Assessment : 2013 - 2014 : Educational Programs :
Interdisciplinary Studies BS (Middle Level 4-8)
2 Goals 2 Objectives 2 Indicators 2 Criteria 2 Findings 2 Actions
|
Objective
|
|
|
Candidates Will Be Able To Plan, Implement, Assess, And Modify Effective Instruction For All Learners
|
|
|
|
|
|
Candidates will be able to plan, implement, assess, and modify effective instruction .
|
|
Indicator
|
|
|
Pass Rates On The Teacher Work Sample
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
Candidates score a 1 - they redo the assignment; a 2 or 3 demonstrates that the candidate proficiently completed the document.
|
| Criterion |
|
|
Teacher Work Sample (TWS) Scores
|
|
|
|
|
|
At least 90% of candidates during the 2013-2014 academic year will achieve a score of 2 or 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.
|
| Finding |
|
|
Pass Rates On The Teacher Work Sample (TWS)
|
|
|
|
|
Pass rates on the Teacher Work Sample for the 2013-2014 academic year for 4-8 candidates was 95%. A total of 65 candidates were student teaching in the 2013-2014 academic year and eligible to submit a Teacher Work Sample. Of those submitting a TWS, 39 students received a "3" (60% of candidates), 23 students received a "2" (35% of candidates), and 3 students received a "1" (5% of candidates).
The lowest domain for all candidates was "Contextual Factors" with an overall mean score of 2.54. The lowest element within that domain was "Skills and Prior Learning" with an overall mean score of 2.36.
|
Actions for Objective:
| Action |
|
|
Improving The Percentage Of Candidates Scoring A 3
|
|
|
|
|
Each semester, the faculty in the MLE program analyze past assessment data, and plan and implement new strategies to assist our candidates in successful completion of the Teacher Work Sample (TWS). This is evident in that 95% of all candidates (down from 96.4% in 2012-2013) met the minimum standard. Of the test takes, 60% received matching scores of 3, while 35% received matching scores of 2.
Since 95% of all candidates demonstrated mastery on this assessment, the faculty would like to focus on improving modifications for instructions for all students. Our candidates must be able to demostrate planning, implementing, assessing, and modifying instructions for all learners. The TWS component which was the lowest overall for the 4-8 candidates was Contextual Factors, with a mean score of 2.54 (2.39 in 2012-2013). Although this domain has increased from previous years, this component still needs to be addressed by the MLE faculty to improve candidates scores. The element within this domain with the lowest average was "Skills and Prior Learning" (mean = 2.36) so the MLE faculty will begin their focus in this area first.
|
|
GOAL: Pedagogy And Professional Responsibilities
|
|
|
Objective
|
|
|
Candidates Will Demonstrate Mastery Of The State Mandated Standards For The Pedagogy And Professional Responsibilities (PPR) Certification Exam
|
|
|
|
|
|
Candidates will demonstrate mastery of the state mandated standards for the Pedagogy and Professional Responsibilities (PPR) certification exam.
|
|
Indicator
|
|
|
Pass Rates On PPR Certification Exam
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 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.
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 For EC-12 PPR Certification Exam
|
|
|
|
|
|
First time pass rates on all levels of the Pedagogy and Professional Responsibilities (PPR) examinations will exceed 87%. 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 faculty decided to focus on the first time pass rate instead of the overall pass rate for the 2013-2014 academic year.
|
| Finding |
|
|
|
|
The 2013-2014 academic year 62 Middle School Candidates (4-8) attempted the EC-12 PPR exam. Of those 62 candidates, 56 first time test takers were successful (90%).
Percent correct for each domain score for first time test takers is listed below:
Domain 1 - 74%
Domain 2 - 76%
Domain 3 - 75%
Domain 4 - 76%
|
Actions for Objective:
| Action |
|
|
Improving The Pass Rates Of Candidates Taking PPR Exams
|
|
|
|
|
Of the first time test takers, 90% of candidates were sucessful (down from 97% in 2012-2013). Each domain percentage pass rate hovered between 74-76% (4 Domains) which leaves room for improvement in each area. The domains are:
(1) Designing Instruction and Assessment to Promote Student Learning, (2) Creating a Positive, Productive Classroom Environment, (3) Implementing Effective, Responsive Instruction and Assessment, and (4) Fulfilling Professional Roles and Responsibilities
MLE faculty will break down domain and competency level data to address weaknesses among 4-8 candidates.
|
|
Previous Cycle's "Plan for Continuous Improvement"
|
|
The 4-8 candidates were very successful, overall, during the 2012-2013 academic year. There are a few areas, however, on which the faculty will concentrate during 2013-2014.
One area is the candidates’ ability to identify relevant contextual factors in the learning process, as required by the Teacher Work Sample, and discuss the instructional implications. This trend was identified in the Teacher Work Sample data as being the weakest component for 4-8 candidates during the 2012-2013 academic year. Another area of focus will be the preparation of candidates for the EC-12 PPR. When the final 2012-2013 data is available, faculty will break down average program scores of the various PPR Domains and Competencies to determine areas of strength and weakness and plan instruction accordingly.
|
|
Update on Previous Cycle's "Plan for Continuous Improvement"
|
We have adopted the focus areas described above (2012-2013 report) which identified improving teacher quality in terms of their readiness to implement 21st century skills. The faculty worked intensely in modeling an array of instructional methodologies in all our courses in order to make instructional implications and assessments more realistic.
Although we have implemented most of the plans for continuous improvement (in 2012-2013 report), more work is needed in technology integration from both the faculty and the teacher candidates. Our latest standards, define "use of technology" as students using technology in meaningful and authentic ways tools to help them navigate and master the content; not only the teacher utilizing PowerPoint or some other presentation method in the classroom. The faculty could address this more by modeling strategies in the courses.
The faculty also worked at aligning courses and syllabi with the PPR competencies. Content methods instructors have designed more authentic course assessments to closely link theory and practice.
|
|
Plan for Continuous Improvement
|
|
The 4-8 candidates were very successful, overall, during the 2013-2014 academic year. There are a few areas, however, on which the faculty will concentrate during 2014-2015.
One area is the candidates’ ability to identify relevant contextual factors in the learning process, as required by the Teacher Work Sample, and discuss the skills and prior learning. This trend was identified in the Teacher Work Sample data as being the weakest component for 4-8 candidates during the 2013-2014 academic year. Another area of focus will be the preparation of candidates for the EC-12 PPR. When the final 2013-2014 data is available, faculty will break down average program scores of the various PPR Domains and Competencies to determine areas of strength and weakness and plan instruction accordingly. Through June of 2014, all PPR domains mean scores were in the 74-76% range for 2013-2014, 4-8 candidates. MLE faculty will not only integrate the four domains more rigourously into course content but will also break down competencies data (13 competencies) for the 4-8 MLE candidates.
|