the university of memphis - the university of …€¦ · web viewthe university of memphis is...

Exhibit 2.4.d.6 DRAFT of COE Assessment Handbook

College of Education (COE)

Educator Preparation Program (EPP)

Assessment Handbook

DRAFT COPY Summer 2015

COE EPP Assessment Handbook

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Overview of the Institution 3

Overview of Teacher Education Unit 4

Conceptual Framework 5

History of the Assessment System 11

Assessment Cycle 12

Assessment System Review Committee 13

Procedure for Candidate Admission 15

Procedure for Candidate Retention 16

Decision Points for All Programs 17

Key Assessments for Programs 20

Procedure for Undergraduate Alternative Admission or

Undergraduate Appeal 21

Procedure for Graduate Admission Appeal 22

Procedure for Handling Student Advising, Grading or Other Complaints 25

Fairness, Accuracy, Consistency, and Elimination of Bias 31

Use of Informational Technologies 32

Assessment System Data Collection 33

Ransdell, Summer 2015 DRAFT COPY


Overview of the InstitutionThe University of Memphis is classified as a Carnegie Doctoral/Research University-Extensive. It was established under the auspices of the General Education Bill, enacted by the Tennessee Legislature in 1909 and has a rich history featuring teacher preparation beginning as West Tennessee Normal School in 1912. As the flagship of the Tennessee Board of Regents System, we are a comprehensive doctoral-extensive university awarding more than 3000 degrees annually. Our Vision and Mission defines the U of M as a metropolitan research university, offering comprehensive, innovative and high quality academic programs to rural, urban and suburban populations through a variety of delivery vehicles; and for capitalizing on its urban setting to address the needs of our global society through artistic expression, and engaged interdisciplinary scholarship. Unique characteristics relative to the COE Educator Preparation Program (EPP) include a Cradle to Career Collaboration for the virtual West Tennessee STEM Hub serving 20 counties and offering real-life challenges through completion for student-teams. Project Memphis began in the 1970s and serves 70-140 per year helping families interact positively with their children with special needs. Restructuring for Inclusive Education (RISE) began in 1995 and serves a 5-county area by focusing on positive interventions to improve behavior and academics. Campus School, a K-6 lab school operated by the local school system is located on the university campus, and the Barbara K. Lipman Early Childhood School and Research Institute serve the needs of the urban community. The Center for Urban School Leadership has year-long intensive and highly selective program producing exceptional school leaders. Our Department of Leadership is known throughout West Tennessee as the place to develop great school leaders. The University of Memphis Lambuth Campus (nee Lambuth College) was purchased from the city of Jackson, TN after Lambuth College closed. This small, but full service campus allows us to impact the Jackson-Madison County area. Enrollment has exceeded expectations.

Source: NCATE Conceptual Framework Narrative



Overview of Teacher Education UnitThe professional EPP includes undergraduate and graduate programs leading to licensure as well as Certificates and Endorsements leading to advanced teacher preparation. The COE offers or coordinates nine baccalaureate teacher education programs; four of these are B.S.Ed. teacher preparation programs offered in the unit: Physical Education Teacher Education, Early Childhood Education, Teaching All Learners (dual Elementary and Modified Special Education), Middle Grades Education, and Youth Services (non-licensure). The COE also coordinates four baccalaureate teacher preparation programs in Music Education (vocal and instrumental), Art Education housed in the College of Communication and Fine Arts, and Dance Education housed in the University College. Paperwork for a new B.A. degree in Secondary Math Education has been submitted to the state; approval is anticipated. Overall, the COE offers 41 graduate programs including the Master of Arts in Teaching (5), Master of Education (1), Master of Science (18), Education Specialist (1), Doctor of Education (13), and Doctor of Philosophy (3). Of these, 14 are initial or advanced programs that prepare P-12 school professionals: five M.A.T. degrees in Early Childhood Education, Elementary Education, Secondary Education (six licensure programs), Special Education, and Dual Middle Grades Education with Modified Special Education; one M.Ed. degree in Childhood Literacy Reading—a Tennessee Board of Regents University consortium program; and eight M.S. degrees in School Counseling, Physical Education Teacher Education, Early Childhood Education, Instruction and Curriculum, Instructional Design and Technology, Reading, Special Education, and School Administration and Supervision. Seven Graduate Certificates (Autism, Urban Education, Teaching and Leadership, Disabilities Studies, Instructional Computer Applications, Literacy Leadership and Coaching, and Qualitative Studies in Educational Research) and a Graduate Endorsement in Library and Information Specialist provide advanced studies that directly impact children. In addition, the COE coordinates with initial POBA programs in Business Education housed in the College of Business and Economics and Family and Consumer Sciences Education housed in the University College. Further, the COE coordinates advanced M.A. programs in School Psychology housed in the College of Arts and Sciences and the M.A. program in Speech-Language Pathology housed in the School of Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology. In sum, the COE houses or coordinates nine B.S. initial teacher preparation degree programs and 18 POBA initial and advanced degree programs for the preparation of P-12 teachers and other school professionals. These programs are offered on and off campus, as fully face-to-face, hybrid, or fully-online and reflect nearly 50 different P-12 school professional licensure programs.

Source: NCATE Conceptual Framework Narrative



Conceptual FrameworkThe conceptual framework of the University of Memphis College of Education consists of its vision, mission, norms, philosophical commitments, and high expectations for candidate performance. It ensures that we are engaged with our community, relevant to our stakeholders and disciplines, and leading our profession.

The College’s vision, mission, norms, and philosophical commitments describe fundamental concepts guiding our work and our relationships. Measurable outcomes for professional educators are represented by the “pillars” of effective practice displayed on our conceptual framework graphic, as well as by diversity and dispositional standards and expectations.

VisionThe vision of the College of Education is to be an innovative national leader in preparing effective urban, suburban and rural professionals. We envision a College with faculty who improve the intellectual lives of students, conduct innovative research, and create an academic environment recognized nationally and internationally for excellence in teaching, research, and service.

Quality teaching is our paramount concern. We seek to enhance all of our programs: undergraduate, graduate, and professional studies. Therefore, our instructional activities must be systematically improved to support the development of faculty, staff, and students. Quality instruction occurs in myriad ways (Biggs, 2001; Gardner, 1983; Sternberg, 1985), and our innovations will be shared through research, and participation in the professional dialog that occurs within and among academic disciplines.

The college fosters relationships that enhance our mission. Partnerships make available the services that we are best able to provide. Our creativity serves the needs of Metropolitan Memphis and the national and international communities. Programs that meet these needs must be created and sustained to help the college achieve its goals of excellence in teaching endeavors, research efforts, and service activities (Dobozy 2012; Knight, Tait & Mantz Yorke, 2006; Moran, Kornhaber & Gardner, 2004; Arvizu, 1996; Ross & Regan, 1993).

The college approaches its research mission in an evolutionary way, providing structures and opportunities for individual development. Scholarship is important if the college is to respond to the needs of the communities. A strong, college-wide research agenda allows all faculty members the opportunity to engage in this fundamental academic endeavor.

MissionThe mission of the College of Education is to provide high-quality education for undergraduate and graduate students, to conduct meaningful research designed to illuminate and solve problems, and to use our expertise to serve our community. The College of Education ensures that we are recognized as among the foremost metropolitan universities in America by living this mission. We have responded to the opportunity of being located in an urban environment by unifying teaching, research, and service in a way that contributes to the betterment of Memphis,


COE EPP Assessment Handbookthe Mid-South region and beyond (Welsh, Glenna, Lacy & Biscotti, 2008; Mueller, 2006; Banks, 2003). Strong partnerships created across all of West Tennessee allows for delivery of coursework in various locations. Online and hybrid course delivery eliminates geographic boundaries. Consistent with the mission of the university, we assert that excellence in teaching all students is our central responsibility. The academic environment of the college extends beyond campus boundaries to encompass the entire community (Duffield, Olson & Kerman, 2013; Epstein & Sanders, 2006; Eisler, 2000). Programs across the college are enhanced through exposure to intellectual diversity among the student body, faculty, staff, and administration (Schneider, 2012; Clark, 2011; Horowitz, 2004; Zimpher & Howey, 2005).

Central to its role in a research university, the college develops, integrates, disseminates, and applies knowledge. Faculty members cultivate partnerships with undergraduate and graduate students to promote engaged scholarship. The faculty engages in basic and applied research and creative activities (Grossman & McDonald, 2008; Hazelkorn, 2008; Wittrock, 1986; Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1993). The college’s resources across West Tennessee provides a rich opportunity for research and creative scholarship, and opportunities to share that scholarship for the intellectual development of the region (Warren & Peel, 2011; Warren, Noftle, Ganley, & Quintanar, 2011;Ginsberg & Rhodes, 2003). The College of Education strives to serve all communities in the Memphis region.

NormsThe College of Education norms were developed collaboratively by college administration, staff, faculty, and students in 2007-2008 to guide behaviors and professional interactions among faculty and students. They provide benchmarks for continual monitoring and growth and assist the College in navigating change (Coates,2010; Gore, 2002).

· I take 100% responsibility. I neither make excuses nor cast blame.· I seek equity of voice. I participate, I support, I listen and I perform and contribute in a

manner that encourages others to do the same.· I am willing to talk about sensitive issues. I encourage dialogue and am prepared to

discuss sensitive issues.· I listen for understanding. I neither interrupt nor participate in secondary conversations. I

will go directly to the source for information and problem resolution.· I appreciate the strengths and contributions of others. I need, I want and I value the

strengths and contributions of others.· I bring positive energy and encouragement to the team. I contribute positively; I have

high expectations of others and I contribute synergy to the team.· I commit to the mission of the College. I support and implement the mission; I actively

encourage others to do the same.

Philosophical Commitments· Commitment to Diverse Communities· Commitment to Effective Practice· Commitment to Leadership· Social Justice· Integrity· Excellence


COE EPP Assessment Handbook· Respect· Accountability· Continuous Learning

Measurable outcomes for professional educators Ef f ec t i v e Pr a c t i c e: O u t c o m es for Professi o nal E d u c at o r s Students in the College of Education are supported through their program with the Pillars of Practice. The student candidates learn the content and skills necessary to deliver and support learning. Their ability to make instructionally sound decisions based on their knowledge of the learner and ongoing formative assessment creates a learning environment conducive for all students. Self-reflective practices and professional growth opportunities support life-long learning found within the students of the College of Education. These foundational Pillars are aligned with NCATE and Tennessee State Standards.

Content Knowledge and Skills Knowledge of the Learner Pedagogy and Instruction Assessment and Responsive Practice Management of Classrooms and Individuals Personal and Professional Growth and Development

Diversity Performance StandardsTo better operationalize our Commitment to Diverse Communities, the College of Education faculty adopted in spring 2007 the following five Diversity Performance Standards as a more focused and tangible expression of our Commitment to Diverse Communities.

The COE Community (including faculty, staff, and partners). . . Understands diversity, social justice, and equity in order to promote effective learning in

their everyday practice Understands linguistic, ethnic, racial, socioeconomic, disability, religious, sexual

orientation diversity and demonstrates culturally relevant practices Understands the relationships among various historical and present social inequities and

uses reflective practice to challenge their work and explicitly confront social inequality Understands the larger national and global contexts and demonstrates a clear sense of

their own identities in relationship to social justice Understands and values the importance of engaging in professional growth to enhance

professional practices involving diverse populations

K ey Disposi t ions The College of Education adopted the following as key dispositions and behaviors essential for all candidates to demonstrate during all clinical experiences. (Permission granted by the University of Tennessee-Knoxville for the use of the disposition outcomes and behavioral indicators included in this list.)

Teachers and other school professional candidates at the University of Memphis are expected to demonstrate behaviors that are indicative of the following dispositions characteristic of effective educators. Examples of behaviors demonstrating each disposition are provided following each


COE EPP Assessment Handbookdisposition statement. The candidate shows a disposition toward and commitment to each of the following:

Social Justice1. Promoting social justice2. Providing equitable learning opportunities for all students3. Promoting achievement of students at all levels4. Recognizing students’ unique prior knowledge, life experiences, and interests as part of

the context for student learning

Integrity5. Maintaining his/her position as a positive role model for students and others.6. Demonstrating positive work habits and interpersonal skills, demonstrating a positive

attitude, dependability, honesty and respect for others7. Maintaining the standards of confidentiality regarding student information and

communications

Excellence8. Understanding and involving a wide variety of resources in the school, family, culture,

and community to facilitate student learning9. Seeking out, developing, and implementing the most appropriate methods to meet the

diverse learning needs of the students10.Developing students’ skills as problem-solvers as they progress toward becoming

independent, self-directed learners11.Using effective planning and classroom organization as tools in maximizing the time

available for instruction and learning

Respect12.Collaborating with other professionals to improve the overall learning of students.

Accountability13.Accepting responsibility for what occurs in his/her classroom and for other school-wide

responsibilities that contribute to student learning and a safe, orderly environment14.Using sound judgment and thoughtful decision making with consideration of the

consequences

Continuous Learning15.Demonstrating life-long learning and personal growth through reflection, seeking

constructive feedback, and being willing to learn from others and past experience16.Participating in professional growth activities within and outside the school

References

Arvizu, S. F. (1996). Family, community, and school collaboration. In J. Sikula (Ed.),


COE EPP Assessment HandbookBanks, J. & Banks, C. (2003). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (4th ed.). New

York: John Wiley and Sons.Biggs, J. (2001). The relfelctive institution: Assuring and enhancing the quality of teaching and

learning. Higher Education, 41(3), 221-238.Clark, C. (2011). Diversity initiatives in higher education: Just how important is diveresity in

higher education? Multicultural Education, 57-59.Coates, H. (2010). Defining and monitoring academic standards in Australian higher education.

Higher Education Management and Policy, 22(1), 1-17.Dobozy, E. (2012). Learning in Higher Education symposia: A new professional development

model for university educators. Issues in Educational Research, 22 (3), 228-245.Duffield, S., Olson, A., & Kerzman, R. (2013). Crossing borders, breaking boundaries:

Collaboration among higher education institutions. Innovative Higher Education, 38(3), 237-250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10755-012-9238-8.

Eisler, R. (2000). Tomorrow's children: A blueprint for partnership education in the 21st century. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2006). Prospects for change: Preparing educators for school, family, and community partnerships. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(2), 81-120.

Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Ginsberg, R., & Rhodes, L. (2003). University faculty in partner schools. Journal of Teacher Education 54(2), 150-62.

Gore, G. (2006). Navigating change; A field guide to personal growth. Memphis: Team Trek. Grant, C., & Gilllette, M. (2006). A candid talk to teacher educators about effectively preparing teachers who can teach everyone's children. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 292-298

Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 184-205. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312906.

Hazelkorn, E. (2008). University research management-Developing research in new institutions [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from ttp://arrow.dit.ie/cseroth

Horowitz, D. (2004). In defense of intellectual diversity. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(23), 1-5. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i23/23b01201.htm

Knight, P., Tait, J., & Yorke, M. (2007). The professional learning of teachers in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 1-20.

Moran, S., Kornhaber, M., & Gardner, H. (2006). Orchestrating multiple intelligences. Teaching to Student Strengths, 64(1), 22-27.

Mueller, P. (2006). Exploring the knowledge filter: How entrepreneurship and university-industry relationships drive economic growth. ScienceDirect, 35, 1499-1508. Retrieved from www.sciencedirect.com.

Ross, J. A., & Regan, E. M. (1993). Sharing professional experience: Its impact on professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(1), 91-106.

Schneider, C. G. (2012). Diversity and civic learning: The unfinished work. Liberal Education, 98(2), 1-3. Retrieved from http://www.aacu-edu.org.

Sternberg, R. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.


COE EPP Assessment HandbookWang, M., Haertel, & Walberg, H. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school learning.

Review of Educational Research, 63, 249-294.Warren, L. L., & Peel, H. A. (n.d.). Collaborative model for school reform through a rural

school/university partnership. Education, 126, 346-352.Warren, S. R., Noftle, J. T., Ganley, D. D., & Quintanar, A. P. (2011). Preparing urban teachers

to partner with families and communities. The School Community Journal, 21, 95-112.Welsh, R., Glenna, L., Lacy, W., & Biscotti, D. (2008). Close enough but not too far: Assessing

the effects of university-industry research relationships and the rise of academic capitalism. Research Policy, 37, 1854-1864.

Wittrock, M. (Ed.), (1986). Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan. Wong, H.K. & Wong, R.T. (1998, 2004). The first days of school: How to be an effectiveteacher. (2nd ed.). Harry K. Wong Publications.

Zimpher, N., & Howey, K. (2005). The politics of partnerships for teacher education redesign and school renewal. Journal of Teacher Education 56(5), 266-71.

Source: NCATE Conceptual Framework



History of the Assessment SystemPrior to 2003 the COE did not have dedicated assessment management system. Dr. John Johnston approached then Dean Ric Hovda and asked to become the Director of Assessment to oversee the development of a formalized pattern of assessing candidates at specific points within programs and to create the 6-8 Key Assessments required by NCATE and the SPAs. As part of that process, John Johnston and Jim Harris (former IT employee assigned to the college) crafted a data management system utilizing 0-1-2 rubric scores. Meanwhile, program faculty members began formulating program committees to begin deciding on the 6-8 Key Assessments and writing rubrics that matched the SPA standards that would be the basis of the SPA reports in 2007.

These early formal assessments focused on assessments that occurred at prescribed beginning, middle and end of individual programs. As the data management system was put into place, professors entered the 0-1-2 rubric scores for particular course assessments at the end of the semester. Data could be analyzed and reviewed by assessments within a given program but not by assessment across programs. Data could not be disaggregated by site or delivery method.

In 2011 it became apparent that several factors were coming into play that meant the original data management system was inadequate. First, the university’s new software would not support it and the current programmer was retiring. Lambuth campus was a growing entity so with an additional campus, it was felt it would be good to be able to separate data by delivery method or site. The Director of Assessment and ICL Chair investigated several management systems then presented the proposal to incorporate LiveText to the Dean and IT. Permission was granted.Thus, the homegrown data management system was replaced with LiveText Software in 2012. The old system was limited in its capacity to “slice and dice” data while LiveText allows for much more flexibility as well as external commercial support. Related to LiveText is the increased role of the Director of Assessment in maintaining the LiveText documents and oversight of the data gathering by faculty members. LiveText allows greater flexibility in how our faculty members interact with the data compiled from a candidate’s Key Assessments.

Instruction and Curriculum Leadership (ICL) opted to use LiveText and scheduled a phase in of the software beginning in 2012. Because candidates had to purchase the program, The School Administration and Supervision and Physical Education Teacher Education programs with much small numbers of candidates, opted to maintain data on their students by program area rather than having their students purchase LiveText. The old data management system was archived in 2013 because the software would not be compatible with newer university software. In cases where non-ICL students are in ICL courses, data are kept for their assignments in LiveText.



Assessment Cycle All initial and advanced preparation programs in the COE evaluate candidates at up to five specific times during a candidate’s program of study.

Pre-admission assessments are completed before a candidate’s admission to a given program. For instance GPA, PRAXIS scores, and prior courses taken are considered. This is done by program faculty for advanced preparation programs and by the the Office of Teacher Education and Student Support Services for undergraduate programs.

Beginning of Program assessments are found in coursework and is evaluated through programmatic assessments; some of which are managed by LiveText while others are managed by program faculty. Some of these assessments focus on the background content knowledge of the candidate.

Middle of Program assessment occurs during the middle levels of a program of study. These assessments are those that address professional association and state standards relative to pedagogy and practice. This is the largest single category of assessments.

End of Program assessment occurs near the end of a program of studies and assesses specific knowledge gained by candidates relative to particular content or pedagogy.

Capstone assessment occurs in the final semester and is generally a culminating project that takes into account various aspects of a candidate’s program of studies.



Assessment System Review Committee With the move to CAEP after the NCATE Legacy Standards Visit in 2016, we will move to the CAEP Standards for purposes of EPP accreditation. The Assessment Director wants to see increased documentation and a formalized process noting how and when changes occur in the assessment system. We need to better document the decisions made in terms of admission and retention, and any associated appeals. Although some of this information is gathered by the Office of Teacher Education and Support Services, programs are not aware of the data unless they are a part of the processes. Additionally, “interim” administrators seem reluctant to initiate wide-reaching reforms or create new standing committees during their brief tenures.

The Director of Assessment proposes to add this committee. Proposed duties are as follows:

Ass e ss m e nt S y stem R e v i e w Com m i t tee 1. Area of Review

a. Assessment system in generalb. Candidate assessment directions and associated rubrics before sending them to

CAEPc. Program data retreat or analysis information and report to COE Deand. Admission, Retention, and Appeals decisions e. Survey data about program graduates

2. Chargea. Create and disseminate a rubric to assess COE Diversity Standards. Create a

mechanism for collecting, analyzing, and using these data.b. Determine what impact candidates have on P-12 learningc. Create and disseminate a rubric to assess dispositions formally and at designated

times in ALL EPP programs. Create a mechanism for collecting, analyzing, and using these data.

d. Review assessments and rubrics that will be used for CAEP and university reporting purposes for robustness, correlation with relevant standards, and validity.

e. Review recommendations and facilitate changes to assessment system

3. Data revieweda. Recommendations from Program Reviewersb. Admission, Retention, and Appeals decisions

4. Committee structure and membershipa. Faculty from each Departmental (CEPR, ICL, LEAD) Program Areasb. The Director of Assessment serves as the Committee Chair

5. Name of person(s) with whom findings are shareda. COE Dean


COE EPP Assessment Handbookb. Department Chairs

6. To whom committee reportsa. COE Deanb. Department Chairs

7. Timeline for meetingsa. At least once per semester



Procedure for Candidate Admission Undergraduate TEP Candidates

Provisional Admission : Undergraduates are required to complete at least 45 hours before applying provisional admission. Among those hours the following courses must be passed: ENGL 1010, ENGL 1020, MATH 1420 or equivalent, and EDPR 2111.They must have a 2.75 Cumulative GPA before applying. Undergraduate Candidates must pass all portions of the PRAXIS Core Academic Skills Test for Educators (CORE) unless they have an Enhanced ACT score of 22 or above or a combined score of 1020 or above on the SAT. Please note passing the CORE writing exam is a non-negotiable and cannot be appealed. Must have a clear background check.

Full Admission: Candidates apply for full admission the semester prior to their Residency Year. Each candidate must:1. Have a 3.0 overall grade point average;2. Supply passing scores on the appropriate Praxis II Content Knowledge Exam. Please note in PETE it is Content and Design and for Art the exam includes Content and Analysis.3. Approval of Program Faculty

Graduate (MAT) TEP Candidates

Graduate students must have a 3.00 cumulative Undergraduate GPA to be admitted to the MAT. Graduate Students are required to begin the Provisional TEP application process before they are allowed to enroll in any courses.

Provisional Admission: To be provisionally admitted a candidate must: submit an application, pass all parts of the Core Academic Skills Test for Educators (CORE) or GRE (Verbal 143, Quant 138, Writing 3.5) and the Praxis II Content Knowledge (PETE's exam is Content & Design), (Art is Content & Analysis) and (Music is Content and Instructions) that is associated with their licensure area, and have a clear background check. Please note passing the writing exam is non-negotiable and cannot be appealed.

Full Admission: Graduate candidates apply for full admission to TEP the semester before their clinical teaching semester. The requirements for full admission include:1. 3.25 graduate GPA.2. Supply passing scores on all required licensure exams.3. Approval of Program Faculty

Undergraduate and graduate applications must be submitted to the Teacher Education Office by the first Tuesday in September or first Tuesday in March.

Source: http://www.memphis.edu/tep/admission/index.php


http://www.memphis.edu/tep/admission/index.php


Procedure for Candidate Retention Faculty Reporting of Dispositional Deficiencies

Faculty will submit to the Director of Teacher Education documentation of any candidate’s lack of proficiency in regard to program dispositions and/or in class behaviors. Prior to submitting the documentation, the faculty member must meet with the candidate, discuss the candidate’s deficiency(s) and obtain a signature from the candidate. The signature does not mean the student agrees with the decision of the faculty member, rather it is just an indicator the candidate was informed. Before forwarding to the Director of Teacher Education, the faculty member will summarize the conference with the candidate. Please note if the deficiency is at a field/clinical site, then both the mentor teacher and university faculty mentor should meet with the candidate to discuss the candidate’s deficiency(s) and follow the same procedure outlined above.

Retention Procedures

Candidates who have a dispositional deficiency report filed in the Office of Teacher Education will be required to the meet with the College of Education’s Admission and Retention Committee (ARC), a subcommittee made up of members of the Teacher Education Advisory Council. The end result could be a recommendation from the ARC to allow the candidate to continue, the development of a required remediation plan and/or recommendation for dismissal from the program.

In cases of academic dishonesty, (cheating & plagiarism), the candidate will follow appeal procedures as outlined in the Student Handbook. The Admission and Retention Committee following notification of the decision of the Judicial Affairs Office about the candidate’s appeal will then make a decision about disqualification from the teacher preparation program.The subcommittee will be made up of three faculty members, one of which will represent the licensure area of the candidate.

At the meeting, the candidate will be provided an opportunity to explain his/her position and provide the committee any additional relevant information concerning the candidate’s performance and dispositions in the program.

The committee will make a determination about the candidate’s continuance in the program. The committee may prescribe a remediation plan in conjunction with area faculty or recommend disqualification from the program. The committee’s remediation plan or disqualification recommendation must be submitted within 7 working days to the Director of Teacher Education.

Source: www.memphis.edu/.../faculty-reporting-professional-dispositions.pdf


http://www.memphis.edu/.../faculty-reporting-professional-dispositions.pdf


Decision Points for All ProgramsUM – Undergraduate Initial Licensure

Note: Bolded items represent key assessmentsAssessment

Point I

Before TEP Admission

Assessment Point II

Junior Year

Assessment Point III

Residency I-II

Assessment Point IV

Capstone

Assessment Point V

Post Licensure

Standardized Tests

Case study

Required coursework in Arts & Sciences

Skills tests

Content knowledge exams

Portfolios

Written assignments

Content tests

Lesson plans

Unit plans

Assessment data projects

Written assignments

Residency II Observations

Residency II Summative Evaluations

Portfolios

Learning Segment Proposal

EdTPA Written commentaries

UM – Graduate Initial Licensure


Point I

Before TEP Admission

Assessment Point II

Level I-II Coursework


Residency I-II

Assessment Point IV

Capstone

Assessment Point V

Post Licensure

Content knowledge Assessment data Learning Segment


COE EPP Assessment HandbookStandardized Tests

Case study

Required coursework in Arts & Sciences

Grades and GPA

exams

Portfolios

Written assignments

Lesson plans

Unit plans

projects

Written assignments

Lesson plans

Unit plans

Residency II Observations

Residency II Summative Evaluations

Portfolios

Proposal

EdTPA Written commentaries

Assessment Points for Candidates in School CounselingAssessment

Point I Assessment

Point

II

Assessment Point

III

Assessment

Point IV

Assessment Point

V

Assessment Point VI

Post Licensure


COE EPP Assessment HandbookUM – Graduate Advanced Preparation


Point I

Program Admission

Assessment Point II

Coursework


Assessment Point IV

Capstone

Assessment Point V

Post Licensure

Letters of Recommendation

GPA/Scores

Writing Sample

Written Assignments

Thematic Units

Lesson Plans

Content Exams

Scholarly Research Projects

Comprehensive Exams

Dissertation

Master’s Project or Thesis



Key Assessments for Programs SEE DOCUMENT IN STANDARD 2

When Key Assessment is Administered Percent of Total Assessments

Number of Assessments

Before admission to the TEP 11.72% 15Early coursework during a program 13.28% 17Middle of program 32.81% 42End of Program 26.56% 34Capstone Project 15.63% 20TOTAL 100.00% 128



Procedure for Undergraduate Alternative Admission or Admission Appeal Students who are denied admission into the Teacher Education Program should follow the steps outlined below. Undergraduate candidates cannot appeal if they lack both the necessary grade point average and have failed to meet a minimum score on the PPST.

Undergraduate Alternative Admission Based on PPST Scores

1. The candidate must meet the minimum cut-off score for the writing subtest and either the math or reading or they cannot appeal.

2. The appealed PPST subtest score cannot vary more than 3% (5 points) from the acceptable minimum score.

3. Candidates must meet the following to submit an appeal for alternative admission: 4. Must have a GPA of 3.05. Must have taken the PPST subtest in question twice. (Please note the writing subtest must

be passed) 6. If appealing the READING TEST, the candidate must have at least a 3.00 average in

their general education literature and history courses. 7. If appealing the MATHEMATICS TEST, the student must have a 3.00 average in

required math courses. 8. All of the above courses must be from an accredited college.

Undergraduate Alternative Admission Based on Grade Point Average

Candidates appealing to be admitted to TEP because their grade point average has fallen below 2.75 must meet the following requirements in order to appeal:

1. Must have passed all sections of the PPST.2. Must provide, as part of their appeal, a plan describing the courses they will repeat to

raise their grade point average to the 2.75 minimum. No restricted courses can be included in the plan.

3. Candidates failing to achieve alternative admission will be advised individually regarding a remediation plan to improve their grade point average and/or PPST performance. In some instances the candidate may be counseled out of the program.

Source: http://www.memphis.edu/tep/admission/alternative-admissions.php


http://www.memphis.edu/tep/admission/alternative-admissions.php


Procedure for Graduate Admission Appeal Students who are denied admission into the Teacher Education Program should follow the steps outlined below. Graduate candidates cannot appeal based on failure to pass the Praxis II Content Knowledge Exam

MAT & Licensure-Only Candidates Appeals Process for Admission to TEPAppeals Based on PPST

1. Candidates must pass the writing subtest and either the math or reading subtest.2. Candidates must have taken the PPST subtest in question twice. (Please note the writing

subtest must be passed.) 3. If appealing the Reading Subtest, the candidate must have at least a 3.0 average in

general education literature and history courses. 4. If appealing the Mathematics Subtest, the candidate must have at least a 3.0 average in

the Math courses taken in their undergraduate degree. 5. Must have a 3.5 GPA in graduate Licensure coursework.

Source: http://www.memphis.edu/tep/admission/alternative-admissions.php

Graduate MS, EdS and EdD

Any action that results in a student being terminated may be appealed under the following procedures. These actions may include a second failure on comprehensive examinations, failure on a thesis or dissertation oral, a second semester on academic probation, or an action of a program retention committee. Appeals are to be presented and hearings on appeals convened only during periods in which the academic units of the University are in session. All parties concerned must receive copies of: 1) The requests for a hearing;2) Notices of the time and location of the hearing; and 3) Disposition of the hearing request in each step of the appeal procedure. As soon as notice is received that the appeal is continuing, copies of all correspondence and other records pertaining to the complaint must be forwarded to all concerned.

Step 1

A. Time Limitation: Thirty class days following the semester in which the termination was received. The student must submit a written request to the department chair for a hearing to appeal termination from the program. The request should state the factual basis for the appeal.

B. Time Limitation: Fifteen (15) class days following receipt of the complaint.


http://www.memphis.edu/tep/admission/alternative-admissions.php

COE EPP Assessment HandbookIn consultation with the student and appropriate departmental committee, the department chair will render a decision on the appeal. The student and departmental committee will be notified in writing of the department chair’s decision and reasons supporting the decision.

Step 2*

A. Time Limitation: Five (5) class days following the announcement of the decision by the chair. The student or the departmental committee may appeal the decision made in Step 1 by filing, with the director of graduate studies in the student’s college, a written request for a hearing before the college council for graduate studies. The request should state the factual basis for the appeal of the chair’s decision and include a copy of the chair’s decision.

B. Time Limitation: Fifteen (15) class days following the receipt of the written request. The college council for graduate studies will notify the student, departmental committee, and chair of the date, time, and location of the retention appeals hearing. If the college council agrees that the student should be reinstated, the council shall be empowered to reinstate the student. The student, departmental committee, and chair will be notified in writing of the college council’s decision and reasons supporting the decision. [*In the case of programs that are not represented on a college council, Step 2 will be omitted and the appeal will be forwarded to the dean of the department involved.]

Step 3

A. Time Limitation: Five (5) class days after the announcement of the decision by the college council.

If the complaint cannot be resolved at the level of Step 2, the student or the departmental committee may request in writing that the director of graduate studies in the student's college forward the complaint to the dean of the appropriate college with a copy of the college council's decision.

B. Time Limitation: Fifteen (15) class days following the written request for appeal. The college dean may utilize any resources available to resolve the conflict. The chair, the director of graduate studies in the student's college, the departmental committee, and the student will be notified in writing of the dean's decision.

Step 4

A. Time Limitation: Five (5) class days following the announcement of a decision by the college dean.

If the complaint cannot be resolved at the level of Step 3, the student or the departmental committee may appeal the decision by filing, with the Vice Provost for Graduate Studies, a request for a hearing before the University Council for Graduate Studies. The written request for a hearing must state the factual basis for the appeal and include a copy of the dean’s decision.


COE EPP Assessment HandbookIf the University Council for Graduate Studies finds that the appeal does not merit a hearing, all concerned parties shall be notified by the Vice Provost for Graduate Studies.

B. Time Limitation: Fifteen (15) class days following the receipt of the written appeal. If the University Council for Graduate Studies finds that the appeal merits a hearing, it will notify the college dean, the director of graduate studies in the student's college, the department chair, the departmental committee, and the student of the date, time, and location of the retention appeals hearing. Any available resources may be used by the University Council to resolve the conflict. If the University Council agrees that the student should be reinstated, it shall be empowered to reinstate the student. The Vice Provost for Graduate Studies will notify in writing all concerned parties and the student of the decision and reasons supporting the decision. The decision of the University Council for Graduate Studies shall be final.

Source: https://web0.memphis.edu/gradcatalog/retentionappeals.php


https://web0.memphis.edu/gradcatalog/retentionappeals.php


Procedure for Handling Student Advising, Grading, or Other Complaints Undergraduate

The responsibility for evaluating student work and assigning grades lies with the instructor of the course. The purpose of the grade appeal procedure is to provide a review process 1) for a student to understand the reasons why the grade was assigned, 2) for the instructor to become aware of and correct possible errors, 3) for appropriate supervisors at the department and college level to review the basis on which a grade has been awarded and to correct cases in which a grade is determined to have been assigned based on arbitrary or capricious action, or other reasons not related to academic performance. If, after departmental and college review, the grade is still in dispute, an appeal may be submitted to the Undergraduate Grade Appeals Committee, which consists of faculty and student representatives, for final resolution.

In all cases of a disputed grade, the student has burden of proof that the grade assigned was not appropriate. If the case has not been resolved at the student/instructor level, then the student should submit a written petition that would include a copy of the syllabus along with copies of any tests, quizzes, assignments or other written work completed and graded as part of the class requirements to the appropriate step of review. At each step of further review, copies of any previously submitted materials and any written responses to those petitions should be included. It is important to distinguish grounds for grade appeal from questions about quality of instruction. Successful grade appeals should be based on evidence that the student performed at a level sufficient to warrant a different grade. It is important for students to bring to the instructor's and the department's attention perceived deficiencies in instruction, but these by themselves do not normally warrant a change in grade. For a successful grade appeal, the student should be able to show, for example, not that the student could have earned a grade of "B" under different circumstances, but rather that the student actually did earn a grade of "B" according the standards set out on the syllabus for that course, but was assigned a lower grade. If, in the opinion, of the department or the college, deficiencies in instruction are so grave as to warrant an alternative accommodation, then the proper remedy will normally involve alternative assignments or examinations to allow the student the opportunity to demonstrate the appropriate level of competency in that area to earn a different grade than the grade originally assigned. The decision about these cases should be made at the departmental or college level. In disputed cases where the appeal is based primarily upon perceived quality of instruction, the Undergraduate Grade Appeals Committee has the option of referring the case directly to the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Programs.

ProceduresA student wishing to appeal a grade must follow Steps 1-4 listed below. (The deadlines listed below apply to the dates when classes are in session during the fall or spring semesters.) If a student fails to observe the deadlines, the decision made in the previous step will be final. If a department or college fails to respond to the student's complaint within the deadline, the student should contact the Office of the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Programs. The deadline for


COE EPP Assessment Handbookfiling the appeal should be extended appropriately to ensure that the student retains the opportunity to pursue the appeal at the next step. All correspondence and records will be retained in the office in which the complaint is resolved.

Step 1: The student should first consult with the instructor, at the latest within two weeks of the beginning of the subsequent fall or spring semester, in an effort to provide a satisfactory resolution of the complaint. If the student cannot schedule a meeting with the instructor, the student may contact the department chair, who will schedule the meeting between the student and the instructor. The only exception to this step is the case in which the instructor is unavailable. In this case, the student may proceed directly to Step 2.

Step 2: If the complaint is not resolved in Step 1, the student may present the complaint in writing by the end of the third week in the semester to the chair of the department in which the course was offered. Included in the petition the student should attach the appropriate materials described above, and if available, the instructor's written explanation for the assigned grade. The department chair will attempt to resolve the complaint in consultation with the instructor and the student. The department chair will provide a written response to the student within two weeks from the time the written complaint has been received. If the department chair was the instructor of the course, the student may proceed directly to Step 3.

Step 3: If the complaint has not been resolved at the departmental level, the student may appeal further by presenting a written petition to the dean of the college in which the course was offered, along with a copy of the materials presented at the previous stage and any written responses received from the department. At the latest, this petition should be presented within one week after the departmental response. Within two weeks of the time the complaint was received, the dean may use any resources available to resolve the conflict. If the dean finds that the request does not have merit, the dean shall notify the student in writing, with copies sent to the instructor and the department chair. If the dean and the department chair agree that the grade should be changed, the dean shall be empowered to change the grade without the instructor's consent. Either the student or the instructor may appeal this decision in

Step 4. If the dean and the department chair do not agree, the dean shall present his or her view in writing to the student, with copies to the instructor and the department chair, so that the student may include that information in an appeal to the Undergraduate Grade Appeals Committee for final resolution of the complaint.

Step 4: If the complaint has not been resolved through the previous steps, the student may present a grade appeal petition addressed directly to the Undergraduate Grade Appeals Committee through the Office of the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Programs. Copies of written materials and petitions presented at the previous steps, along with any written responses received from the department or the college, must be included with the petition at the time of submission. The deadline for submission of a petition is March 15 for grades awarded during the previous fall term, and October 15 for grades awarded during the previous spring or summer terms. (The Grade Appeals Committee does not meet during summer months.) The Office of the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Programs will forward the petition along with the attached


COE EPP Assessment Handbookmaterials to the chair of the Undergraduate Grade Appeals Committee, who will distribute copies to the members of the Committee.

The Committee members shall review the petition and the attached materials and then forward their recommendation to the chair of the Committee about whether a hearing is warranted in this case. If a majority of the Committee does not vote that the case merits a hearing, the grade stands as issued. If a majority of the Committee votes in favor of a hearing, the chair of the Committee shall inform the student and the instructor, and shall arrange a hearing to be attended by the student, the instructor, and the members of the Undergraduate Grade Appeals Committee or their designated alternates. Copies of the Committee's decision for the hearing shall be sent to the department chair and dean of the college.

Prior to the hearing, the instructor should be given a copy of the student's petition and supporting materials. If members of the Committee feel that additional factual information is needed prior to or after the hearing to render a decision, the chair of the Committee should inform the Office of the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Programs of that request in writing, and that office should make every effort to provide that information in writing to the Committee. At the hearing, first the student and then the instructor will each have the opportunity to present their cases orally and to present any other written materials they deem appropriate. The Committee members shall have the opportunity to ask questions to both the student and instructor. At the end of the meeting, the student and then the instructor shall be given the opportunity for brief closing statements.

The chair of the Committee should inform the student, the instructor, the department chair, the college, and the Office of the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Programs of the Committee's decision in writing within one week of the hearing. If a majority of the Committee agrees that the grade should be changed, the Office of the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Programs will notify Student Records of the grade change. Otherwise the grade shall remain as recorded. The decision of the Undergraduate Grade Appeals Committee shall be final.

The Undergraduate Grade Appeals Committee shall be composed of seven members and seven alternates constituted as follows:

A chair designated by the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Programs, a faculty member and alternate designated by the dean of the college involved, two faculty members and two alternates designated by the Faculty Senate, one student and one alternate designated by the college, two students and two alternates selected through the Student Government Association.

Although the primary responsibility of the Committee is to review grade appeals and assign the appropriate grade in cases where the appeal is upheld, the Committee shall also report any findings of discrimination or prejudice to the Office of the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Programs for further consideration and possible action.

Source: http://www.memphis.edu/ugcatalog/acad_reg/ug_grade_appeal.php


http://www.memphis.edu/ugcatalog/acad_reg/ug_grade_appeal.php

COE EPP Assessment HandbookGraduate

This appeal procedure provides any graduate student at The University of Memphis with a clearly defined avenue for appealing the assignment of a course grade that the student believes was based on prejudice, discrimination, arbitrary or capricious action, or some other reason not related to academic performance. In all cases the complaining student shall have the burden of proof with respect to the allegations in the complaint and in the request for a hearing.

The student must institute the appeal process within thirty (30) class days following the University deadline for posting grades in the system. If the instructor, chair, or dean fails to respond to the student's complaint within the time limits, the Graduate Grade Appeals Committee shall act on the student’s complaint. The procedure is terminated if the student and the instructor agree on the grade. If neither the student nor the instructor appeals a decision within the appropriate time limit, the disposition of the complaint made in the previous step shall be final.

A written record of all decisions shall be kept with the file at all steps in the process. Copies of all correspondence and records shall be retained in the office in which the complaint is finally resolved. The original documents shall be forwarded to the Graduate School for filing.

All parties must carefully adhere to the following procedure, observing the deadlines.

Step 1Time Limitation: Early enough to meet the deadline in Step 2.

The student shall first consult with the instructor in an effort to provide a satisfactory resolution of the complaint. In the event the student cannot schedule a meeting with the instructor, the student may contact the department chair, who shall schedule the meeting between the student and the instructor. If for any reason the instructor is not available, proceed to Step 2. If agreement is reached between the student and instructor the appeal process ends.

Step 2Time Limitation: Thirty (30) class days from the University deadline for posting grades in the system.

If the complaint is not resolved in Step 1, the student must complete a Graduate Grade Appeal Form (available in PDF format on the Graduate School's homepage, in the departmental office, or in the Graduate School). This form, accompanied by a written statement detailing the factual basis of the complaint along with the instructor's written rebuttal, shall be taken by the student to the chair of the department in which the course was taken. The written complaint must be received by the chair within thirty (30) class days from the University deadline for posting grades in the system. The department chair shall then address the complaint in consultation with the instructor and the student within fifteen (15) class days of the date of submission of the written complaint. If the instructor is unavailable, the chair should proceed with the appeal. The department chair may utilize any resources available to resolve the grade conflict. The chair



must provide a written rationale for any decision made, which shall become part of the file.

If the department chair was the instructor of the course involved in the complaint, or if for any reason the chair disqualifies him/herself, the student may proceed to Step 3.

The chair is empowered to change the grade if he/she finds that the original grade was based on prejudice, discrimination, arbitrary or capricious action, or some other reason not related to academic performance. The chair shall notify both the student and the instructor in writing of the action taken. Either the student or the instructor may appeal the chair's decision within five (5) class days by filing a written request for a hearing before the dean of the college.

Step 3Time limitation: Within five (5) class days after the fifteen class-day period above.

If the complaint cannot be resolved at the level of Step 2 within the prescribed fifteen (15) class days, the student or the instructor has five (5) class days to request in writing (with a copy to the Graduate School) that the chair forward the complaint to the dean of the college. The chair shall provide the dean with the Graduate Grade Appeal Form, the chair's written rebuttal, a copy of all correspondence and decisions, along with other records pertaining to the complaint.

The dean may utilize any resources available to resolve the grade conflict within fifteen (15) class days. If the dean finds that the request lacks merit, he or she shall notify the student, the instructor, and the chair in writing; the grade shall remain as recorded. The dean is empowered to change the grade if he/she finds that the original grade was based on prejudice, discrimination, arbitrary or capricious action, or some other reason not related to academic performance. Otherwise the grade shall remain as recorded. The dean must provide a written rationale for any decision made, which shall become part of the file.

Either the student or the instructor may appeal the dean's decision within five (5) class days by filing a written request for a hearing before the Graduate Grade Appeals Committee with the Dean of the Graduate School or designee. This request must be accompanied by the Graduate Grade Appeal Form, a copy of all correspondence, including the dean's written recommendation, and other records pertaining to the complaint.

Step 4Time limitation: Within five (5) class days after the fifteen (15) class-day period above.

The written request for a hearing before the Graduate Grade Appeals Committee should state the factual basis for the appeal of the results of Step 3. All supporting documents, including the Graduate Grade Appeal Form, should be included at the time of submission.

The Dean of the Graduate School shall forward the request to the chair of the Graduate Grade Appeals Committee. The chair shall subsequently distribute copies of the request to the members of the committee for consideration. If the Committee finds the student's or the instructor's request merits a hearing, the Committee shall notify the student, the instructor, the chair, and the college



dean of the date, time, and the location of the hearing. If the Committee finds that the request does not merit a hearing, the student, the instructor, the chair, and the dean shall be so notified in writing.

The Graduate Grade Appeals Committee may utilize any available resources to resolve the conflict within fifteen (15) class days. To hold a hearing, the seven (7) members of the committee (or appropriate alternates) must be present. The instructor and student will present their cases at the hearing in each other’s presence. If a majority of the Committee agrees that the grade should be changed because it was based on prejudice, discrimination, arbitrary or capricious action, or some other reason not related to academic performance, the Committee shall notify the Dean of the Graduate School, who shall be empowered to change the grade without the consent of the instructor, the chair, or the college dean. Otherwise, the grade shall remain as recorded. The decision of the Committee shall be communicated to all parties in writing. The decision of the Graduate Grade Appeals Committee shall be final.

The Graduate Grade Appeals Committee shall be composed of a chair, six members, and six alternates constituted as follows:

A chair designated by the Dean of the Graduate School and selected from the graduate faculty; a graduate faculty member and alternate designated by the Vice Provost for Graduate Studies; two graduate faculty members and two alternates elected by the University Council for Graduate Studies; three students and three alternates selected by the Dean of the Graduate School.

The appeals procedure is not complete until all appropriate records are forwarded to the Graduate School Office. At this time, the Dean of the Graduate School shall notify the Office of the Registrar, Corrections, of any grade change. A copy of the Graduate Grade Appeals Form shall become a part of the student's file. A permanent record of all grade appeals reviewed by the Grade Appeals Committee shall be maintained in the Graduate School.

Although the primary responsibility of the committee is to review appeals, the committee shall report any obvious discriminatory or capricious conduct on the part of either the student or the instructor to the Dean of the Graduate School for consideration and action.

Source: https://web0.memphis.edu/gradcatalog/gradeappeals.php

Below are additional procedures by the Instruction and Curriculum Leadership Department.

ICLStudents complete an ICL Student Communications Form. This outlines what the nature of the grievance or request is and what possible solution the student can determine. The student must list alternatives if the requested solution is not possible. The student must also have talked with the advisor or course professor in an attempt to solve the issue or meet the request before asking for the chair’s help. The professor or advisor must list his/her recommendations and sign the form. When the form is complete the student presents it to the ICL main office and an


https://web0.memphis.edu/gradcatalog/gradeappeals.php

COE EPP Assessment Handbookappointment with the ICL chair can be requested. At the conclusion of the meeting with the student, the chair writes his/her recommendations.



Fairness, Accuracy, Consistency, and Elimination of Bias Procedures for ensuring fairness, accuracy, consistency, and freedom of bias for key assessments of candidate performance and evaluations of program quality and EPP operations are multi-faceted.

All assessments are administered to all candidates matriculating into prescribed courses (e.g., ECED 4520, SPED 2000, ELED 3251). In the Department of Instruction and Curriculum Leadership, common syllabi, assessments and scoring tools are created by the “Professor of Record” or POR who has the deepest and broadest knowledge of the content for a particular course in conjunction with other professors in the program area who share knowledge of the content. All professors (full-time and part-time) who teach the course must use the prescribed syllabi, assessments and scoring tools. Thus, we ensure that all candidates in a given course are provided with the same content and assessed using the same instruments and scoring tools. Fairness, accuracy, consistency and freedom of bias are addressed.

The School Administration and Supervision Program, the School Counseling Program and the Physical Education Teacher Education Program have small numbers of students and generally have one section of each course and one professor teaching a specific course so consistency is less of an issue. School Counseling requires a portfolio of all graduates; this has common components, rubrics and scoring.

Currently LiveText houses over 160 assessments and rubrics. These assessments are the ones jointly created by the professors within each program area (e.g., Early Childhood, Special Education or Elementary Education) to accurately reflect the content of each assessment chosen for the respective students. The rubrics and assessment directions (if needed) are forwarded to the Director of Assessment who uploads them into the LiveText software and attaches them to the respective courses each semester. With a single person responsible for the uploading of assessments to LiveText and to courses, reliability is likely. Emails are sent to faculty members near the end of each semester to remind them to use the assessments and to score them in LiveText so data can be gathered. The Director of Assessment also checks at the end of each semester and emails those who have not scored Key Assessment to do so. Again, fairness, accuracy, consistency and freedom of bias are addressed.

Department of Instruction and Curriculum Leadership faculty members are trained in scoring students’ assessments using the scoring rubrics in LiveText. The Director of Assessment initially conducted large-scale LiveText training sessions for students and faculty members. Individual training is offered as requested. In addition, printed and electronic tutorials are available for both faculty members and students. Due to the smaller scale for Leadership and the Physical Education Teacher Education program they do not currently use LiveText although they were encouraged to do so. School Counseling will begin using LiveText in the near future.



Use of Informational Technologies Three systems assist us with maintaining records of student admission, progress and achievement. Banner, MATRIX and LiveText are the primary means of data gathering regarding assessments of student’s progress and achievements.

Banner, a student information system gathers student demographics, GPA, faculty ratings, and PRAXIS scores. Data can be extrapolated to meet a variety of needs. Banner interfaces with LiveText (noted below) to allow course and student uploading. An internal COE data system collects and manages some of the Banner data for easier access.

Matrix is another management system that allows documents to be scanned and uploaded thus allowing electronic access for the purpose of data gathering. Physical copies of TEP student application and summative evaluation materials from candidates’ clinical site mentors are held there.

Currently the LiveText Data Management System houses over 160 ICL assessments and rubrics. These assessments are the ones jointly created by the professors within each program area (e.g., Early Childhood, Special Education or Elementary Education) to accurately reflect the content of each assessment chosen for the respective students. The rubrics and assessment directions (if needed) are forwarded to the Director of Assessment, or designee, who uploads them into the LiveText software and attaches them to the respective courses each semester. With a single person responsible for the uploading of assessments to LiveText and to courses, reliability and uniformity is likely. Email reminders are sent to faculty members near the end of each semester to remind them to use the assessments and to score them in LiveText so data can be gathered. The Director of Assessment also checks at the end of each semester and emails those who have not scored Key Assessment to do so.

The LiveText Data Management System assessment system provides greater flexibility in terms of reporting results for state and national assessment reports (i.e., Title II, Race to the Top). ICL can disaggregate data across instructors, programs, location (main campus or any of our extended sites where courses or programs are offered), and mode of delivery (online, hybrid, or on-ground). ICL can look at data across by program or across professional association standards, state standards, and national standards.

School Counseling plans to begin using LiveText in the near future.



Assessment System Data CollectionFaculty and staff members in COE routinely assess candidates in several ways.

Preadmission documentation (i.e., GPA, PRAXIS scores) from initial licensure candidates is submitted to the COE Graduate School and forwarded to programs.

Another way is through regular course activities and assignments; the faculty member then enters these data in the university’s course management system (i.e., Desire2Learn). Faculty members are encouraged to have a presence in the course management system and maintain a syllabus and grades. Thus ensuring a record of student progress in the event of the faculty member’s sudden death or serious illness.

Another collection stream is through LiveText. Candidates in initial licensure programs purchase a subscription to LiveText as part of course requirements. Candidates then upload designated assessments into LiveText at the same time they upload them to the university’s course management system. Faculty members use the same procedures and rubric to score the assignment, but in the two platforms.

Some assessments are not uploaded by students into LiveText. For these, rubric data is gathered and entered by either faculty members or the Director of Assessment for those students. Data are based on assessments such as content tests, summative assessments completed by clinical field experience personnel or edTPA scores received from Pearson.

Those programs not using LiveText must keep their own records of student progress for SACS, SPA reports, departmental reporting and program improvement data retreats.

Graduate candidates in advanced programs submit particular documentations to their committee chair who make admission decisions.


the university of memphis - the university of …€¦ · web viewthe university of memphis is...

Documents