SACSCOC Fifth Year Interim Report
Spacer
Assessment : 2011 - 2012 : Educational Programs :
Interdisciplinary Studies BS (Middle Level 4-8)
Interdisciplinary Studies BS (Middle Level 4-8)
3 Goals 3 Objectives 3 Indicators 3 Criteria 3 Findings 3 Actions
| GOAL: Teacher Quality |
| Objective |
|
||||
|
Middle Level candidates will demonstrate mastery in the following areas of effective teaching: planning, instruction, assessing, modifying, and self-reflection on performance. |
| Indicator |
|
|||
|
The Teacher Work Sample (TWS), adapted from The Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality Project (http://fp.uni.edu/itq), is a performance assessment designed to demonstrate evidence of Sam Houston State University candidates' ability to facilitate learning for all students. This sample illustrates the candidate's ability to plan, implement, modify and assess instruction during their student teaching semester. Prior to the student teaching semester, candidates choose one (12 to 14 week placement) or two (6 to 7 week placements). During the first 6 to 7 weeks of their placement, candidates are required to create and teach a unit as a Teacher Work Sample. After consulting with their mentor teacher about the unit focus, candidates teach a minimum of five lessons from the unit in their mentor's classroom. Additionally, the candidates are evaluated on their unit planning and teaching of unit lessons. They are also required to reflect on their decision-making and teaching practice including their impact on student learning. The Teacher Work Sample (TWS) focuses on seven teaching processes that are crucial for effective/reflective teaching and must be considered when planning for the learning of all students. Each process is defined by a performance standard, specific task, a student prompt and a rubric that identify the desired performance of the candidate related to that process. |
| Criterion |
|
|||
|
85% of candidates in the 2011-2012 academic year will achieve a score of "3" on the Teacher Work Sample. Information on Scoring Procedures: As recommended by the Renaissance Group, each candidate's Teacher Work Sample is blindly scored by a minimum of two trained scorers. Each scorer evaluates and assigns a score of three(target), two (acceptable), or one (unacceptable) to each indicator, Additionally an overall score of three, two or one is given to each of the seven processes as well as and an overall three, two or one to the entire Teacher Work Sample. If the first two scorers agree on the overall Teacher Work Sample score, the scoring process is complete. However, if the two scorers do not agree the Teacher Work Sample is scored for a third, possibly fourth time, until agreement is reached. For this reason, the data presented in the following charts represents the number of scorings not the number of Teacher Work Samples scored. Once agreement is reached on the Teacher Work Sample score, the overall scores are sent to the student teachers. The following charts show the overall Teacher Work Sample scores for the student teachers. Analysis of Student Learning was the weaker domain last year. We hope our interventions impact student scores on the Teacher Work Sample. |
| Finding |
|
|||
|
It appears time for many of our rubrics to be updated/tweaked to be more useful to our program students. The TWS assessment is one of those. However, the score for candidates scoring a "3" was 82%. If we examine scores of "2s" and "3s" (acceptable and target), the score was 98.2% |
Actions for Objective:
| Action |
|
|||
|
The scoring procedures for the TWS were changed which led to the "leveling off" of scores. We expect to see the score average continue to rise each semester. The dip this academic year was expected with the new scoring procedure. Each semester, the faculty in the MLE program plan and implement new strategies based on assessment data to assist our candidates in successfully completing the Teacher Work Sample. This is evident in that at 98.2% of all candidates (down from 100% in 2010-2011) met the minimum standard. Since 98.2% of candidates demonstrated mastery on this assessment, the faculty would like to focus on improving modifications for instruction for all students. Our candidates must be able to demonstrate planning, implementing instruction, assessing instruction and modifying instruction for all learners. The area of modification of instruction for all learners is where the faculty will focus in the future. Therefore, this goal will be modified in the future to investigate how candidates specifically modify instruction for all learners. |
| GOAL: Effective Lesson Planning |
| Objective |
|
||||
|
Middle Level Education candidates will demonstrate mastery in the Lesson Planning assignment during Content Methods Block |
| Indicator |
|
|||
|
During the classes of Methods Block, first semester senior year, the students write multiple lesson plans. Each student selects the best lesson plan in each content area (math, English language arts, science, and social studies) to submit as their best representation of a Lesson Plan in that content area. The lesson plans are scored/evaluated on information documented in stating the lesson goals, objectives, rationale, standards, materials, classroom setting, student needs, focus, procedures, design of implementation, and closure of the lesson. The Lesson Plan assessment allows our candidates to demonstrate their understanding of: * Establishing a lesson framework; * Designing a supportive learning environment; * Incorporating Instructional strategies; and, * Implementing Evaluation strategies. |
| Criterion |
|
|||
|
88% of candidates during the 2011-2012 academic year will achieve a score of "3" on the Methods Block Lesson Plan. The lesson plan format and rubric are in place and ready to use. The Methods Block Lesson Plans will be appropriate format to measure a variety of learning outcomes. The content of the items in this assessment relate directly to the planning, implementation, and assessment of instruction that teachers encounter when teaching. Through Tk20, scores are reported for individual candidates as well as groups. Consequently, data results will be aggregated and disaggregated for evaluation purposes. The weakest domain last year was Designing Supportive Learning Environments. We are eager to determine if our interventions improved this domain. |
| Finding |
|
|||
|
Candidates in the 4-8 program demonstrated mastery of the ability to plan an effective lesson with 98.2% of candidates meeting the standard of a score of 2 or 3. The overall improvement was also demonstrated in the Evaluation Strategies portion of the lesson plan. |
Actions for Objective:
| Action |
|
|||
|
Since 98.2% of candidates demonstrated mastery on this assessment, the faculty would like to focus on improving modifications in instruction. Our candidates must be able to demonstrate planning, implementing instruction, assessing instruction and modifying instruction for all learners. The area of modification of instruction for all learners is where the faculty want to focus in the future. The goal of “Candidates will be able to plan an effective lesson” will be replaced because this goal has been met. |
| GOAL: Pedagogy And Professional Responsibilities |
| Objective |
|
||||
| Candidates in the Middle Level Program will demonstrate mastery of the Pedagogy and Professional Responsibilities knowledge and skills for classroom teachers. |
| Indicator |
|
|||
|
All candidates seeking initial certification, advanced teacher certification, or certifications for other school personnel must take one or more of the Texas Examinations of Educator Standards (TExES). These examinations directly correspond to the state content competencies that have been identified for the certification desired. These content competencies are aligned with and based on the appropriate state standards for 4-8 certification and the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) statements, which describe the state mandated curriculum for students. Each TExES examination is criterion-referenced and is designed to measure a candidate's level of content knowledge and skills appropriate for educators in the State of Texas. The two tests used for this program are the Texas Examinations of Educator Standards (TExES) for a candidate's specific teaching field, and the Texas Examinations of Educator Standard Standards (TExES) Pedagogy and Professional Responsibilities 4-8 exam. Each test was collaboratively developed by the State Board of Educator Certification (SBEC), National Evaluation Systems, Inc. (NES), an independent corporation specializing in educational measurements, with additional participation by committees of Texas educators. Individual test items developed to measure the state competencies were reviewed and rated by the various committees of Texas educators to ensure appropriateness of content and difficulty, clarity, and accuracy. These committees also ensured that the test items matched the appropriate competencies and were free from potential ethnicity, gender, and regional biases. The committees also helped prepare scoring rubrics for written response items and training materials for those who would score the tests. Separate standard-setting panels were convened to review statistical data about candidate scores from initial pilot studies of the tests during their development. Recommendations were forwarded to the SBEC, which made the final decisions about establishing passing scores. TExES examinations are centrally administered by SBEC and NES at pre-determined sites and on pre-established dates across Texas similar to many of the national achievement tests. This regime provides for a professional, equitable, and secure testing environment for candidates. Alternative testing arrangements are also permitted for those requiring special consideration. Sites are selected after a careful review of security and accessibility potential, and the quality of overall testing conditions. Tests are scored centrally. |
| Criterion |
|
|||
|
Pass rates on 4-8 PPR exam will exceed 90%. While the accountability system for the state examines scores for each completer cohort and provides for students to repeat the examination if they are not successful on the first attempt, the analysis of pass rates which will be presented here represent the pass rates on the first attempt for all PPR exams taken in 2011-2012. Last year 100 % of the Middle Level Education candidates who took the 4-8 PPR were successful. “Understands Student Diversity” was a weaker area last year. Out hope is that this area improved. |
| Finding |
|
|||
|
In addition to focusing on “Understands Student Diversity”, the faculty will focus on the changes to the certification exam. The state of Texas has changed the requirement for all candidates seeking certification. From this year on, all candidates will take the EC-12 PPR instead of the usual EC-6 PPR. Additionally, the technology application standards and the English Language Proficiency standards have been added to the PPR. Faculty will work this next year to infuse the technology, understanding student diversity, and ELPS into instruction. |
Actions for Objective:
| Action |
|
|||
|
The state of Texas has changed the requirement for all candidates seeking certification. From this year on, all candidates will take the EC-12 PPR exam. For this reason, we will work very hard to make sure all candidates are familiar with all ages and stages of development. |
| Closing the Loop |
|
Overall, the 4-8 candidates were very successful during the 2011-2012 academic year. However, there are a few areas where the faculty will focus during 2012-2013.
One area is the candidates ability to modify instruction for all learners. This trend was identified in the Teacher Work Sample data as well as in the Lesson Plan data. Another area of focus is the infusing of the technology, understanding student diversity, and ELPS standards throughout the program to improve the candidates’ performance on the new EC-12 PPR. Finally, the goal of “Candidates will be able to plan an effective lesson” will be replaced because this goal has been met. |