% 11 64.71% 17 Total 1 0.67% 8 5.37% 38 25.50% 10 68.46% 149

2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.89% 2 3.77% 18 33.96% 32 60.38% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 1 1.45% 14 20.29% 54 78.26% 69

Special Education 0.00% 1 5.00% 7 35.00% 12 60.00% 20 Total 1 0.68% 4 2.72% 40 27.21% 10

269.39% 147

Table 35Standards 10.1 and 10.2: Leadership and Collaboration

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand

Information Total

10.1 The Early Childhood 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1

teacher seeks opportunities to take responsibility for student learning

Education

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 3 42.86% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0.00% 5 8.06% 19 30.65% 38 61.29% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 33.33% 0.00% 2 66.67% 3Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 4 6.78% 17 28.81% 38 64.41% 59Special Education 0.00% 3 17.65% 5 29.41% 9 52.94% 17 Total 0.00% 13 8.78% 44 29.73% 91 61.49% 148


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 1 50.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1


0.00% 1 1.45% 25 36.23% 43 62.32% 69


10.2 The teacher seeks opportunities, including appropriate technology, to collaborate with students, families, colleagues, and other school professionals, and community members to ensure student growth


Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 4 57.14% 3 42.86% 7Elementary 0.00% 3 4.92% 25 40.98% 33 54.10% 61Middle Grades 0.00% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 3Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 1 1.72% 2 3.45% 23 39.66% 32 55.17% 58Special Education 0.00% 3 17.65% 5 29.41% 9 52.94% 17 Total 1 0.68% 9 6.16% 58 39.73% 78 53.42% 146


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 1 50.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1


0.00% 4 5.80% 22 31.88% 43 62.32% 69

Special Education 0.00% 4 20.00% 3 15.00% 13 65.00% 20

Total 1 0.68% 14 9.52% 46 31.29% 86 58.50% 147

Responses From First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Professional Responsibility: Works Effectively With Parents (Item 12) and Takes Advantage of Opportunities to Grow Professionally (Item 15).

Table 36Item 12: Works Effectively with Parents


Disagree



Grand Total

2014 - 2015

12

I work effectively with parents


0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 8 66.7% 3 25.0% 12


0 0% 0 0% 2 4.1% 24

49.0% 23

46.9% 49

Secondary Education

1 2.0% 3 6.1% 9 18.4% 15

30.6% 21

42.6% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 11

52.4% 10

47.6% 21

2015-2016

12

I work effectively with parents


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 50.00% 4 50.00% 8


0 0.00% 2 4.00% 6 12.00% 30 60.00% 12 24.00% 50

Secondary Education

1 1.64% 2 3.28% 15 24.59% 33 54.10% 10 16.39% 61

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 9.09% 15 68.18% 5 22.73% 22

Table 37Item 15: Takes Advantage of Opportunities to Grow Professionally


Strongly Disagree

Disagree



Grand

Total2014 - 2015

15

I take advantage of opportunities to grow professionally.


0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 5 41.7% 6 50.0% 12


0 0% 0 0% 2 4.1% 21

42.9% 26

53.1% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 0 0% 2 4.1% 21

42.9% 26

53.1% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 2 9.5% 8 38.1% 11

52.4% 21

2015-2016

15

I take advantage of opportunities to grow professionally


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 3 37.50% 4 50.00% 8


0 0.00% 1 2.00% 1 2.00% 30 60.00% 18 36.00% 50

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 7 11.29% 32 51.61% 23 37.10% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 4.55% 14 63.64% 7 31.82% 22

Narrative:Data from all Student Teaching instruments and the First-Year Administrator Survey indicated that all teacher candidates and first-year teachers have shown proficient levels of professional conduct and collaborative relationships with colleagues in both years. According to the summative evaluation of teacher candidates, program completers have demonstrated the capacity to continually evaluate how choices and actions affected students and others in the learning community and actively sought opportunities to grow professionally.

7. Overall Proficiency

Response to Administrative Survey: Items on Impact of Student Learning and Development (Standard 11.1)

Table 38 Standard 11.1: Impact of Student Learning and Development

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total11.1 The teacher positively impacts the learning and development for all students




0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.00% 3 0.00% 4

Elementary 1 1.89% 4 7.55% 18 33.96% 30 56.60% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 2 2.90% 19 27.54% 48 69.57% 69


Responses From First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Overall Proficiency: I Am an Excellent Teacher (Item 23).

Table 39Item 23: I Am an Excellent Teacher


Disagree



Grand Total

2014 - 2015

23

I am an excellent teacher.


0 0% 0 0% 2 16.7% 8 66.7% 2 16.7% 12


1 2.0% 2 4.1% 11 22.4% 27

55.1% 8 16.3% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 3 6.1% 9 18.4% 28

57.1% 9 18.4% 49

Special Education

0 0% 2 9.5% 5 23.8% 11

52.4% 3 14.3% 21

2015-2016

23

I am an excellent teacher


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 2 25.00% 5 62.50% 8


0 0.00% 3 6.00% 7 14.00% 29

58.00% 11 22.00% 50

Secondary Education

1 1.61% 4 6.45% 19 30.65% 35

56.45% 3 4.84% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 2 9.09% 4 18.18% 9 40.91% 7 31.82% 22

Narrative:Administrators indicated that first-year teachers positively impact students’ development and learning across the 2-year testing period. Responses from first-year candidates in any area of early childhood indicate that, as a group, they believe that they are effective teachers.

SECTION 3: USE OF RELATED DATA AND INFORMATION FOR CONTINUOUS PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT OF ENDORSEMENT PROGRAM — Artifact 3

Artifact 3: Provide a narrative:Early Childhood

Summary about the program and the quality of program completers:

Overall the quality of program completers was very high in all aspects of teacher competencies including their understanding of content knowledge, learners and learning environment, instructional strategies and practices, and professional responsibility. Information from the summative student teaching evaluation of teacher candidates and the Administrator First-year Follow-Up Evaluation of first-year teachers were the primary sources of data. To a lesser degree, the Self-Evaluation of First-Year Teachers provides some supporting information, but this is only from information provided from all early Childhood program completers (i.e,. any endorsement tied to the Early Childhood area).

In general, the majority of the teacher candidates were found to have proficient levels of content knowledge in 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. The administrator evaluation also presents data consistent with summative evaluation. The majority of the first-year teachers have frequently or consistently shown their understanding of subject matter in both data collection years.

The administrator survey indicated that most first-year teachers have frequently or consistently shown their ability to connect concepts, and all but one engaged students in higher-level thinking related to authentic local and global issues in 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 years.

According to the summative evaluation of teacher candidates, an increased percent of teacher candidates showed a proficient level of ability to create and implement lesson and unit plans. All teacher candidates have frequently or consistently showed their understanding of child development in both years and showed an increased understanding of developmentally appropriate learning experience that is still challenging. All teacher candidates frequently or consistently showed their understanding of individual differences in students in both years; and there was an increase in the percent of teacher candidates who frequently or consistently implemented effective inclusive practices. The same level of increase was observed in teacher candidates’ ability to support students’ individual and collaborative learning, engage students in learning in a meaningful way, and effectively manage student behavior in the classroom. First-year teachers expressed confidence in positively impacting the learning and development of all students and adapting to developmental differences of learners.

Teacher education candidates have frequently and consistently shown their ability to effectively plan, implement, and adapt their lesson and unit plans, and there was an increase in the percent of teacher candidates across the 2 years. The administrator survey also indicated the increase in first-year teachers’ ability to plan and individualize their lessons in the classroom and their knowledge of content, curriculum, cross-disciplinary skills, technology, and pedagogy.

According to the administrator evaluation, first-year teachers have frequently or consistently shown their understanding of multiple methods of assessment and their ability to use assessment data to inform practice in both years. The summative evaluation of teacher candidates showed an increased percent of teacher candidates exhibiting their ability to effectively plan, implement, and adapt lessons and use multiple methods to engage students.

Data from all sources indicated that all teacher candidates and first-year teachers have shown a proficient level of professional conduct and collaborative relationships with colleagues in both years. According to the summative evaluation of teacher candidates, an increased percent of teacher candidates demonstrated capacity to continually evaluate how choices and actions affected students and others in the learning community and actively sought opportunities to grow professionally. In addition, an increased percent of first-year teachers expressed their confidence in working with parents.

Administrators indicated an increased percent of first-year teachers positively impacting students’ development and learning across the 2 years.

Strengths:Early Childhood program completers seem to have a sufficient level of content knowledge, and it has increased over the 2 years for which data were included in this folio. Program completers have created and provided a meaningful learning environment to all students and exhibited a better understanding of professional standards. One of the strongest competencies our program completers possess seems to be effective lesson planning. Most completers were rated to have an advanced level of understanding and skills of lesson planning, implementation, and adaptation that required a significant amount of knowledge on child development, effective teaching strategies, adaptation of lessons and strategies for

individualization, and planning of effective assessment to inform practice. The program completers have also exhibited their understanding of child development (how learners learn and develop), which must have impacted how they provided developmentally appropriate learning experience that is still somewhat challenging to individual students. Data showed that they were impacting students in a positive way and using instructional strategies to encourage higher level thinking skills and deep understanding of content, skills, and process of learning. Early Childhood program completers exhibited strength in understanding and using multiple methods of assessment and using assessment data to inform practice. They showed competence in building and maintaining collaborative relationships with colleagues and parents and also in reflecting on their own teaching and learning for further growth as a professional. All administrators expressed that our program completers have shown an excellent level of understanding of professional responsibility and ethical practice.

Weaknesses:Early Childhood program completers have shown a number of high quality teacher characteristics and practices in all aspects of early childhood teaching and learning. Although the ranges of ratings were consistently high in all three sets of data, our Early Childhood teacher education program could make improvements in two areas: (a) training our teacher candidates to use technology in instruction more effectively and (b) training our teacher candidates to work effectively with children and families from diverse backgrounds.

1. Steps to be taken to address weaknesses.

Training our teacher candidates to use technology in instruction more effectively:

Technology plays a large part of everyday lives of teachers as well as students, and an increasing number of schools and educational settings includes technology as an important tool for instruction and assessment. Our program completers have expressed confidence in using technology in instruction and assessment. Our Early Childhood program does not have a course or a set of specific and planned content related to technology use in the classroom setting. However, because many of our teacher candidates are in both Elementary Education and Early Childhood programs

(dual majors), they take a technology course in the Elementary Education program. To ensure that our teacher candidates are trained to effectively select and use technology in early childhood instruction, the initial step Early Childhood faculty would take is to gather the information regarding if and/or how faculty teaching Early Childhood courses are incorporating technology into their course content. Then we will develop a systemic way to incorporate this content into multiple courses.

Training our teacher candidates to work effectively with children and families from diverse backgrounds:This has not come up in the data as a weakness of our program completers partly because the question was not asked specifically about working with families from various racial, ethnic, or cultural backgrounds. Our Early Childhood faculty have begun conversations regarding how to train teacher candidates to recognize, respect, and embrace unique characteristics and differences across racial, ethnic, and cultural groups and to implement culturally responsive strategies in interacting with students and their families. The same steps we will take with technology content would be followed for this diversity content. We are currently gathering the information regarding if and/or how faculty teaching early childhood courses are incorporating the diversity content into their courses. We are planning to have continuous conversations about developing a systemic way to incorporate this content into multiple courses and require candidates to attain and reflect on a set of cultural experiences.

college of education and human sciences - at the end of the ... folio... · web view3.78 1 physics...

Documents