The unit has an assessment system that collects and analyzes data on applicant qualifications, candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate and improve the performance of candidates, the unit, and its programs. (Target Level Standard)
2.1 The Unit Assessment System is comprehensive and integrated, with both quantitative and qualitative assessment data. Multiple assessments yield a variety of data from both internal and external sources during each semester. Data collection begins when a candidate applies for admission to the teacher education program, typically during the sophomore year. Data are collected throughout a candidate’s progress through the program and maintained in an extensive data base. This data can be disaggregated in any number of ways, depending on the need. The data on each candidate is available to unit faculty and the administrative assistant and is reviewed specifically in connection with the three checkpoints of the assessment system. The data relevant to the gateway nature of the checkpoints; admission criteria, progress through coursework and early field experiences, and student teaching is used to make decisions about candidate performance. The three checkpoints provide continuous feedback about candidate progress, course effectiveness, field experience performance, and candidate dispositions.
- Checkpoint 1: Admission to the Program. Checkpoint 1 typically occurs during the second semester, sophomore year. Written assignments, grade point average, recommendations, Praxis I scores, a personal interview, and a criminal background check demonstrate that the candidate meets admission requirements, gives evidence of dispositions appropriate for successful teaching, and possesses adequate oral and written communication skills.
- Checkpoint 2: Application to Student Teach. Checkpoint 2 normally takes place during the first semester of the junior year and involves both successful review of the checkpoint criteria and completion of the application for student teaching. Written documents, academic standing, early field experience evaluations, and dispositional evaluations provide evidence of the candidates’ readiness for application to student teaching.
- Checkpoint 3: Program Completion. Checkpoint 3 takes place at the end of student teaching and prior to graduation. Written documents, lesson evaluations, cooperating teacher evaluations, a Teacher Work Sample, reflective portfolio, and dispositional evaluations are used to demonstrate successful completion of required competencies.
An exit survey, begun in 2008, is conducted with candidates toward the end of student teaching, but prior to graduation. This survey gives the unit immediate feedback from the program completers on the quality of instruction, effectiveness of field experience, and other factors relating to program quality.
The unit conducts a graduate survey with program completers one year, four years, and seven years after their graduation. The unit has data going back over a decade. This survey continues to give valuable feedback about program quality from program completers who have the added benefit of classroom experience to inform their responses.
A Biennial Checkpoint Report gives a review at the end of each two- year period of the previous five year time period. The report focuses on program admission information, a review of the checkpoint information for the last five years, and detailed reporting of data from both the exit survey and the graduate survey for the five-year period of the report.
2.2a The unit regularly evaluates, not only the assessment data of its candidates, but also the assessment system itself. A list of some of the significant changes in the Huntington University teacher education program is found in section I of this report. Of those changes, at least five are directly related to changes in the unit assessment system.
- The gradual move to a much more complete system of electronic data gathering, storage, aggregation, and evaluation has greatly increased access to the kinds of information needed to assess the need for change.
- In 2008, the unit added an exit survey, administered to candidates at the end of student teaching in order to get immediate feedback regarding program quality and suggestions for change.
- The Education Department made the decision to add a rating scale for dispositional criteria to the program interview formto provide ongoing quantifiable data.
- Spring Semester 2011, The Education Department instituted the Teacher Work Sample as a requirement for all candidates during the Student Teaching semester.
- May 2011, the decision was made by the Education Department faculty to change from 4 assessment checkpoints to 3 in order to make the continuous assessment system more fluid, relevant, and rigorous. Implementation began in the Fall Semester, 2011.
The unit’s commitment to monitor the effectiveness of the assessment system is evidenced both by its considerable effort to expand the scope of its electronic database and in the decision in 2011 to restructure the assessment system from four checkpoints to three. This is a more significant change than might be apparent at first glance. The four checkpoint system had been in place for a decade and was well established among faculty, students, and stakeholders. Self-examination of the system indicated that there were elements overlapping different checkpoints and there was lack of clarity about who was responsible for monitoring and evaluating some elements. The revised three point system has helped produce a more seamless and effective process.
Decisions about candidate performance and standing in the program are made at each of the three Checkpoints in the assessment system based on multiple assessments from both internal and external sources.
- Checkpoint 1: Admission to the Program
Resume, Autobiography, Diversity Statement, Grade Point Average, Recommendations for Admission, Praxis I, Interview Scores, Criminal History Check (beginning Fall, 2011)
- Checkpoint 2: Application to Student Teach
Updated Resume, Autobiography, Philosophy Statement, Academic Standing, Sophomore Practicum Evaluation, Dispositional Evaluations (from completed field experiences)
- Checkpoint 3: Program Completion
Student Teaching Journal, Lesson Evaluations, Mid-term and Final Student Teaching Evaluation, Teacher Work Sample, Reflective Portfolio, Disposition Evaluation, (Special Education-additional skills and assignments)
Each Checkpoint indicates the criteria being evaluated, how the event aligns with the Conceptual Framework and INTASC, who is responsible for evaluating the criteria, and verification that the evaluation has been done and that results are acceptable for candidate progress. Certain quantitative data are aggregated for each student for each of the Checkpoints:
- College Grade Point Average: Minimum 2.5/4.0
- Major Grade Point Average: Minimum 2.5/4.0
- ACT Score: 24 required for Praxis I waiver
- SAT Score: 1100 required for Praxis I waiver
- Praxis I scores: Reading- 176, Writing-172, Math-175 (or 527 cumulative)
- Program Interview Scores
- College Grade Point Average: Minimum 2.5/4.0
- Major Grade Point Average: Minimum 2.5/4.0
- Major Course Performance: Minimum C- in all required courses
- Sophomore Practicum Evaluation
- Lesson Evaluations from Field Experiences
- Dispositional Evaluations from Field Experiences
- Field Experience Data: Date, Location, Teacher, Grade, F/R Lunch %
Lesson Evaluations: Multiple Evaluations by Cooperating Teacher
Lesson Evaluations: Multiple Evaluations by University Supervisor
Student Teaching Mid-Term Evaluation by Cooperating Teacher
Student Teaching Final Evaluation by Cooperating Teacher
Teacher Work Sample Score
Reflective Portfolio Score
Site Data: Dates, Location, Teacher, Grade, F/R Lunch %
The assessment system provides both qualitative and quantitative data, data from coursework and field experiences, data relating to both academic performance and professional dispositions, and data from both University and P-12 sources. The comprehensive nature of the assessment data allows the unit to accurately evaluate candidate performance throughout the candidate’s program. Outstanding candidate performance on important summative assessments like Praxis II, Student Teaching, Teacher Work Samples, and other data found in the Spa Reports or in the updated data in Exhibit1.3.d.2 provide evidence not only to the quality of the program and its candidates, but also to the effectiveness of the assessment system in providing data necessary to monitor and assure candidate progress. The unit’s commitment to continuously search for even more effective connections between the data system and desired program outcomes can be seen in recent changes such as the addition of a dispositional rating scale on the interview instrument and the change from a four checkpoint assessment system to a three checkpoint system discussed above. Even less dramatic changes such as the decision to move to a 5-point Likert Scale on theDispositional Survey are made continuously in order to improve the quality and efficiency of the date gathered. High employment rates in recent years, even in the face of budget and personnel reduction, give affirmation of quality candidate preparation. Anecdotally, it is not unusual for Huntington University graduates to obtain teaching positions in highly competitive markets, or for school administrators to make direct requests to the Director of Teacher Education for names of graduates that might be recruited.
At the advanced level, the M.Ed. assessment system is simpler in design than the undergraduate program, since candidates already possess basic professional skills. Alignment charts were used to design the program in association with the unit’s Conceptual Framework and with NBPTS Core Propositions. The Education Department admits students to the M.Ed. program, following the admission criteria published in the catalog and on the website. The department checks that each program candidate has adequate experience with classroom diversity. The program is designed so that students lacking such experience may be provided a field experience in Fort Wayne. However, data indicate that M.Ed. candidates have experience and training in diversity, since the M.Ed. candidates come from the same schools used in the undergraduate placements (see diversity data for these districts). The program recruiter/adviser and director monitor student academic progress and success throughout the program. The adviser, and director if necessary, communicates any concerns to the student via email and phone. (See sample progress emails.) M.Ed. students complete a self-evaluation based on the core principles of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. These evaluations indicate strong and thorough coverage of the NBPTS core principles (2009-2010evaluations, 2012 evaluations). The director regularly teaches two of the eight courses in the program and uses this opportunity to get feedback about the program from students and to provide encouragement, direction, and program schedules. Further, the institution asks each program to produce a curriculum map for use in the internal assessment system. Students take Action Research Methods and design an action research project. The instructor of this course assesses student readiness to continue and complete the action research. Students take eight hours of action research toward the end of the program, which includes meeting with a research adviser and completing an action research project. The research adviser monitors the research progress and proficiency at each stage until project completion. The department retains a copy of each research project and has developed a rubric for assessing the projects. Although the M.Ed. does not focus on teaching content knowledge and other initial licensing concerns, it is very focused on pedagogical content knowledge. For example, alignment charts used in the design of the program aligned NBPTS Core Proposition 2, which focuses on mastery of subjects and how to teach those subjects, with courses such as Differentiated Instruction, Current Issues, Theory and Pedagogy, Critical Readings, Curriculum Design, andAction Research. All M.Ed. courses are designed to allow teachers to apply their projects and papers to their own specific grade levels and content teaching assignments. Further, their content knowledge is regularly used and enhanced in various course projects.
2.3.a.1 Candidate Handbook – Page 10
2.3.a.2 Undergraduate Checkpoint sheets
2.3.b.1 Candidate Handbook – Pages 4-11
2.3.b.2 Checkpoint 1 sheet
2.3.b.3 Teacher Education Program packet forms
2.3.b.4 TEC cohort page
(1.3.i.2) Biennial Report (pp 6-13)
2.3.c.1 Candidate handbook – pages 4 – 5 (standing TEC/TEPAC Committees)
2.3.c.2 Minutes from 2011-12 TEC Meetings
2.3.c.3 Minutes from 2011-12 TEPAC Meetings
2.3.c.4 Department Meeting Minutes/Summer 11-12 workday
(1.3.e.2) Checkpoint 1 Interview Rubric
(1.3.i.2) Biennial Report
2.3.d.1 Department Policy Change Forms 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012
2.3.d.2 Department Minutes from TWS/Lesson Evaluation form revisions
2.3.d.3 Fall 2011 Department Workday Agenda Minutes
2.3.d.4 Spring 2012 Department Workday Agenda Minutes
2.3.d.5 Fall 2012 Department Workday Minutes
2.3.d.6 Online Data Summary Sample Page
(1.3.i.2) Biennial Report
(1.3.d.2) Link to updated SPA reports
2.3.f.1 Faculty Handbook – pages 28/108
2.3.f.2 Candidate handbook – page 9
|2.3.g||File of candidate complaints –Available on site|
2.3.h.1 Introduction of online assessment forms
2.3.d.1 Policy change forms
(1.3.e.2) Rating scale on interview rubric for dispositional components
*Reference list of changes, section 2.2a