unit/department: elementary education academic program ... · *in the 2008-2011 year’s assessment...

Unit/Department: Elementary Education Academic Program: Assessment Report 2015-2016 Division: School of Education

1 USC Upstate: Elementary Program

Component Description

Program Mission Statement

From your Program Assessment Plan (Statement should articulate the unit/ program mission in support of the institutional mission and include a clearly defined purpose appropriate to collegiate education.)

The School of Education continues with our threefold mission: to prepare effective teachers who are reflective practitioners and professionals, to serve the needs of schools in the state of South Carolina, particularly the Upstate, working collaboratively with PreK-Grade12 school personnel, and to advance understanding of how teaching and learning occur effectively. All education programs are designed to provide candidates with the following: 1) A general exposure to and an appreciation of the traditional liberal arts and sciences of both western and non-western traditions; 2) A specific exposure to the most up-to-date pedagogical theories and practices; 3) A set of ethical principles, values, and dispositions; 4) A commitment to the principle of equality of educational opportunity for all students, regardless of race, ethnic background, religious affiliation, or gender; and 5) A commitment to knowledge of both theory and practice and an understanding of how one informs and strengthens the other. As a whole, the School of Education has five goals:

I. The candidates of the USC Upstate School of Education value reflective teaching practice.

II. The candidates of the USC Upstate School of Education value learner-centered pedagogy.

III. The candidates of the USC Upstate School of Education value performance-based assessment.

IV. The candidates of the USC Upstate School of Education are committed to and affirm diversity.

V. The candidates of the USC Upstate School of Education are committed to professional responsibility.

As required by the school’s accrediting body, individual departments (programs) must align their discipline-specific goals with these overarching goals. Therefore, this document will outline the Elementary Education program’s goals, objectives, and assessments, and, by proxy, those of the School of Education as a whole. The Elementary Education program has a mission to prepare teacher candidates to be effective and reflective practitioners in the field of Elementary Education at elementary levels from 2nd grade through 6th grade. The goals of both the School of Education and the Department of Elementary Education are thus well-aligned to the university’s mission to “prepare its students to participate as responsible citizens in a diverse, global, and knowledge-based society, to pursue excellence in their chosen careers and to continue learning throughout life.” Courses in the Elementary Education program focus on the diversity of children and colleagues our teacher candidates will be working with and work hard to prepare them to meet the needs of all children and differentiate instruction. Our courses are rigorous and instructors have high expectations. Students are expected to participate responsibly, ethically, and actively. We strive to teach our students to be life-long learners through activities that are created for long-term memory and skill achievement.

Goal 1

From your Program Assessment Plan Describe broad learning outcomes and concepts (what you want students to learn) expressed in general terms (clear communication, problem-solving skills, etc). Goals should focus on discipline-specific outcomes relevant to program.)

Elementary Education teacher candidates will possess thorough and accurate knowledge of the content they teach. This goal aligns with SoE goals I and II.

Objectives SLO’s (student learning outcomes)

From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the specific skills, values and attitudes students should be able to exhibit that reflect the broader goals. Objectives (student

1.1: Elementary Education teacher candidates know and apply discipline-specific scientific, pedagogical, and theoretical concepts critical to the development of educated individuals in the elementary classroom setting.



learning outcomes) transform the general program goals into specific student performance/behaviors that demonstrate student learning and skill development along these goals

Assessment Methods

From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the measure(s) by which the department will know the students are meeting the departmental learning objectives. Includes both direct and indirect assessment. Each SLO should have at least one assessment method.)

1.1: ETS PRAXIS II Elementary Education Content Knowledge Assessment (“Instructional Practice & Application” # 5019) – This exam covers the following content areas: Reading and Language Arts = 23%; Mathematics = 19%; Science = 12%; social studies = 11%; Art, music and physical education = 10%; Applications, short content essays = 25%

Assessment Criteria

Level of achievement you are targeting (indicate benchmarks, scores on assessment instruments, etc… that would indicate acceptable achievement under your plan

1.1: 90% of Elementary Education teacher candidates will pass the PRAXIS II content exam in a given academic year. Elementary Content Test 5019: passing score is 155.

Assessment Results

Actual results and data collected (Make sure to break down data by subgroups (e.g. other campuses or emphases). As appropriate, also include item or category analysis

See Appendix I for General Praxis Results & Trend Data: 1.1: PRAXIS II Elementary Education Content & Instruction Exam results for the Spartanburg, Greenville and Sumter campuses (disaggregated); (*note: results are not disaggregated by campus from the ETS office so trend data (Appendix 1) does not show disaggregated data for prior 3 years, however the author of this report disaggregated the data through my.sc.edu student information, personal research and ETS data for this year’s report and for future comparisons). 50 teacher candidates from three campuses took the (5019) Elementary Education Instructional Practice & Application exam in the 2014-2015 reporting period. The official 2015-2016 results will not be available until December 2016 so our reporting is one academic year behind for this assessment. The author of this report for the 2014-2015 year reported “unofficial” scores. This year’s scores are ETS “official” scores for the reporting period and data analyzed is more detailed. 47/50 students (94%) passed. The 2014-2015 institutional average score of the 50 students for Praxis 5019 was 170 (155 is passing). When disaggregated, the average score for the Sumter campus was 170.2 with an overall pass rate of 89%, for the Greenville campus was 170.3 with an overall pass rate of 100%, and for the Spartanburg campus was 170.5, with an overall pass rate of 94%. When compared to the 2010-2011 report (the most recent report that was disaggregated by campus), passing rates for the Spartanburg campus remained the same, dropped 10% for the Greenville campus, and dropped 9% for the Sumter campus. When combining the three campus scores, the pass rate dropped from the prior three years where they were 98 or 99%. *In the 2008-2011 year’s assessment report, Praxis results were shown disaggregated by campus (as reported by ETS). This information was not available or located for the fall 2011-spring 2014 reports, however were located for this report. 47 out of 50 or 94% of students completing the Praxis II assessment in fall 2014 and spring 2015 passed.

We exceeded our goal of 90% pass rate (three campuses combined) with an overall pass rate of 94% on the Praxis II. This is a drop from our high scores in prior years’ combined reports. 2011/2012 = 98%, 2012-2013 = 99%, 2013-2014 = 98%.



Action Plan

What actions or modifications have been or will be made based on this assessment?

When compared to all Education Majors in the SoE, the Elementary teacher candidates’ scores are the same at 94% and when compared to all Elementary teacher candidates taking the exam across the state of South Carolina, our Elementary candidates are three percentage points higher (The overall SC state pass rate was 91% for 2014-15). The Praxis exams were revised by ETS prior to the reporting period. There were also only two fulltime Elementary program faculty. 50% of elementary courses were taught by adjunct instructors during this reporting period. These factors may be rationale for a drop in scores from prior years. A tenure-track faculty member and an instructor (both Elementary Education) were hired and began work August 2016. We now have three fulltime elementary faculty members. With more full-time faculty (and hopefully less turnover) we believe our students will benefit and exam scores will increase. The instructor for EDEL 441 has added Praxis Prep to the syllabus. The two new faculty will be taking over more content-based courses which should also help to increase Praxis scores. Praxis II test preparation sessions were offered during this past year and will continue to be offered on the revised exams in EDEL 441 (Elementary Curriculum) and EDEL 455 and 460 (Elementary Clinicals). Additional outside-of-class workshops hosted by education faculty as well as outside presenters (e.g. Dr. Lienne Medford from Clemson) were also offered and will continue to be made available to our students each semester. Faculty members will continue to be highly encouraged to take the Praxis tests so they are aware of test information and will be able to help our students prepare. Test preparation materials continue to be available for student check-out. In the coming year (since the test[s] have undergone changes) we will as an elementary faculty request updated materials for student check-out to be available in the SoE and University library. Camille McCutcheon has already begun the process for getting these materials (Sept. 2016). Requests for monetary support for Praxis practice tests will be submitted by the Elementary Program Coordinator. Advisors have been made aware of the changes to the Praxis exams and will be reminded to share updated Praxis information with their advisees during the required advisement period. Information related to Praxis testing and preparation has been and will continue to be published in the School of Education newsletter. The SoE website is undergoing major renovations and we hope to have additional links and information to support our students. An updated power point overview is being created and will be available through a Blackboard class and the elementary education program coordinator’s office for student access. This was updated for the 2015-2016 academic year to show changes and will be updated again this semester. We will stress to our advisors to encourage students to access this mode of study support. A 1 credit Praxis I course for all majors is offered by our education faculty each semester. Discussions to add a 1 credit Praxis II (5019) for Elementary majors have taken place but have not come to fruition. We are discussing this in fall 2016 program meetings. The proposed tested competencies (through a ‘Praxis Test-at-a-Glance’ document) for the revised content areas of the Praxis have been provided to all elementary education instructors. In the elementary content courses, the lineation of competencies document has been added to Blackboard for students’ information and utilization (and as a reference for instructors). The directors of the Greenville and Sumter campuses as well as coordinators and new faculty will be encouraged to attend summer sessions (2017) of the changes to Praxis. This information was shared during our initial back to school elementary education meeting and via email, so that all elementary education instructors can keep their students well informed and prepared for the requirements of Praxis. Two elementary program faculty attended a Praxis Core workshop at the University Center in September 2016. We plan to continue to support our students in the area of content preparation to maintain or exceed our pass rate. We have discussed in program meetings the implementation of a content-based assessments such as The College Basic Academic Subject Exam (CBASE) to remain in compliance with accreditation requirements and to ensure that our students have mastered the content knowledge and skills to successfully and effectively teach in an elementary education setting. Unfortunately, due to high turnover in the program and lack of funding, this has never made it past a few program meetings. We are currently discussing and investigating this and will request approval to implement this assessment in 2017. A



decision will be made during the 2016-2017 school year of the best means of continual determination of students’ content knowledge competencies.

Content course syllabi and assignments are discussed during program meetings and will continue to be reviewed on an annual basis by the Elementary Program Committee to determine if appropriate content related information is being covered and mastered by students. The Elementary faculty plan to have a retreat during fall break 2016 to align and evaluate coursework. According to results of assessments, students’ grades in content courses, and observation of student-teacher candidates during clinical instruction experiences, the grade level elementary content standards are being covered however CAEP (Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation) will be requiring further validation of content knowledge, therefore it is essential that we develop additional means of evaluating content knowledge of our candidates. CBASE is under comprehensive consideration. Our faculty renewal rate has been high over the past several years. We currently have three full-time faculty members on the Spartanburg campus however there are no designated elementary faculty at the Greenville and Sumter locations. Faculty teaching elementary classes also teach in the early childhood and/or middle school and secondary education programs. Additional full-time faculty members are a high need in the elementary program and we will continue to request new faculty positions.

Due to the fact that we are one academic year behind in accessing PRAXIS II scores, faculty will continue to communicate with ETS the reporting of this data in a more efficient and timely manner. We are receiving “unofficial” scores earlier now so it seems our communication has been positively received. (More rapid reporting of PRAXIS II scores from ets.org is essential to be able to utilize this information for program improvement.)

Implementation/Evaluation of Prior Year’s Action Plan

How was the action plan identified in the previous year’s report implemented this year, and what was the impact?

As stated in the 2014-2015 action plan for this Goal, the Elementary Program has worked to revise our reading courses to meet the South Carolina Read-to-Succeed law. Elementary faculty have attended workshops on the revised Praxis Exams to help with revising our curriculum to meet exam content. We have been requesting an additional faculty member for several years and was given an instructor position to begin this year (2016-17). We now have three strong, full-time elementary faculty members. The Associate Dean has also been added to the Elementary Program Committee. Faculty members have made a conscious effort to incorporate Praxis test information into their courses. School of Education orientation sessions along with campus-specific and grade level specific groups of initial school year sessions/meetings have (and will continue) to take place so students will remain cognizant of Praxis content, expectations, and deadlines for completing the testing process and submitting scores for attainment of SC teaching credentials.

Students are also notified of Praxis information through course materials and instructors’ notifications. A template of the essentialities of elementary education syllabi is sent to new faculty members to ensure that vital content and Praxis information has been included. Syllabi are submitted to the SoE and are monitored each semester. The elementary program coordinator evaluated syllabi for both the fall 2015 and spring 2016 semesters as well as had discussions with faculty members to make sure Praxis information was being discussed with students. Workshops were offered to our students by faculty members and outside presenters. Elementary Education course instructors also continue to incorporate content based projects into student portfolios and other assignments. Information related to Praxis testing and preparation has been published in the School of Education newsletter and on the SoE webpage and has been added to the SoE Greenville and Sumter campus newsletters. We have to continually strive to move the scores higher by keeping our students up-to-date, providing support, and encouraging them to take advantage of the resources that have been created for their success.



An email was sent in September of 2016 (we do this every year) to ETS with request for faster reporting of scores. We are awaiting for a response to the 2016 email. No response has been received from the prior requests for timely data however “unofficial” scores are available at an earlier date than prior years. We will continue to make requests on this topic.

Goal 2


Elementary Education teacher candidates will understand the planning, implementation, and assessment of developmentally appropriate learning experiences aligned with local, state, and national standards to address the diverse needs of all students. This goal aligns with SoE specific goals I, II, and III.

I. The candidates of the USC Upstate School of Education value reflective teaching practice.

II. The candidates of the USC Upstate School of Education value learner-centered pedagogy.

III. The candidates of the USC Upstate School of Education value performance-based assessment.


From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the specific skills, values and attitudes students should be able to exhibit that reflect the broader goals. Objectives (student learning outcomes) transform the general program goals into specific student performance/behaviors that demonstrate student learning and skill development along these goals.

2.1: Elementary Education teacher candidates will demonstrate competence as effective long-range instructional planners. 2.2: Elementary Education teacher candidates will demonstrate competence as effective daily instructional planners. 2.3: Elementary Education teacher candidates will demonstrate competence in the areas of student assessment and reflective self-assessment. (Domain I)

Assessment Methods


2.1: Performance on ADEPT Professional Standard (APS) # 1: Unit Planning

*Description of APS evaluations – this applies to all instances of the use of APS as assessments (See Appendix V)

The School of Education candidates’ performance is evaluated using a formative portfolio assessment process that aligns with the South Carolina Professional Assistance, Development, and Evaluation of Professional Teaching (ADEPT) System.

Teacher candidates complete ADEPT Professional Standards (APS) reports at three stages during their educational process: 1) Initial entry into the program (students are only required to complete 5/10 APS for this submission), 2) Prior to student teaching (pre-student-teaching), and 3) At the end of student teaching (Exit Portfolio). At the first two stages (Initial, and Pre-student teaching), candidates develop evidence to demonstrate teaching competencies. This evidence is organized into a portfolio and arranged by the ten APS. The teacher candidate may not enter into the student teaching phase until the 10 standards are at or above the satisfactory level. Near the completion of the student teaching experience, the teacher candidate turns in his/her “Exit” portfolio.

For each portfolio section, candidates write statements explaining the philosophical, theoretical, and practical principles underpinning each indicator. These include justifications for the artifacts that they select as evidence to demonstrate competency, and reflection on his/her learning and growth as a potential teacher.



Each APS contains a Rationale Statement and an Artifact Report, each of which is judged on a 4 point rubric, (Appendix V) where Exemplary (E) = 4 points, More than Satisfactory (M) = 3 points, Satisfactory (S) = 2 points, and Unsatisfactory (U) = 1 point. The scores on each section are averaged to produce the mean score for each APS.

If a portfolio performance standard is unsatisfactory the candidate will revise and resubmit the relevant documentation to the reviewer (course instructor or advisor). The student will not meet the requirements for a C or better in the course or meet the requirements for application to student teaching or graduation until all portfolio performance standards submitted are rated at least as “satisfactory” (2.0 overall). APS reports are collected and evaluated in both fall and spring, and are reported as such. Please note that Exit Portfolios are graded and reported by domains, which are groups of APS. Domain I includes APS 1,2, and 3; Domain II includes APS 4,5,6, and 7; Domain III includes APS 8 and 9, and Domain IV includes APS 10. Initial Portfolio Submission requirements are for 5 APS. Pre-Directed Teaching and Exit Portfolio requirements are for 10 APS. When viewing scores N/A means this APS was not a requirement at this point. Only “Exit” Portfolio scores are reported in this report.

2.2: Performance on ADEPT Professional Standard (APS) #2: Lesson Planning 2.3: Performance on ADEPT Professional Standard (APS) #3: Assessment of Students and Self-assessment

Assessment Criteria


2.1: Elementary Education teacher candidates will score a 2.0 or higher on APS (ADEPT Performance Standards) 1, 2, and 3 (Domain I) [EXIT Portfolio] – This includes long range and unit planning, broken down into individual lessons and assessments based on these assessments to determine need for modification and accommodation.

Assessment Results


Assessment results can be found disaggregated below for the Spartanburg, Greenville and Sumter campuses. See Appendix III & IV for General APS Exit Portfolio Results & Trend Data.

APS #1: Mean score=3.58 Fall 2015 Spring 2016 Spartanburg (n= 7) 3.57 (n=11) 3.24 Greenville (n= 7) 3.0 (n=9) 3.67 Sumter (n= 1) 4.0 (n=3) 4.00

APS #2: Mean score=3.58 Fall 2015 Spring 2016 Spartanburg (n= 7): 3.57 (n=11) 3.24 Greenville (n= 7): 3.0 (n=9): 3.67 Sumter (n= 1): 4.0 (n=3): 4.00

APS #3: Mean score 3.48 Fall 2015 Spring 2016 Spartanburg (n= 7): 3.28 (n=11): 3.41 Greenville (n= 7): 3.0 (n=9): 3.67 Sumter (n= 1): 4.0 (n=3): 3.52



Fall 2015 Exit (Domain I) Spring 2016 Exit (Domain I) Spartanburg (N=7 ): 3.47 (N=11): 3.32 Greenville (N=7): 3.0 (N=9): 3.67 Sumter (N=1): 4.0 (N=3): 3.73 Mean Score for Domain I = 3.54 *Exit scores for Domain I are overall scores for APS 1,2, and 3

Action Plan


All candidates met the 2.0 goal for the portfolio APS #s1, 2 and 3 (Domain I). Scores for this domain were close to scores in the 2014-2015 report period which was 3.5. As has been in the past there has been a diversity of scores across campuses and from year to year however this reporting year showed a more consistent comparison score. To maintain consistently high scores across campuses, we will strive to maintain consistency within the department through retention and addition of faculty. This was our plan for the past year however we had only one full-time elementary faculty during this report period. We hired a full-time faculty in January 2016 however she resigned mid-way through the semester. For five years the program coordinator has submitted a rationale statement/description for why the program needs an additional (3rd) full-time, faculty member and we were granted a new instructor position for the 2016-2017 year. We also replaced the person who quit in March. We now have 3 full-time faculty members teaching in the elementary program on the Spartanburg campus. The remaining methods/400 level courses offered in our program are taught by adjuncts or faculty from other programs. The Greenville and Sumter campuses depend on adjunct instructors and instructors from other programs to teach the elementary courses. We would like to have more full-time elementary faculty teaching students at these campuses. Instructors in this program are integrating more portfolio information into methods courses and are holding additional portfolio development workshops for students. As an Elementary Education program we will continue to discuss problem areas to continue success, to increase student learning as well as scores to an average above the 3.5 mark. These areas are 1) Grammar (through oral and written communication), 2) theory integration and reflection, and 3) additional and more appropriate artifacts. Faculty will continue to focus on the integration of educational philosophy and practice, correct grammatical style/usage, and teaching candidates how to reflect upon the artifact and how it relates to the APS. Additional information and examples will be posted on Blackboard sites and the SoE webpage. The portfolio requirement (for all education majors) has been revised by a committee over the past year to have a pre-post submission instead of a three part submission. 2016-2017 is the first year this will be implemented in the Elementary program. Students will complete the portfolio during the pre-student teaching semester with an opportunity to revise where needed. They will again complete/update and submit their final portfolio during the student teaching/final semester with no opportunity for revisions. We would like to have an inter-rater reliability training on the revised portfolio requirements across the three campuses. It is important that the instructors aid candidates in choosing the correct artifact for each APS. Training for grading and analysis of APS has been provided by the director of the Grenville campus and the former elementary education coordinator on the Spartanburg campus. We will offer training for the Sumter campus instructors this year. Continual assistance and mentorship will be offered for new and existing faculty members/course instructors.





Our biggest obstacle with this assessment is consistency among faculty members teaching our methods courses. Turnover and changes in who teaches the courses make it difficult to keep instruction in this area consistent. During 2015-2016 the Elementary program only had one full-time faculty member (not counting a new faculty member who began in January and resigned in March). The full-time faculty member and a dedicated adjunct instructor (who has since been hired as a full time instructor) spent time in methods courses discussing the portfolio requirements and met often with the majors outside of class for support in portfolio development. Scores remained high during the reporting period so we believe our implementations has been beneficial to the students. Action to improve overall portfolio scores to 3.0 or above was carried out (through additional resources [hand-outs, power point presentations] and instruction in methods courses). Scores remained similar to the prior year. We have had several adjuncts and new personnel teaching in the Elementary program, and it has been difficult to be consistent in this manner. The now three faculty on the Spartanburg campus have met to discuss classroom instruction and inter-rater reliability training for the portfolio. We have divided parts/domains of the revised portfolio and have created a “Guidelines for Teaching and Scoring” the assessment. EDEL 441 (curriculum course) has been updated and the new instructor is spending more time in the introduction and implementation of the APSs. As we continue to dedicate this kind of effort to APS knowledge and preparation and hopefully have less turnover we believe scores will continue to increase or remain high. Last year’s feedback from the university assessment committee member asked for longitudinal data which we have provided in this report. Statements as to whether or not goals were met are evident in this report. We hope the assessment criteria and data presentation is more clearly explained as requested.

Goal 3


Elementary Education teacher candidates will be well-prepared to maximize student learning in the classroom through instructional delivery and monitoring of student learning. This goal aligns with SoE specific goals I, II, III, IV



3.1: Elementary Education teacher candidates will establish, clearly communicate, and maintain appropriate expectations for student learning, participation, and responsibility. 3.2: Elementary Education teacher candidates will exhibit effective use of appropriate instructional strategies. 3.3: Elementary Education teacher candidates will demonstrate ability to select appropriate content and structure the delivery of the content for maximal learning. 3.4: Elementary Education teacher candidates will be able to effectively monitor student learning and provide meaningful feedback to students.

Assessment Methods From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the measure(s) by which the department will know the

3.1: Performance on ADEPT Professional Standard (APS) #4: High Expectations for Learners 3.2: Performance on ADEPT Professional Standard (APS) #5: Instructional Strategies



students are meeting the departmental learning objectives. Includes both direct and indirect assessment. Each SLO should have at least one assessment method.)

3.3: Performance on ADEPT Professional Standard (APS) #6: Teaching Content to Students 3.4: Performance on ADEPT Professional Standard (APS) #7: Monitoring Student Learning (Domain II)

3.5: ETS PRAXIS II Principles of Learning and Teaching (PLT) test (K-6) 5622

Assessment Criteria Level of achievement you are targeting (indicate benchmarks, scores on assessment instruments, etc… that would indicate acceptable achievement under your plan

3.1: Students will score a 2.0 or higher on APS 4, 5, 6, & 7 (Domain II). 3.2: 90% of students will pass the PRAXIS II PLT exam (#5622) in a given academic year. Passing score is a 160.

Assessment Results


See Appendix III & IV for more information and trend data on the APSs Exit Portfolio. See Appendix I & II for more information and trend data on the Praxis II PLT exam. Assessment results can be found disaggregated below for the Spartanburg, Greenville and Sumter campuses. APS #4: Mean score=3.43 Fall 2015 Spring 2016 Spartanburg (n= 7): 3.28 (n=11): 2.70 Greenville (n= 7): 3.00 (n=9): 3.61 Sumter (n= 1): 4.00 (n=3): 4.00

APS #5: Mean score= 3.52 Fall 2015 Spring 2016 Spartanburg (n= 7): 3.42 (n=11): 3.29 Greenville (n= 7): 3.00 (n=9): 3.46 Sumter (n= 1): 4.00 (n=3): 4.00

APS #6: Mean score=3.58 Fall 2015 Spring 2016 Spartanburg (n= 7): 3.57 (n=11): 3.17 Greenville (n= 7): 3.00 (n=9): 3.61 Sumter (n= 1): 4.00 (n=3): 4.00

APS #7: Mean score=3.34

Fall 2015 Spring 2016 Spartanburg (n= 7): 3.57 (n=11): 2.94 Greenville (n= 7): 3.00 (n=9): 3.53 Sumter (n= 1): 4.00 (n=3): 4.00

Fall 2015 Exit (Domain II) Spring 2016 Exit (Domain II) Spartanburg (N= 7): 3.46 (N=11): 3.03 Greenville (N=7): 3.00 (N=9): 3.55



Sumter (N=1): 3.90 (N=3): 4.00 Mean Score for Domain II = 3.5 *Exit scores for Domain II are overall scores for APS 4,5,6, and 7

3.5: PRAXIS II PLT test (5622) results: 65 out of 67 USC Upstate education majors who took this exam (early childhood and elementary program majors combined) passed, or 97% of early childhood education and elementary teacher candidates taking the PLT exam passed in the 2014-2015 reporting period. 2015-2016 results will not be available until December 2016. There are no disaggregated data for this category. ETS no longer reports disaggregated data for campuses. Because this data was reported for Early Childhood and Elementary majors combined disaggregated data was unable to be determined for this year. The pass rate for 2014-2015 is 1 percentage point lower than the previous year’s pass rate for elementary program majors. When compared to all education majors at Upstate the Elementary and Early Childhood combined scores are the same at 97%. When compared to all scores across the state of South Carolina we are 1% point above for the pass rate. This shows that USC Upstate is competitive across the State in this assessment.

Action Plan


All candidates met the 2.0 goal for the portfolio APS #s1, 2 and 3 (Domain I). Scores for this domain were close to scores in the 2014-2015 report period which was 3.54. As has been in the past there has been a diversity of scores across campuses and from year to year however this reporting year showed a more consistent comparison score. To maintain consistently high scores across campuses, we will strive to maintain consistency within the department through retention and addition of faculty. This was our plan for the past year however we had only one full-time elementary faculty during this report period. We hired a full-time faculty in January 2016 however she resigned mid-way through the semester. For five years the program coordinator has submitted a rationale statement/description for why the program needs an additional (3rd) full-time, faculty member and we were granted a new instructor position for the 2016-2017 year. We also replaced the person who quit in March. We now have 3 full-time faculty members teaching in the elementary program on the Spartanburg campus. The remaining methods/400 level courses offered in our program are taught by adjuncts or faculty from other programs. The Greenville and Sumter campuses depend on adjunct instructors and instructors from other programs to teach the elementary courses. We would like to have more full-time elementary faculty teaching students at these campuses. Instructors in this program are integrating more portfolio information into methods courses and are holding additional portfolio development workshops for students. As an Elementary Education program we will continue to discuss problem areas to continue success, to increase student learning as well as scores to an average above the 3.5 mark. These areas are 1) Grammar (through oral and written communication), 2) theory integration and reflection, and 3) additional and more appropriate artifacts. Faculty will continue to focus on the integration of educational philosophy and practice, correct grammatical style/usage, and teaching candidates how to reflect upon the artifact and how it relates to the APS. Additional information and examples will be posted on Blackboard sites and the SoE webpage. The portfolio requirement (for all education majors) has been revised by a committee over the past year to have a pre-post submission instead of a three part submission. 2016-2017 is the first year this will be implemented in the Elementary program. Students will complete the portfolio during the pre-student teaching semester with an opportunity to revise where needed. They will again complete/update and submit their final portfolio during the student teaching/final semester with no opportunity for revisions. We would like to have an inter-rater reliability training on the revised portfolio requirements across the three campuses.



It is important that the instructors aid candidates in choosing the correct artifact for each APS. Training for grading and analysis of APS has been provided by the director of the Grenville campus and the former elementary education coordinator on the Spartanburg campus. We will offer training for the Sumter campus instructors this year. Continual assistance and mentorship will be offered for new and existing faculty members/course instructors.



Our biggest obstacle with this assessment is consistency among faculty members teaching our methods courses. Turnover and changes in who teaches the courses make it difficult to keep instruction in this area consistent. During 2015-2016 the Elementary program only had one full-time faculty member (not counting a new faculty member who began in January and resigned in March). The full-time faculty member and a dedicated adjunct instructor (who has since been hired as a full time instructor) spent time in methods courses discussing the portfolio requirements and met often with the majors outside of class for support in portfolio development. Scores remained high during the reporting period so we believe our implementations has been beneficial to the students. Action to improve overall portfolio scores to 3.0 or above was carried out (through additional resources [hand-outs, power point presentations] and instruction in methods courses). Scores remained similar to the prior year. We have had several adjuncts and new personnel teaching in the Elementary program, and it has been difficult to be consistent in this manner. The now three faculty on the Spartanburg campus have met to discuss classroom instruction and inter-rater reliability training for the portfolio. We have divided parts/domains of the revised portfolio and have created a “Guidelines for Teaching and Scoring” the assessment. EDEL 441 (curriculum course) has been updated and the new instructor is spending more time in the introduction and implementation of the APSs. As we continue to dedicate this kind of effort to APS knowledge and preparation and hopefully have less turnover we believe scores will continue to increase or remain high. Last year’s feedback from the university assessment committee member asked for longitudinal data which we have provided in this report. Statements as to whether or not goals were met are evident in this report. We hope the assessment criteria and data presentation is more clearly explained as requested. We fear with changes to the Praxis Exams that future student scores will fall. We are offering more Praxis (revised) workshops for our students as well as including some Praxis content discussion in our methods courses.

Goal 4


Elementary Education teacher candidates will be able to promote student learning by enhancing classroom environment and managing the classroom effectively. This goal aligns with SoE goals I and IV.


From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the specific skills, values and attitudes students should be able to exhibit that reflect the broader goals. Objectives (student learning outcomes) transform the general program goals into specific student

4.1: Elementary Education teacher candidates will demonstrate the ability to maintain a classroom environment that promotes and facilitates learning. 4.2: Elementary Education teacher candidates will be able to demonstrate the ability to manage their classrooms effectively with equity, firmness, and fairness.



performance/behaviors that demonstrate student learning and skill development along these goals.

Assessment Methods


4.1: Performance on ADEPT Professional Standard (APS) #8: Maintaining a Classroom Environment that Promotes Learning 4.2: Performance on ADEPT Professional Standard (APS) #9: Classroom Management (Domain III)

Assessment Criteria


4.1: Students will score a 2.0 or higher on APS #8 & 9 (Domain III).

Assessment Results


See Appendix III & IV for more general information and trend data related to the APSs Exit Portfolio (Domain III). Assessment results can be found disaggregated below for the Spartanburg, Greenville and Sumter campuses. APS #8: Mean score=3.7 Fall 2015 Spring 2016 Spartanburg (n= 7): 3.57 (n=11): 3.70 Greenville (n= 7): 3.00 (n=9): 3.76 Sumter (n= 1): 4.00 (n=3): 4.00 APS #9: Mean score=3.51 Fall 2015 Spring 2016 Spartanburg (n= 7): 3.85 (n=11): 3.00 Greenville (n= 7): 3.00 (n=9): 3.23 Sumter (n= 1): 4.00 (n=3): 4.00

Fall 2015 Exit (Domain III) Spring 2016 Exit (Domain III) Spartanburg (N= 7): 3.7 (N=11): 3.35 Greenville (N=7): 3.0 (N=9): 3.50 Sumter (N=1): 4.0 (N=3): 4.00 Mean Score for Domain III = 3.6 *Exit scores for Domain III are overall scores for APS 8 and 9



Action Plan


All candidates met the 2.0 goal for the portfolio APS #s1, 2 and 3 (Domain I). Scores for this domain were slightly up from scores in the 2014-2015 report period where the mean score was 3.53. As has been in the past there has been a diversity of scores across campuses and from year to year however this reporting year showed a more consistent comparison score. To maintain consistently high scores across campuses, we will strive to maintain consistency within the department through retention and addition of faculty. This was our plan for the past year however we had only one full-time elementary faculty during this report period. We hired a full-time faculty in January 2016 however she resigned mid-way through the semester. For five years the program coordinator has submitted a rationale statement/description for why the program needs an additional (3rd) full-time, faculty member and we were granted a new instructor position for the 2016-2017 year. We also replaced the person who quit in March. We now have 3 full-time faculty members teaching in the elementary program on the Spartanburg campus. The remaining methods/400 level courses offered in our program are taught by adjuncts or faculty from other programs. The Greenville and Sumter campuses depend on adjunct instructors and instructors from other programs to teach the elementary courses. We would like to have more full-time elementary faculty teaching students at these campuses. Instructors in this program are integrating more portfolio information into methods courses and are holding additional portfolio development workshops for students. As an Elementary Education program we will continue to discuss problem areas to continue success, to increase student learning as well as scores to an average above the 3.5 mark. These areas are 1) Grammar (through oral and written communication), 2) theory integration and reflection, and 3) additional and more appropriate artifacts. Faculty will continue to focus on the integration of educational philosophy and practice, correct grammatical style/usage, and teaching candidates how to reflect upon the artifact and how it relates to the APS. Additional information and examples will be posted on Blackboard sites and the SoE webpage. The portfolio requirement (for all education majors) has been revised by a committee over the past year to have a pre-post submission instead of a three part submission. 2016-2017 is the first year this will be implemented in the Elementary program. Students will complete the portfolio during the pre-student teaching semester with an opportunity to revise where needed. They will again complete/update and submit their final portfolio during the student teaching/final semester with no opportunity for revisions. We would like to have an inter-rater reliability training on the revised portfolio requirements across the three campuses.

It is important that the instructors aid candidates in choosing the correct artifact for each APS. Training for grading and analysis of APS has been provided by the director of the Grenville campus and the former elementary education coordinator on the Spartanburg campus. We will offer training for the Sumter campus instructors this year. Continual assistance and mentorship will be offered for new and existing faculty members/course instructors.



Our biggest obstacle with this assessment is consistency among faculty members teaching our methods courses. Turnover and changes in who teaches the courses make it difficult to keep instruction in this area consistent. The new instructor last year did implement changes in teaching the requirements for this assessment however she has recently left (August 2014) the SoE. Scores did improve during the spring semester so we believe her implementations were beneficial to the students. Action to improve overall portfolio scores to 3.0 or above was carried out (through additional resources [hand-outs, power point presentations] and instruction in methods courses), but it was not as consistent as we would have hoped. Scores did not improve significantly. We have had several adjuncts and new personnel teaching in the Elementary program, and it has been difficult to be consistent in this manner. EDEL 441 has been updated and the new instructor is spending more time in the introduction and implementation of the APSs. As we continue to dedicate this kind of effort to APS knowledge and preparation and hopefully have less turnover we believe scores will continue to increase.



The new requirement added to the portfolio, for candidates to have artifacts that meet all seven content areas addressed in the ACEI standards continues to be monitored by faculty scoring the portfolio, and assures more and better understanding in specific content areas. This also assists in more appropriate and better understanding of long and short range planning and overall assessment.

Goal 5


Elementary Education teacher candidates will demonstrate dispositions essential to becoming effective professionals. This goal aligns with SoE goal V.



5.1: Teacher candidates will exhibit an ability to develop as a teacher both professionally and personally.

Assessment Methods


5.1: Performance on ADEPT Professional Standard (APS) #10 (Domain IV): Personal and Professional Development

5.2: Performance on Teacher Work Sample (TWS)

The Teacher Work Sample (TWS) is a comprehensive 200 point assessment composed of seven components (contextual factors – 20 pts, learning goals – 25pts, assessment plan – 25 pts, design for instruction – 35 pts, instructional decision-making – 25 pts, analysis of student learning – 20 pts, and self-assessment/reflection – 25 pts) used to measure effects on student learning. These components correlate with the APS Standards. Each of the seven components is graded on a rubric (Appendix VI). Teacher candidates are given a rating based on their total score:

Exemplary = 177-200 More than satisfactory = 162-176 Satisfactory = 161-146 (all indicators must be in the satisfactory range) Unsatisfactory = below 146. For students whose work is rated as unsatisfactory, the individual components rated as unsatisfactory must be resubmitted. TWS reports are compiled during teacher candidates’ final semester while they are completing their student teaching experience.



Assessment Criteria


5.1: Students will score a 2.0 or higher on APS #10 (Domain IV).

5.2: Students will achieve an overall rating of ‘More Than Satisfactory’ for Teacher Work Samples.

Assessment Results


General information and trend data for APS Exit Portfolio can be found in Appendix III & IV. Assessment results can be found disaggregated below for the Spartanburg, Greenville and Sumter campuses. APS #10: Mean score=3.7 Fall 2015 Spring 2016 Spartanburg (n= 7): 4.00 (n=11): 3.47 Greenville (n= 7): 3.00 (n=9): 4.00 Sumter (n= 1): 4.00 (n=3): 4.00 Fall 2015 Exit (Domain IV) Spring 2016 Exit (Domain IV) Spartanburg (N= 7): 4.00 (N=11): 3.47 Greenville (N=7): 3.00 (N=9): 4.00 Sumter (N=1): 4.00 (N=3): 4.00 Mean Score for Domain IV = 3.75 *Exit scores for Domain IV include only APS 10

5.2: Mean Teacher Work Sample scores (scores not disaggregated by campus): Fall 2015 Spring 2016 (n = 8) 176.2 (n = 23) 175.92 % greater than 160 100% % greater than 160 100%

Action Plan


All candidates met the 2.0 goal for the portfolio APS #s1, 2 and 3 (Domain I). Scores for this domain were slightly up from scores in the 2014-2015 report period where the mean score was 3.70. All candidates met the More than Satisfactory rating on the Teacher Work Sample. As has been in the past there has been a diversity of scores across campuses and from year to year however this reporting year showed a more consistent comparison score. To maintain consistently high scores across campuses, we will strive to maintain consistency within the department through retention and addition of faculty. This was our plan for the past year however we had only one full-time elementary faculty during this report period. We hired a full-time faculty in January 2016 however she resigned mid-way through the semester. For five years the program coordinator has submitted a rationale statement/description for why the program needs an additional (3rd) full-time, faculty member and we were granted a new instructor position for the 2016-2017 year. We also replaced the person who quit in March. We now have 3 full-time faculty members teaching in the elementary program on the Spartanburg campus. The remaining methods/400 level courses offered in our program are taught by adjuncts or faculty from other programs. The Greenville and Sumter campuses depend on adjunct instructors and instructors from other programs to teach the elementary courses. We would like to have more full-time elementary faculty teaching students at these campuses.



Instructors in this program are integrating more portfolio information into methods courses and are holding additional portfolio development workshops for students. As an Elementary Education program we will continue to discuss problem areas to continue success, to increase student learning as well as scores to an average above the 3.5 mark. These areas are 1) Grammar (through oral and written communication), 2) theory integration and reflection, and 3) additional and more appropriate artifacts. Faculty will continue to focus on the integration of educational philosophy and practice, correct grammatical style/usage, and teaching candidates how to reflect upon the artifact and how it relates to the APS. Additional information and examples will be posted on Blackboard sites and the SoE webpage. The portfolio requirement (for all education majors) has been revised by a committee over the past year to have a pre-post submission instead of a three part submission. 2016-2017 is the first year this will be implemented in the Elementary program. Students will complete the portfolio during the pre-student teaching semester with an opportunity to revise where needed. They will again complete/update and submit their final portfolio during the student teaching/final semester with no opportunity for revisions. We would like to have an inter-rater reliability training on the revised portfolio requirements across the three campuses.

It is important that the instructors aid candidates in choosing the correct artifact for each APS. Training for grading and analysis of APS has been provided by the director of the Grenville campus and the former elementary education coordinator on the Spartanburg campus. We will offer training for the Sumter campus instructors this year. Continual assistance and mentorship will be offered for new and existing faculty members/course instructors. Overall Teacher Work Sample scores decreased in fall of 2015 (by 5 points) and in spring of 2016 by 12 points. This is not a huge decrease and still at the “More than Satisfactory” rating, but an area in which the elementary education faculty are monitoring. The new full-time instructor teaching the course where the TWS is required is working closely with students through the TWS and the grading process. She has been trained by the program coordinator. She is also extremely enthusiastic and has a high work ethic and expectation of our students. With the training and her positive attitude it is our hope that scores will increase in the coming year/s.



Our biggest obstacle with this assessment is consistency among faculty members teaching our methods courses. Turnover and changes in who teaches the courses make it difficult to keep instruction in this area consistent. During 2015-2016 the Elementary program only had one full-time faculty member (not counting a new faculty member who began in January and resigned in March). The full-time faculty member and a dedicated adjunct instructor (who has since been hired as a full time instructor) spent time in methods courses discussing the portfolio requirements and met often with the majors outside of class for support in portfolio development. Scores remained high during the reporting period so we believe our implementations has been beneficial to the students. Action to improve overall portfolio scores to 3.0 or above was carried out (through additional resources [hand-outs, power point presentations] and instruction in methods courses). Scores remained similar to the prior year. We have had several adjuncts and new personnel teaching in the Elementary program, and it has been difficult to be consistent in this manner. The now three faculty on the Spartanburg campus have met to discuss classroom instruction and inter-rater reliability training for the portfolio. We have divided parts/domains of the revised portfolio and have created a “Guidelines for Teaching and Scoring” the assessment. EDEL 441 (curriculum course) has been updated and the new instructor is spending more time in the introduction and implementation of the APSs. As we continue to dedicate this kind of effort to APS knowledge and preparation and hopefully have less turnover we believe scores will continue to increase or remain high.

Last year’s feedback from the university assessment committee member asked for longitudinal data which we have provided in this report. Statements as to whether or not goals were met are evident in this report. We hope the assessment criteria and data presentation is more clearly explained as requested.



Appendix I.

020406080

100

Percent Students Passing

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015

2008-2015 Praxis II Content Exams (5019) Comparison of Elementary Programs at Three Campuses (when available): Test Code has changed from previous year

Spartanburg Campus

Greenville Campus

Sumter Campus

All 3 Campuses

85

90

95

100


2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2008-2015 Praxis II Content Exam (5019) Comparison of Elementary Majors (from three campuses) in Relation to All Education Majors at USC Upstate and 2011-2015 Comparison of Elementary and all Education Majors to

majors across the State of South Carolina

All Elementary MajorsAll Education MajorsAll SC Education Majors



Appendix II.

020406080

100


2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2008-2015 (Principles of Learning and Teaching) PLT Exam (5622) Comparison

Spartanburg CampusGreenville CampusSumter CampusAll 3 Campuses

80859095

100


2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2008-2015 (Principles of Learning and Teaching) PLT Exam Comparison (when available) of Elementary Majors (from three campuses) in Relation to All Education

Majors at Upstate and in South Carolina (when available)

All Elementary MajorsAll Education MajorsSC State



Appendix III.

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4

Fall 09 Spr 10 Fall 10 Spr 11 Fall 11 Spr 12 Fall 12 Spr 13 Fall 13 Spr 14 Fall 14 Spr 15 Fall 15 Spr 16All Elementary Majors 3.03 3.2 2.67 2.99 2.68 2.93 2.42 2.91 3 3.7 3.73 2.8 3.45 3.3All Education Majors 3.1 3.58 3.03 3.4 3.41 3.33 2.59 2.46 3.5 3.8 3.8 3.4 3.7 3.4

2010-2016 Average Portfolio Scores Comparison of All USC Upstate Elementary Program Majors to All Education Program Majors

AllElementaryMajorsAllEducationMajors

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4

Fall10

Spr11

Fall11

Spr12

Fall12

Spr13

Fall13

Spr14

Fall14

Spr15

Fall15

Spr16

Spartanburg 3.14 3.3 2.96 2.7 2.72 2.73 2.9 3.2 2.9 2.8 3.6 2.7Greenville 3 3 0 2.3 2.55 3 3.5 3.2 3 2.89Sumter 2.6 3 2.4 2.86 2 3 3 3.8 3.2 3.2 3.75

2011-2016 Average Portfolio Scores Comparison of Elementary Programs at Three Campuses

Spartanburg

Greenville

Sumter



Appendix IV.

Fall 2009-Spring 2016 Average Portfolio Scores (by domain) Elementary Majors (all campuses)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Fall 2009 Spring 2010 Fall 2010 Spring 2011 Fall 2011 Spring 2012 Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Fall 2015 Spring 2016

Scor

es B

ased

On

0-4

Poi

nt S

cale

Domain IDomain IIDomain IIIDomain IV



Appendix V.

USC Upstate School of Education Portfolio Rubric

Checkpoints 1 and 2: Initial (Knowledge/Understanding) and Pre-Directed Teaching (Understanding/Application) Checkpoints

The teacher candidate utilizes high-quality artifacts in order to provide an argument (i.e., Rationale Statement) to demonstrate the candidate’s knowledge, skills, and dispositions related to current competency in each ADEPT Performance Standard (APS). For example: “This artifact reflects my current level of proficiency in and relates to APS_____ in many ways.” For a teaching episode, a high-quality artifact might include – with the report and reflection – such items as a lesson plan, an observation of that lesson plan by the cooperating teacher or supervisor, handouts or materials used, student work, analysis of student work, etc.

Part I: Artifact Exemplary (E) (4 Points) More than Satisfactory (M) (3 Points) Satisfactory (S) (2 Points) Unsatisfactory (U) (1 Point) Artifact Report Artifact Reflection Supporting Documents

Report of artifact shows exemplary understanding, knowledge, and/or performance of the APS and includes the origin of the artifact and a description of what was read, prepared, completed and/or observed related to the assignment and supporting documents Reflection of artifact is clear, well developed, and includes a thorough description of what was learned, thought, understood, evaluated, or analyzed as a result of the experience being presented Supporting documents expertly illustrate, amplify, or exemplify the artifact

Report of artifact shows a high degree of understanding, knowledge, and/or performance of the APS and includes the origin of the artifact and a description of what was read, prepared, completed and/or observed related to the assignment and supporting documents Reflection of artifact is clear and includes a description of what was learned, thought, understood, evaluated, or analyzed as a result of the experience being presented, but lacks adequate development and specifics Supporting documents clearly illustrate, amplify, or exemplify the artifact

Report of artifact shows a moderate degree of understanding, knowledge, and/or performance of the APS and includes the origin of the artifact and a description of what was read, prepared, completed and/or observed related to the assignment and supporting documents Reflection of artifact includes a description of what was learned, thought, understood, evaluated, or analyzed as a result of the experience being presented, but lacks necessary development and specifics Supporting documents adequately illustrate, amplify, or exemplify the artifact

Report of artifact shows a weak degree of understanding, knowledge, and/or performance of the APS and/or is not complete Little, if any, description of what was learned, thought, understood, evaluated, or analyzed as a result of the experience being presented Few, if any, supporting documents included and/or do not exemplify the artifact

Part II: Rationale Description of APS Relationship Between Artifact and APS Self -Assessment of Knowledge/Skills in APS (Strengths, Weaknesses, and Plan for Growth)

Writing indicates an exemplary degree of understanding of the APS and includes a summary of the APS, the importance of the APS in being an effective teacher, and citations of major theories, people, and/or organizations related to the APS Includes a brief reference to artifact; clearly and thoroughly describes the connection between the artifact and the APS to demonstrate the candidate’s proficiency in the APS at the given checkpoint Clear, well developed, and specific analysis of what was learned, the candidate’s strengths and areas for improvement in the APS, and a plan for growth

Writing indicates a high degree of understanding of the APS and includes a summary of the APS, the importance of the APS in being an effective teacher, and citations of major theories, people, and/or organizations related to the APS Includes a brief reference to artifact; clearly describes the connection between the artifact and the APS to demonstrate the candidate’s proficiency in the APS at the given checkpoint, but lacks adequate detail Clear analysis of what was learned, the candidate’s strengths and areas for improvement in the APS, and a plan for growth, but lacks some development and specifics

Writing indicates a moderate degree of understanding of the APS and includes a summary of the APS and the importance of the APS in being an effective teacher Includes a brief reference to artifact; describes the connection between the artifact and the APS to demonstrate the candidate’s proficiency in the APS at the given checkpoint, but lacks necessary detail Describes what was learned, the candidate’s strengths and areas for improvement in the APS, and a plan for growth, but lacks development and specifics

Writing indicates an insufficient degree of understanding of the ADEPT Performance Standard (APS) and/or is not complete The connection between the artifact and the APS to demonstrate the candidate’s proficiency in the APS at the given time is not established or is illogically established Little, if any, description of what was learned, the candidate’s strengths and areas for improvement in the APS, and a plan for growth

Quality of Writing Well written Well written Satisfactorily written Poorly written; obtrusive errors *Candidates submitting Pre-Directed Teaching Portfolios must show growth and improvement in each APS by reviewing and revising/updating as necessary the initial portfolio. A folder containing the initial portfolio assessment form clipped to initial portfolio rationale statements must be included.



Appendix VI. Teacher Work Sample Rubrics To be completed as part of the Requirements during the Directed Teaching Semester Elementary Program The following assignments and rubrics have been developed by the faculty at USC Upstate using the materials developed by representatives of the Renaissance Partnership Institutions for The Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality Project http://fp.uni.edu/itq.

Scoring Sheet

Teacher Candidate Name: __________________________________________ Reviewer Name: __________________________ Date: __________________________ Contextual Factors ______ / 20 Learning Goals ______ / 20 Assessment Plan ______ / 25 Design for Instruction ______ / 30 Classroom Environment ______ / 25 Instructional Decision Making ______ / 25 Analysis of Student Learning ______ / 20 Reflection and Self-Evaluation ______ / 25

Overall Score ______ / 190 Exemplary (E) 190 – 177 More Than Satisfactory (M) 176 – 162 Satisfactory (S) 161 – 146 (Satisfactory must be earned with no indicators at the Unsatisfactory level.) Unsatisfactory (U) below 146 (Resubmission is required for indicators at the Unsatisfactory level)

Contextual Factors

(20 points) • The purpose of this component is to discuss relevant factors and how they may affect the teaching-learning process. Supports and challenges that affect instruction and student

learning should be included. • A two page report will be completed for this assignment and must include:

o Community, district and school factors. Address geographic location, community and school population, socio-economic profile and race/ethnicity. You might also address such things as stability of community, political climate, community support for education, and other environmental factors.

o Classroom factors. Address physical features, availability of technology equipment and resources and the extent of parental involvement. You might also discuss other relevant factors such as classroom rules and routines, grouping patterns, scheduling and classroom arrangement.

o Student characteristics. Address student characteristics you must consider as you design instruction and assess learning. Include factors such as age, gender, race/ethnicity, special needs, achievement/developmental levels, culture, language, interests, learning styles/modalities or students’ skill levels. In your narrative, make sure you address student’s skills and prior learning that may influence the development of your learning goals, instruction and assessment.

o Instructional implications. Address how contextual characteristics of the community, classroom and students have implications for instructional planning and assessment. Include specific instructional implications for at least two characteristics and any other factors that will influence how you plan and implement your unit.

http://fp.uni.edu/itq



• Reports will be graded using the following: Contextual Factors Rubric

Rating →

Indicator ↓ 1

Indicator Not Met 3

Indicator Partially Met 5

Indicator Met Score

Knowledge of Community, School and Classroom

Factors

Teacher displays minimal, irrelevant, or biased knowledge of

the characteristics of the community, school, and classroom

Teacher displays some knowledge of the characteristics of the

community, school, and classroom that may affect learning.

Teacher displays a comprehensive understanding of

the characteristics of the community, school, and

classroom that may affect learning.

Knowledge of Characteristics

of Students

Teacher displays minimal, stereotypical, or irrelevant

knowledge of student differences (e.g. development, interests,

culture, abilities/disabilities).

Teacher displays general knowledge of student differences

(e.g., development, interests, culture, abilities/disabilities) that

may affect learning.

Teacher displays general & specific understanding of student differences (e.g.,

development, interests, culture, abilities/disabilities) that may

affect learning.

Knowledge of Students’

Varied Approaches to

Learning

Teacher displays minimal, stereotypical, or irrelevant

knowledge about the different ways students learn (e.g., learning

styles, learning modalities).

Teacher displays general knowledge about the different

ways students learn (e.g., learning styles, learning modalities).

Teacher displays general & specific understanding of the different ways students learn (e.g., learning styles, learning

modalities) that may affect learning.

Knowledge of Students’

Skills And Prior Learning

Teacher displays little or irrelevant knowledge of students’ skills and

prior learning.

Teacher displays general knowledge of students’ skills and

prior learning that may affect learning.

Teacher displays general & specific understanding of students’ skills and prior

learning that may affect learning.



Learning Goals (20 points)

• The purpose of this component is to set significant, challenging, varied and appropriate learning goals and to justify learning goals established for the unit.

• A two page report will be completed for this assignment and must include:

o List the learning goals (not the activities) that will guide the planning, delivery and assessment of your unit. These goals should define what you expect students to know and be able to do at the end of the unit. These goals should be significant (reflect the big ideas or structure of the discipline), challenging, varied and appropriate. Number or code each learning goal so you can reference it later.

o Show how the goals are aligned with state standards. (Identify the source of the standards). o Describe the types and levels of your learning goals. o Discuss why your learning goals are appropriate in terms of development; pre-requisite knowledge; and other student needs.

• Reports will be graded using the following:

Learning Goals Rubric

Rating → Indicator ↓

1 Indicator Not Met

3 Indicator Partially Met

5 Indicator Met

Score

Significance, Challenge and Variety Goals reflect only one type or level of learning.

Goals reflect several types or levels of learning but lack significance or challenge.

Goals reflect several types or levels of learning and are significant and challenging.

Clarity

Goals are not stated clearly and are activities rather than learning outcomes.

Some of the goals are clearly stated as learning outcomes.

Most of the goals are clearly stated as learning outcomes.

Appropriateness For Students

Goals are not appropriate for the development; pre-requisite knowledge, skills, experiences; or other student needs.

Some of the goals are appropriate for the development; pre-requisite knowledge, skills, experiences; and other student needs.

Most goals are appropriate for the development; pre-requisite knowledge, skills, experiences; and other student needs.

Alignment with State Standards Goals are not aligned with state standards.

Some goals are aligned with state standards.

Most of the goals are explicitly aligned with state standards.

Assessment Plan (25 points)

• The purpose of this component is to design an assessment plan to monitor student progress toward learning goals. Multiple assessment modes and approaches that

are aligned with learning goals will be used to assess student learning before, during and after instruction. • A report will be completed for this assignment and must include:

o On overview of the assessment plan. For each learning goal include: assessments used to judge student performance, format of each assessment, and adaptations of the assessments for the individual needs of students based on pre-assessment and contextual factors. You may use a visual organizer such as a table, outline or other means to make your plan clear.



o Describe the pre and post assessments that are aligned with your learning goals. Clearly explain how you will evaluate or score the assessments, including criteria used to determine if the students’ performance meets the learning goals. Include copies of assessments and criteria for judging student performance (scoring rubrics, checklists, answer keys, etc.)

o Discuss your plan for formative assessment that will help determine student progress during the lesson or unit. Describe the assessments that you plan to use to check on student progress and predict when you will use them (homework nightly, daily quizzes, etc.)

• Reports will be graded using the following: Assessment Plan Rubric


1 Indicator Not Met


5 Indicator Met

Score

Alignment with Learning Goals and Instruction

Content and methods of assessment lack congruence with learning goals or lack cognitive complexity

Some of the learning goals are assessed through the plan, but many are not congruent with learning goals in content and cognitive complexity

Each of the learning goals is assessed though the plan; assessments are congruent with the learning goals in content and cognitive complexity

Clarity of Criteria and Standards for Performance

The assessments contain no clear criteria for measuring student performance relative to the learning goals

Assessment criteria have been developed, but they are not clear or are not explicitly linked to the learning goals

Assessment criteria are clear and are explicitly linked to the learning goals

Multiple Modes and Approaches The assessment plan included only assessment mode and does not assess students before, during and after instruction

The assessment plan includes multiple modes but does not assess student performance throughout the instructional sequence

The assessment plan includes multiple modes and assesses student performance throughout the instructional sequence

Technical Soundness Assessment are not valid; scoring procedures are absent or inaccurate; items are poorly written; directions and procedures are confusing to students

Assessments appear to have some validity. Some scoring procedures are explained; some items are clearly written; some directions are clear to students

Assessment appear to be valid; scoring procedures are explained; most items are clearly written; directions and procedures are clear to students

Adaptations Based on the Individual Needs of Students

Teacher does not adapt assessments to meet the individual needs of students or these assessments are inappropriate

Teacher makes adaptations to assessments that are appropriate to meet the individual need of some students

Teacher makes adaptations to assessments that are appropriate to meet the individual need of most students

Design for Instruction

(30 points)

• The purpose of this component is to design instruction for specific learning goals, student characteristics and needs, and learning contexts. You will describe how your unit instruction relates to unit goals, students’ characteristics and needs and specify learning context.

• A four page report will be completed for this assignment and must include:



o Results of pre-assessment. After administering the pre-assessment, analyze student performance relative to the learning goals. Depict the results of the pre-assessment in a format that allows you to find patterns of student performance relative to each goal. You may use a table, graph, or chart. Describe the pattern you find that will guide your instruction or modification of the learning goals.

o Unit overview. Provide an overview of your unit. Use a visual organizer such as a block plan or outline to make your unit plan clear. Include the topic or activity you are planning for each day/period. Also indicate the goal or goals (coded from your Learning Goals section) that you are addressing in each activity. Make sure that every goal is addressed by at least one activity and that every activity relates to at least one goal.

o Activities. Describe at least three unit activities that reflect a variety of instructional strategies/techniques and explain why you are planning those specific activities. In your explanation for each activity include:

how the content relates to your instructional goal(s) how the activity stems from your pre-assessment information and contextual factors what materials/technology you will need to implement the activity, and how you plan to assess student learning during and/or following the activity

o Technology. Describe how you will use technology in your planning and/or instruction. If you do not plan to use any form of technology, provide clear rationale for its omission.

• Reports will be graded using the following: Design for Instruction Rubric

Rating →

Indicator ↓ 1

Indicator Not Met 3


Indicator Met

Score Alignment with Learning Goals Few lessons are

explicitly linked to learning goals. Few learning activities, assignments and resources are aligned with learning goals. Not all learning goals are covered in the design.

Most lessons are explicitly linked to learning goals. Most learning activities, assignments and resources are aligned with learning goals. Most learning goals are covered in the design.

All lessons are explicitly linked to learning goals. All learning activities, assignments and resources are aligned with learning goals. All learning goals are covered in the design.

Accurate Representation of Content

Teacher’s use of content appears to contain numerous inaccuracies. Content seems to be viewed more as isolated skills and facts rather than as part of a larger conceptual structure.

Teacher’s use of content appears to be mostly accurate. Shows some awareness of the big ideas or structure of the discipline.

Teacher’s use of content appears to be accurate. Focus of the content is congruent with the big ideas or structure of the discipline.

Lesson and Unit Structure The lessons within the unit are not logically organized (e.g. sequenced).

The lessons within the unit have some logical organization and appear to be somewhat useful in moving students toward achieving the learning goals.

All lessons within the unit are logically organized and appear to be useful in moving students toward achieving the learning goals.

Use of a Variety of Instruction, Activities, Assignments and

Resources

Little variety of instruction, activities, assignments and resources. Heavy reliance on textbook or

Some variety in instruction, activities, assignments or resources but limited contribution to learning.

Significant variety across instruction, activities, assignments, and/or resources. This variety makes a clear contribution to learning.



single source (worksheets)

Use of Contextual Information and Data to Select Appropriate and

Relevant Activities, Assignments and Resources

Instruction has not been designed with reference to contextual factors and pre-assessment data. Activities and assignments do not appear productive and appropriate for each student.

Some instruction has been designed with reference to contextual factors and pre-assessment data. Some activities and assignments appear productive and appropriate for each student.

Most instruction has been designed with reference to contextual factors and pre-assessment data. Most activities and assignments appear productive and appropriate for each student

Technology Technology is inappropriately used OR teacher does not use technology, and no rationale is provided

Teacher uses technology but it does not make a significant contribution to teaching and learning OR teacher provides limited rationale for not using technology.

Teacher integrates appropriate technology that makes a significant contribution to teaching and learning OR teacher provides a strong rationale for not using technology.

Classroom Environment (25 points)

• The purpose of this component is to demonstrate an understanding of individual and group motivation and behavior to create a learning environment that encourages and supports student learning.

• A three to six page report will be completed for this assignment including a classroom arrangement diagram. o Philosophical statement on your beliefs about classroom management:

Describe what you believe to be your philosophy and teaching style. Include how you will create and maintain a positive affective climate. Include how you will create and maintain a culture of learning. Reference theorists or theories that support your philosophy and teaching style.

o Management of transitions: List examples of transitions that will be used as students move from one activity to another.

o Expectations: List clear expectations for behavior during learning activities. Explain how these expectations will be communicated to students, parents and administrators

o Monitoring of student behavior: Explain how students are monitored during instruction and how students who behave negatively during instruction are managed. Describe techniques to maximize the effectiveness of classroom management.

o Classroom arrangement diagram: Draw a room arrangement map or maps for different types of activities including student seating arrangement, teacher desk, resources, displays,

etc. Include a written explanation of your choice of arrangement.




Classroom Environment Rubric Rating →

Indicator ↓ 1

Indicator Not Met 3


Indicator Met

Score Philosophical statement Statement does not include

description of philosophy or teaching style, no reference to supporting theory is made.

Statement includes description of philosophy and teaching style but does not reference supporting theory or theorists.

Statement includes description of philosophy, teaching style and a clear reference is made to supporting theory or theorists.

Management of Transitions No considerations for student to transition from one activity to another, learning environment is not predictable creating a sense of insecurity, development of student responsibility is not considered.

There is some evidence the transitions between activities have been considered, learning environment has some predictability, and plan encourages limited development of student responsibility.

Plan lists examples of transitions that will be used in unit activities to create a secure and predictable learning and develop student responsibility.

Expectations Minimal standards of conduct for student behavior, no plan for communicating standards.

Standards of conduct establish behavior expectations, but no plan for communicating standards is included.

Standards of conduct for learning activities are clear with a plan for communication.

Monitoring of Student Behavior Plan has little evidence of how students are monitored and managed during instruction, no effective techniques for management are included

Plan includes some evidence of how students are monitored and managed during instruction and some effective techniques for management are included.

Plan includes evidence of how students are monitored and managed during instruction and management techniques are effective and maximize student learning.

Classroom Arrangement Plan does not include room or student arrangement ideas, does not include a written explanation of arrangement choices.

Plan includes room arrangement ideas but explanation of choices is not comprehensive.

Plan includes several room arrangement ideas and a comprehensive explanation of choices.

Instructional Decision Making (25 points)

• The purpose of this component is to use on-going analysis of student learning to make instructional decisions and to provide two examples of instructional decision-

making based on students’ learning or responses.

• A three page report will be completed for this assignment and must include: o Think of a time during your unit when a student’s learning or response caused you to modify your original design for instruction. Cite specific

evidence to support your answers to the following: Describe the student’s learning or response that caused you to rethink your plans. The student’s learning or response may come from a planned

formative assessment or another source (not the pre-assessment) Describe what you did next and explain why you thought this would improve student progress toward the learning goal.

o Now, think of one more time during your unit when another student’s learning or response caused you to modify a different portion of your original design for instruction. Cite specific evidence to support your answers to the following:

Describe the student’s learning or response that caused you to rethink your plans. The student’s learning or response may come from a planned formative assessment or another source (not the pre-assessment)

Describe what you did next and explain why you thought this would improve student progress toward the learning goal. • Reports will be graded using the following:



Instructional Decision Making Rubric Rating →

Indicator ↓ 1

Indicator Not Met 3


Indicator Met

Score Sound Professional Practice Many instructional decisions are

inappropriate and not pedagogically sound.

Instructional decisions are mostly appropriate, but some decisions are not pedagogically sound.

Most instructional decisions are pedagogically sound (i.e. they are likely to lead to student learning)

Modification Based on Analysis of Student Learning

Teacher treats class as “one plan fits all” with no modifications

Some modifications of the instructional plan are made to address individual student needs, but these are not based on the analysis of student learning, best practice, or contextual factors.

Appropriate modifications of the instructional plan are made to address individual student needs. These modifications are informed by the analysis of student learning/performance, best practice, or contextual factors. Include explanation of why the modifications would improve student progress.

Congruence Between Modifications and Learning Goals

Modifications in instruction lack congruence with learning goals.

Modifications in instruction are somewhat congruent with learning goals.

Modifications in instruction are congruent with learning goals.

Implications for Future Teaching Provides no ideas or inappropriate ideas for redesigning learning goals, instruction, and assessment.

Provides ideas for redesigning learning goals, instruction, and assessment but offers no rationale for why these changes would improve student learning.

Provides ideas for redesigning learning goals, instruction, and assessment and explains why these modifications would improve student learning.

Implications for Professional Development Provides no professional learning goals or goals that are not related to the insights and experiences described in this section

Provides professional learning goals that are not strongly related to the insights and experiences described in this section and/or provides a vague plan for meeting the goals.

Presents a small number of professional learning goals that clearly emerge from the insights and experiences described in this section. Describes specific steps to meet these goals.

Analysis of Student Learning (20 points)

The purpose of this component is for the candidate to use assessment data to profile student learning and communicate information about student progress and achievement. Analyze your assessment data, including pre/post assessments and formative assessments to determine students’ progress related to the unit learning goals. Use visual representation and narrative to communicate the performance of the whole class, subgroups, and two individual students. Conclusion drawn from this analysis will be provided in the next assignment.

• A four page report will be completed for this assignment and must include: o Whole class. To analyze the progress of your whole class, create a table that shows pre and post assessment data on every student on every learning goal.

Then, create a graphic summary that shows the extent to which your students made progress (from pre to post) toward the learning criterion that you identified for each learning goals. Summarize what the graph tells you about your students’ learning in this unit.

o Subgroups. Select a group characteristic (e.g. gender, performance level, socio-economic status, language proficiency) to analyze in terms of one learning goal. Provide a rationale for your selection of this characteristic to form subgroups (girls vs. boys; high vs. middle vs. low performers). Create a graphic representation that compares pre and post assessment results for the subgroups on this learning goal. Summarize what these data show about student learning.



o Individuals. Select two students that demonstrated different levels of performance. Explain why it is important to understand the learning of these particular students. Use pre, formative, and post assessment data with examples of the students’ work to draw conclusions about the extent to which these students attained the two learning goals. Graphic representations are not necessary for this subsection.

o Student work examples • Reports will be graded using the following:

Analysis of Student Learning Rubric Rating →

Indicator ↓ 1

Indicator Not Met 3


Indicator Met

Score Clarity and Accuracy of Presentation Presentation is not

clear and accurate; it does not accurately reflect the data.

Presentation is understandable and contains few errors.

Presentation is easy to understand and contains no errors of representation.

Alignment with Learning Goals Analysis of student learning is not aligned with learning goals.

Analysis of student learning is partially aligned with learning goals and/or fails to provide comprehensive profile of student learning relative to the goals for the whole class, subgroups, and two individuals.

Analysis is fully aligned with learning goals and provides a comprehensive profile of student learning for the whole class, subgroups, and two individuals.

Interpretation of Data Interpretation is inaccurate, and conclusions are missing or unsupported by data.

Interpretation is technically accurate, but conclusions are missing or not fully supported by data.

Interpretation is meaningful and appropriate conclusions are drawn from the data.

Evidence of Impact on Student Learning Analysis of student learning fails to include evidence of impact on student learning in terms of numbers of students who achieved and made progress toward learning goals.

Analysis of student learning includes incomplete evidence of the impact on student learning in terms of numbers of students who achieved and made progress toward learning goals.

Analysis of student learning includes evidence of the impact on student learning in terms of number of students who achieved and made progress toward each learning goal.

Reflection and Self Evaluation (25 points)

The purpose of this component is for the candidate to analyze the relationship between his or her instruction and student learning in order to improve teaching practice. Reflect on your performance as a teacher and link your performance to student learning results. Evaluate your performance and identify future actions for improved practice and professional growth.

• A two page report will be completed for this assignment and must include:

o Select the learning goal where your students were most successful. Provide two or more possible reasons for this success. Consider your goals, instruction and assessment along with student characteristics and other contextual factors within your control.



o Select the learning goals where your students were least successful. Provide two or more possible reasons for this lack of success. Consider your goals, instruction and assessment along with student characteristics and other contextual factors within your control. Discuss what you could do differently or better in the future to improve your students’ performance.

o Reflection on possibilities for professional development. Describe at least two professional learning goals that emerged from your insights and experiences with the TWS. Identify two specific steps you will take to improve your performance in the critical area(s) you identified.


Reflection and Self Evaluation Rubric


1 Indicator Not Met


5 Indicator Met

Score

Interpretation of Student Learning

No evidence or reasons provided to support conclusions drawn in “Analysis of Student Learning” section.

Provides evidence but no (or simplistic, superficial) reasons or hypotheses to support conclusions drawn in “Analysis of Student Learning” section.

Uses evidence to support conclusions drawn in “Analysis of Student Learning” section. Explores multiple hypotheses for why some students did not meet learning goals.

Insights on Effective

Instruction and Assessment

Provides no rationale for why some activities or assessments were more successful than others.

Identifies successful and unsuccessful activities or assessments and superficially explores reasons for their success or lack thereof (no use of theory or research).

Identifies successful and unsuccessful activities and assessments and provides plausible reasons (based on theory or research) for their success or lack thereof.

Alignment Among Goals, Instruction and Assessment

Does not connect learning goals, instruction, and assessment results in the discussion of student learning and effective instruction and/or the connections are irrelevant or inaccurate.

Connect learning goals, instruction, and assessment results in the discussion of student learning and effective instruction, but misunderstandings or conceptual gaps are present.

Logically connects learning goals, instruction, and assessment results in the discussion of student learning and effective instruction.

Implications for Future Teaching

Provides no ideas or inappropriate ideas for redesigning learning goals, instruction, and assessment.

Provides ideas for redesigning learning goals, instruction, and assessment but offers no rationale for why these changes would improve student learning.

Provides ideas for redesigning learning goals, instruction, and assessment and explains why these modifications would improve student learning.

Implications for Professional Development

Provides no professional learning goals or goals that are not related to the insights and experiences described in this section.

Presents professional learning goals that are not strongly related to the insights and experiences described in this section and/or provides a vague plan for meeting the goals.

Presents a small number of professional learning goals that clearly emerge from the insights and experiences described in this section. Describes specific steps to meet these goals.