columbia college program academic assessment annual report/media/files/academic... · columbia...
TRANSCRIPT
Columbia College Program Academic Assessment Annual
Report Program: Education Academic Year: 2015-2016
Submitted By: Kristi Clevenger
Outcome Statements and Assessment Tools: 1. Which program outcomes did you assess this year? (Please include the full text of the outcome along with
any numbering system you will use later in this report).
Program outcomes for the Teacher Certification Program are mandated by the Missouri Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). Our Course Learning Outcomes come from the indicators
associate with each of these standards and are listed here as well.
Standard 1: The emerging teacher understands the central concepts, structures, and tools of inquiry of the
discipline(s) and creates learning experiences that makes these aspects of subject matter meaningful and
engaging for students.
Demonstrates knowledge of the academic language of the appropriate discipline applicable to the
certification area(s) sought as defined by the Subject Competencies for Beginning Teachers in Missouri.
(1.1)
Demonstrates content knowledge and ability to use multiple subject specific methodologies for specific
instructional purposes to engage students. (1.2)
Demonstrates understanding of how to engage students in the methods of inquiry and research in his
or her respective discipline. (1.3)
Can create interdisciplinary lessons that are aligned with content standards. (1.4)
Demonstrates understanding of diverse cultural perspectives by creating and implementing lessons to
introduce those perspectives, recognizing the potential for bias. (1.5)
Standard 2: The emerging teacher understands how students learn, develop, and differ in their approaches
to learning. S/he provides learning opportunities that are adapted to diverse learners and support the
intellectual, social, and personal development of all students.
Knows and identifies child/adolescent developmental stages and uses this knowledge to adapt
instruction. (2.1)
Demonstrates knowledge on how to assist students in setting short- and long-term learning goals and
self-reflect on their overall growth. (2.2)
Applies knowledge of the theory of learning in all aspects instructional design. (2.3)
Recognizes diversity and the impact it has on education. (2.4)
Can plan learning activities to address students’ prior experiences, learning styles, multiple
intelligences, strengths, and needs in order to positively impact learning. (2.5)
Demonstrates an understanding that instruction should be connected to students’ prior experiences
and family, culture, and community. (2.6)
Standard 3: The emerging teacher recognizes the importance of long-range planning and curriculum
development. S/he develops, implements, and evaluates curriculum based upon student, district, and state
standards data.
Page 2 of 34
Understands the components and organization of an effective curriculum, is able to create aligned
learning experiences, can locate national and state standards, and is able to align them to learning
outcomes. (3.1)
Understands how to select appropriate strategies for addressing individual student needs in meeting
curriculum objectives. (3.2)
Understands the concept of differentiated instruction and short- and long-term instructional goal
planning to address student needs in meeting curriculum objectives. (3.3)
Standard 4: The emerging teacher uses a variety of instructional strategies and resources to encourage
students’ critical thinking, problem-solving, and performance skills.
Demonstrates knowledge of researched-based models of critical thinking and problem- solving,
including various types of instructional strategies, to support student engagement in higher level
thinking skills. (4.1)
Demonstrates knowledge of current instructional resources to support complex thinking and
technological skills. (4.2)
Can demonstrate knowledge of strategies for facilitating multiple configurations for student learning
including cooperative, small group and independent learning. (4.3)
Standard 5: The emerging teacher uses and understanding of individual/group motivation and behavior to
create a learning environment that encourages active engagement in learning, positive social interaction,
and self-motivation.
Knows how classroom management, motivation, and engagement relate to one another and has
knowledge of strategies and techniques for using this to promote student interest and learning. (5.1)
Demonstrates competence in managing time, space, transitions, and activities to create an effective
learning environment. (5.2)
Recognizes and identifies the influence of classroom, school and community culture on student
relationships and the impact on the classroom environment and learning. (5.3)
Demonstrates competence in the use of basic classroom management techniques that reduce the
likelihood of student misbehavior and address any misbehavior that does occur with the least
disruption of instruction. (5.4)
Standard 6: The emerging teacher models effective verbal, nonverbal, and media communication
techniques with students, colleagues and families to foster active inquiry, collaboration, and supportive
interaction in the classroom.
Understands the importance of and develops the ability to use effective verbal and nonverbal
communication techniques. (6.1)
Develops sensitivity to differences in culture, gender, intellectual, and physical ability in classroom
communication and in communication with families. (6.2)
Develops the ability to facilitate learner expression in speaking, writing, listening, and other media
ensuring it adheres to district policy. (6.3)
Develops skills in using a variety of technology media communication tools. (6.4)
Standard 7: The emerging teacher understands and uses formative and summative assessment strategies to
assess the learner's progress and uses both classroom and standardized assessment data to plan ongoing
Page 3 of 34
instruction. S/he monitors the performance of each student and devises instruction to enable students to
grow and develop, making adequate academic progress.
Has knowledge of the development, use, and analysis of formal and informal assessments. (7.1)
Has knowledge of how data can be accessed, analyzed, and appropriately used to design instruction
and improve learning activities.(7.2)
Describes, explains, and analyzes a variety of self and peer assessment strategies, understands the need
to prepare students for the demands of particular assessment formats, can set their own learning goals,
and is able to teach students to set learning goals. (7.3)
Develops a knowledge base of assessment strategies and tools, including how to collect information by
observing classroom interactions and using higher order questioning, and uses analysis of the data to
determine the effect of class instruction on individual and whole class learning. (7.4)
Can explain ethical and legal implications of confidentiality of student records and can describe and
analyze strategies to communicate student progress to students, families, colleagues, and
administrators. (7.5)
Demonstrates a capacity to engage in a collaborative classroom/department/school data analysis
process. (7.6)
Standard 8: The emerging teacher is a reflective practitioner who continually assesses the effects of choices
and actions on others. S/he actively seeks out opportunities to grow professionally in order to improve
learning for all students.
Understands strategies for reflecting on teaching practices to refine their own instructional process in
order to promote the growth and learning of students. (8.1)
Identifies and understands the use of an array of professional learning opportunities including those
offered by educator preparation programs, school districts, professional associations, and/or other
opportunities for improving student learning. (8.2)
Is knowledgeable of and demonstrates professional, ethical behavior and is aware of the influence of
district policies and school procedures on classroom structure. (8.3)
Standard 9: The emerging teacher has effective working relationships with students, families, school
colleagues, and community members.
Understands the importance of collegial activities designed to build a shared mission, vision, values,
and goals; participates in collaborative curriculum and staff development meetings and demonstrates
the ability to collaborate with his/her cooperating teacher and supervisor to establish relationships in
the school, district, and community. (9.1)
Understands school-based systems designed to address the individual needs of students by working
with the cooperating teacher/supervisor to engage with the larger professional community across the
system to identify and provide needed services to support individual learners. (9.2)
Recognizes the importance of developing relationships and cooperative partnerships with students,
families and community members to support students’ learning and well-being. (9.3)
Page 4 of 34
2. What assessment instruments/prompts and rubrics or answer documents did you use to assess
program outcomes this year? (Include copies of these documents where possible.)
In introductory courses (EDUC 100, 200/542, 230/560, 390), reflective papers were used to assess students’
knowledge of the teaching profession and the field of education. These papers also address students’
commitment to the profession and their beliefs and values as they relate to education.
In mid-level courses (EDUC 270, 311), projects were used to assess students’ ability to apply specific skills
taught during these courses, including analysis and evaluation of literature, and development of a plan for
classroom management.
In the benchmark course for TCP admission (EDUC 300), a project was used to assess students’ ability to
reflect upon and analyze their current progress toward becoming a teacher.
In teaching methods courses (EDUC 345, 346, 360, 362, 365, 367, 368, 369, as well as EDUC 338), students are
assessed on their ability create effective lesson plans.
In the capstone course (EDUC 400), a project was used to assess students’ ability to reflect upon and analyze
their journey toward becoming a teacher.
Course Standard(s)
Assessed
Assessment Instrument
100 1, 3, 5, 6, 8 Teaching Commitment Paper
200 1-3, 5, 7-9 Ethics Case Study, Philosophy of Education Paper
230 2-9 Personal Learning Theory Paper
270 1, 5-6 Book Reviews
300 1-6, 8-9 Synthesis Project
311 1-2, 5-6, 8-9 Classroom Management Plan
338 1-9 Content Reading Lesson Plans, TCP Lesson Plan Evaluation
345 1-9 TCP Lesson Plan Evaluation
346 1-9 TCP Lesson Plan Evaluation
360 1-9 TCP Lesson Plan Evaluation
362 1-9 TCP Lesson Plan Evaluation
365 1-9 TCP Lesson Plan Evaluation
367 1-9 TCP Lesson Plan Evaluation
368 1-9 TCP Lesson Plan Evaluation
369 1-9 TCP Lesson Plan Evaluation
390 1-9 Philosophy of Special Education Paper
400 1-9 Synthesis Paper
542 1-3, 5, 7-9 Ethics Case Study, Philosophy of Education Paper
560 2-9 Personal Learning Theory Paper
Page 5 of 34
3. Were your assessments an effective measure of each outcome? Provide specific answers for
individual assessments.
- If yes, explain how the assessments were effective
- If no, explain why the assessments were not effective and provide plans for how to improve the efficacy of the
assessments in the future
EDUC 100: Teaching Commitment Paper
The Teaching Commitment Paper establishes the student’s knowledge of the teaching profession and what it
means to be a teacher, and requires that the student evaluate his or her decision to teach or not to teach.
Student performance according to the guidelines of the assignment was strong. Given that EDUC 100 is the
first course students take on their journey to teacher certification, however, performance on the standards was
higher than expected, but only in the Day program. This begs the question of whether the rubric was used
properly. Overall, it appears this assessment is effective, but further education on how to use the rubric may
be in order.
EDUC 200/542: Ethics Case Study
The Ethics Case Study is designed to establish the student’s understanding of ethics in teaching, and the
complex situations that can arise. For undergraduate students, this case study is reflected upon later in EDUC
300. For graduate students, that same reflection occurs at the time they apply for the Teacher Certification
Program. Student performance according to the guidelines of the assignment was strong, and performance
according to the standards was as expected. It appears this assessment is effective.
EDUC 200/542: Philosophy of Education Paper
The Philosophy of Education Paper establishes a baseline for students, asking them to consider what they
believe with regard to the field of education at this point in their journey toward certification. For
undergraduate students, this paper is reflected upon later in EDUC 300. For graduate students, that same
reflection occurs at the time they apply for the Teacher Certification Program. Student performance according
to the guidelines of the assignment was strong, and performance according to the standards was as expected
in the Graduate, Day, and Evening venues. Results from the Online course were less consistent with the other
venues, which begs the question of whether the rubric was used properly. Overall, though, it appears this
assessment is effective.
EDUC 230/560: Personal Learning Theory Paper
The Personal Learning Theory Paper establishes a baseline for students, asking them to consider their beliefs
about learning and their understanding of learning theory at this point in their journey toward certification.
For undergraduate students, this paper is reflected upon later in EDUC 300. For graduate students, that same
reflection occurs at the time they apply for the Teacher Certification Program. Student performance according
to the guidelines of the assignment was strong in both the Graduate and Day venues, although data from
EDUC 560 was limited only to the Online course. Results from the Online EDUC 230 showed much greater
disparity in performance, although this may be due in part to the significantly larger numbers (135 as
compared to 40 in the Graduate and Day). Performance according to the standards was as expected in the
Graduate and Day venues, but again there was much greater disparity in the Online venue. This begs the
question of whether the rubric was used properly in the online course. Overall, it appears this assessment is
effective, but further education about how to use the rubric may be in order.
EDUC 270: Book Reviews
Page 6 of 34
The Book Reviews assess students’ ability to evaluate child and adolescent literature. Student performance
according to the guidelines of the assignment was strong. Performance according to the standards was as
expected in the Day program, but higher in the Online venue. This begs the question of whether the rubric
was used properly in the online course. Overall, it appears this assessment is effective, but further education
on how to use the rubric may be in order.
EDUC 300: Synthesis Project
The Synthesis Project requires students to reflect on their education coursework to date and look for the
connections among the courses and the assignments. Student performance according to the guidelines of the
assignment was generally strong, and performance according to the standards was as expected. The Day
program, however, measured performance on the standards using different language than all other assessed
courses. This needs to be corrected in the future. Otherwise, it appears this assessment is effective.
EDUC 311: Classroom Management Plan
The Classroom Management Plan gives students the opportunity to apply their knowledge of classroom and
behavior management. Student performance according to the guidelines of the assignment was strong, and
performance according to the standards was as expected. It appears this assessment is effective.
EDUC 338: TCP Lesson Plan Evaluation and Content Reading Lesson Plans
The TCP Lesson Plan Evaluation assesses students’ ability to create and evaluate a comprehensive and
relevant lesson plan. This assessment was used to measure student performance according to assignment
guidelines. Scores in this area were strong.
Performance according to the standards was assessed in the Content Reading Lesson Plans. Data from the
Day program showed performance as expected, however results were based on only 9 students. Nationwide
data was incomplete and unclear, and therefore not usable. It is hard to determine the effectiveness of this
assessment given the lack of data.
EDUC 345, 346, 360, 362, 365, 367, 368, 369: TCP Lesson Plan Evaluation
In these teaching methods courses, TCP Lesson Plan Evaluation assesses students’ ability to create and
evaluate a comprehensive and relevant lesson plan in their content area. Student performance according to
the guidelines of the assignment was generally strong. Data was not collected with regard to the standards
and indicators, and should be in the future. It appears this assessment is effective, but further data is needed
in order to be conclusive.
EDUC 390: Philosophy of Special Education Paper
The Philosophy of Special Education Paper establishes students’ knowledge of law related to special
education and calls upon them to consider how they want their future classrooms to accommodate students
with special needs. Student performance according to the guidelines of the assignment was relatively strong.
Performance according to the standards was as expected, although data was only collected in the Day
program. It appears this assessment is effective.
EDUC 400: Synthesis Paper
The Synthesis Paper requires students to reflect on the entirety of their education coursework as well as their
performance on the state-required Missouri Educator Profile (MEP). Student performance according to the
guidelines of the assignment was generally strong, but performance according to the standards was not quite
as expected. Of the assessed courses whose target performance is Teacher Candidate, students in the more
Page 7 of 34
advanced EDUC 400 course scored lower overall than students in the less-advanced EDUC 338 and EDUC
390. This calls into question the rubrics used in these four courses, and requires further investigation.
Otherwise, it appears this assessment is effective.
Data, Evidence and Analysis: 4. What were the results of these assessments? Use tables or graphs as appropriate. (You can report
raw data, and/or summary statistics along with other statistics to support your analysis.)
EDUC 100: Teaching Commitment Paper
EDUC 100 was assessed in 2015-2016 for performance on the Decision to Teach Paper (n=67). Results were
consistent across all venues. In all 16 assessed areas of the assignment, 61.5 % of students scored
Outstanding and another 23.9% scored Satisfactory. This means only 14.6% of students scored at either
Needs Work or Unsatisfactory. These results are consistent with average results from 2014-2015.
Students were also assessed according to 5 standards and indicators (n=67). The appropriate target for
undergraduates at this level is Beginning Candidate.
Results from the Day program indicate that 85.6% of students scored at the Approaching Mid-Prep
Candidate and Mid-Prep Candidate level, with the greatest numbers scoring at Approaching Mid-
Prep. This is higher than expected and begs the question of whether the rubric was used properly.
Similarly, results from the Evening campus show a distribution of students across all levels, although
the highest numbers were at the Beginning Candidate level on all standards except 2C6.
In contrast, 71% of students in the Nationwide venue scored at the Beginning Candidate level, as
would be expected.
Assessment: Teaching Commitment and Reflection Paper Standards/Indicators
Day Total Evening
Total Nationwide
Total
2.6 28 8 25
Approaching Beginning Candidate 1 2 6
Beginning Candidate 1 2 13
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 15 3 6
Mid-Prep Candidate 11 1
5.3 28 8 25
Approaching Beginning Candidate 1 2 3
Beginning Candidate 3 4 19
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 18 1 3
Mid-Prep Candidate 6 1
6.1 28 8 25
Approaching Beginning Candidate 1 1 4
Beginning Candidate 2 3 17
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 14 2 4
Mid-Prep Candidate 11 2
6.2 27 8 25
Approaching Beginning Candidate 1 1 4
Page 8 of 34
Beginning Candidate 3 3 17
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 13 2 4
Mid-Prep Candidate 10 2
8.1 28 8 25
Approaching Beginning Candidate 1 2 5
Beginning Candidate 5 4 20
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 14 1
Mid-Prep Candidate 8 1
EDUC 200/542: Ethics Case Study
EDUC 200/542 was assessed in 2015-2016 for performance on the Ethics Case Study. Results across all venues
indicate that all but 2 students performed either “Excellent” or “Average” on the two assessed areas of the
assignment (n=70).
Students were also assessed according to 5 standards and indicators (n=49). The appropriate target for
undergraduates at this level is Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate.
EDUC 542:
Only 1 student on Standards 8.3, 9.1, and 9.2 and 3 students on Standard 5.3 scored at the Beginning
Candidate level. Otherwise, across all standards, an average of 15 of 22 students scored at the
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate level, and 5 scored at the Mid-Prep Candidate level. One student
scored at the Approaching Teacher Candidate level on Standard 8.3. The numbers are not surprising,
given that these are graduate students.
EDUC 200:
In the Day program, 1 student of the 11 scored at the Mid-Prep Candidate level on Standards 8.1 and
9.1. All other students scored at the Beginning Candidate and Approaching Beginning Candidate
level on the five standards and indicators measured, with the majority scoring at the Approaching
Beginning Candidate level, as would be expected.
Assessment: Ethics Case Study Standards/Indicators
5.3 11
Beginning Candidate 3
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate
8.1 11
Beginning Candidate 4
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 6
Mid-Prep Candidate 1
Approaching Teacher Candidate
8.3 11
Beginning Candidate 2
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 9
Page 9 of 34
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate
9.1 11
Beginning Candidate 4
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 6
Mid-Prep Candidate 1
Approaching Teacher Candidate
9.2 11
Beginning Candidate 4
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 7
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate
In the Nationwide campuses, across all five standards and indicators 2 of the 16 students scored at the
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate level, 11 scored at the Mid-Prep Candidate level, and 3 scored at
the Approaching Teacher Candidate level. These scores are higher than expected and beg the
question of whether the rubric was used properly.
Results from the Evening and Online campuses are below. Results from the Evening campus are
more closely in line with expected levels than from the Online campus.
Assessment: Ethics Case Study Standards/Indicators Evening Online
5.3 9 13
Beginning Candidate 3 4
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 5 2
Mid-Prep Candidate 1 7
Approaching Teacher Candidate
8.1 9 13
Beginning Candidate 2
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 6 4
Mid-Prep Candidate 3 7
Approaching Teacher Candidate
8.3 9 13
Beginning Candidate 2 1
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 5 5
Mid-Prep Candidate 2 7
Approaching Teacher Candidate
9.1 9 13
Beginning Candidate 4 3
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 4 4
Mid-Prep Candidate 1 6
Approaching Teacher Candidate
9.2 9 12
Beginning Candidate 1 2
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 6 3
Page 10 of 34
Mid-Prep Candidate 2 7
Approaching Teacher Candidate
EDUC 200/542: Philosophy of Education Paper
EDUC 200/542 was also assessed in 2015-2016 for performance on the Philosophy of Education Paper.
Students were assessed on 9 areas of the assignment (n=60).
In the Day program, across all 9 areas on average only 1 student performed at the lowest level. 81%
of students performed at the highest level.
In the Nationwide campuses, 12 students (58%) performed at the lowest level on Education Reform.
Otherwise, on average 76% of students performed at the highest level on the remaining 8 areas.
In the Evening campus, across all 9 areas an average of only 2 students performed at the lowest level.
81% of students performed at the highest level.
In the Online campus, 3 students performed at the lowest level on Grammar and Spelling. Otherwise
on average 80% of students performed at the highest level on the remaining 8 areas.
Students were also assessed according to 1 standard and indicator (n=50). The appropriate target for
undergraduates at this level is Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate.
EDUC 542:
Results show a range of scores, with the majority of students scoring at either Approaching Mid-Prep
Candidate or Mid-Prep Candidate. The numbers are not surprising, given that these are graduate
students.
Assessment: Philosophy of Education Standards/Indicators
8.1 24
Beginning Candidate 4
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 8
Mid-Prep Candidate 11
Approaching Teacher Candidate 1
EDUC 200:
Results show some discrepancy among venues, with a disparate number of students scoring at the
Mid-Prep Candidate level in the Nationwide, Evening, and Online venues. This begs the question of
whether the rubric was used properly.
Assessment: Philosophy of Education Standards/Indicators
Day Total Nationwide
Total Evening
Total Online Total
8.1 11 17 9 13
Beginning Candidate 3
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 4 3 3 4
Mid-Prep Candidate 4 12 6 9
Approaching Teacher Candidate 2
EDUC 230/560: Personal Learning Theory Paper
Page 11 of 34
EDUC 230/560 was assessed in 2015-2016 for performance on the Personal Learning Theory Paper. Students
were assessed on 7 areas of the assignment (n=175).
EDUC 560:
Data was not submitted for the in-seat course and is therefore only available from the Online course. Few
students performed at the Needs Work level in any area, and the majority of students performed at the
Excellent level.
Assessment: Personal Learning Theory Introduction 30
Excellent 24
Average 5
Needs Work 1
Definition of Learning 26
Excellent 16
Average 10
Approaching Teacher Candidate
Prominent Theorists 30
Excellent 24
Average 6
Needs Work
Personal Learning Theory 30
Excellent 14
Average 13
Needs Work 3
Personal Experiences 30
Excellent 24
Average 1
Needs Work 5
Use of Paper Template & Adherence to APA 30
Excellent 26
Average 1
Needs Work 3
Grammar, Spelling, and Length 30
Excellent 24
Average 1
Needs Work 5
EDUC 230:
In the Day program, 7 of 10 students performed at the Average level on Prominent Theorists.
Otherwise, 87% of students performed at the Excellent level on the remaining 6 areas, with an average
of only 2 students performing at the Needs Work level. This is an improvement from 2014-2015; only
41% of students performed at the Excellent level then.
Page 12 of 34
Results from the Online campus are below. Clearly there was much greater disparity in performance
in the Online venue, although this may be due in part to the significantly larger numbers. Of note is
the general improvement in results when compared to reported data from 2014-2015.
Assessment: Personal Learning Theory
2015-2016 2014-2015
Introduction 135
Excellent 59
Average 46
Needs Work 30
Definition of Learning 113
Excellent 79 70% 42%
Average 34 30% 47%
Needs Work 11%
Prominent Theorists 135
Excellent 54 40% 24%
Average 41 30% 32%
Needs Work 40 30% 44%
Personal Learning Theory 135
Excellent 59 44% 43%
Average 52 38% 35%
Needs Work 24 18% 22%
Personal Experiences 135
Excellent 69
Average 41
Needs Work 25
Use of Paper Template & Adherence to APA 135
Excellent 98
Average 25
Needs Work 12
Grammar, Spelling, and Length 135
Excellent 98
Average 29
Needs Work 8
Students were also assessed according to 2 standards and indicators (n=138). The appropriate target for
undergraduates at this level is Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate.
EDUC 560:
No data was collected in the in-seat course. In the Online course, all students performed at the
Approaching Teacher Candidate level. Given that this is a master’s level course, this result is not
surprising.
Page 13 of 34
EDUC 230:
In the Day program, all 8 students scored at the Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate level.
Results from the Online campus are below. Again, clearly there was much greater disparity in
performance in the Online venue, although this may be due in part to the significantly larger numbers.
Still, the greatest numbers were at the Mid-Prep Candidate level and the Approaching Teacher
Candidate level, which begs the question of whether the rubric was used properly.
Assessment: Personal Learning Theory Standards/Indicators
2.3 130
Beginning Candidate 6
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 29
Mid-Prep Candidate 50
Approaching Teacher Candidate 45
2.5 130
Beginning Candidate 6
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 29
Mid-Prep Candidate 50
Approaching Teacher Candidate 45
EDUC 270: Book Reviews
EDUC 270 was assessed in 2015-2016 for performance on the Book Reviews. Students were assessed on 4
areas of the assignment (n=51). Across the Day and Online venues, 87% of students scored at Level 3 on all
areas, with just 1 or 2 in the Online venue scoring at Level 1.
Students were also assessed according to 8 standards and indicators (n=51). The appropriate target for
undergraduates at this level is Beginning Candidate or Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate.
Across all 8 standards, students in the Day program scored at either the Beginning Candidate level or
the Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate level, as expected. Of note, however, is that all 6 students
scored at the Approaching Beginning Candidate level on standard 6.4. In 2014-2015, however, few
Day students scored at the Beginning Candidate level on any of the standards except 4.2 and 6.3.
Instead, students primarily scored at the Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate level across all standards
except 4.2, where 54% of students scored at the Approaching Beginning Candidate level. It should be
noted that standard 6.4 was not evaluated in 2014-2015.
Results from the Online campus indicate the greatest numbers were at the Approaching Mid-Prep
Candidate level (n=26), although there were also larger numbers at the Mid-Prep Candidate level
(n=16). This begs the question of whether the rubric was used properly. Of note is that data was
collected on just 19 Online students in 2014-2015, all of whom scored at the Mid-Prep Candidate level.
This data was deemed untrustworthy due to its lack of discrimination among students and therefore
cannot be used as a point of comparison.
Assessment: Book Review Standards/Indicators Day Total Online Total
1.1 6 48
Approaching Beginning Candidate 4
Page 14 of 34
Beginning Candidate 5 2
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 1 26
Mid-Prep Candidate 16
1.5 5 48
Approaching Beginning Candidate 4
Beginning Candidate 4 2
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 1 26
Mid-Prep Candidate 16
4.2 6 48
Approaching Beginning Candidate 4
Beginning Candidate 1 2
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 5 26
Mid-Prep Candidate 16
5.3 6 48
Approaching Beginning Candidate 4
Beginning Candidate 5 2
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 1 26
Mid-Prep Candidate 16
6.1 6 48
Approaching Beginning Candidate 4
Beginning Candidate 4 2
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 2 26
Mid-Prep Candidate 16
6.2 6 48
Approaching Beginning Candidate 4
Beginning Candidate 2 2
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 4 26
Mid-Prep Candidate 16
6.3 6 48
Approaching Beginning Candidate 4
Beginning Candidate 3 2
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 3 26
Mid-Prep Candidate 16
6.4 6 48
Approaching Beginning Candidate 6 4
Beginning Candidate 2
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 26
Mid-Prep Candidate 16
EDUC 300: Synthesis Project
EDUC 300 was assessed in 2015-2016 for performance on the Synthesis Project. Students were assessed on 12
areas of the assignment (n=48).
In the Day program (n=9), the majority of students scored at the Advanced or Acceptable level on most
of the 12 areas. Only 1 student consistently scored at the Making Progress level. Additionally, only 1
Page 15 of 34
student scored at the Improvement Needed level on the Synthesis/MoSPE Standards area. These
results show a greater range than in 2014-2015, when 60-90% of students scored at the Advanced level
and none scored at Making Progress or Improvement Needed on any of the 12 areas. Note that
although the course was offered in both fall and spring, no data was collected in the spring.
Assessment: Synthesis Project Introduction 9
Advanced 3
Acceptable 6
Making Progress
Improvement Needed
Component 1: EDUC 100 "Why I Want to Be a Teacher" Paper
9
Advanced 4
Acceptable 4
Making Progress 1
Improvement Needed
Component 2: EDUC 200 Case Study 9
Advanced 4
Acceptable 4
Making Progress 1
Improvement Needed
Component 3: EDUC 200 Philosophy of Education Paper 9
Advanced 4
Acceptable 4
Making Progress 1
Improvement Needed
Component 4: EDUC 230 Educational Philosophy paper 9
Advanced 4
Acceptable 4
Making Progress 1
Improvement Needed
Component 5: EDUC 300 Lesson Plans 9
Advanced 5
Acceptable 4
Making Progress
Improvement Needed
Component 6: MEP 9
Advanced 5
Acceptable 3
Making Progress 1
Improvement Needed
Component 7: MoGEA 9
Page 16 of 34
Advanced 4
Acceptable 3
Making Progress 2
Improvement Needed
Clarity of Explanations 9
Advanced 3
Acceptable 5
Making Progress 1
Improvement Needed
Writing Style 9
Advanced 4
Acceptable 4
Making Progress 1
Improvement Needed
Synthesis/MoSPE Standards 9
Advanced 3
Acceptable 2
Making Progress 3
Improvement Needed 1
Holistic Purpose 9
Advanced 3
Acceptable 5
Making Progress 1
Improvement Needed
No data was collected from the Evening campus.
Results from the Nationwide campuses are below. An average of 4 students consistently scored at the
Improvement Needed level, with as many as 6 students needing improvement on the MoGEA and the
Philosophy of Education Paper. The majority of students (an average of 62%), however, scored at the
Advanced level. Data was not collected from the Nationwide campuses in 2014-2105.
Assessment: Synthesis Project Introduction 39
Advanced 27
Acceptable 12
Making Progress
Improvement Needed
Component 1: EDUC 100 "Why I Want to Be a Teacher" Paper
39
Advanced 33
Acceptable 3
Making Progress
Improvement Needed 3
Component 2: EDUC 200 Case Study 39
Advanced 26
Page 17 of 34
Acceptable 8
Making Progress
Improvement Needed 5
Component 3: EDUC 200 Philosophy of Education Paper 39
Advanced 28
Acceptable 4
Making Progress 1
Improvement Needed 6
Component 4: EDUC 230 Educational Philosophy paper 39
Advanced 28
Acceptable 5
Making Progress 1
Improvement Needed 5
Component 5: EDUC 300 Lesson Plans 39
Advanced 29
Acceptable 6
Making Progress
Improvement Needed 4
Component 6: MEP 39
Advanced 32
Acceptable 3
Making Progress
Improvement Needed 4
Component 7: MoGEA 39
Advanced 27
Acceptable 6
Making Progress
Improvement Needed 6
Clarity of Explanations 38
Advanced 23
Acceptable 12
Making Progress 1
Improvement Needed 2
Writing Style 39
Advanced 19
Acceptable 12
Making Progress 6
Improvement Needed 2
Synthesis/MoSPE Standards 39
Advanced 25
Acceptable 10
Making Progress 1
Improvement Needed 3
Page 18 of 34
Holistic Purpose 39
Advanced 26
Acceptable 10
Making Progress 1
Improvement Needed 2
Students were also assessed according to 6 standards and indicators (n=59). Note that the Day program
assessed the standards using the same measures used in the assignment: Improvement Needed, Making
Progress, Acceptable, and Advanced. The Nationwide campuses assessed the standards using the more
typical measures: Beginning Candidate, Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate, Mid-Prep Candidate, and
Approaching Teacher Candidate.
The appropriate target for undergraduates at this level is Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate or Mid-Prep
Candidate. The equivalent of this using the Day program’s terminology would be Acceptable or Advanced.
In the Day program, 1 student scored at the Making Progress level on standards 2.5, 3.2, and 8.1. All
others scored at either Acceptable or Advanced. Additionally, 4 students scored at the Making
Progress level on standard 3.1, with all others scoring at either Acceptable or Advanced.
Results from the Nationwide campuses show a range of results across all four levels, but the majority
of students scored at the Mid-Prep Candidate level, as expected.
Assessment: Synthesis Project Standards/Indicators
2.1 40
Beginning Candidate 3
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 5
Mid-Prep Candidate 25
Approaching Teacher Candidate 7
2.3 40
Beginning Candidate 3
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 5
Mid-Prep Candidate 24
Approaching Teacher Candidate 8
2.5 40
Beginning Candidate 3
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 5
Mid-Prep Candidate 21
Approaching Teacher Candidate 11
3.1 40
Beginning Candidate 3
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 8
Mid-Prep Candidate 19
Approaching Teacher Candidate 10
3.2 40
Beginning Candidate 3
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 10
Page 19 of 34
Mid-Prep Candidate 19
Approaching Teacher Candidate 8
8.1 40
Beginning Candidate 3
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 12
Mid-Prep Candidate 19
Approaching Teacher Candidate 6
EDUC 311: Classroom Management Plan
EDUC 311 was assessed for the first time in 2015-2016 for performance on the Classroom Management Plan.
Students were assessed on 7 areas of the assignment (n=77).
Results from the Day program indicate that no students performed Below Average. Students at the
Nationwide campuses scored similarly, although a small percentage (about 24%) scored at the
Average level. One student scored at Unacceptable on the Philosophy, Content, and Writing Style
areas of the assignment.
Assessment: Classroom Management Plan Day Total Online Total
Introduction 16 61
Outstanding 13 47
Above Average 1 10
Average 2 4
Below Average
Unacceptable
Philosophy 16 61
Outstanding 1 47
Above Average 6 11
Average 6 2
Below Average
Unacceptable 1 1
Content 16 61
Outstanding 7 38
Above Average 6 16
Average 3 5
Below Average
Unacceptable 1
Relating Content to Theory 16 61
Outstanding 2 43
Above Average 8 16
Average 5 2
Below Average
Unacceptable
Details 16 61
Page 20 of 34
Outstanding 15 40
Above Average 1 15
Average 6
Below Average
Unacceptable
Clarity of Explanations 16 61
Outstanding 11 44
Above Average 5 11
Average 5
Below Average
Unacceptable
Writing Style 16 61
Outstanding 7 31
Above Average 3 21
Average 4 5
Below Average
Unacceptable 1
Students were also assessed according to 3 standards and indicators (n=49). The appropriate target for
undergraduates at this level is Approaching Teacher Candidate.
Results for both the Day program and Nationwide campuses were similar and for the most part as
expected. In the Day program, the majority of students scored at the Approaching Teacher Candidate
level. Five students scored at the Mid-Prep Candidate level on standard 5C1, and 4 students scored at
the Mid-Prep Candidate level on standard 5C3. All students at the Nationwide campuses scored at
the Approaching Teacher Candidate level.
Assessment: Classroom Management Plan Standards/Indicators
Day Total Nationwide
Total
5.1 19 30
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate
Mid-Prep Candidate 5
Approaching Teacher Candidate 9 21
Teacher Candidate
5.2 19 29
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 19 18
Teacher Candidate
5.3 19 30
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate
Mid-Prep Candidate 4
Approaching Teacher Candidate 11 19
Teacher Candidate
Page 21 of 34
EDUC 338: TCP Lesson Plan Evaluation and Content Reading Lesson Plans
EDUC 338 was assessed for the first time in 2015-2016 for performance on the TCP Lesson Plan and Content
Reading Lesson Plans. Specifically, students were assessed on 22 areas of the TCP Lesson Plan assignment
(n=23). The Content Reading Lesson Plans were used to assess students on the relevant standards and
indicators.
With regard to the TCP Lesson Plan Evaluation, results from the Day program and Nationwide
campuses were similar, with nearly all students scoring Present on all 22 areas.
Assessment: TCP Lesson Planning Day Total Nationwide
Total
Unit/Lesson Title 9 14
Present 9 14
Not Present
Content Standards 9 14
Present 9 14
Not Present
Instructional Goals/Overview 9 14
Present 7 14
Not Present 2
Measurable Learning Objective(s) 9 14
Present 9 14
Not Present
Materials Required 9 14
Present 9 13
Not Present 1
Pre-assessment/Prerequisite Knowledge and Skills 9 14
Present 9 13
Not Present 1
Vocabulary Overview 9 14
Present 9 13
Not Present 1
Opening "Hook" 9 14
Present 9 14
Not Present
Clear Description of Teachers' Actions 9 14
Present 9 14
Not Present
Clear Description of Students' ActionsCriterion 10 9 14
Present 9 14
Not Present
Closure 9 14
Page 22 of 34
Present 9 14
Not Present
Checking for Understanding/Questions and Assessment(s) 9 14
Present 9 14
Not Present
Differentiation Strategies 9 14
Present 9 14
Not Present
Lecture 9 5
Present 9 2
Not Present 3
Demonstration 9 12
Present 7 12
Not Present 2
Facilitated Discussion 9 7
Present 6 6
Not Present 3 1
Guided Inquiry 9 10
Present 6 10
Not Present 3
Student Inquiry 9 6
Present 6 5
Not Present 3 1
Collaborative Learning 9 10
Present 9 10
Not Present
Independent Learning 9 9
Present 9 9
Not Present
Guided Practice/Review 9 14
Present 9 14
Not Present
Other (Describe) 5
Present 2
Not Present 3
The Content Reading Lesson Plans were used to assess students according to 3 standards and indicators. The
appropriate target for undergraduates at this level is Teacher Candidate.
Only the first lesson plan was assessed in the Day program. Results indicate that nearly all students
scored at the Teacher Candidate level, as expected.
Assessment: Content Reading Lesson Plans
Page 23 of 34
The lesson is engaging for students' grade level and demonstrates an understanding of lesson planning. Strategy is prominently featured in the lesson plan. The plan demonstrates a thorough understanding of the strategy. The content area of the plan offer
9
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate
Mid-Preparation Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 1
Teacher Candidate 8
Strategy is featured in the lesson plan. The plan demonstrates an understanding of the strategy. The content area of the plan offers a context for the strategy. The plan adheres to the lesson plan format as provided in the syllabus. Lesson plan contain
9
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate
Mid-Preparation Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 1
Teacher Candidate 8
Other activities or elements of the plan overshadow the featured strategy. The content area does not relate to the strategy. Plan may or may not adhere to the lesson plan format and CCSS, MLSs are not present or are inaccurate, and/or questions are poorly
9
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate
Mid-Preparation Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 2
Teacher Candidate 7
Students in the Nationwide campuses were assessed on all 10 lesson plans, but data was incomplete
and unclear. Results generally showed students scoring at the Teacher Candidate level, as expected,
but a more complete collection of data would need to occur in order to be conclusive.
EDUC 345, 346, 360, 362, 365, 367, 368, 369: TCP Lesson Plan Evaluation
Teaching methods courses (EDUC 345, 346, 360, 362, 365, 367, 368, 369) were assessed for the first time in
2015-2016 for performance on the TCP Lesson Plan. Note that data was not collected for EDUC 345 (n=2) or
EDUC 365 (n=2). Additionally, EDUC 346 and 368 had no students enrolled. Students were assessed on 22
areas of the assignment (n=77).
Results show students consistently scoring Present, with some noteworthy variation in EDUC 367 in
Facilitated Discussion, Guided Inquiry, Student Inquiry, Collaborative Learning, Independent
Learning, and Guided Practice/Review.
Assessment: TCP Lesson Planning EDUC 360
EDUC 362
EDUC 367
EDUC 369
Unit/Lesson Title 1 8 12 1
Present 1 8 12 1
Page 24 of 34
Not Present
Content Standards 1 8 12 1
Present 1 8 12 1
Not Present
Instructional Goals/Overview 1 8 12 1
Present 1 5 12 1
Not Present 3
Measurable Learning Objective(s) 1 8 12 1
Present 1 8 12 1
Not Present
Materials Required 1 8 12 1
Present 1 8 12 1
Not Present
Pre-assessment/Prerequisite Knowledge and Skills 1 8 12 1
Present 1 1 12 1
Not Present 7
Vocabulary Overview 1 8 12 1
Present 1 1 12 1
Not Present 7
Opening "Hook" 1 8 12 1
Present 1 8 12 1
Not Present
Clear Description of Teachers' Actions 1 8 12 1
Present 1 8 12 1
Not Present
Clear Description of Students' ActionsCriterion 10 1 8 12 1
Present 1 8 12 1
Not Present
Closure 1 8 12 1
Present 1 8 12 1
Not Present
Checking for Understanding/Questions and Assessment(s) 1 8 12 1
Present 1 7 11 1
Not Present 1 1
Differentiation Strategies 1 9 12 1
Present 1 6 11 1
Not Present 2 1
Lecture 1 5 12 1
Present 1 5 11 1
Not Present 1
Demonstration 1 2 12
Present 1 2 10
Not Present 2
Facilitated Discussion 1 8 12 1
Present 1 8 9 1
Page 25 of 34
Not Present 3
Guided Inquiry 1 2 12 1
Present 1 2 6 1
Not Present 6
Student Inquiry 1 1 12
Present 1 1 5
Not Present 7
Collaborative Learning 1 4 12
Present 1 4 7
Not Present 5
Independent Learning 1 7 12
Present 1 7 7
Not Present 5
Guided Practice/Review 1 7 12
Present 1 7 4
Not Present 8
Other (Describe) 1 7 12
Present
Not Present 1 7 12
Data was not collected in these courses on student performance on any standards.
EDUC 390: Philosophy of Special Education Paper
EDUC 390 was assessed for the first time in 2015-2016 for performance on the Philosophy of Special Education
Paper. Students were assessed on 22 areas of the assignment (n=41).
Students in the Day program consistently scored at the highest level, with lower performance
primarily being in the areas of Use of Paper Template & Adherence to APA and Overall Writing. The
Online course showed a wider range of scores, although except in Use of Paper Template &
Adherence to APA and Overall Writing, the majority of students scored at the highest level. Given
that the Course Learning Outcomes being measured are not actually related to the students’ writing
skills, these results are not of concern.
Assessment: Philosophy of Special Education Day Total Online Total
Discussion of Law 1 17 24
15-13 15 16
12-10 1 3
9 or less 1 5
Discussion of Law 2 17 24
15-13 12 13
12-10 2 5
9 or less 3 6
Discussion of Law 3 17 24
15-13 14 14
12-10 1 4
Page 26 of 34
9 or less 2 6
Philosophy of Special Education 17 24
15-13 15 18
12-10 1 4
9 or less 1 2
Class Impact 17 24
15-13 15 15
12-10 1 1
9 or less 1 8
Use of Paper Template & Adherence to APA 17 24
15-13 12 7
12-10 1 8
9 or less 4 9
Overall Writing 17 24
15-13 12 4
12-10 3 10
9 or less 2 10
Students were also assessed according to 11 standards and indicators (n=17). The appropriate target for
undergraduates at this level is Teacher Candidate.
In the Day program, 16 of the 17 students scored at the Teacher Candidate level, as expected. Only 1
scored at the Approaching Teacher Candidate level.
The rubric used to assess the standards and indicators did not match the Online course. Therefore,
data was not collected.
EDUC 400: Synthesis Paper
EDUC 400 was assessed in 2015-2016 for performance on the Synthesis Paper. Students were assessed on 16
areas of the assignment (n=32).
Students in both the Day program and the Nationwide campuses scored consistently at either Level 3
or 4. Data compiled in 2014-2105 was deemed untrustworthy and no interpretation was made, so it is
not possible to compare these results.
Assessment: Synthesis Paper Day Total Nationwide
Total
Introduction 25 8
Level 4 14 8
Level 3 11
Level 2
Level 1
Component One 25 8
Level 4 13 5
Level 3 12 3
Level 2
Level 1
Page 27 of 34
Component Two 25 8
Level 4 12 2
Level 3 13 6
Level 2
Level 1
Component Three 25 8
Level 4 9 6
Level 3 15 2
Level 2 1
Level 1
Component Four 25 8
Level 4 8 7
Level 3 17 1
Level 2
Level 1
Component Five 25 8
Level 4 7 7
Level 3 17 1
Level 2 1
Level 1
Component Six 25 8
Level 4 6 8
Level 3 18
Level 2 1
Level 1
Component Seven 25 8
Level 4 6 8
Level 3 18
Level 2 1
Level 1
Component Eight 25 8
Level 4 6 8
Level 3 19
Level 2
Level 1
Closing 25 8
Level 4 8 8
Level 3 16
Level 2 1
Level 1
Spelling and Grammar 25 8
Level 4 12
Level 3 13 8
Level 2
Level 1
Page 28 of 34
Voice and Word Choice 25 8
Level 4 11 8
Level 3 14
Level 2
Level 1
Appropriately Linked Artifacts 25 8
Level 4 13 8
Level 3 12
Level 2
Level 1
Title Page Formatting 25 8
Level 4 13 8
Level 3 12
Level 2
Level 1
Table of Contents 25 8
Level 4 13 8
Level 3 12
Level 2
Level 1
Bibliography 25 8
Level 4 12 8
Level 3 12
Level 2 1
Level 1
Because this is the capstone course for the Teacher Certification Program, students were assessed on all 36
standards and indicators (n=77). The appropriate target for undergraduates at this level is Teacher Candidate.
Results from the Day campus indicate that most students scored at the Teacher Candidate level, but a
sizable number of students scored at the Approaching Teacher Candidate level on about half of the
standards.
These results are intriguing. EDUC 400 is the last course taken prior to student teaching; students
would seemingly be as advanced as they could be at this point. But at lower level classes that had the
same Teacher Candidate target, such as EDUC 338 and EDUC 390, the vast majority of students scored
at the Teacher Candidate target. It does not make sense that the majority of students in EDUC 400
would not also score at this level.
A possible explanation is that the instruments used to measure student performance on the standards
and indicators are too varying among these courses and therefore cannot be compared. Another
explanation is that, because EDUC 400 is the final step before student teaching, students are more
closely scrutinized and evaluated in this course.
Assessment: Standards/Indicators 1-4 Day Total Nationwide
Total
Page 29 of 34
1.1 24 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 4
Teacher Candidate 20 8
1.2 24 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 4
Teacher Candidate 20 8
1.3 24 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 4
Teacher Candidate 20 8
1.4 24 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 5
Teacher Candidate 19 8
1.5 24 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 4
Teacher Candidate 20 8
2.1 24 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 8
Teacher Candidate 16 8
2.2 24 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 9
Teacher Candidate 15 8
2.3 24 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 11
Teacher Candidate 13 8
2.4 24 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 11
Teacher Candidate 13 8
2.5 24 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 11
Teacher Candidate 13 8
2.6 24 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 11
Teacher Candidate 13 8
3.1 24 8
Page 30 of 34
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 8
Teacher Candidate 16 8
3.2 24 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 10
Teacher Candidate 14 8
3.3 24 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 10
Teacher Candidate 14 8
4.1 24 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 6
Teacher Candidate 18 8
4.2 24 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 11
Teacher Candidate 13 8
4.3 24 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 11
Teacher Candidate 13 8
5.1 19 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 1 2
Teacher Candidate 18 6
5.2 19 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 1 4
Teacher Candidate 18 4
5.3 19 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 1 2
Teacher Candidate 18 6
6.1 19 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 3
Teacher Candidate 16 8
6.2 19 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 5
Teacher Candidate 14 8
6.3 19 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Page 31 of 34
Approaching Teacher Candidate 5
Teacher Candidate 14 8
6.4 19 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 5
Teacher Candidate 14 8
7.1 19 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 6 4
Teacher Candidate 13 4
7.2 19 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 10 4
Teacher Candidate 9 4
7.3 19 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 10 2
Teacher Candidate 9 6
7.4 19 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 10 2
Teacher Candidate 9 6
7.5 19 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 10 2
Teacher Candidate 9 6
7.6 19 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 10 1
Teacher Candidate 9 7
8.1 19 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 2
Teacher Candidate 17 8
8.2 19 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 9
Teacher Candidate 10 8
8.3 19 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 11
Teacher Candidate 8 8
9.1 19 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 10
Page 32 of 34
Teacher Candidate 9 8
9.2 19 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 12
Teacher Candidate 7 8
9.3 19 8
Mid-Prep Candidate
Approaching Teacher Candidate 12
Teacher Candidate 7 8
5. What were the strengths and weaknesses of the data collection process? How can data
collection be improved?
Significant effort has been put into the development of our program’s Course Learning Outcomes and in the
creation of assignments and rubrics that adequately assess them. The Education Department has the unique
advantage of expertise in the area of assessment and how to create strong and useful rubrics, which in theory
makes data collection easier for us.
However, because of the expectations put upon us by DESE, data collection in our department is also onerous.
In addition, we have a significant number of adjuncts teaching our courses across several different venues,
and communicating both the necessity of data collection and how to use the rubrics correctly is an almost
impossible task. Adjuncts do not always understand or appreciate the need for data collection, and are
sometimes reticent in their reporting. The result is data that is at times incomplete, inconclusive, or simply
inadequate.
6. What were the strengths and weaknesses of the data? What actions can result in stronger data?
Generally speaking, results from the data were as expected, with more consistency across venues than was
anticipated.
But even with clear rubrics and assignment guidelines, the instruments we use to assess our students are all
constructed-response and therefore open to greater subjectivity than a selected-response instrument. Most of
our standards cannot be adequately measured using selected-response instruments, though, and we therefore
must rely on our instructors to interpret the assignment guidelines and use the rubrics correctly. This is a
challenge, and one that most definitely has the potential to weaken our data.
For example, in an introductory level course like EDUC 200, most students would be expected to be at the
Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate level, yet in the Nationwide, Evening, and Online venues, most students
were scored at the Mid-Prep Candidate level. Continued efforts should be made to educate instructors across
venues on how to use the rubrics, and on what is generally expected.
7. Do the data provide information about actions taken in the past to improve learning? If so,
please explain.
No. The data provide information regarding our students’ performance that offers an indication of their
learning and progress through the program, and that is the goal.
Page 33 of 34
8. What do the data indicate about student mastery of learning outcomes and general student
learning?
Across all venues, our students are performing strongly with regard to the standards and indicators
measured, showing consistent mastery or near-mastery of the learning outcomes.
Plan for Use of Results and Proposed Actions: 9. For the actions proposed in your previous annual assessment report: Which actions were you
able to implement? Which actions were you not able to implement?
- For actions that were implemented, please provide a description on whether the actions appear to have been
successful.
- For actions that were not implemented, please provide a description of the difficulties encountered
Three specific actions were proposed in the 2014-2015 report.
Action #1: Provide additional training over the standards and indicators rubrics and the corresponding performance
levels. Online instructors, in particular, may not be familiar with the mandated standards for education certification in
the State of Missouri. In addition, we need to provide more training to clinical instructors so that students are rated at the
appropriate developmental level. Inflating the developmental level of a student does not serve well the program or the
individual student as it obfuscates needed improvements.
This is an ongoing action item that will likely continue indefinitely. It sounds simple to “provide more
training” to instructors, but how to do that is a significant challenge. The old adage “you can lead a horse to
water but you can’t make him drink” rings true in this situation; training information can be provided to our
countless adjuncts, but there is no guarantee they will abide by or even read it.
Action #2: Adjust the AY ’15-’16 timeline for implementation of new assessments. Although we had hoped to implement
several new assessments in fall 2015, based on the current data we realize that we need to ensure the current assessments
are occurring in a way that we receive valid and reliable results. Therefore, we will work in the fall on improvements to
current assessments, and implement new assessments in spring 2016.
With the departure of Dr. Weston and the change in Ms. Bradley’s responsibilities, our department has
quickly become understaffed and overwhelmed. Making significant changes to our assessments could not be
a priority and had to be postponed. We are, however, in the process of updating the Course Learning
Outcomes for nearly all our courses, which should help us to make the needed improvements to our
assessments in the future.
Action #3: We will investigate what actions we can take to improve student performance on the MO Content
Assessments. For example, we will meet with other departments to examine the assessment frameworks and ensure that
we have the proper course alignment in place.
Evaluation of the MO Content Assessments was not a part of this year’s Annual Assessment Plan. But faculty
in other departments have been consulted with regard to where our students have struggled on these exams,
and plans are in place to alter or adjust courses in order to better accommodate them. For example, our art
students have struggled with an inadequate knowledge of fibers, and we have worked with the Art
Department on where and how to incorporate this content into the existing art curriculum.
Page 34 of 34
10. What actions will be taken to improve learning based on the data? (describe the processes and goals
for these actions)
The data indicate that our students are learning as we would like them to be. There are no large holes that
need to be filled. We are always on a quest for improved learning and improved outcomes, but this quest is
the result of a shared mission and vision in our department and not based on this data.
11. Do you plan to change any part of your assessment process based on these assessments?
Please explain. Examples of changes to assessment process include, but are not limited to:
- Changes to communication structure regarding outcomes, assessments and expectations
- Changes to assessment methods or implementation
- Changes to assessment plan or schedule of assessed courses
- Changes to outcomes statements
It is evident that some of our assessments are not measuring the outcomes (i.e., standards and indicators)
quite like they should. Of primary concern is the assignment rubrics used to measure student development
toward teacher candidacy. The assignments themselves are sound measures of where students are according
to the standards and indicators. But one must remember that the assignment rubrics are designed to result in
a grade on that assignment, and grades are based on how well a student performs on the assignment. This is
important information. It helps to measure student learning, and that is certainly part of what we are
assessing. But it does not tell us where students are developmentally.
Students’ development toward teacher candidacy is a vital measure, given that this is not only the
information DESE wants from us but is information necessary for us to determine if students are progressing
as they should. Performance on these assignments, however, does not necessarily mean the student is at any
particular level (e.g., Beginning Candidate, Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate, etc.). Oftentimes, students’
lowest scores were on criteria related to their writing, including grammatical errors and overall writing style,
or were the result of poor attention to assignment guidelines. Even the most prepared and strong teacher
candidates can make these errors.
It is clear that our assessments need to be revisited and revised in order to more accurately reflect where
students are in their development.
Additionally, it is important to remain focused on working with our adjuncts in order to better ensure
accurate and consistent data. This may result in additional revisions to our assessment methods.
As noted earlier, nearly all our master syllabi have been recently updated with new or modified Course
Learning Outcomes that will be used in the 2017-2018 assessment process.
12. What else would you like to say in this report? Please explain.