Assessment report

UAFS School of Education Assessment Report Fall, 2016 – Spring 2017

UAFS School of Education Conceptual Framework

The Conceptual Framework derives from the School of Education mission, “Professionals United to Ensure Continuous Learning and Success.” The Framework is informed by two major sources of research in best practices for educators; InTASC (Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium) and Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching. InTASC is a program of the Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). The Arkansas Department of Education adopted the InTASC 2011 Model Core Teaching Standards, which were developed by InTASC, as the Arkansas Teaching Standards (ATS). The Conceptual Framework synthesizes the concepts from these models to represent the UAFS School of Education expectations for teacher candidates. The UAFS School of Education Intended Candidate Outcomes (ICOs) are aligned with the InTASC Standards, which are the Arkansas Teacher Standards (ATS). The ICOs are also aligned with the Danielson Framework for Teaching (FFT) and edTPA. The Framework structure begins at the center, as the dominant feature is the teacher’s “Focus on Student Learning.” All of a teacher’s decisions should be made through an analytical thought process that considers the best approaches to student learning. The concentric blue rings also represent overall expectations. Thus, technology and communication skills and sound ethical practice are evident in all teaching decisions. Within the concentric structure, the Framework divides into four quadrants. The first quadrant ensures that teachers consider student development, student differences, and the learning environment during instruction and interactions with students. The second quadrant considers the teacher’s need for deep and broad content knowledge and an understanding of how to connect the content in a manner that engages learners in higher level thinking. The third quadrant delineates the instructional practice through the integration of assessment, planning, and instructional strategies in a coordinated manner. The final quadrant sets expectations for the teacher’s professional learning, ethical practice, and leadership roles. Additionally, this quadrant emphasizes the importance of collaboration with learners, families, colleagues, and community leader to ensure learner growth.

1

Assessment Report for Fall, 2016 – Spring, 2017 Table of Contents Section I Organized by Gates Introduction to Assessment System………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....3 Fall 2016-Spring 2017 SOE Assessment System Updates.………………………………………………………………………………………………………....4 Fall 2016 Faculty Assignments……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...6 Spring 2017 Faculty Assignments…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 Table 1: Gate 3 – Structured Team Interview for Admission to Teacher Education Program ……...…………………………………………………………….10 Table 2: Gate 3 – Cumulative GPA Upon Admission to Teacher Education Program……………………………………………………………………………12 Table 3: Gate 3 – Composite ACT Mean upon Admission to Teacher Education Program……………………………………………………………………....13 Table 4: Gate 3 – Praxis Core/ACT Mean Scores for Those Admitted to the Teacher Education Program………………………………………………………14 Table 5: Gates 3, 4, 6 – Self-Evaluation of Dispositions…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..15 Table 6: Gates 4, 6 – Candidate’s Reflection Upon Lesson Planning……………………………………………………………………………………………..16 Table 7: Gate 4 – Diversity Case Study Performance……………………………………………………………………………………………………………...17 Table 8: Gates 4, 6 – Intended Candidate Outcomes (ICOs) by Clinical Practice Supervisors and University Supervisors……………………………………...18 Table 9: Gates 3, 4, 6 – Candidate Dispositions Combined from Selected Courses……………………………………………………………………………… 20 Table 10: Gates 4, 6 – Pilot edTPA Assignments for Practicum I, Practicum II and Internship (Local Evaluations) ……………………………………………22 Table 11: Gates 4, 6 – edTPA Tasks 1-3: Percentage of Students Scoring Basic, Proficient and Distinguished (Local Evaluations) …………………………...25 Table 12: Gate 6 – Pilot edTPA Assignments for Internship (External Evaluations)……………………………………………………………………………..28 Table 13: Gate 5 – Internship Placement Interview Results……………………………………………………………………………………………………….29 Table 14: Gate 7 – Evaluation of the Internship Experience (Placement Site Evaluation by Intern)…………………………………………………………….. 30 Table 15: Gate 7 – Evaluation of the Internship Experience (University Supervisor Evaluation by Intern)……………………………………………………...32 Table 16: Gate 7 – UAFS School of Education Exit Interview (revised spring 2017)……………………………………………………………………………34 Table 17: Gate 7 – Student Advising Questionnaire Completed After Internship………………………………………………………………………………...35 Table 18: Gate 7 – Graduate and Employer Surveys……………………………………………………………………………………………………………...37 Table 19: Gates 3, 5, 7 – Mean Cumulative GPA for Entry, Exit and Area of Specialization……………………………………………………………………38 Table 20: Gate 5 – Mean Praxis II Content Knowledge Exam Results…………………………………………………………………………………………...39 Table 21: Gate 5 – Mean Praxis II Pedagogy Exam Results……………………………………………………………………………………………………...39 Table 22: Gates 4, 5, 6 – Danielson FFT Formative Observation Results (Practicum II)………………………………………………………………………...40 Table 23: Gates 6 – Danielson FFT Formative Observation Results (Internship)………………………………………………………………………………...42 Table 24: Gate 6 – Danielson FFT Summative Observation Results (Internship)………………………………………………………………………………...44 Table 25: Survey to Clinical Supervisor/Mentor Teacher and University Supervisor (revised in spring 2017)………………………………………………46 Table 26: Novice Teacher Survey Results………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...47

2

Fall 2017 Assessment System Report Section I Organized by Gates Introduction to Assessment System The SOE assessment system measures candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions derived from professional, state, and institutional standards. The expectation is for candidates to demonstrate competency in all ten InTASC standards and the four quadrants of Danielson’s Framework for Teaching (FFT). Candidates must clear a series of gates as they move through the program. By successfully meeting the requirements at each gate, candidates meet designated standards and complete their program. Multiple assessment measures provide support for the process and provide continual feedback data for analysis at each level. A report is compiled semi-annually for the faculty, Teacher Education Council, and other professional advisory entities to analyze and provide input for the Teacher Education Program and the College of Education as a whole. The report is structured around the assessment gates in order to provide clear feedback and connection to the assessment system. In general, the Unit’s assessment system is based upon the following scale: 0 = Unsatisfactory; 1 = Basic; 2 = Proficient; 3 = Distinguished. All assessments, academic and non-academic, have been aligned to CAEP components, InTASC standards, ISTE Standards and Danielson FFT components.

3

Updates to the Assessment System Fall 2016-Spring 2017 Fall 2016: In response to the CAEP Formative Feedback Report, the faculty met to address each standard, including Standard 5, over the Quality Assurance System (QAS): • Beginning with Fall 2016 data, analyses will be provided in the assessment report after each semester: Summarize patterns, trends and issues after collaboratively meeting with School of Education faculty and secondary-level content area faculty.

• The question was asked to the ability of the EPP to have the capacity to manage the QAS: Initially, assessments and accompanying rubrics were used for objectivity. Currently, a reduction in load for the assessment coordinator is being considered. A new position of Administrative Analyst (Fall, 2015) was added to assist the Assessment Coordinator with data collection in order to support the QAS. Since this infrastructure has been established, the SOE should be able to maintain the QAS. • EPP has established face validity through alignment to standards and review by external consultants. Has the unit used additional methods to establish validity of its instruments? Has the EPP analyzed the data on a routine basis or relied on external consultants? o SOE reviews and analyzes data (minutes from Faculty meetings, Faculty Retreat, TEC); however, we are in transitional stages with new programs, in MLED, ELEM and Secondary. Consultations will follow with math faculty and the UAFS Director of Academic Assessment and Accountability. o With the transition from NCATE to CAEP, the UAFS SOE felt the need to seek advice from outside consultants in regard to the current direction of programs and unit assessments. Before that time, the SOE and secondary education faculty members analyzed the data each semester with input from the TEC. o Many of the UAFS SOE assessments are proprietary and were aligned with EPP standards required by the Arkansas Department of Education. The EPP-created assessments are also all aligned with CAEP and state teaching standards (InTASC).

• The Praxis II scores are being addressed in multiple ways: o Title II reporting will encourage more effective monitoring of programmatic progress. o A new course has been created by math content faculty for secondary and middle-level math majors. This will be implemented Spring, 2017 and will specifically address Praxis II math content. o Social Studies Curriculum Instruction and Assessment is a new course developed to support elementary and middle-level Praxis II content in Social Studies. This will be implemented Spring 2017. o STEM Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment is a new course developed to support elementary and middle-level Praxis II science content. This will be implemented Spring 2017.

• The UAFS SOE is working on and will continue to establish inter-rater reliability. Exercises will be conducted in using the Danielson and edTPA rubrics in Spring 2017, and results will be available in LiveText so that faculty and assessment personnel can use the reporting tools.

• The following initiatives have been implemented to recruit and retain more diverse candidates: o The recruitment plan (Spring 2016) was implemented Fall 2017 o Data from Plans of Action to show retention o Teacher Cadet programs (Alma) for recruitment • At-Risk Candidate Analysis • The plan-of-action describes the process the SOE uses to identify at-risk students in collaboration with SOE faculty and administration, advisors, teacher candidates and school partners.

4

 

•

The UAFS SOE Policy and Procedures Manual outlines the protocol followed to support at-risk teacher candidates.

The protocol (as described in the Policy and Procedures Manual) was developed by SOE faculty and administration in collaboration with school partner administrators (TEC and TCSC members).  Candidate areas of growth are identified, an individualized plan-of-action is developed in order to support teacher candidate improvement.

Impact on Student Learning o School of Education Support System (SOESS) had its first meeting in October 2016. All fall 2015 – spring 2016 graduates were invited to participate. As none of the employed graduates had been evaluated at that time, the plan is to gather the data from Spring 2017 administrator Danielson evaluations. o Participants will be added to the pilot project each semester so that the numbers of participants will increase the data base.

Spring 2017: Faculty revised the diversity and e-portfolio rubrics, developed a lesson plan rubric and an intern interview rubric. All show face validity after being aligned to CAEP, TESS and ISTE standards, and will go through the Lawshe method for content validity. o

The SOE faculty met to discuss the progression of unit assignments in new programs of study. They discussed the options that would be most advantageous for the candidates while providing the scope, sequence, and consistency required to ensure candidate success. They discussed the progression of skills required as candidates matriculate through the programs of study and aligned curricular objectives and tasks for the following courses: • EDUC 2752 Introduction to Education: Instructors will give an overview of the InTASC Standards, Arkansas Teacher Standards, Danielson Domains (TESS), UAFS SOE Candidate Outcomes (InTASC), UAFS SOE Dispositions, edTPA Tasks • ELML 2013 Educational Technology and Digital Literacy and EDUC 3302 Introduction to Educational Technology: Introduce ISTE standards and reinformce alignment of SOE ICOs, InTASC, Danielson (TESS), edTPA; Dispositions • Note – ALL Education courses will reinforce the alignments as candidates progress through the program • ELML 3202 Practicum I and EDUC 3221 Practicum I: Focus is Planning: edTPA Task I Planning and Danielson Domain I, Lesson Planning (use Lesson Plan rubric to score the taught lesson), demonstrate alignment of Danielson Rubrics to edTPA and InTASC; Candidates will create three lesson plans and teach one; edTPA Task I scored in LiveText; Parent Workshop implemented. Reinforce use of technology standards (ISTE). SIP Plan objectives are implemented during this time and SOE faculty will continue to provide opportunities for candidates to interact with parents and families. SOE will collect data for the SIP Plan.

• ELML 4102 Practicum II and EDUC 4211 Practicum II: Focus is Instruction: edTPA Task II Instruction and Danielson Domain 2; Candidates will create three lesson plans and teach one, the taught lesson scored using Lesson Plan rubric and observation scored using Danielson rubrics; edTPA Task II scored in LiveText. Reinforce planning skills; alignment of ICOs, Danielson, edTPA, and InTASC; reinforce use of technology standards (ISTE); planning for diverse learners.

• ELML 4303 STEM Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment and EDUC 4222 Assessment: Focus is Assessment: edTPA Task III Assessment, Danielson Domains 1-4 assessment in planning, implementation, instruction, reflection; edTPA Task III assignments scored in LiveText; differentiation and assessment for diverse learners; technology in documenting impact on student learning. Reinforce planning skills; alignment of ICOs, Danielson, edTPA, and InTASC; reinforce use of technology standards (ISTE); planning for diverse learners.

• EDUC4802 Seminar in Education and EDUC 490A Internship: Focus is on edTPA Tasks 1-3; Danielson/TESS Domains 1-4; ICO’s 1-10; Lesson Planning (use Lesson Plan rubric to score the summative observation lesson); impact on student learning. Reinforce: Candidates will meet or exceed expectations on all required unit assessments including: edTPA Tasks 1-3 and Danielson Domains 1-4. Assignments will be scored in LiveText. A grade will be attached to the edTPA Professional Portfolio. SIP Plan objectives will be monitored throughout the programs of study. SOE faculty will continue to provide opportunities for candidates to interact with parents and families. SOE will collect data for the SIP Plan.

5

UAFS SOE Assessment Student/Faculty/Mentor Assignments Fall 2016 Course

ECED 3003

Name

Instructor

B. Hunt

ECED 3043 ECED 3053

Sci. in the Classroom DAP Diversity

ECED 3063 ECED 3113 ECED 3122

Tching Math Integrated Practicum I

S. Davis A. Evans G. Osburn

ECED 3153 ECED 3173 ECED 3183 ECED 3193 ECED 3213 ECED 3222

Art ECE Guiding Ch Lang Lit I Child Lit Integrated II Practicum II

S. Davis L. Reid A. Evans L. Reid D. Milford D. Milford

ECED 3263

Assessment

S. Davis

ECED 3283 ECED 490C

Lang Lit II ECE Intern

L. Reid S. Henehan

EDUC 2752

Intro. to Ed.

EDUC 3002 EDUC 3013 EDUC 3112 EDUC3221

Ed. Tech Human Dev. Content Lit. Dev. Practicum I

EDUC3612 EDUC400V EDUC4211

Class Mgt. Indep.Study Practicum II

S. Davis B. Hunt

EDUC4222

Assessment

L. Yocum

Assessment completed by students

Assessment completed by faculty

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale

Form 11: Self-Evaluation of Dispositions Form 12: Candidate Reflection on Lesson

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 14: Diversity Rubric Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale edTPA: Task I - Planning Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale edTPA Task II – Instruction

Form 5: Evaluation of Internship Experience Form 6: Student Advising Questionnaire Form 7: ICO Danielson Evaluation Form 9: Graduate Survey Form 11: Self-Evaluation of Dispositions Form 12: Candidate Reflection on Lesson UAFS SOE Exit Interviews w/Director of Field Placement

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale edTPA Task III – Assessment Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 7: ICO Danielson Evaluation Danielson Observation Instrument edTPA: Task I – Planning edTPA Task II – Instruction edTPA Task III – Assessment Survey to Mentor Teacher and University Supervisor

E. Barnett J. Jennings Davis S. Stout S. Stout D. Scoggins L. Yocum

Form 11: Self-Evaluation of Dispositions

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale

Form 11: Self-Evaluation of Dispositions

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale

C. Lehman

Form 11: Self-Evaluation of Dispositions Form 12: Candidate Reflection on Lesson

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale edTPA: Task I - Planning

A. Evans A. Evans

Assessment completed by clinical supervisor/mentor teacher or employer

Form 11: Self-Evaluation of Dispositions

Form 11: Self-Evaluation of Dispositions Form 12: Candidate Reflection on Lesson

Form 11: Self-Evaluation of Dispositions Form 12: Candidate Reflection on Lesson

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale edTPA Task II – Instruction Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 7: ICO Danielson Evaluation

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 7: ICO Danielson Evaluation

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 7: ICO Danielson Evaluation Survey to Clinical Supervisor/Mentor Teacher and University Supervisor

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 7: ICO Danielson Evaluation

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 7: ICO Danielson Evaluation

6

edTPA Task III – Assessment EDUC4802

Sem. EC/ML

G. Osburn

EDUC490A

Sem. Sec.

S. Henehan M. Sherrod B. Hunt C. Lehman C. Wood J. Chitty K. Jones J. Oliver S. Tomlison M. Mann

ELML 2013 ELML 3102 ELML 3202

Dig. Lit. Clin Prac Practicum I

S. Henehan E. Barnett

ELML 3203

Assessment

A. Evans

ELML 3302

Environ.

MLED 3563 MLED 4123

Mid Sc Con Integ Mtds

Form 5: Evaluation of Internship Experience Form 6: Student Advising Questionnaire Form 7: ICO Danielson Evaluation Form 9: Graduate Survey Form 11: Self-Evaluation of Dispositions Form 12: Candidate Reflection on Lesson UAFS SOE Exit Interviews w/Director of Field Placement

Form 11: Self-Evaluation of Dispositions Form 12: Candidate Reflection on Lesson

B. Hunt L. Yocum

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Survey to Mentor Teacher and University Supervisor UAFS SOE Exit Interviews

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 7: ICO Danielson Evaluation Danielson Observation Instrument edTPA: Task I – Planning edTPA Task II – Instruction edTPA Task III – Assessment Survey to Mentor Teacher and University Supervisor

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 7: ICO Danielson Evaluation Survey to Clinical Supervisor/Mentor Teacher and University Supervisor

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale edTPA: Task I - Planning Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale edTPA Task III – Assessment Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 7: ICO Danielson Evaluation

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale

7

UAFS SOE Assessment Student/Faculty/Mentor Assignments Spring 2017 All assessments submitted via LiveText by May 5 Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale, completed in LiveText by May 16 CAEP-Prefix Documents = SOE Unit Assessments Course

Name

Instructor

ECED 3063 ECED 3113 ECED 3122

Tching Math Integrated C. Practicum I

ECED 3173 ECED 3183 ECED 3193 ECED 3213 ECED 3222

Guiding Chld Lang Lit I Child Lit Integrated II Practicum II

B. Hunt S. Davis A. Evans M. Francis D. Milford A. Evans L. Reid L. Reid D. Milford D. Milford

ECED 3263

Assessment

S. Davis

ECED 3283

Lang Lit II

L. Reid

EDUC 2752

Intro. to Ed.

EDUC 3002 EDUC 3013

Ed. Tech Human Dev.

E. Barnett J. Jennings Davis S. Stout S. Stout D. Scoggins

EDUC 3112 EDUC 3221

Literacy Dev. Practicum I

L. Yocum E. Barnett

EDUC 3612 EDUC 4203 EDUC4211

Class Mgt. Soc. Studies Practicum II

D. Scoggins D. Milford L. Yocum

EDUC4222

Assessment

E. Barnett

EDUC 4401

Health/Phys.Ed.

Sara Davis

Assessment completed by students

Form 11: Self-Evaluation of Dispositions Form 12: Candidate Reflection on Lesson

Form 11: Self-Evaluation of Dispositions Form 12: Candidate Reflection on Lesson

Form 11: Self-Evaluation of Dispositions

Form 11: Self-Evaluation of Dispositions Parental Involvement Article Critique (ELML/MLED section only) Form 11: Self-Evaluation of Dispositions Form 12: Candidate Reflection on Lesson

Form 11: Self-Evaluation of Dispositions Form 12: Candidate Reflection on Lesson

Assessment completed by faculty Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale edTPA: Task I – Planning Lesson Planning Rubric Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale edTPA Task II – Instruction Lesson Planning Rubric Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale edTPA Task III – Assessment Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale

Assessment completed by mentor teacher or employer

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 7: ICO Danielson Evaluation

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 7: ICO Danielson Evaluation

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale edTPA: Task I – Planning Lesson Planning Rubric Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale edTPA Task II – Instruction Lesson Planning Rubric Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale edTPA Task III – Assessment Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 7: ICO Danielson Evaluation

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 7: ICO Danielson Evaluation

8

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Survey to Mentor Teacher and University Supervisor UAFS SOE Exit Interviews w/Director of Field Placement

EDUC 4802

Seminar

G. Osburn

EDUC490A

Interns

D. Milford G. Osburn S. Davis M. Sherrod L. Reid C. Wood E. Barnett B. Hunt R. Parks S. Tomlison M. Mann J. Oliver P. Russell J. Chitty K. Jones

Form 5: Evaluation of Internship Exp. Form 6: Student Advising Questionnaire Form 7: ICO Danielson Evaluation Form 9: Graduate Survey Form 11: Self-Evaluation of Dispositions Form 12: Candidate Reflection on Lesson

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 7: ICO Danielson Evaluation Danielson Observation Instrument edTPA: Task I – Planning Lesson Planning Rubric edTPA Task II – Instruction edTPA Task III – Assessment Survey to Mentor Teacher and University Supervisor

ELML 2013 ELML 3102 ELML 3202

Ed.Tech.Lit. Clinical Pract.

Practicum I

S. Henehan D. Milford A. Evans

E-portfolio rubric (piloted Spring 2017)

ELML 3203 ELML 3302 ELML 4102

Assessment Learning Envr Practicum II

S. Davis A. Evans D. Scoggins

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale edTPA: Task I – Planning Lesson Planning Rubric Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Lesson Planning Rubric edTPA Task II – Instruction

ELML 4303

STEM Assess.

B. Hunt

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale edTPA Task III – Assessment

MLED 3563 MLED 4113 MLED 4123 SPED 3003 SPED 3022

Mdl Schl Con Mld.Lvl.Lit. Integ Methods Tching Div Lrn Survey Div Pop

B. Hunt A. Evans B. Hunt A. Evans L. Yocum

Form 1: Form 1: Form 1: Form 1: Form 1:

Form 11: Self-Evaluation of Dispositions Form 12: Candidate Reflection on Lesson

Form 11: Self-Evaluation of Dispositions Form 12: Candidate Reflection on Lesson

Form 11: Self-Evaluation of Dispositions Form 11: Self-Evaluation of Dispositions

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 7: ICO Danielson Evaluation Survey to Mentor Teacher and University Supervisor

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 7: ICO Danielson Evaluation

Form 1: Disposition Rating Scale Form 7: ICO Danielson Evaluation

Disposition Rating Scale Disposition Rating Scale Disposition Rating Scale Disposition Rating Scale Disposition Rating Scale

9

GATE 3: Admission to the TEP While candidates are assessed throughout their programs, certain gates require assessments that only occur once to satisfy a criterion for the gate. Tables 1-4 are for gate 3 (admission to the Teacher Education Program).

Table 1: GATE 3: Structured Team Interview for Admission to the Teacher Education Program for Fall 2016 (Form #2) EPP-Created Assessment 1. Imagine that you are teaching a student: (choose one) (a) How will you handle a student who is confused with instruction? (b) How will you ensure a student follows the classroom rules? (c) How will you respond to difficult questions from the student? (d) How will you motivate the student to value learning?

CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 5, 8; Danielson 3c 2. Have you ever had experiences with children? What did you learn from these experiences? Describe the experience(s).

CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 7; Danielson 2a 3. Identify two characteristics that you possess which will enable you to be an effective teacher. Tell why you selected these characteristics.

CAEP 1.2. 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a, 4e 4. What were the qualities of a teacher that you admired as a student and why did you admire these qualities?

CAEP 1.2. 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a, 4e 5. Why did you choose your teaching interest area? (indicate your choice of major) CAEP 1.2. 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a, 4e 6. What current technology do you use that could be used in your future classroom? How would you use technology to improve your instruction and how would this improve student achievement?

CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 5, 8; Danielson 3c 7. Describe an instance in which you have led others.

CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4d, 4f 8. How do you see yourself as a learner? Address ethical and professional behaviors within your response.

CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4e 9. Language and communication skills.

CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4f 10. Professional behavior(s).

CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4f 11. Professional appearance.

CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4f Successful Interview Instruments Successful with Conditions Instruments Unsuccessful Interview Instruments

ELEM MLED SEC

Totals

23/23 (100%) 10/10 (100%) 19/19 (100%)

N=52 students with program codes N=61 total interviews for fall 2016

ELEM MLED SEC

N/A N/A N/A

ELEM MLED SEC

N/A N/A N/A

Totals

N=0

Totals

N=0

ELEM

MLED

MUS

BIO

ENG

SOC

MATH

SPAN

Total

1.52 (23)

1.75 (10)

1.75 (4)

0

1.80 (5)

1.59 (8)

2.50 (2)

0

1.67

1.59 (23)

1.75 (10)

1.71 (4)

0

1.70 (5)

1.83 (8)

2.00 (2)

0

1.71

1.89 (23)

2.05 (10)

2.50 (4)

0

2.00 (5)

1.96 (8)

2.00 (2)

0

1.92

1.66 (23) 1.53 (23)

2.15 (10) 2.00 (10)

2.13 (4) 1.96 (4)

2.10 (5) 2.20 (5)

1.92 (8) 1.75 (8)

2.00 (2) 2.50 (2)

0

1.83

0

1.77

1.51 (23)

1.45 (10)

1.63 (4)

1.90 (5)

1.82 (8)

1.75 (2)

0

1.61

0 0 0

1.48 1.95 2.00 2.00 1.66 2.25 0 0 1.67 (23) (10) (4) (5) (8) (2) 1.67 1.60 2.00 2.00 1.84 2.00 0 0 1.75 (23) (10) (4) (5) (8) (2) 1.74 2.00 2.25 2.10 2.00 2.25 0 0 1.92 (23) (10) (4) (5) (8) (2) 1.83 2.10 2.38 2.20 1.96 2.25 0 0 1.96 (23) (10) (4) (5) (8) (2) 1.97 2.20 2.75 2.00 2.07 2.00 0 0 2.09 (23) (10) (4) (5) (8) (2) Note: Admission interview data has not been disaggregated by program before spring 2017. This fall 2016 data was disaggregated by matching names from the spreadsheets.

Question: Why do total numbers of students in Table 1 differ from Tables 2-3?

Answer: 10 students from Tables 2-3 were not included in the interview data: 1) Jacy Allen 2) Justin Ball 3) Kelsey Batey 4) Logan Coatney 5) Nicole Dixon 6) Kayla Elmore 7) Bryan Garrett 8) Matthew Montgomery 9) Kaitlin Schaub 10) Jordan Taylor Note: There are also students listed on the interview data that are not included in the GPA/Praxis/ACT data: Ashley Hampton, Ashley Rolen, Brayden Cox, Claire Burnsed, Hunter Plata, Nicole DeSoto, Tiffany Cooksey, Tyler McCollum. The interviews in LiveText need to have program codes included. This is why the program numbers don’t match the total numbers of interviews and the totals

Note: Scores based on SOE scale of 0=Unsatisfactory, 1=Basic, 2=Proficient and 3=Distinguished

10

Table 1: GATE 3: Structured Team Interview for Admission to the Teacher Education Program for Spring 2017 (Form #2) EPP-Created Assessment 1. Imagine that you are teaching a student: (choose one) (a) How will you handle a student who is confused with instruction? (b) How will you ensure a student follows the classroom rules? (c) How will you respond to difficult questions from the student? (d) How will you motivate the student to value learning?

CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 5, 8; Danielson 3c 2. Have you ever had experiences with children? What did you learn from these experiences? Describe the experience(s).

CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 7; Danielson 2a 3. Identify two characteristics that you possess which will enable you to be an effective teacher. Tell why you selected these characteristics.

CAEP 1.2. 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a, 4e 4. What were the qualities of a teacher that you admired as a student and why did you admire these qualities?

CAEP 1.2. 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a, 4e 5. Why did you choose your teaching interest area? (indicate your choice of major) CAEP 1.2. 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a, 4e 6. What current technology do you use that could be used in your future classroom? How would you use technology to improve your instruction and how would this improve student achievement?

CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 5, 8; Danielson 3c 7. Describe an instance in which you have led others.

CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4d, 4f 8. How do you see yourself as a learner? Address ethical and professional behaviors within your response.

CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4e 9. Language and communication skills.

CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4f 10. Professional behavior(s).

CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4f 11. Professional appearance.

CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4f Successful Interview Instruments Successful with Conditions Instruments Unsuccessful Interview Instruments

ELEM MLED SEC Totals

21/21 (100%) 5/5 (100%) 33/34 (97%) N=59

ELEM MLED SEC Totals

N/A N/A 1/34 (3%) N=1

ELEM MLED SEC Totals

N/A N/A N/A N=0

ELEM 3554

MLED 3515

MUS 3570

BIO 3565

ENG 3576

HIST 3574

MATH 3568

SPAN 3580

Total

1.38 (21)

1.78 (5)

1.76 (7)

2.08 (6)

1.78 (4)

1.59 (10)

1.25 (6)

2.00 (1)

1.60

1.55 (21)

1.83 (5)

2.24 (7)

1.83 (6)

2.11 (4)

1.83 (10)

1.50 (6)

2.00 (1)

1.80

1.90 (21)

2.08 (5)

2.14 (7)

2.08 (6)

2.00 (4)

1.96 (10)

1.75 (6)

1.50 (1)

1.82

1.69 (21) 1.59 (21)

2.17 (5) 2.28 (5)

1.95 (7) 1.81 (7)

2.33 (6) 2.25 (6)

2.00 (4) 1.89 (4)

1.92 (10) 1.75 (10)

1.75 (6) 1.92 (6)

1.50 (1) 1.00 (1)

1.69 (21)

1.94 (5)

1.81 (7)

2.08 (6)

1.78 (4)

1.82 (10)

2.17 (6)

1.00 (1)

1.74 1.63 1.69

1.55 1.67 1.67 2.08 1.78 1.66 2.00 1.50 1.70 (21) (5) (7) (6) (4) (10) (6) (1) 1.74 2.08 1.95 1.83 1.67 1.84 1.75 2.00 1.80 (21) (5) (7) (6) (4) (10) (6) (1) 1.61 1.89 2.14 2.17 1.67 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.66 (21) (5) (7) (6) (4) (10) (6) (1) 1.93 2.08 2.24 2.42 1.78 1.96 1.92 2.00 1.92 (21) (5) (7) (6) (4) (10) (6) (1) 1.98 2.03 2.62 2.25 2.00 2.07 2.08 2.50 2.13 (21) (5) (7) (6) (4) (10) (6) (1) Note: Admission interview data is not being disaggregated by program. This spring 2017 data was disaggregated by matching names from the spreadsheets.

Note: There are also students listed on the interview data that are not included in the GPA/Praxis/ACT data. Some students are interviewed and conditionally admitted prior to all requirements for admission being met.

Note: Scores based on SOE scale of 0=Unsatisfactory, 1=Basic, 2=Proficient and 3=Distinguish

11

Table 2: GATE 3: Cumulative GPA Mean Upon Admission to Teacher Education Program for Fall 2016 – Spring 2017 Program: 3552: Early Childhood Education (P-4)

Sp16

Fa16

Sp17

3580: Spanish (K-12)

3.35 (N=7) 3.55 (N=16) 3.28 (N=4) 3.60 (N=3) 3.64 (N=1) 3.23 (N=6) 3.33 (N=1) 3.30 (N=4) N/A

2.82 (N=1) 3.39 (N=25) 3.32 (N=11) 3.47 (N=5) N=0 3.63 (N=6) 3.30 (N=12) 3.44 (N=3) 2.80 (N=1)

(N=0) 3.23 (N=14) 3.58 (N=6) 3.61 (N=7) 3.59 (N=4) 3.63 (N=2) 3.48 (N=8) 3.41 (N=5) (N=0)

Totals

3.40 (N=42)

3.37 (N=64)

3.50 (N=46)

3554: Elementary Education (K-6) 3514/3515: Middle Level (4-8) 3570: Music Education – Instrumental and Vocal (P-8 and 7-12) 3565: Secondary Biology (7-12) 3576: Secondary English (7-12) 3574: Secondary Social Studies (7-12) 3568: Secondary Mathematics (7-12)

Note: GPA based on 4.0 scale, including all classes completed prior to admission to Teacher Education Program

12

Table 3: GATE 3: Composite ACT Mean Upon Admission to Teacher Education Program for Fall 2016 – Spring 2017 Program:

Sp16

Fa16

Sp17

3552: Early Childhood Education (P-4)

20 (N=4)

22 (N=1)

(N=0)

3554: Elementary Education (K-6)

22 (N=8)

23(N=18/25)

23 (N=11/14)

3514/3515: Middle Level (4-8)

24 (N=2)

22.45(N=11)

25 (N=6)

3570: Music Education – Instrumental and Vocal (P-8 and 7-12)

28 (N=3)

25 (N=5)

23 (N=7)

3565: Secondary Biology (7-12)

20 (N=1)

N=0

25 (N=3/4)

3576: Secondary English (7-12)

22 (N=4)

25 (N=6)

24 (N=2)

3574: Secondary Social Studies (7-12)

20 (N=1)

23 (N=8/12)

24 (N=6/8)

3568: Secondary Mathematics (7-12)

25 (N=2)

26 (N=3)

24 (N=5)

3580: Spanish (K-12)

N/A

20 (N=1)

(N=0)

Totals

23 (N=25)

23 (N=53/64)

24 (N=40/46)

Note: GPA based on 4.0 scale, including all classes completed prior to admission to Teacher Education Program

13

Table 4: Gate 3: Praxis Core or Qualifying ACT Scores for Tests of Reading, Writing and Math (ADE Cut Scores or Above) Praxis Core/Qualifying ACT Scores Results: Candidates must possess basic skills in writing, reading, and mathematics. Therefore, all must successfully complete these three sections of the Praxis Core Exam or have qualifying ACT scores prior to formal admission to the teacher education program. Table 4 details average Praxis Core/Qualifying ACT scores for those admitted to the teacher education program from spring 2013 to spring 2016. This information indicates that candidates admitted to the teacher education program possess skills in mathematics, reading, and writing necessary for success in teaching.

Spring 2016 Admitted Candidates PC Mathematics PC Reading PC Writing ACT Scores: ACT Mathematics ACT Reading ACT Writing

Fall 2016

Spring 2017

N=41

N=64

N=46

169 179

163 (N=40/64)

164 (N=16/46)

176 (N=38/64)

174 (N=16/46)

168

170 (N=61/64)

169 (N=43/46)

AR Required Score 150 156 162 24 Composite

25 (N=10) 28 (N=11) 30 (N=1)

23 (N=52/64)

25 (N= 41/46)

22

24 (N=51/64)

26 (N= 41/46)

22

23 (N=52/64)

25 (N= 3/46)

22

14

Tables 5-6: GATES 3, 4, 6: Teacher Candidate Self-Evaluations of Dispositions for Fall 2016 – Spring 2017 (LiveText Form 11) EPP-Created Assessment Candidates must maintain a 2.75 GPA with only “C” or better grades, satisfactorily produce assigned edTPA tasks in Practicum I, Practicum II, and Internship and maintain professional behavior. To address dispositions, knowledge, and skills, candidates are assessed across the college and TEP with the following instruments.

By assessing candidates at multiple points throughout their program, we will be able to look at transition points and specific elements of the program. Candidates are required to self-assess their dispositions four times (table 5) and their lesson plans three times (table 6). The following tables highlight the longitudinal ability of the assessment system and demonstrate how candidates are progressing with regard to each of the stated instruments.

Table 5: GATES 3, 4, 6: Self-Evaluation of Dispositions for Fall 2016 - EPP-Created Assessment Course Checkpoint

Gate 3

Pract I

Pract II

N=28

EC/Ml and Sec 6/22

Intern

N=59

EC/Ml and Sec 31/28

N=40

EC/Ml and Sec 17/23

The teacher candidate displays: 1. Collaboration – The act of working with another person or group in order to achieve or do something. CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 4d 2. Reflection – serious thought or consideration CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a 3. Integrity - The ability to demonstrate truthfulness to oneself and to others; demonstrate moral excellence, trustworthiness, professional and ethical behavior in all activities and dealings with university faculty, peers, students, teachers, and school personnel. CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4b, 4e, 4f 4. Learning Initiative - The power or ability to begin or to follow through energetically with a plan or task for learning. CAEP 1.1; InTASC 1, 2, 6, 7; Danielson 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f 5. Responsibility - The act of being accountable for a duty or task that one is required or expected to do. CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4e, 4f 6. Respect - Due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others.

CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 7; Danielson 2a 7. Diversity - Differences among groups of people and individuals based on ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, gender, exceptionalities, language, religion, sexual orientation, and geographical area. CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.4; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 7, 10; Danielson 2a, 4c Scale: 1=Emerging; 2=Proficient; 3=Advanced

N=48 2.35

2.54

2.83/2.45

2.64

2.71/2.57

2.60

2.67/2.54

2.50

2.54

2.50/2.55

2.71

2.77/2.64

2.55

2.47/2.58

2.31

2.82

2.83/2.82

2.81

2.84/2.79

2.75

2.73/2.75

1.63

2.46

2.67/2.41

2.37

2.45/2.29

2.48

2.53/2.42

2.40

2.50

2.67/2.45

2.56

2.61/2.50

2.48

2.40/2.50

2.65

2.82

2.83/2.82

2.78

2.87/2.68

2.78

2.67/2.83

2.48

2.61

2.83/2.55

2.64

2.68/2.61

2.58

2.53/2.58

Table 5: GATES 3, 4, 6: Self-Evaluation of Dispositions for Spring 2017- EPP-Created Assessment Course Checkpoint The teacher candidate displays: 1. Collaboration – The act of working with another person or group in order to achieve or do something. CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 4d 2. Reflection – serious thought or consideration CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a 3. Integrity - The ability to demonstrate truthfulness to oneself and to others; demonstrate moral excellence, trustworthiness, professional and ethical behavior in all activities and dealings with university faculty, peers, students, teachers, and school personnel. CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4b, 4e, 4f 4. Learning Initiative - The power or ability to begin or to follow through energetically with a plan or task for learning. CAEP 1.1; InTASC 1, 2, 6, 7; Danielson 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f 5. Responsibility - The act of being accountable for a duty or task that one is required or expected to do. CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4e, 4f 6. Respect - Due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others.

CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 7; Danielson 2a 7. Diversity - Differences among groups of people and individuals based on ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, gender, exceptionalities, language, religion, sexual orientation, and geographical area. CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.4; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 7, 10; Danielson 2a, 4c Scale: 1=Emerging; 2=Proficient; 3=Advanced

Gate 3 N=61

Pract I N=33

ELML/Sec 21/12

Pract II N=31

ELML/Sec 17/14

Intern N=59

ELML/Sec 36/23

2.44

2.24

2.14/2.42

2.61

2.71/2.50

2.68

2.83/2.43

2.48

2.39

2.29/2.58

2.81

2.76/2.86

2.80

2.92/2.61

2.61

2.58

2.48/2.75

2.90

2.94/2.86

2.80

2.92/2.61

2.11

2.5

2.05/2.33

2.35

2.35/2.36

2.46

2.53/2.35

2.37

2.21

2.29/2.08

2.55

2.53/2.57

2.58

2.67/2.43

2.61

2.52

2.432.67

2.90

2.88/2.93

2.76

2.89/2.57

2.51

2.36

2.19/2.67

2.74

2.82/2.64

2.71

2.89/2.43

15

Table 6: Gates 4, 6: Candidate’s Reflection Upon Lesson Planning for Fall 2016 (LiveText Form 12) EPP-Created Assessment Course Checkpoint 1. Objectives, content, and resources used in the lesson matched the State Curriculum Standards.

CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 1,4, 10; Danielson 1c, 1e, 3d 2. I provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that students’ prior knowledge was considered.

CAEP 1.1, 2.3; InTASC 1, 2, 7; Danielson 1b 3. I exhibited introduction and development of a concept or procedure, small group instruction, emphasis upon higher order thinking, use of technology, and class discussions.

CAEP 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 5, 8; Danielson 1a, 1e, 3b, 3c, 3e 4. I managed the classroom to ensure highly effective use of the five elements.

CAEP 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2c, 2d 5. My reflection upon the components of the lesson contains significant depth and specificity.

CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a 6. I provided evidence of student work with feedback and reflection on the process.

CAEP 1.2, 1.3 1.5; InTASC 6, 9; Danielson 3d, 4a, 4b 7. My oral and written communications had very few to no errors.

CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4f

N=33

EC/ Ml and Sec 12/21

N=59

EC/Ml and Sec 33/26

N=40

EC/Ml and Sec 17/23

2.58

2.67/2.52

2.54

2.52/2.58

2.63

2.71/2.57

2.15

2.08/2.19

2.31

2.21/2.42

2.35

2.47/2.26

2.33

2.33/2.33

2.34

2.45/2.19

2.45

2.41/2.48

2.03

2.17/1.95

2.39

2.45/2.31

2.30

2.35/2.26

2.42

2.17/2.57

2.51

2.61/2.38

2.43

2.35/2.48

2.06

2.08/2.05

2.20

2.36/2.00

2.40

2.47/2.35

2.30

2.33/2.29

2.47

2.52/2.42

2.40

2.35/2.43

Pract I

Pract II

Intern

Scale: 0 = Absent; 1 = Present but weak; 2 = Good with most; 3 = Excellent with all.

Table 6: Gates 4, 6: Candidate’s Reflection Upon Lesson Planning for Spring 2017 (LiveText Form 12) EPP-Created Assessment Course Checkpoint 1. Objectives, content, and resources used in the lesson matched the State Curriculum Standards.

CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 1,4, 10; Danielson 1c, 1e, 3d 2. I provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that students’ prior knowledge was considered.

CAEP 1.1, 2.3; InTASC 1, 2, 7; Danielson 1b 3. I exhibited introduction and development of a concept or procedure, small group instruction, emphasis upon higher order thinking, use of technology, and class discussions.

CAEP 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 5, 8; Danielson 1a, 1e, 3b, 3c, 3e 4. I managed the classroom to ensure highly effective use of the five elements.

CAEP 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2c, 2d 5. My reflection upon the components of the lesson contains significant depth and specificity.

CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a 6. I provided evidence of student work with feedback and reflection on the process.

CAEP 1.2, 1.3 1.5; InTASC 6, 9; Danielson 3d, 4a, 4b 7. My oral and written communications had very few to no errors.

CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4f

Pract I

ELML/Sec

Pract II

ELML/Sec

Intern

ELML/Sec

N=40

22/18

N=33

19/14

N=63

43/20

2.18

2.05/2.33

2.55

2.58/2.50

2.54

2.63/2.35

2.08

1.91/2.28

2.24

2.26/2.21

2.52

2.62/2.30

2.08

1.86/2.33

2.33

2.42/2.21

2.49

2.63/2.20

1.88

1.77/2.00

2.21

2.16/2.29

2.39

2.50/2.16

1.90

2.00/1.78

2.39

2.47/2.29

2.30

2.47/1.95

2.00

1.86/2.17

2.15

2.32/1.93

2.38

2.53/2.05

2.13

1.95/2.33

2.39

2.42/2.36

2.33

2.49/2.00

16

Scale: 0 = Absent; 1 = Present but weak; 2 = Good with most; 3 = Excellent with all.

Table 7: Gate 4: Diversity Case Study Performance EPP-Created Assessment While diversity is woven throughout the program, a checkpoint for gate 4 is that teacher candidates satisfactorily analyze a case study for appropriate practices dependent upon the type of diversity presented in the case study (Table 7).

Note: This needs to be disaggregated by programs.

Course

Combined ECED 3053, SPED 3003 and SPED 3022 Sp16

Fa16

Sp17

Fa17

Sp18

Fa18

Sp19

3003/3022

1. Demonstrates an understanding of students with disabilities CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 1, 2, 4, 7; Danielson 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e 2. Framing the response to a scenario concerning special needs CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 2.3; InTASC 1, 2, 7; Danielson 1b, 1d 3. Designing modifications and adaptations for students with needs CAEP 1.1, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 1, 4; Danielson 1c, 1e 4. Applicability of modifications to the classroom CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2e 5. Justification from modification or approach CAEP 1.1, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 4; Danielson 1e 6. Demonstrates an understanding of diversity

N=39

N=49

31/19

1.97

2.22

1.97/2.26

1.92

2.04

1.97/1.95

2.10

2.37

2.00/2.26

2.00

2.06

2.00/2.11

1.90

2.20

2.00/N/A

1.82

2.04

1.90/2.37

1.97

2.16

2.00/2.11

CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.4; InTASC 3, 10; Danielson 2a, 4c

7. Provides a climate where students can appreciate diversity CAEP 1.1, 1.3, 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2a, 2b Note: 0 = Unsatisfactory; 1 = Basic; 2 = Proficient; 3 = Distinguished.

17

Table 8: GATES 4 & 6: Intended Candidate Outcomes for Fall 2016 Evaluated by Clinical Supervisors/Mentor Teachers first 3 columns, last column interns evaluated by UAFS Supervisors - Proprietary Assessment The candidates are assessed by cooperating teachers or Unit faculty four times with a combination of two instruments (tables 8 & 9). The following tables contain the results from the assessment instruments that either the clinical supervisor/mentor teacher or the university supervisor/course instructors complete on candidates.

Checkpoint Course DANIELSON FFT Components Aligned with InTASC and CAEP Standards 1a: Demonstrating knowledge of content and pedagogy CAEP 1.1, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 4 1b: Demonstrating knowledge of students CAEP 1.1, 2.3; InTASC 1, 2, 7 1c: Setting instructional outcomes CAEP 1.1; InTASC 1 1d: Demonstrating knowledge of resources CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10 1e: Designing coherent instruction CAEP 1.1, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 4 1f: Designing student assessments CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.3; InTASC 6 2a: Creating an environment of respect and rapport CAEP 1.1, 1.4, 1.5; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 7 2b: Establishing a culture for learning CAEP 1.3, 1.4; InTASC 3 2c: Managing classroom procedures CAEP 1.4; InTASC 3 2d: Managing student behavior CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC3 2e: Organizing physical space CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3 3a: Communicating with students CAEP 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5; InTASC 5 3b: Using questioning and discussion techniques CAEP 1.1, 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8 3c: Engaging students in learning CAEP 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 5, 8 3d: Using Assessment in Instruction CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.3; InTASC 6 3e: Demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness CAEP 1.1, 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8 4a: Reflecting on Teaching CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9 4b: Maintaining Accurate Records CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5; InTASC 9 4c: Communicating with Families CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10 4d: Participating in a Professional Community CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10 4e: Growing and Developing Professionally CAEP 1.1, 1.2. 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9 4f: Showing Professionalism CAEP 1.1, 1.2. 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9

Gate 4 Pract I N=33 2.21 2.39 2.36 2.21 2.24 2.18 2.55 2.30 2.21 2.15 2.24 2.24 2.12 2.27 1.94 2.21 1.97 1.30 .27 1.70 1.70 1.94

Gate 4 Pract II N=61 2.10 2.26 2.05 2.16 2.13 1.87 2.34 2.16 1.95 1.98 1.89 2.13 2.03 2.28 1.67 2.21 2.20 1.25 .34 .80 1.08 2.28

Gate 6 Intern/Mentor N=45 2.16 2.33 2.04 2.20 2.22 1.87 2.36 2.13 2.02 1.98 2.36 2.11 1.91 2.13 2.00 2.20 2.18 2.04 1.73 2.09 2.22 2.22

Gate 6 Intern/Supv N=35 2.20 2.23 2.20 2.37 2.14 2.14 2.34 2.14 2.17 1.97 2.14 2.11 2.00 2.20 2.00 2.17 2.37 2.14 1.94 2.20 2.23 2.26

Note: 0 = Unsatisfactory; 1 = Basic; 2 = Proficient; 3 = Distinguished.

Intended Candidate Outcomes for Fall 2016 Interns Evaluated by University Supervisors is the last column above.

The Clinical and University Supervisors evaluated the Interns for Intended Candidate Outcomes in LiveText to disaggregate the data beginning Spring 2009. The form was revised to reflect the domain components of Danielson’s Framework in Summer 2015. Target levels of performance were identified at the two formative levels of Practicum I and II, as well as the summative levels of internship. There are two summative assessments during internship, to demonstrate inter-rater reliability. The faculty members were trained, to refine the use of the instrument.

18

Table 8: GATES 4 & 6: Intended Candidate Outcomes for Spring 2017 Evaluated by Clinical Supervisors/Mentor Teachers first 3 columns, last column interns evaluated by UAFS Supervisors - Proprietary Assessment The candidates are assessed by cooperating teachers or Unit faculty four times with a combination of two instruments (tables 8 & 9). The following tables contain the results from the assessment instruments that either the clinical supervisor/mentor teacher or the university supervisor/course instructors complete on candidates.

Checkpoint Course DANIELSON FFT Components Aligned with InTASC and CAEP Standards 1a: Demonstrating knowledge of content and pedagogy CAEP 1.1, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 4 1b: Demonstrating knowledge of students CAEP 1.1, 2.3; InTASC 1, 2, 7 1c: Setting instructional outcomes CAEP 1.1; InTASC 1 1d: Demonstrating knowledge of resources CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10 1e: Designing coherent instruction CAEP 1.1, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 4 1f: Designing student assessments CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.3; InTASC 6 2a: Creating an environment of respect and rapport CAEP 1.1, 1.4, 1.5; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 7 2b: Establishing a culture for learning CAEP 1.3, 1.4; InTASC 3 2c: Managing classroom procedures CAEP 1.4; InTASC 3 2d: Managing student behavior CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC3 2e: Organizing physical space CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3 3a: Communicating with students CAEP 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5; InTASC 5 3b: Using questioning and discussion techniques CAEP 1.1, 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8 3c: Engaging students in learning CAEP 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 5, 8 3d: Using Assessment in Instruction CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.3; InTASC 6 3e: Demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness CAEP 1.1, 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8 4a: Reflecting on Teaching CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9 4b: Maintaining Accurate Records CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5; InTASC 9 4c: Communicating with Families CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10 4d: Participating in a Professional Community CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10 4e: Growing and Developing Professionally CAEP 1.1, 1.2. 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9 4f: Showing Professionalism CAEP 1.1, 1.2. 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9

Gate 4 Pract I N=47 2.09 2.22 2.02 2.00 1.96 1.98 2.29 2.00 1.91 2.81 2.59 2.16 1.93 2.13 1.77 2.18 2.09 1.16 .24 1.19 1.02 2.16

Gate 6 Intern/Self N=57 2.46 2.60 2.30 2.46 2.44 2.30 2.65 2.40 2.12 2.26 2.46 2.44 2.33 2.40 2.23 2.52 2.32 2.19 2.14 2.2 2.40 2.39

Gate 6 Intern/Mentor N=67 2.37 2.60 2.42 2.55 2.48 2.30 2.57 2.43 2.30 2.33 2.54 2.48 2.31 2.40 2.39 2.49 2.47 2.31 2.00 2.33 2.38 2.38

Gate 6 Intern/Supv N=63 2.32 2.40 2.19 2.43 2.40 2.24 2.38 2.24 2.30 2.19 2.32 2.38 2.16 2.32 2.24 2.33 2.38 2.14 2.17 2.25 2.32 2.29

Note: 0 = Unsatisfactory; 1 = Basic; 2 = Proficient; 3 = Distinguished.

Intended Candidate Outcomes for Spring 2017 Interns Evaluated by University Supervisors is the last column above.

The Clinical and University Supervisors evaluated the Interns for Intended Candidate Outcomes in LiveText to disaggregate the data beginning Spring 2009. The form was revised to reflect the domain components of Danielson’s Framework in Summer 2015. Target levels of performance were identified at the two formative levels of Practicum I and II, as well as the summative levels of internship. There are two summative assessments during internship, to demonstrate inter-rater reliability. The faculty members were trained, to refine the use of the instrument.

19

Table 9: GATES 3, 4, & 6: Candidate Dispositions Combined from selected Courses – Fall 2016 EPP-Prepared Assessment Positive dispositions are critical for candidates to be successful. Dispositions are assessed in every class taught in the SOE and TEP. Therefore some students might be assessed by more than one faculty member in a particular semester. Due to the nature of the scale, frequencies are presented rather than mean in Table 9. Candidates are assessed as demonstrating appropriate, inappropriate, or none displayed.

Intro. To Educ.

ECED/ELEM MLED SEC DISPOSITIONS The teacher candidate displays the following dispositions: 1. COLLABORATION: The act of working with another person or group in order to achieve or do something....

CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4c, 4d, 4f 2. REFLECTION: Serious thought or consideration....

CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 4, 9; Danielson 1e, 4a 3. INTEGRITY: The ability to demonstrate truthfulness to oneself and to others; demonstrate moral excellence, trustworthiness, professional and ethical behavior in all activities and dealings with university faculty, peers, students, teachers, and school personnel....

CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4b, 4e, 4f 4. LEARNING INITIATIVE: The power or ability to begin or to follow through energetically with a plan or task for learning....

CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10; Danielson 1a, 1e, 1f, 3c, 3d, 4e 5. RESPONSIBILITY: The act of being accountable for a duty or task that one is required or expected to do....

CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4c, 4d, 4e, 4f 6. RESPECT: Due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others....

CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.3, InTASC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; Danielson 1b, 1e, 1f, 2a, 2b, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4f 7. DIVERSITY: Differences among groups of people and individuals based on ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, gender, exceptionalities, language, religion, sexual orientation, and geographical area. ...1 (0%) 109 (99%) CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; Danielson 1b, 1e, 1f, 2a, 2b, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4f

INTER-RATER SUMMARY

E

P

A

E

P 206/ 42 210/ 44

A 21/ 6 22/ 4

E

P

A

E

P

A

5

41

25

5/2

0

56

22

2

101

23

2

42

26

0/2

0

68

10

2

104

20

2

69

0

0/0

212/ 47

20/ 3

0

58

20

0

107

19

5

66

0

4/2

218/ 45

10/ 3

0

59

19

2

99

25

5

45

21

5/0

211/ 47

15/ 3

5

49

24

10

95

21

5

44

22

1/0

212/ 47

19/ 3

0

56

22

0

99

27

5

66

0

1/0

219/ 47

12/ 3

0

64

14

0

104

22

Mean Intro

Stdev Intro

Mean ECED ELEM

Stdev ECED ELEM

Mean MLED

Stdev MLED

Mean SEC

Stdev SEC

1. COLLABORATION: The act of working with another person or group in order to achieve or do something....

2. REFLECTION: Serious thought or consideration....

2.338

0.512

0.372

2.246

0.429

0.607

2.228

0.397

2.229

0.437

3. INTEGRITY: The ability to demonstrate truthfulness to oneself and to others; demonstrate moral excellence, trustworthiness, professional and ethical behavior in all activities and dealings with university faculty, peers, students, teachers, and school personnel....

4. LEARNING INITIATIVE: The power or ability to begin or to follow through energetically with a plan or task for learning....

5. RESPONSIBILITY: The act of being accountable for a duty or task that one is required or expected to do....

6. RESPECT: Due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others....

1.971

0.006

0.131 0.485 0.140 0.494 0.125 0.489

2.316

2.404

2.107 2.277 2.123 2.259 2.133 2.268

2.290

0.382

2.231

0.435

1.921

0.077

0.374

2.306

0.454

0.418

2.285

0.398

2.199

0.461

2.288

0.442

2.316

0.372

2.286

0.413

7. DIVERSITY: Differences among groups of people and individuals based on ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, gender, exceptionalities, language, religion, sexual orientation, and geographical area. ...1

1.921

0.077

0.119 0.500 0.068 0.489 0.128 0.489 0.128 0.489

2.292

2.271

2.081 2.250 2.070 2.268 2.132 2.268 2.111 2.268

2.257

0.382

2.248

0.425

Note: 1=Emerging; 2=Proficient; 3=Advanced * Before allowed to intern, a candidate must demonstrate a Proficient or above on the Disposition Rating Scale in each identified disposition. Candidates are tracked by number of reports and by level of proficiency each semester. See table on Page 69 of Candidate Manual to view the responses taken whenever a candidate receives Emerging.

20

Table 9: GATES 3, 4, & 6: Candidate Dispositions Combined from selected Courses – Spring 2017 EPP-Prepared Assessment Positive dispositions are critical for candidates to be successful. Dispositions are assessed in every class taught in the SOE and TEP. Therefore some students might be assessed by more than one faculty member in a particular semester. Due to the nature of the scale, frequencies are presented rather than mean in Table 9. Candidates are assessed as demonstrating appropriate, inappropriate, or none displayed.

Intro. To Educ.

ECED/ELEM MLED SEC DISPOSITIONS The teacher candidate displays the following dispositions: 1. COLLABORATION: The act of working with another person or group in order to achieve or do something....

CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4c, 4d, 4f 2. REFLECTION: Serious thought or consideration....

CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 4, 9; Danielson 1e, 4a 3. INTEGRITY: The ability to demonstrate truthfulness to oneself and to others; demonstrate moral excellence, trustworthiness, professional and ethical behavior in all activities and dealings with university faculty, peers, students, teachers, and school personnel....

CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4b, 4e, 4f 4. LEARNING INITIATIVE: The power or ability to begin or to follow through energetically with a plan or task for learning....

CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10; Danielson 1a, 1e, 1f, 3c, 3d, 4e 5. RESPONSIBILITY: The act of being accountable for a duty or task that one is required or expected to do....

CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4c, 4d, 4e, 4f 6. RESPECT: Due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others....

CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.3, InTASC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; Danielson 1b, 1e, 1f, 2a, 2b, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4f 7. DIVERSITY: Differences among groups of people and individuals based on ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, gender, exceptionalities, language, religion, sexual orientation, and geographical area. ...1 (0%) 109 (99%) CAEP 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; Danielson 1b, 1e, 1f, 2a, 2b, 2d, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4c, 4f

INTER-RATER SUMMARY

E

P

A

E

P

A

E

P

A

E

P

4

51

38

1/1

38/35

1/9

0

21

24

3

136

4

35

54

0/2

40/28

0/15

0

16

29

3

145

91

4

89

0

0/0

40/25

0/19

0

13

32

6

138

95

4

89

0

1/3

39/31

0/11

0

29

16

14

134

91

4

51

38

1/1

39/17

0/27

0

18

27

30

121

88

4

32

57

0/0

40/24

0/21

0

13

32

2

143

94

4

32

57

0/0

40/36

0/8

0

20

25

1

166

72

Mean Intro

Stdev Intro

Mean ECED ELEM

Stdev ECED ELEM

Mean MLED

Stdev MLED

Mean SEC

Stdev SEC

1. COLLABORATION: The act of working with another person or group in order to achieve or do something....

2. REFLECTION: Serious thought or consideration....

2.366

0.564

.499

2.406

0.516

0.578

2.64

.479

2.368

0.508

3. INTEGRITY: The ability to demonstrate truthfulness to oneself and to others; demonstrate moral excellence, trustworthiness, professional and ethical behavior in all activities and dealings with university faculty, peers, students, teachers, and school personnel....

4. LEARNING INITIATIVE: The power or ability to begin or to follow through energetically with a plan or task for learning....

5. RESPONSIBILITY: The act of being accountable for a duty or task that one is required or expected to do....

6. RESPECT: Due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others....

1.957

0.203

.244 .437 .000 .543 .000 .494

2.53

2.538

2.00 2.18 3.00 2.29 3.00 2.42

2.71

.453

2.372

0.533

1.957

0.203

.479

2.322

0.579

0.564

2.60

.490

2.243

0.659

2.570

0.575

2.71

.453

2.385

0.503

7. DIVERSITY: Differences among groups of people and individuals based on ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, gender, exceptionalities, language, religion, sexual orientation, and geographical area. ...1

2.570

0.575

.156 .529 .156 .537 .000 .499 .000 .386

2.36

2.366

1.98 2.18 1.98 1.58 2.00 2.47 2.00 2.18

2.56

.497

2.297

0.466

A 10 0

Note: 1=Emerging; 2=Proficient; 3=Advanced * Before allowed to intern, a candidate must demonstrate a Proficient or above on the Disposition Rating Scale in each identified disposition. Candidates are tracked by number of reports and by level of proficiency each semester. See table on Page 69 of Candidate Manual to view the responses taken whenever a candidate receives Emerging.

21

Table 10: GATES 4 & 6: edTPA assignments for Practicum 1, Practicum II, and Internship (Local Evaluations) Proprietary Assessment Candidates are required to complete edTPA tasks in Practicum I, Practicum II, and Internship. Practicum I addresses edTPA Task 1: Planning for Instruction and Assessment.

Practicum II addresses Task 1: Planning for Instruction and Assessment and edTPA Task 2: Instructing and Engaging Students in Learning. The Internship addresses all three edTPA tasks, including Task 1: Planning for Instruction and Assessment, Task 2: Instructing and Engaging Students in Learning, and Task 3: Assessing Student Learning. The following tables contain the formative and summative results from these three tasks, divided into programs/disciplines.

Rubric 1 ECED/ELEM Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 MLED ELA Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 MATH Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 SCIENCE Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 SS Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 SEC BIOL Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 ENGL Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 HIST Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 MATH Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 MUSIC Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 SPAN Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17

edTPA Task 1: Planning for Instruction and Assessment – Mean Score/(Sample Size) Rubric 2 Rubric 3 Rubric 4 Prac. I Intern Prac. I Intern Prac. I 1.9 (32) 2.5 (31) 1.9 (32) 2.3 (31) 1.8 (32) 2.0 (7/5) 2.6 (16) 2.0 (7/5) 2.5 (16) 2.0 (7/5) 1.6/2/0 (7/12) 2.6 (34) 1.7/2.2 (7/12) 2.5 (34) 1.9/2.1 (7/12) Prac. I Intern Prac. I Intern Prac. I

Intern 2.4 (31) 2.4 (16) 2.4 (34) Intern

Rubric 5 Prac. I 1.9 (32) 1.7 (7/5) 1.7/2.2 (7/12) Prac. I

Prac. I 2.1 (32) 2.0 (7/5) 2.0/2.0 (7/12) Prac. I

Intern 2.4 (31) 2.6 (16) 2.6 (34) Intern

Intern 2.5 (31) 2.4 (16) 2.4 (34) Intern

2.0 (1) 2.0 (1) (0)

2.0 (1) 2.0 (2) 2.3 (3)

2.0 (1) 2.0 (1) (0)

2.0 (1) 2.0 (2) 2.0 (3)

1.0 (1) 2.0 (1) (0)

2.0 (1) 2.0 (2) 1.7 (3)

2.0 (1) 2.0 (1) (0)

1.0 (1) 1.5 (2) 1.7 (3)

2.0 (1) 2.0 (1) (0)

1.0 (1) 2.0 (2) 1.7 (3)

1.5 (4) 2.0 (1) 2.0 (2)

2.5 (2) 2.0 (2) 2.0 (2)

1.5 (4) 2.0 (1) 1.5 (2)

2.0 (2) 1.0 (2) 2.0 (2)

2.0 (4) 3.0 (1) 2.0 (2)

2.5 (2) 2.0 (2) 2.0 (2)

2.0 (4) 2.0 (1) 2.0 (2)

2.0 (2) 2.0 (2) 1.5 (2)

2.0 (4) 2.0 (1) 2.0 (2)

2.5 (2) 2.0 (2) 2.0 (2)

2.0 (3) 2.0 (1) 2.0 (1)

2.6 (5) 2.4 (5) 2.8 (4)

2.0 (3) 2.0 (1) 2.0 (1)

2.0 (5) 2.0 (5) 2.8 (4)

1.3 (3) 2.0 (1) 2.0 (1)

2.0 (5) 2.0 (5) 2.8 (4)

2.0 (3) 2.0 (1) 2.0 (1)

2.0 (5) 2.0 (5) 2.8 (4)

2.0 (3) 2.0 (1) 2.0 (1)

2.4 (5) 2.0 (5) 2.8 (4)

(0) 2.0 (1) (0) Prac. I

(0) 3.0 (1) (0) Intern

(0) 2.0 (1) (0) Prac. I

(0) 0.0 (1) (0) Intern

(0) 3.0 (1) (0) Prac. I

(0) 2.0 (1) (0) Intern

(0) 2.0 (1) (0) Prac. I

(0) 2.0 (1) (0) Intern

(0) 2.0 (1) (0) Prac. I

(0) 2.0 (1) (0) Intern

2.0 (1) 3.0 (1) (0)

1.0 (1) 3.0 (1) 2.5 (2)

2.0 (1) 3.0 (1) (0)

1.0 (1) 3.0 (1) 2.0 (2)

2.0 (1) 2.0 (1) (0)

1.0 (1) 2.0 (1) 2.0 (2)

2.0 (1) 2.0 (1) (0)

1.0 (1) 2.0 (1) 2.0 (2)

2.0 (1) 2.0 (1) (0)

1.0 (1) 2.0 (1) 2.0 (2)

1.8 (4) 3.0 (1) 2.0 (7)

2.5 (6) 2.7 (6) 2.7 (6)

1.8 (4) 2.0 (1) 2.0 (7)

2.0 (6) 2.0 (6) 2.3 (6)

1.5 (4) 2.0 (1) 2.0 (7)

2.0 (6) 2.0 (6) 2.7 (6)

2.0 (4) 2.0 (1) 2.0 (7)

2.0 (6) 2.3 (6) 2.2 (6)

2.0 (4) 2.0 (1) 2.0 (7)

2.0 (6) 1.8 (6) 1.7 (6)

1.3 (6) 2.0 (1) 1.8 (9)

2.2 (5) 1.8 (4) 2.0 (6)

1.5 (6) 3.0 (1) 1.8 (9)

2.0 (5) 1.8 (4) 2.0 (6)

1.2 (6) 2.0 (1) 1.8 (9)

2.0 (5) 1.8 (4) 2.0 (6)

1.5 (6) 2.5 (1) 1.8 (9)

2.2 (5) 1.8 (4) 2.0 (6)

1.5 (6) 2.0 (1) 1.8 (9)

2.2 (5) 1.8 (4) 2.0 (6)

2.0 (1) 2.2 (5) (0)

2.7 (3) (0) 3.0 (2)

2.0 (1) 2.2 (5) (0)

3.0 (3) (0) 3.0 (2)

1.0 (1) 2.4 (5) (0)

2.7 (3) (0) 3.0 (2)

2.0 (1) 2.0 (5) (0)

2.0 (3) (0) 2.5 (2)

2.0 (1) 2.2 (5) (0)

2.7 (3) (0) 3.0 (2)

2.0 (2) 2.0 (4) 2.0 (2)

3.0 (4) 2.0 (2) 2.5 (4)

2.0 (2) 2.3 (4) 2.0 (2)

3.0 (4) 2.0 (2) 2.5 (4)

2.0 (2) 2.8 (4) 1.5 (2)

3.0 (4) 1.5 (2) 2.3 (4)

2.0 (2) 2.3 (4) 2.0 (2)

3.0 (4) 2.0 (2) 2.8 (4)

2.0 (2) 2.3 (4) 2.0 (2)

3.0 (4) 2.0 (2) 2.5 (4)

1.5 (2) (0) (0)

2.3 (3) (0) (0)

1.5 (2) (0) (0)

2.0 (3) (0) (0)

1.5 (2) (0) (0)

2.3 (3) (0) (0)

1.5 (2) (0) (0)

2.3 (3) (0) (0)

0.0 (2) (0) (0)

2.7 (3) (0) (0)

22

Prac. II 2.7 (19) 2.8 (33) 2.3 (7) 2.8 (5) Prac. II

Intern 2.3 (31) 2.8 (16) 2.5 (34) Intern

edTPA Task 2: Instructing and Engaging Students in Learning – Mean Score/(Sample Size) Rubric 7 Rubric 8 Rubric 9 Prac. II Intern Prac. II Intern Prac. II 2.6 (19) 2.4 (31) 2.4 (19) 2.3 (31) 2.2 (19) 2.8 (33) 2.7 (16) 2.6 (33) 2.4 (16) 2.7 (33) 2.1 (7) 2.6 (34) 2.3 (7) 2.5 (34) 2.4 (7) 2.2 (5) 2.0 (5) 2.6 (5) Prac. II Intern Prac. II Intern Prac. II

2.0 (1) (0) 2.0 (1)

2.0 (1) 2.0 (2) 2.3 (3)

3.0 (1) (0) 3.0 (1)

2.0 (1) 2.0 (2) 2.3 (3)

3.0 (1) (0) 3.0 (1)

1.0 (1) 2.5 (2) 1.7 (3)

2.5 (2) 3.0 (2) 2.5 (2)

3.0 (2) 1.5 (2) 2.0 (2)

2.5 (2) 3.0 (2) 2.5 (2)

3.0 (2) 2.0 (2) 2.0 (2)

2.5 (2) 2.5 (2) 2.0 (2)

2.0 (4) 3.0 (4) (0)

2.4 (5) 1.8 (5) 2.8 (4)

2.8 (4) 2.8 (4) (0)

2.6 (5) 2.4 (5) 2.8 (4)

2.0 (2) (0) 2.0 (2) Prac. II

2.4 (5) 3.0 (1) (0) Intern

2.0 (2) (0) 3.0 (2) Prac. II

3.0 (1) 2.5 (2) (0)

2.0 (1) 3.0 (1) 2.5 (2)

2.3 (6) 2.8 (6) 2.4 (5)

Rubric 6 ECED/ELEM Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 MLED ELA Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 MATH Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 SCIENCE Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 SS Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 SEC BIOL Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 ENGL Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 HIST Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 MATH Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 MUSIC Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 SPAN Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17

Rubric 10 Intern 2.4 (31) 2.7 (16) 2.5 (34)

Intern 2.4 (31) 2.4 (16) 2.5 (34)

Intern

Prac. II 2.3 (19) 2.2 (33) 2.1 (7) 1.8 (5) Prac. II

3.0 (1) (0) 2.0 (1)

2.0 (1) 2.0 (2) 2.0 (3)

3.0 (1) (0) 2.0 (1)

2.0 (1) 2.0 (2) 2.0 (3)

2.5 (2) 2.0 (2) 2.0 (2)

2.5 (2) 3.0 (2) 2.5 (2)

3.0 (2) 2.0 (2) 2.0 (2)

2.5 (2) 3.0 (2) 2.0 (2)

3.0 (2) 2.0 (2) 2.0 (2)

2.0 (4) 2.5 (4) (0)

2.4 (5) 2.0 (5) 2.5 (4)

2.3 (4) 2.8 (4) (0)

2.2 (5) 2.0 (5) 2.5 (4)

2.0 (4) 2.8 (4) (0)

2.2 (5) 2.2 (5) 2.8 (4)

2.6 (5) 3.0 (1) (0) Intern

2.0 (2) (0) 3.0 (2) Prac. II

2.4 (5) 2.0 (1) (0) Intern

2.0 (2) (0) 2.0 (2) Prac. II

2.2 (5) 2.0 (1) (0) Intern

2.0 (2) (0) 2.0 (2) Prac. II

2.2 (5) 2.0 (1) (0) Intern

3.0 (1) 2.5 (2) (0)

2.0 (1) 3.0 (1) 2.0 (2)

3.0 (1) 2.5 (2) (0)

2.0 (1) 2.0 (1) 2.5 (2)

3.0 (1) 2.0 (2) (0)

2.0 (1) 2.0 (1) 2.0 (2)

3.0 (1) 2.5 (2) (0)

1.0 (1) 2.0 (1) 2.0 (2)

2.3 (6) 2.5 (6) 2.0 (6)

2.0 (6) 2.8 (6) 2.4 (5)

2.3 (6) 1.8 (6) 2.2 (6)

2.3 (6) 2.7 (6) 2.4 (5)

2.2 (6) 2.5 (6) 1.7 (6)

2.3 (6) 2.5 (6) 2.4 (5)

2.0 (6) 2.5 (6) 2.0 (6)

2.3 (6) 2.8 (6) 2.4 (5)

2.0 (6) 2.2 (6) 1.7 (6)

2.1 (9) 3.0 (5) 2.0 (4)

2.4 (5) 1.8 (4) 2.0 (6)

2.0 (9) 3.0 (5) 2.0 (4)

2.0 (5) 1.8 (4) 2.2 (6)

1.9 (9) 2.6 (5) 2.0 (4)

2.0 (5) 1.8 (4) 2.2 (6)

1.9 (9) 2.8 (5) 2.0 (4)

2.2 (5) 1.8 (4) 2.0 (6)

2.1 (9) 2.8 (5) 1.5 (4)

2.2 (5) 1.8 (4) 2.0 (6)

(0) 2.0 (4) 2.3 (3)

2.3 (3) (0) 2.5 (2)

(0) 2.0 (4) 2.7 (3)

2.0 (3) (0) 2.5 (2)

(0) 2.3 (4) 2.7 (3)

2.3 (3) (0) 3.0 (2)

(0) 2.5 (4) 2.3 (3)

2.3 (3) (0) 2.5 (2)

(0) 2.0 (4) 2.3 (3)

2.3 (3) (0) 2.0 (2)

(0) 2.3 (3) 3.0 (1)

3.0 (4) 3.0 (2) 3.0 (2)

(0) 2.7 (3) 3.0 (1)

3.0 (4) 2.5 (2) 3.0 (2)

(0) 2.3 (3) 2.0 (1)

3.0 (4) 2.0 (2) 2.3 (2)

(0) 2.7 (3) 3.0 (1)

3.0 (4) 1.5 (2) 2.5 (2)

(0) 2.3 (3) 2.0 (1)

3.0 (4) 2.5 (2) 2.8 (2)

2.7 (3) 2.0 (1) 2.0 (1)

2.7 (3) (0) (0)

2.7 (3) 2.0 (1) 2.0 (1)

3.0 (3) (0) (0)

2.3 (3) 2.0 (1) 2.0 (1)

2.7 (3) (0) (0)

2.3 (3) 2.0 (1) 2.0 (1)

2.0 (3) (0) (0)

2.3 (3) 2.0 (1) 2.0 (1)

2.0 (3) (0) (0)

Intern

23

Prac. II 1.9 (19) 1.9 (33) 2.0 (7) 1.6 (5) Prac. II

Intern 2.2 (31) 2.5 (16) 2.6 (34) Intern

edTPA Task 3: Assessing Student Learning – Mean Score/(Sample Size) Rubric 12 Rubric 13 Rubric 14 Prac. II Intern Prac. II Intern Prac. II Intern 1.9 (19) 2.2 (31) 1.8 (19) 2.0 (31) 1.7 (19) 2.2 (31) 1.9 (33) 2.5 (16) 1.8 (33) 2.4 (16) 1.9 (33) 2.4 (16) 2.1 (7) 2.5 (34) 2.3 (7) 2.3 (34) 2.6 (7) 2.4 (34) 1.6 (5) 1.6 (5) 1.6 (5) Prac. II Intern Prac. II Intern Prac. II Intern

2.0 (1) (0) 2.0 (2)

2.0 (1) 2.0 (2) 2.0 (3)

2.0 (1) (0) 2.0 (2)

2.0 (1) 2.0 (2) 2.0 (3)

2.0 (1) (0) 2.0 (2)

2.0 (1) 2.0 (2) 1.7 (3)

2.0 (1) (0) 2.0 (2)

1.0 (1) 2.0 (2) 1.7 (3)

2.0 (1) (0) 2.0 (2)

2.0 (1) 2.0 (2) 1.7 (3)

2.0 (1) 2.0 (3) 3.0 (1)

2.5 (2) 2.0 (2) 2.0 (2)

2.0 (1) 2.0 (3) 2.0 (1)

2.5 (2) 2.0 (2) 2.0 (2)

2.0 (1) 2.0 (3) 2.0 (1)

2.0 (2) 2.0 (2) 2.0 (2)

2.0 (1) 2.0 (3) 3.0 (1)

2.5 (2) 2.0 (2) 2.0 (2)

2.0 (1) 2.0 (3) 3.0 (1)

2.5 (2) 2.0 (2) 2.0 (2)

2.0 (3) 2.0 (2) 2.0 (2

2.0 (5) 2.0 (5) 2.8 (4)

1.7 (3) 2.5 (2) 2.0 (2)

2.2 (5) 1.8 (5) 2.8 (4)

1.7 (3) 2.0 (2) 2.0 (2)

2.4 (5) 1.8 (5) 2.5 (4)

1.7 (3) 2.0 (2) 2.0 (2)

2.0 (5) 2.0 (5) 2.5 (4)

2.0 (3) 2.0 (2) 2.0 (2)

2.2 (5) 1.8 (5) 2.8 (4)

2.0 (3) (0) 2.0 (2) Prac. II

(0) 2.0 (1) (0) Intern

2.0 (3) (0) 2.0 (2) Prac. II

(0) 2.0 (1) (0) Intern

2.0 (3) (0) 2.0 (2) Prac. II

(0) 2.0 (1) (0) Intern

2.0 (3) (0) 2.0 (2) Prac. II

(0) 3.0 (1) (0) Intern

2.0 (3) (0) 2.0 (2) Prac. II

(0) 2.0 (1) (0) Intern

2.5 (2) 2.0 (2) 2.5 (2)

2.0 (1) 2.0 (1) 2.5 (2)

2.0 (2) 2.0 (2) 2.0 (2)

1.0 (1) 2.0 (1) 2.0 (2)

2.5 (2) 2.0 (2) 2.0 (2)

1.0 (1) 3.0 (1) 2.0 (2)

2.0 (2) 2.0 (2) 2.0 (2)

1.0 (1) 2.0 (1) 2.0 (2)

2.0 (2) 2.0 (2) 2.0 (2)

1.0 (1) 2.0 (1) 2.0 (2)

2.2 (5) 2.0 (7) 3.0 (6)

2.3 (6) 2.5 (6) 2.2 (6)

2.0 (5) 2.0 (7) 2.5 (6)

2.2 (6) 2.2 (6) 2.2 (6)

2.0 (5) 2.0 (7) 2.5 (6)

2.2 (6) 1.8 (6) 1.8 (6)

1.8 (5) 2.0 (7) 2.5 (6)

2.2 (6) 1.8 (6) 1.8 (6)

2.0 (5) 2.0 (7) 2.5 (6)

2.3 (6) 2.0 (6) 1.8 (6)

2.0 (7) 2.0 (4) 2.0 (6)

2.6 (5) 1.8 (4) 2.2 (6)

2.0 (7) 2.0 (4) 2.0 (6)

2.0 (5) 1.8 (4) 2.0 (6)

2.0 (7) 2.0 (4) 2.0 (6)

2.0 (5) 1.8 (4) 2.0 (6)

2.0 (7) 2.0 (4) 2.0 (6)

2.0 (5) 1.8 (4) 2.0 (6)

2.0 (7) 2.0 (4) 2.0 (6)

2.6 (5) 1.8 (4) 2.0 (6)

2.0 (3) 2.0 (2) 3.0 (2)

2.7 (3) (0) 3.0 (2)

2.0 (3) 2.0 (2) 3.0 (2)

2.7 (3) (0) 3.0 (2)

2.0 (3) 2.0 (2) 3.0 (2)

2.0 (3) (0) 3.0 (2)

2.0 (3) 2.0 (2) 2.5 (2)

1.3 (3) (0) 2.5 (2)

2.0 (3) 2.0 (2) 3.0 (2)

2.0 (3) (0) 3.0 (2)

(0) (0) 2.0 (4)

3.0 (4) 2.0 (2) 2.0 (4)

(0) (0) 2.5 (4)

3.0 (4) 2.5 (2) 2.8 (4)

(0) (0) 2.5 (4)

3.0 (4) 2.0 (2) 2.5 (4)

(0) (0) 2.5 (4)

3.0 (4) 2.0 (2) 2.5 (4)

(0) (0) 2.0 (4)

3.0 (4) 2.0 (2) 2.5 (4)

2.0 (2) (0) (0)

2.3 (3) (0) (0)

2.0 (2) (0) (0)

2.0 (3) (0) (0)

2.0 (2) (0) (0)

2.3 (3) (0) (0)

Rubric 11 ECED/ELEM Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 MLED ELA Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 MATH Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 SCIENCE Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 SS Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 SEC BIOL Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 ENGL Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 HIST Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 MATH Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 MUSIC Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 SPAN Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17

Rubric 15 Prac. II 1.8 (19) 1.9 (33) 2.6 (7) 1.6 (5) Prac. II

Intern 2.2 (31) 2.5 (16) 2.3 (34) Intern

24

Table 11: edTPA Tasks 1-3: Percentage of Students Scoring Basic, Proficient and Distinguished (Practicum I) Proprietary Assessment Tasks Levels ECED/ELEM Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 MLED ELA Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 MATH Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 SCIENCE Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 SS Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 SEC BIOL Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 ENGL Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 HIST Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 MATH Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 MUSIC Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 SPAN Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17

edTPA Tasks 1-3: Percentage of Students Scoring Basic, Proficient and Distinguished Task 2 Distinguished Basic Proficient Distinguished

Basic

Task 1 Proficient

9% 0%/0% 14%/8%

91% 100%/100% 86%/92%

0% 0%/0% 0%/0%

0% 0% -

100% 100% -

0% 0% -

0% 0% 0%

100% 100% 100%

0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0%

100% 100% 100%

0% 0% 0%

0% -

100% -

0% -

0% 0% -

100% 100% -

0% 0% -

25% 0% 0%

75% 100% 100%

0% 0% 0%

67% 0% 0%

33% 100% 100%

0% 0% 0%

0% 0% -

100% 100% -

0% 0% -

0% 0% 0%

100% 100% 100%

0% 0% 0%

0% -

100% -

0% -

Basic

Task 3 Proficient

Distinguished

25

Table 11: edTPA Tasks 1-3: Percentage of Students Scoring Basic, Proficient and Distinguished (Practicum II) Proprietary Assessment Tasks Levels ECED /ELEM Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 MLED ELA Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 MATH Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 SCIENCE Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 SS Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 SEC BIOL Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 ENGL Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 HIST Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 MATH Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 MUSIC Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 SPAN Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17

Basic

Task 1 Proficient

edTPA Tasks 1-3: Percentage of Students Scoring Basic, Proficient and Distinguished Task 2 Distinguished Basic Proficient Distinguished

Basic

Task 3 Proficient

Distinguished

0% 0% 0%

58% 27% 86%/80%

42% 73% 14%/20%

21% 18% 0%

79% 73% 86%/60%

0% 9% 14%/40%

0% 0%

0% 100%

100% 0%

0% 0%

100% 100%

0% 0%

0% 0% 0%

50% 0% 50%

50% 100% 50%

0% 0% 0%

100% 100% 0%

0% 0% 100%

0% 0% -

100% 0% -

0% 100% -

0% 0% 0%

100% 100% 100%

0% 0% 0%

0% -

100% -

0% -

0% -

100% -

0% -

0%

100%

0%

0%

100%

0%

0% 0% -

0% 50% -

100% 50% -

0% 0% 0%

100% 100% 100%

0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0%

67% 17% 60%

33% 83% 40%

0% 0% 33%

100% 100% 34%

0% 0% 33%

11% 0% 0%

89% 20% 100%

0% 80% 0%

0% 0% 0%

100% 100% 100%

0% 0% 0%

0% 0%

100% 67%

0% 33%

0% 0% 0%

100% 100% 0%

0% 0% 100%

0% 0% 0%

67% 33% 0%

33% 67% 100%

0%

50%

50%

0% 0%

100% 100%

0% 0%

0% -

100% -

0% -

Table 11: edTPA Tasks 1-3: Percentage of Students Scoring Basic, Proficient and Distinguished (Internship) Proprietary Assessment

26

Tasks Levels ECED Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 MLED ELA Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 MATH Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 SCIENCE Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 SS Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 SEC BIOL Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 ENGL Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 HIST Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 MATH Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 MUSIC Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 SPAN Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17

edTPA Tasks 1-3: Percentage of Students Scoring Basic, Proficient and Distinguished Task 2 Distinguished Basic Proficient Distinguished

Basic

Task 1 Proficient

Basic

Task 3 Proficient

Distinguished

0% 0% 0%

48% 50% 44%

52% 50% 56%

0% 0% 0%

57% 37% 56%

43% 63% 44%

0% 6% 3%

70% 44% 56%

30% 50% 41%

0% 67%

100% 0%

0% 33%

0% 33%

100% 33%

0% 34%

0% 33%

100% 67%

0% 0%

0% 0% 0%

50% 100% 100%

50% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0%

0% 100% 100%

100% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0%

50% 100% 100%

50% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0%

80% 100% 25%

20% 0% 75%

0% 0% 0%

60% 100% 25%

40% 0% 75%

0% 0% 0%

80% 100% 25%

20% 0% 75%

0% 0% -

100% 100% -

0% 0% -

0% 0% -

100% 100% -

0% 0% -

0% 0% -

100% 100% -

0% 0% -

100% 0% 0%

0% 100% 100%

0% 0% 0%

0% 0% 0%

100% 100% 100%

0% 0% 0%

100% 0% 0%

0% 100% 100%

0% 0% 0%

17% 0% 0%

66% 67% 50%

17% 33% 50%

17% 0% 17%

66% 50% 83%

17% 50% 0%

0% 17% 33%

67% 66% 33%

33% 17% 34%

0% 25% 0%

100% 75% 100%

0% 0% 0%

0% 25% 0%

100% 75% 100%

0% 0% 0%

0% 25% 0%

100% 75% 100%

0% 0% 0%

0% 0%

67% 0%

33% 100%

0% 0%

67% 50%

33% 50%

0% 0%

100% 0%

0% 100%

0% 0% 0%

0% 100% 50%

100% 0% 50%

0% 0% 0%

0% 100% 0%

100% 0% 100%

0% 0% 0%

0% 100% 50%

100% 0% 50%

0% -

100% -

0% -

0% -

67% -

33% -

0% -

67% -

33% -

27

Table 12: edTPA External Evaluations – Beginning spring 2015, a sampling of teacher candidates’ internship portfolios from the different programs/disciplines were sent for external evaluation, to determine inter-rater reliability with our local evaluators and to see how the UAFS teacher candidates compare to state norms.

The results follow in Table 12. Proprietary Assessment edTPA External Evaluations Mean (N) ECED Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 MLED ELA Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 MATH Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 SCIENCE Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 SS Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 SEC BIOL Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 ENGL Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 HIST Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 MATH Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 MUSIC Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17 SPAN Spring 16 Fall 16 Spring 17

Task 1

Task 2

Task 3

Total

AR Passing Scores

15 (2) -

13.75 (2) -

14.5 (2) -

43.5 (2) -

37 37 37

-

-

-

-

37 37 37

20 (1) -

19 (1) -

16 (1) -

55 (1) -

37 37 37

-

-

-

-

37 37 37

-

-

-

-

37 37 37

-

-

-

-

37 37 37

11 (1) -

Incomplete (1) -

10 (1) -

No score (1) -

37 37 37

-

-

-

-

37 37 37

-

-

-

-

37 37 37

14 (1) -

13 (1) -

13 (1) -

40 (1) -

37 37 37

-

-

-

-

32 32 32

Note: No data has been gathered from external evaluation during the 2016-2017 academic year, due to the CAEP visit preparations.

28

Table 13: GATE 5: Internship Placement Interview Results (LiveText Form #4) EPP-Created Assessment For the admission process to the internship, candidates are interviewed by the Director of Field Placement and their placement site administrator to assess their preparedness for the internship semester (table 5).

1.

Does the candidate appear to have the attitudes and beliefs necessary to be a successful teacher?

CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4a, 4e, 4f 2. Does the candidate demonstrate sufficient knowledge of the curriculum?

CAEP 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 4; Danielson 1a 3. Does the candidate demonstrate knowledge of good teaching techniques?

CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8; Danielson 3b, 3c 4. Does the candidate exhibit knowledge of the importance of reflective practice?

CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a 5. Does the candidate evidence an understanding of the importance of communication with colleagues, parents, and students?

CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 4c, 4d 6. Does the candidate demonstrate a sufficient understanding of child/adolescent development?

CAEP 1.1, 2.3; InTASC 1, 2, 7; Danielson 1b 7. Does the candidate demonstrate knowledge of assessment?

CAEP 1, 2; InTASC 6; Danielson 1f 8. Are the candidate’s dress and non-verbal skills appropriate?

CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4f 9. Are the candidate’s verbal skills proficient for a classroom teacher?

CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4f 10. Does the candidate evidence an understanding of the importance of respecting all individuals?

CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 7; Danielson 2a 11. Does the candidate appear to correctly utilize technology?

CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 5, 8; Danielson 3c 12. Does the candidate appear prepared to begin an internship?

CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9, 10; Danielson 4f

Sp16 N=64

Fa16 N=59

Sp17 N=31

2.83

2.95

1.97

2.67

2.92

1.90

2.44

2.93

2.03

2.17

2.63

1.77

2.39

2.78

1.97

2.25

2.73

1.71

2.02

2.58

2.00

2.63

2.93

1.87

2.08

2.97

1.81

2.66

3.00

2.06

2.56

2.95

1.90

2.47

3.02

2.06

Note: 0 = Unsatisfactory; 1 = Basic; 2 = Proficient; 3 = Distinguished

29

Table 14: GATE 7: Evaluation of the Internship Experience (LiveText Form #5) EPP-Created Assessment Gate 7 involves information generated after program completion. Current graduates are required to complete an evaluation of their internship experience (Tables 14-16) and a student advising questionnaire (table 17) in an effort to gain valuable information to enable the SOE to continually improve the experience for candidates. Graduates are surveyed at the time of graduation as well as after one and three years of employment. (Sp.16-Fall2016) PLACEMENT SITE EVALUATION: The Clinical Supervisor/Mentor Teacher by Intern

1. Engaged in cooperative planning with the intern. CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10;Danielson 4d 2. Allowed the intern to take initiative in class. CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8; Danielson 3e 3. Served as a good instructional role model. CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4f 4. Stayed in the classroom with the intern as appropriate. CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10;Danielson 4d 5. Viewed the content discipline as important. CAEP 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 4; Danielson 1a 6. Provided daily feedback to the intern. CAEP 1.2; InTASC 6; Danielson 3d 7. Modeled good classroom management skills. CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2c, 2d, 2e 8. Encouraged the students to respect the intern. CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2d 9. Provided an accurate assessment of intern progress. CAEP 1.2; InTASC 6; Danielson 3d 10. Had a positive attitude toward children. CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 7; Danielson 2a 11. Allowed the intern to develop his or her own teaching style. CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8; Danielson 3e 12. Appreciated the results of educational research. CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4e 13. Provided a good professional model. CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4f 14. Understood PATHWISE (Changed to DANIELSON FFT Fall 2014) mentoring. CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 4d 1. My overall internship experience. CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a 2. My relationship with my mentor teacher. CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 4d 3. The relationship between my campus-based supervisor and mentor teacher. CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 4d 4. My relationship with the school principal. CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 4d 5. My internship planning. CAEP 1.1; InTASC 1; Danielson 1c 6. My internship classroom management. CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2c, 2d, 2e 7. My communication with my mentor teacher. CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 4d 8. The conferences for feedback and evaluation with my mentor teacher. CAEP 1.2; InTASC 6; Danielson 3d 9. The range of teaching experiences provided for me.

CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a 10. How well did your internship experience meet your expectations? CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a Note: 0 = Unsatisfactory; 1 = Basic; 2 = Proficient; 3 = Distinguished

Sp16

Fa16 ECE

Fa16 ML-ENG

Fa16 ML-MS

Fa16 Sec-Bio

Fa16 Sec-Eng

Fa16 Sec-Hist

Fa16 Sec-Mus

N=39 2.90

N=16 2.75

N=3 3.00

N=9 3.00

N=1 3.00

N=5 3.00

N=4 2.75

N=2 3.00

2.92 2.90 2.95

2.63 2.81 2.63

3.00 3.00 3.00

2.78 2.89 2.89

2.00 3.00 3.00

2.80 2.80 2.80

2.75 2.50 2.50

3.00 3.00 3.00

2.97 2.77 2.85

2.69 2.56 2.81

3.00 3.00 3.00

2.89 2.56 2.78

3.00 2.00 3.00

3.00 3.00 3.00

2.75 2.00 2.25

3.00 3.00 3.00

2.95 2.85 2.92 2.87

2.81 2.69 2.69 2.63

3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

2.89 2.67 2.44 2.78

3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

2.80 2.80 2.80 3.00

2.75 2.75 2.00 2.00

3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

2.89

2.56

3.00

2.89

3.00

2.80

2.50

3.00

2.87 2.87

2.75 2.56

3.00 3.00

2.78 2.56

3.00 2.00

2.80 2.80

2.50 2.25

3.00 3.00

2.85 2.90 2.77

2.63 2.56 2.75

2.33 3.00 2.67

2.89 2.89 2.78

2.00 3.00 3.00

2.60 2.80 2.80

2.75 2.75 2.50

3.00 3.00 3.00

2.56 2.74 2.54 2.90 2.82

2.75 2.69 2.38 2.75 2.63

3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

2.67 2.44 2.33 2.89 2.89

2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.00

2.20 2.40 2.20 3.00 3.00

2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75

3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

2.92

2.75

3.00

2.67

2.00

3.00

2.75

3.00

2.85

2.56

3.00

2.67

2.00

2.80

2.00

3.00

30

Table 14: GATE 7: Evaluation of the Internship Experience (LiveText Form #5) EPP-Created Assessment Gate 7 involves information generated after program completion. Current graduates are required to complete an evaluation of their internship experience (Tables 14-16) and a student advising questionnaire (table 17) in an effort to gain valuable information to enable the SOE to continually improve the experience for candidates. Graduates are surveyed at the time of graduation as well as after one and three years of employment. (Sp. 2017) PLACEMENT SITE EVALUATION: The Clinical Supervisor/Mentor Teacher by Intern

1. Engaged in cooperative planning with the intern. CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10;Danielson 4d 2. Allowed the intern to take initiative in class. CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8; Danielson 3e 3. Served as a good instructional role model. CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4f 4. Stayed in the classroom with the intern as appropriate. CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10;Danielson 4d 5. Viewed the content discipline as important. CAEP 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 4; Danielson 1a 6. Provided daily feedback to the intern. CAEP 1.2; InTASC 6; Danielson 3d 7. Modeled good classroom management skills. CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2c, 2d, 2e 8. Encouraged the students to respect the intern. CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2d 9. Provided an accurate assessment of intern progress. CAEP 1.2; InTASC 6; Danielson 3d 10. Had a positive attitude toward children. CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 7; Danielson 2a 11. Allowed the intern to develop his or her own teaching style. CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8; Danielson 3e 12. Appreciated the results of educational research. CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4e 13. Provided a good professional model. CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4f 14. Understood PATHWISE (Changed to DANIELSON FFT Fall 2014) mentoring. CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 4d 1. My overall internship experience. CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a 2. My relationship with my mentor teacher. CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 4d 3. The relationship between my campus-based supervisor and mentor teacher. CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 4d 4. My relationship with the school principal. CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 4d 5. My internship planning. CAEP 1.1; InTASC 1; Danielson 1c 6. My internship classroom management. CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2c, 2d, 2e 7. My communication with my mentor teacher. CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 4d 8. The conferences for feedback and evaluation with my mentor teacher. CAEP 1.2; InTASC 6; Danielson 3d 9. The range of teaching experiences provided for me.

CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a 10. How well did your internship experience meet your expectations? CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a Note: 0 = Unsatisfactory; 1 = Basic; 2 = Proficient; 3 = Distinguished

Sp17 Total

Sp17 ECED

Sp17 MLED

Sp17 Sec-Bio

Sp17 Sec-Eng

Sp17 Sec-Hist

Sp17 Sec-Math

Sp17 Sec-Mus

N=59 2.76

N=29 2.86

N=11 2.91

N=3 3.00

N=6 2.83

N=4 2.50

N=2 3.00

N=4 2.25

2.73 2.63 2.69

2.97 2.93 2.90

2.91 2.91 2.91

2.67 2.67 2.67

2.83 2.83 2.83

2.50 2.50 2.25

2.50 2.00 2.50

2.75 2.50 2.75

2.77 2.56 2.47

2.93 2.83 2.86

2.91 2.82 2.82

3.00 2.67 2.67

2.83 2.83 2.67

2.50 2.00 2.25

2.50 2.50 2.00

2.75 2.25 2.00

2.84 2.62 2.49 2.74

2.97 2.90 2.97 2.97

2.91 2.91 2.91 2.91

2.67 2.67 2.00 3.00

2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83

2.75 2.25 2.50 2.50

3.00 2.50 2.00 2.50

2.75 2.25 2.25 2.50

2.67

2.93

2.73

2.67

2.83

2.50

3.00

2.00

2.63 2.70

2.93 2.93

2.91 2.82

3.00 3.00

2.83 2.83

2.50 2.50

2.00 2.00

2.25 2.33

2.61 2.70 2.57

2.97 2.93 2.93

2.91 2.91 2.73

3.00 3.00 2.67

2.67 2.83 2.67

2.50 2.25 2.50

2.00 2.50 2.50

2.25 2.50 2.00

2.63 2.40 2.27 2.70 2.65

2.86 2.72 2.52 2.90 2.86

2.82 2.91 2.82 2.91 2.91

2.33 2.33 2.00 3.00 2.67

2.67 2.33 2.33 2.83 2.83

2.50 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25

3.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50

2.25 2.25 2.00 2.50 2.50

2.59

2.86

2.91

2.67

2.67

2.50

2.00

2.50

2.61

2.93

2.91

3.00

2.67

2.50

2.00

2.25

31

Table 15: GATE 7: Evaluation of the Internship Experience (LiveText Form #5) EPP-Created Assessment (Sp.16-Fall2016) Sp16

Fa16 ECE

Fa16 MLENG

Fa16 ML-MS

Fa16 Sec-Bio

Fa16 Sec-Eng

Fa16 Sec-Hist

Fa16 SecMus

N=39

N=16

N=3

N=9

N=1

N=5

N=4

N=2

2.89

2.69

2.67

2.67

2.00

3.00

2.50

2.90

2.88

2.33

2.56

2.00

3.00

2.50

3.00 3.00

2.74

2.63

2.67

2.33

2.00

2.60

2.75

3.00

2.87

2.69

2.67

2.78

2.00

2.80

2.75

2.95

2.75

2.33

2.89

3.00

2.80

2.75

3.00 3.00

6. Recognized and valued your point of view when discussing observed lessons.

CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 7; Danielson 2a 7. Helped arrange for you to observe and/or work with other teachers. CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 4d

2.95

2.88

2.67

2.89

3.00

2.80

2.50

2.66

2.63

2.67

2.44

2.00

2.80

2.50

8. Demonstrated knowledge of his/her subject and related field. CAEP 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 4; Danielson 1a

2.92

2.75

2.67

2.89

3.00

3.00

2.75

3.00 3.00 3.00

2.92

2.69

2.67

2.89

2.00

2.80

2.75

3.00

2.87

2.69

2.67

2.89

2.00

2.80

2.50

3.00

2.92

2.88

2.67

2.89

2.00

2.80

2.75

3.00

2.87

2.75

2.67

2.56

2.00

2.80

2.50

3.00

2.95

2.81

2.67

2.89

3.00

3.00

2.75

3.00

2.86

2.63

2.67

2.56

2.00

2.80

2.50

2.87

2.75

2.67

2.89

2.00

2.80

2.50

2.95

2.81

2.67

2.89

3.00

3.00

2.50

3.00 3.00 3.00

2.92

2.69

2.67

2.78

2.00

2.80

2.75

3.00

2.92

2.75

2.67

2.89

2.00

2.80

2.50

3.00

2.95

2.75

3.00

2.89

2.00

2.80

2.50

3.00

UNIVERSITY SUPERVISOR EVALUATION BY THE INTERN

1. Provided an orientation regarding visits and reports. CAEP 1.1; InTASC 1; Danielson 1c 2. Discussed specific requirements. CAEP 1.1; InTASC 1; Danielson 1c 3. Observed you teach at least four times during the semester.

1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 4d 4. Individualized your internship experience by helping you establish appropriate behavioral objectives.

InTASC 1; Danielson 1c 5. Conferred with you at some time during each visit. CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2a

CAEP 1.1, CAEP 1.1;

9. Supported your efforts in planning and using innovative and creative materials and techniques in the classroom. CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8; Danielson 3e 10. Helped examine your teaching behavior in various instructional situations.

CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a 11. Examined your teaching behavior through the use of specific criteria (checklists, interaction analysis, audio & video) with follow-up. CAEP 1.2; InTASC 6; Danielson 3d 12. Helped you analyze teaching/learning situations in terms of PATHWISE Domains (Changed to DANIELSON FFT Fall 2014). CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a 13. Provided constructive criticism, encouragement, and alternative suggestions.

CAEP 1.2; InTASC 6; Danielson 3d 14. Helped you understand and develop plans for handling discipline problems.

CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2d 15. Helped you understand how values relate to teacher behavior. CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4e 16. Established a friendly professional relationship with you. CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2a 17. Helped to prevent exploitation of your time and services while interning.

CAEP 1.1, 1.2, InTASC 10; Danielson 4d 18. Helped you evaluate your internship progress through identifying strengths and weaknesses on each visit. CAEP 1.2; InTASC 6; Danielson 3d 19. Conducted an exit conference to discuss total progress made and specific strengths and weaknesses still needing attention. CAEP 1.2; InTASC 6; Danielson 3d Note: 0 = Unsatisfactory; 1 = Basic; 2 = Proficient; 3 = Distinguished

32

Table 15: GATE 7: Evaluation of the Internship Experience (LiveText Form #5) EPP-Created Assessment (Spring 2017) Sp17 Total

Sp17 ECED

Sp17 MLED

Sp17 Sec-Bio

Sp17 SecEng

Sp17 SecHist

Sp17 SecMath

Sp17 SecMus

N=59

N=29

N=11

N=3

N=6

N=4

N=2

N=4

2.55

2.93

2.73

2.00

2.67

2.25

3.00

2.25

2.55

2.86

2.82

2.67

2.50

2.75

2.00

2.25

2.62

2.83

2.55

2.67

2.33

2.75

2.50

2.75

2.52

2.89

2.82

2.67

2.50

2.50

2.00

2.25

2.74

2.97

2.82

3.00

2.67

2.75

2.50

2.50

6. Recognized and valued your point of view when discussing observed lessons.

CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 7; Danielson 2a 7. Helped arrange for you to observe and/or work with other teachers. CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 4d

2.77

2.93

2.82

3.00

2.17

2.75

3.00

2.75

2.46

2.78

2.70

2.33

2.33

2.25

2.50

2.33

8. Demonstrated knowledge of his/her subject and related field. CAEP 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 4; Danielson 1a

2.76

2.93

2.82

3.00

2.83

2.50

2.50

2.75

2.59

2.93

2.82

2.33

2.33

2.75

3.00

2.00

2.59

2.86

2.82

2.33

2.33

2.75

2.50

2.50

2.77

2.93

2.82

2.676

2.50

2.75

3.00

2.75

2.61

2.86

2.82

2.33

2.50

2.75

2.50

2.50

2.81

2.86

2.82

3.00

2.50

2.75

3.00

2.75

2.50

2.86

2.73

2.33

2.33

2.50

2.50

2.25

2.45

2.93

2.73

2.00

2.50

2.50

2.50

2.00

2.85

2.93

2.82

3.00

2.67

2.75

3.00

2.75

2.70

2.89

2.82

3.00

2.67

2.50

2.50

2.50

2.81

2.93

2.82

3.00

2.67

2.50

3.00

2.75

2.81

2.93

2.82

3.00

2.67

2.50

3.00

2.75

UNIVERSITY SUPERVISOR EVALUATION BY THE INTERN

1. Provided an orientation regarding visits and reports. CAEP 1.1; InTASC 1; Danielson 1c 2. Discussed specific requirements. CAEP 1.1; InTASC 1; Danielson 1c 3. Observed you teach at least four times during the semester.

1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 4d 4. Individualized your internship experience by helping you establish appropriate behavioral objectives.

1.1; InTASC 1; Danielson 1c 5. Conferred with you at some time during each visit. CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2a

CAEP CAEP

9. Supported your efforts in planning and using innovative and creative materials and techniques in the classroom.

CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8; Danielson 3e 10. Helped examine your teaching behavior in various instructional situations.

CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a 11. Examined your teaching behavior through the use of specific criteria (checklists, interaction analysis, audio & video) with follow-up. CAEP 1.2; InTASC 6; Danielson 3d 12. Helped you analyze teaching/learning situations in terms of PATHWISE Domains (Changed to DANIELSON FFT Fall 2014). CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a 13. Provided constructive criticism, encouragement, and alternative suggestions.

CAEP 1.2; InTASC 6; Danielson 3d 14. Helped you understand and develop plans for handling discipline problems.

CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2d 15. Helped you understand how values relate to teacher behavior. CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4e 16. Established a friendly professional relationship with you. CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2a 17. Helped to prevent exploitation of your time and services while interning.

CAEP 1.1, 1.2, InTASC 10; Danielson 4d 18. Helped you evaluate your internship progress through identifying strengths and weaknesses on each visit. CAEP 1.2; InTASC 6; Danielson 3d 19. Conducted an exit conference to discuss total progress made and specific strengths and weaknesses still needing attention. CAEP 1.2; InTASC 6; Danielson 3d Note: 0 = Unsatisfactory; 1 = Basic; 2 = Proficient; 3 = Distinguished

33

Table 16: GATE 7: UAFS School of Education Exit Interviews EPP-Created Assessment

Beginning spring 2016, teacher candidates completing internship participated in an exit interview with the Director of Field Placement, to investigate perceptions of professional experiences provided. The Exit Interview was revised in fall 2016, to align directly to the InTASC standards and to more clearly meet CAEP expectations. Table 16 outlines the quantitative data provided by the interviews in Spring 2017.(No data for fall 2016)

Standard 1: Learner Development CAEP: EdTPA: 1,2,3; FFT: 1,3,4; ISTE/NETS: 1,2 Standard 2: Learner Differences CAEP: edTPA: 1,2,3; FFT: 1,3; ISTE/NETS: 1,2 Standard 3: Learning Environments CAEP: edTPA: 2; FFT: 3,4; ISTE/NETS: 3,4 Standard 4: Content Knowledge CAEP: edTPA: 2; FFT: 1,3,4; ISTE/NETS: 1,2 Standard 5: Application of Content CAEP: edTPA: 2; FFT: 1,3; ISTE/NETS: 1,2

Sp17 Total

Sp17 ECED

Sp17 MLED

Sp17 Sec-Bio

Sp17 Sec-Eng

Sp17 Sec-Hist

Sp17 Sec-Math

Sp17 Sec-Mus

N=54

N=34

N=9

N=2

N=6

N=6

N=2

N=4

2.43

2.68

-

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.46 2.46

2.68 2.71

-

2.00 2.00

2.33 2.00

2.00 2.17

2.00 2.00

2.00 2.00

2.43

2.62

-

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.50

2.46

2.59

-

2.50

2.33

2.00

2.00

2.50

2.37

2.62

-

2.00

2.00

2.00

1.00

2.25

2.33

2.59

-

1.50

2.00

2.00

1.50

2.00

2.48

2.71

-

2.50

2.00

2.17

2.00

2.00

2.37

2.53

-

1.00

2.33

2.33

1.00

2.50

2.44

2.56

-

2.00

2.00

2.50

2.00

2.50

Standard 6: Assessment CAEP: edTPA: 3; FFT: 1,3; ISTE/NETS: 1,2 Standard 7: Planning for Instruction CAEP: edTPA: 1; FFT: 1,4; ISTE/NETS: 1,2,5 Standard 8: Instructional Strategies CAEP ELEM: edTPA: 1,2; FFT: 1,3; ISTE/NETS: 1,2 Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice CAEP: edTPA: 3; FFT: 4; ISTE/NETS: 5 Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration CAEP: edTPA: 3; FFT: 4; ISTE/NETS: 5

34

Table 17: GATE 7: Student Advising Questionnaire Completed After Internship (LiveText Form #6) EPP-Created Assessment (Fall, 2016)

Response rate: Surveys are sent to all teacher graduates, and to those employers who have been identified.

1. Overall, the personnel from non-academic offices at UA Fort Smith are knowledgeable and helpful. CAEP 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 4; Danielson 1a 2. Education support staff members (secretaries & student workers) are helpful and courteous.

CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2a 3. Overall, I would rate the quality of the academic advising from the College of Education as adequate.

CAEP 1.3, 1.4; InTASC 5; Danielson 3a 4. For secondary majors ONLY, I would rate the quality of the academic advising from the Colleges of STEM, Humanities and Social Sciences, and Languages and Communication as adequate.

CAEP 1.3, 1.4; InTASC 5; Danielson 3a 5. Generally, the accessibility of education faculty members for advising was sufficient.

CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8; Danielson 3e 6. Education faculty members were knowledgeable and helpful in dealing with advising problems. CAEP 1.1, 2.3; InTASC 1, 2, 7; Danielson 1b 7. Professional Education classes have been offered in sufficient numbers and at convenient times for my scheduling needs. CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8; Danielson 3e 1. My education advisor kept me adequately informed about my progress.

CAEP 1.1, 2.3, InTASC 1, 2, 7; Danielson 1b 9. My education advisor solicited feedback about my university experience.

CAEP 1.3, 1.4; InTASC 5; Danielson 3a 10. My education advisor was available for non-academic advising and was willing to discuss my feelings and emotions. CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 7; Danielson 2a 11. My education advisor suggested that I set a timetable for reaching my goals.

CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4e 12. My education advisor asked me to articulate my goals or aspirations.

CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4e 13. My education advisor demonstrated knowledge of rules/regulations of the university in my advising. CAEP 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 4; Danielson 1a 14. My education advisor challenged me to achieve higher academic performance.

CAEP 1.3, 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2b 15. My education advisor expected me to arrive at advising meetings with well-formulated questions, request, or plans. CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4f 16. My education advisor demonstrated knowledge of postgraduate opportunities in my advising.

CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 1d 17. My education advisor, when advising me on a specific concern, discussed its impact on my total academic program. CAEP 1.2; 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a Note: 0 = Strongly Disagree; 1 = Disagree; 2 = Agree; 3 = Strongly Agree

Fa16

Fa16 ECE

Fa16 ML-ELA

Fa16 ML-MS

Fa16 SecBio

Fa16 SecEng

Fa16 SecHist

Fa16 SecMus

N=55

N=16

N=3

N=8

N=1

N=5

N=3

N=2

55/67 (82%)

16/16 (100%)

3/3 (100%)

8/9 (89%)

1/1 (100%)

5/5 (100%)

3/4 (75%)

2/2 (100%)

2.31

2.43

2.67

2.00

3.00

1.83

2.67

2.00

2.41

2.50

2.67

2.50

3.00

2.17

2.67

2.50

2.47

2.63

2.67

2.38

3.00

2.33

2.67

2.50

2.56

N/A

2.67

N/A

3.00

2.83

3.00

2.50

2.34

2.50

2.67

2.38

3.00

2.33

3.00

3.00

2.43

2.50

2.67

2.38

2.00

2.33

2.67

2.50

2.28

2.44

3.00

2.00

3.00

2.17

2.33

2.50

2.54

2.63

3.00

2.38

2.00

2.50

2.67

2.43

2.56

2.67

2.25

2.00

2.50

3.00

2.50

2.46

2.50

2.67

2.57

2.00

2.50

2.33

3.00

2.39

2.19

2.33

2.00

2.00

2.50

3.00

2.00

2.38

2.19

2.33

1.88

2.00

2.50

2.67

2.00

2.50

2.44

2.67

2.38

2.00

2.50

2.67

2.50

2.48

2.25

3.00

2.25

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.00

2.59

2.44

3.00

2.75

3.00

2.50

3.00

2.50

2.43

2.19

3.00

2.63

2.00

2.33

2.67

2.00

2.56

2.31

3.00

2.50

2.00

2.33

2.67

2.50

2.50

35

Table 17: GATE 7: Student Advising Questionnaire Completed After Internship (LiveText Form #6) EPP-Created Assessment (Spring 2017) Sp17 Total

Sp17 ECED

Sp17 MLED

Sp17 Sec-Bio

Sp17 Sec-Eng

Sp17 Sec-Hist

Sp17 Sec-Math

Sp17 Sec-Mus

N=57

N=28

N=11

N=3

N=6

N=3

N=2

N=4

2.68

2.82

2.82

3.00

2.17

2.33

2.00

2.50

2.74

2.93

2.82

2.67

2.17

3.00

1.50

2.50

2.68

2.93

2.80

2.67

2.17

2.00

2.00

2.25

2.62

2.91

2.88

2.67

2.00

2.00

2.50

2.75

2.77

2.89

2.82

3.00

2.40

3.00

2.00

2.25

2.63

2.89

2.55

2.33

2.17

3.00

2.00

2.00

2.66

2.89

2.82

2.00

2.33

1.67

2.00

2.67

2.61

2.75

2.73

2.67

2.33

1.33

2.50

2.75

2.89

2.91

2.67

2.33

2.00

2.50

2.67

2.59

2.71

2.73

2.67

2.33

2.00

2.00

2.33

2.55

2.68

2.73

2.67

2.17

2.00

2.00

2.33

2.79

2.93

2.91

3.00

2.33

2.33

2.00

2.67

2.77

2.93

2.73

2.33

2.67

2.33

2.50

2.67

2.82

2.96

2.82

2.33

2.40

3.00

2.50

2.67

2.72

2.89

2.64

3.00

2.40

2.00

2.50

2.67

2.71

2.93

2.82

2.67

2.17

2.00

2.00

2.67

.85

1.08

0.45

2.00

0.50

1.00

0.00

0.75

Response rate: Surveys are sent to all teacher graduates, and to those employers who have been identified.

1. Overall, the personnel from non-academic offices at UA Fort Smith are knowledgeable and helpful. CAEP 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 4; Danielson 1a 2. Education support staff members (secretaries & student workers) are helpful and courteous.

CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2a 3. Overall, I would rate the quality of the academic advising from the College of Education as adequate.

CAEP 1.3, 1.4; InTASC 5; Danielson 3a 4. For secondary majors ONLY, I would rate the quality of the academic advising from the Colleges of STEM, Humanities and Social Sciences, and Languages and Communication as adequate.

CAEP 1.3, 1.4; InTASC 5; Danielson 3a 5. Generally, the accessibility of education faculty members for advising was sufficient.

CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8; Danielson 3e 6. Education faculty members were knowledgeable and helpful in dealing with advising problems. CAEP 1.1, 2.3; InTASC 1, 2, 7; Danielson 1b 7. Professional Education classes have been offered in sufficient numbers and at convenient times for my scheduling needs. CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8; Danielson 3e 2. My education advisor kept me adequately informed about my progress.

CAEP 1.1, 2.3, InTASC 1, 2, 7; Danielson 1b 9. My education advisor solicited feedback about my university experience.

CAEP 1.3, 1.4; InTASC 5; Danielson 3a 10. My education advisor was available for non-academic advising and was willing to discuss my feelings and emotions. CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 7; Danielson 2a 11. My education advisor suggested that I set a timetable for reaching my goals.

CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4e 12. My education advisor asked me to articulate my goals or aspirations.

CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4e 13. My education advisor demonstrated knowledge of rules/regulations of the university in my advising. CAEP 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 4; Danielson 1a 14. My education advisor challenged me to achieve higher academic performance.

CAEP 1.3, 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2b 15. My education advisor expected me to arrive at advising meetings with well-formulated questions, request, or plans. CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4f 16. My education advisor demonstrated knowledge of postgraduate opportunities in my advising.

CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 1d 17. My education advisor, when advising me on a specific concern, discussed its impact on my total academic program. CAEP 1.2; 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4a Note: 0 = Strongly Disagree; 1 = Disagree; 2 = Agree; 3 = Strongly Agree

2.67

36

Table 18: GATE 7: Graduate and Employer Surveys (LiveText Form #9) for Fall 2016 EPP-Created Assessment An employer survey of the graduate is completed after one year of service (table 15). The graduate completes the survey internship, 1yr & 3 yr.

No data available for Fall 2016 – Spring 2017, due to transitions in teacher licensure administrative assistants.

How well do you or does the beginning teacher: Response rate: Surveys are sent to all teacher graduates, and to those employers who have been identified.

Current N=70

1-year N=4

70/70 (100%)

4/33 (12%)

3-years N=7

Employer N=4

7/29 (24%)

4/4 (100%)

1. Know the subject being taught? CAEP1.3, 1.5; InTASC 4; Danielson 1a 2. Understand the children assigned? CAEP 1.1, 2.3; InTASC 1, 2, 7; Danielson 1b 3. Adapt instruction to the individual needs of all children? CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8; Danielson 3e 4. Utilize multiple instructional strategies? CAEP 1.1, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8; Danielson 3b 5. Maintain appropriate discipline? CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2d 6. Communicate effectively both verbally and in writing? CAEP 1.3, 1.4; InTASC 5; Danielson 3a 7. Plan effectively considering the subject, standards, student progress, and curricular goals? CAEP 1.1, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 4; Danielson 1e 8. Utilize assessment both to evaluate and enable forward progress? CAEP 1.2; InTASC 6; Danielson 3d 9. Work effectively with parents, colleagues, and the community? CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 4c, 4d 10. Practice mutual respect with two-way communication the norm?

CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 7; Danielson 2a 11. Maintain a classroom characterized by enthusiasm for learning? CAEP 1.3, 1.4; InTASC 3; Danielson 2b 12. Utilize technology to enhance student learning and personal growth? CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10; Danielson 1d 13. Exhibit professional behavior in terms of integrity and professional ethics? CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4f 14. Exhibit professional behavior in terms of promptness and appearance? CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9; Danielson 4f Note: 0 = Unsatisfactory; 1 = Basic; 2 = Proficient; 3 = Distinguished.

37

Table 19: Mean Cumulative GPA of Those Admitted to the Teacher Education Program (TEP) and Graduates Minimum cumulative GPA of 2.75 for entry and exit, as well as in area of specialization: Candidates must have a minimum 2.75 GPA to be formally admitted to the teacher education program (TEP) as well as to successfully exit the program. Table 16 shows the mean cumulative GPA of those admitted to the TEP since Spring, 2013 as well as the mean GPA for SOE graduates. Since content knowledge is a major factor in course grades, this data is one indicator that candidates are meeting content standards. Candidates are also required to have a minimum GPA of 2.75 in their area of specialization prior to entry into internship.

Term Spring 2016 Fall 2016 Spring 2017

Mean Cumulative GPA of Those Admitted to the TEP 3.43 (N=42) 3.37 (N=64) 3.50 (N=46)

Mean Cumulative GPA of Graduates 3.58 (N=45) 3.47(N=39) 3.60 (N=62)

38

Table 20: Mean Praxis II Content Knowledge Exam Results/Completer Passage Rates (By Academic Year) Praxis II Content Specialty Exam Results: Content knowledge is also assessed through content specialty exam results. Candidates must successfully complete their Praxis II Content Specialty Exam prior to entry into the Student Teaching/Internship semester. Table 20 outlines mean results for Praxis II Content Specialty Exams. The minimum-maximum scores data was provided by the Arkansas Department of Education beginning with the 2015-2016 academic year, but were not provided in the 2016-2017 report.

Proprietary Assessment

Early Childhood: Content Knowledge Biology: Content Knowledge Elem. Ed: MS Mathematics Subtest Elem. Ed: MS Reading Language Arts Subtest Elem. Ed.: MS Science Subtest Elem. Ed: MS Social Studies Subtest English: Content Mathematics: Content Knowledge Middle Sch: English Language Arts Middle Sch: Mathematics Middle Sch: Social Studies Middle Sch: Science Music: Content Knowledge Physical Science: Content Knowledge Social Studies: Content Knowledge Spanish: World Language Special Education: Content Knowledge World Language Pedagogy

N

Min-Max

2015-2016 Mean/ Passing%

N

2016-2017 Mean/ Passing%

AR Required Score

56 2

163-193 *

179/100% *

152-182 148-175 146-173 127-189 138-183 123-174 118-200 * 134-175 * * -

173/79% 158/70% 165/67% 165/70% 157/79% 148/52% 169/89% * 152/53% * * -

177.56/100% * * * * * 174.27/91% 162.20/60% 167.22/77.8% 169.28/83.3% 156.71/71.4% 154.27/90.9% 167.3/100% * 153.7/60% * *

157 142

19 10 15 23 14 23 9 1 17 4 3 -

55 4 1 2 1 2 11 5 9 18 7 22 7 1 15 2 3

166 160 164 165 149 150 157 145 153 168 151

*= fewer than five completers

Table 21: Mean Scores on Praxis II Pedagogy Exams - Program Completers and All UA Fort Smith TEP Admitted Students Praxis II Pedagogy Exam Results: Pedagogical content knowledge is assessed through Praxis II Pedagogy Exams. Candidates must successfully complete the Praxis II: Principles of Learning and Teaching exam or the content specific pedagogy exam required for their major prior to exit from the teacher education program. Table 21 details program completer mean scores on Praxis II Pedagogy Exams. This data indicates that most candidates are performing well on their Praxis II pedagogy exams. The minimum-maximum scores data was provided by the Arkansas Department of Education beginning with the 2015-2016 academic year.

Proprietary Assessment N

Min-Max

54 1 19 32

152-185 * 156-188 157-196

Exam PLT P-4 PLT K-6 PLT 5-9 PLT 7-12

2015-2016 Mean/ Passing% 170/95% * 178/100% 175/97%

N

3 21 39

2016-2017 Mean/ Passing% * 173.05/100% 176.54/100%

AR Required Score

157 160 160 157

*= fewer than five completers 39

Table 22: DANIELSON FFT Formative Observation Results: University supervisor formative observation of Practicum 2 candidates, using the Danielson Domains and Criteria, yield information relevant to Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills. Table 22 outlines results from Fall 2016-Spring 2017.

Note: Scale for Danielson Formative observation is 1 - 3 for Arkansas.

Proprietary Assessment

2016-2017 DANIELSON

Fall 2016

Spring 2017

ECE N=33

MLED/MS N=6

BIOLOGY N=2

ENGLISH N=6

HISTORY N=5

MATH N=4

MUSIC N=3

SPANISH N=1

ECE/ELEM N=7/6

MLED N=5

BIOLOGY N=0

ENGLISH N=5

HISTORY N=4

MATH N=3

MUS/SPAN N=2

2.00

1.83

1.00

1.44

1.80

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00 1.83

2.40

-

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.50

2.00

2.00

1.50

1.61

1.80

1.00

.67

1.00

2.00 1.67

2.00

-

2.40

2.00

2.00

2.00

1.94

1.67

1.50

1.72

2.00

2.00

1.67

2.00

2.14 1.67

2.00

-

2.20

2.00

2.00

2.50

1.88

1.67

1.50

1.72

1.80

1.25

1.67

1.00

2.00 1.67

2.20

-

1.80

1.75

2.00

2.00

1.91

1.67

2.00

2.11

1.80

2.00

1.67

2.00

2.14 1.83

2.40

-

2.20

2.25

2.67

2.50

1.91

1.40

1.50

1.83

1.60

1.75

2.00

1.00

2.00 1.33

2.20

-

2.20

1.75

2.00

2.50

1.82

2.00

1.50

1.72

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.20 2.17

2.20

-

2.00

1.75

2.00

2.50

1.82

1.67

2.00

1.78

1.80

2.00

1.33

2.00

2.00 2.17

2.40

-

1.80

2.00

2.00

2.00

1.82

1.40

1.50

1.83

1.60

1.75

1.67

2.00

2.29 1.67

2.20

-

1.60

2.00

2.00

2.00

1.76

1.50

1.00

1.44

1.40

1.75

1.33

1.00

2.00 1.67

2.00

-

1.60

1.75

2.33

1.50

2.00

-

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

1a. Demonstrating knowledge of content and pedagogy CAEP 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 4 1b: Demonstrating knowledge of students CAEP 1.1, 2.3; InTASC 1, 7 1c: Setting instructional Outcomes CAEP 1.1; InTASC 1 1d: Demonstrating knowledge of resources CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10 1e: Designing coherent Instruction CAEP 1.1, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 1, 7 1f: Designing student Assessments CAEP 1, 2; InTASC 6 2a: Creating an Environment of respect and rapport CAEP1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3 2b: Establishing a culture for learning CAEP 1.3, 1.4; InTASC 5 2c: Managing classroom procedures CAEP 1.4; InTASC 3 2d: Managing student Behavior CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3 2e: Organizing physical space CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3 3a: Communicating with students CAEP 1.3, 1.4; InTASC 5 3b: Using questioning and discussion techniques CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8 3c: Engaging students in learning CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 5, 8

1.91

2.00

2.00

2.00

1.80

2.00

1.67

2.00

2.00 2.00

1.76

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

1.75

1.67

2.00

2.14 1.83

2.00

-

2.20

2.00

2.00

2.00

1.79

1.67

2.00

1.78

1.80

1.75

2.00

1.00

2.29 2.17

2.40

-

1.80

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

1.67

1.50

1.83

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00 2.00

2.00

-

2.20

1.75

2.00

1.50

40

3d: Using assessment in instruction CAEP 1.2; InTASC 6 3e: Demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8 4a: Reflecting on Teaching CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9 4b.Maintaining accurate records CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9 4c: Communicating with Families CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10 4d: Participating in a Professional Community CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10 4e: Growing and Developing Professionally CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9 4f: Demonstrating Professionalism CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9

2.00 1.67

1.85

1.80

1.50

1.83

1.80

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

-

1.80

2.00

2.00

2.00

1.94

1.67

1.50

1.56

1.80

2.00

2.00

2.00

1.94

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.29 1.83 2.29 2.00

2.20

-

1.60

2.00

2.00

1.50

2.20

-

1.80

1.75

2.00

2.50

1.67

NA

NA

NA

2.00

NA

NA

NA

2.17 2.00

2.20

-

1.80

2.00

2.00

2.00

1.97

NA

NA

NA

2.00

NA

NA

NA

2.25 2.00

2.20

-

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

NA

NA

2.00

NA

NA

NA

2.25 2.00

2.20

-

1.75

1.67

2.00

2.00

1.88

2.00

NA

NA

2.00

2.00

NA

2.00

2.50 2.00

2.20

-

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

1.86

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.50 2.00

2.20

-

1.80

2.25

2.00

2.00

41

Table 23: DANIELSON FFT Formative Observation Results: University supervisor formative observation of Internship candidates, using the Danielson Domains and Criteria, yield information relevant to Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills. Table 23 outlines results from Fall 2016-Spring 2017.

Note: Scale for Danielson Formative assessment is 1 - 3 for Arkansas.

Proprietary Assessment Fall 2016

2016-2017

DANIELSON 1a. Demonstrating knowledge of content and pedagogy CAEP 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 4 1b: Demonstrating knowledge of students CAEP 1.1, 2.3; InTASC 1, 7 1c: Setting instructional Outcomes CAEP 1.1; InTASC 1 1d: Demonstrating knowledge of resources CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10 1e: Designing coherent Instruction CAEP 1.1, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 1, 7 1f: Designing student Assessments CAEP 1, 2; InTASC 6 2a: Creating an Environment of respect and rapport CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3 2b: Establishing a culture for learning CAEP 1.3, 1.4; InTASC 5 2c: Managing classroom procedures CAEP 1.4; InTASC 3 2d: Managing student Behavior CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3 2e: Organizing physical space CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3

Spring 2017

ECE N=15

MLED N=11

BIOLOGY N=1

ENGLISH N=6

HISTORY N=4

MATH N=0

MUSIC N=2

SPANISH N=0

ECE N=25

MLED N=9

BIOLOGY N=2

ENGLISH N=6

HISTORY N=6

MATH N=2

MUSIC N=4

SPANISH N=0

1.71

2.00

2.00

2.00

1.25

-

1.50

-

1.80

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

-

.53

1.91

2.00

2.00

1.25

-

2.50

-

1.96

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

-

1.60

1.91

2.00

2.00

1.00

-

1.50

-

1.88

2.00

1.50

2.17

1.83

2.00

1.00

-

.80

1.82

2.00

2.00

1.75

-

1.50

-

2.08

2.00

2.00

2.17

2.00

2.00

2.25

-

1.87

1.82

2.00

2.00

1.25

-

1.00

-

2.00

2.11

2.00

2.17

2.00

2.00

2.00

-

1.47

1.91

2.00

1.67

1.25

-

2.50

-

1.84

1.89

1.50

1.83

2.00

2.00

2.00

-

1.73

1.82

2.00

1.83

1.50

-

2.50

-

2.12

1.89

2.00

2.33

1.83

1.50

2.00

-

1.80

1.82

2.00

1.83

1.50

-

2.00

-

2.08

2.00

1.50

2.17

1.83

1.50

2.00

-

1.73

1.64

2.00

1.83

1.50

-

2.00

-

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

1.83

1.50

2.00

-

1.53

1.36

2.00

1.50

1.00

-

2.50

-

2.04

2.00

1.00

2.17

1.83

1.00

2.00

-

1.73

1.27

2.00

1.83

1.50

-

2.50

-

2.16

2.00

2.00

2.17

2.00

2.00

1.75

-

42

3a: Communicating with students CAEP 1.3, 1.4; InTASC 5 3b: Using questioning and discussion techniques CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8 3c: Engaging students in learning CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 5, 8 3d: Using assessment in instruction CAEP 1.2; InTASC 6 3e: Demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8 4a: Reflecting on Teaching CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9 4b.Maintaining accurate records CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9 4c: Communicating with Families CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10 4d: Participating in a Professional Community CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10 4e: Growing and Developing Professionally CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9 4f: Demonstrating Professionalism CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9

1.73

1.64

2.00

2.00

1.50

-

1.50

-

2.04

2.00

2.00

2.17

1.83

2.00

1.75

-

1.60

1.55

2.00

1.33

1.00

-

1.50

-

1.96

1.89

1.50

1.50

1.67

2.00

1.00

-

1.60

1.82

2.00

2.00

1.50

-

2.00

-

2.20

2.00

1.50

2.00

1.83

2.00

1.00

-

1.33

1.64

2.00

1.50

1.50

-

2.50

-

2.84

1.89

1.50

1.83

1.83

2.00

2.00

-

1.47

1.64

2.00

2.00

1.50

-

2.00

-

2.04

2.00

1.50

1.83

1.83

2.00

3.00

-

1.70

2.00

2.00

2.17

1.75

-

N/A

-

2.00

1.00

2.00

2.17

2.00

2.00

-

-

2.00

1.18

2.00

2.17

1.25

-

N/A

-

1.88

2.00

2.00

1.67

2.00

2.00

-

-

1.00

1.18

2.00

1.50

1.50

-

N/A

-

2.00

2.00

-

1.00

2.00

2.00

-

-

1.67

2.00

2.00

1.83

1.50

-

N/A

-

2.04

2.00

-

1.83

2.00

2.00

-

-

1.44

1.55

2.00

1.67

2.00

-

N/A

-

2.04

2.00

-

1.33

1.67

2.00

-

-

1.78

2.00

2.00

2.17

1.50

-

N/A

-

2.04

2.00

2.00

2.17

1.67

2.00

-

-

43

Table 24: DANIELSON FFT Summative Observation Results: University supervisor summative observation of interns, using the Danielson Domains and Criteria, yield information relevant to Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills. Table 22 outlines results from Fall, 2016-Spring 2017. Note: Scale for Danielson Formative assessment is 1 - 3 for Arkansas.

Proprietary Assessment

2016-2017 DANIELSON 1a. Demonstrating knowledge of content and pedagogy CAEP 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 4 1b: Demonstrating knowledge of students CAEP 1.1, 2.3; InTASC 1, 7 1c: Setting instructional Outcomes CAEP 1.1; InTASC 1 1d: Demonstrating knowledge of resources CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10 1e: Designing coherent Instruction CAEP 1.1, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 1, 7 1f: Designing student Assessments CAEP 1, 2; InTASC 6 2a: Creating an Environment of respect and rapport CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3 2b: Establishing a culture for learning CAEP 1.3, 1.4; InTASC 5 2c: Managing classroom procedures CAEP 1.4; InTASC 3 2d: Managing student Behavior CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3 2e: Organizing physical space CAEP 1.1, 1.4; InTASC 3

Spring 2017

Fall 2016 ECE N=15

MLED N=11

BIOLOGY N=1

ENGLISH N=6

HISTORY N=4

MATH N=0

MUSIC N=2

SPANISH N=0

ECE N=35

MLED N=9

BIOLOGY N=2

ENGLISH N=6

HISTORY N=6

MATH N=2

MUSIC N=4

SPANISH N=0

2.13

2.00

2.00

2.33

1.67

-

2.00

-

2.20

2.11

2.00

2.50

2.00

3.00

2.25

-

2.27

2.00

2.00

2.50

1.33

-

2.00

-

2.29

2.22

2.00

2.17

2.33

3.00

2.25

-

2.20

2.00

1.50

2.00

1.33

-

1.50

-

2.14

2.22

2.00

2.00

2.17

2.00

1.25

-

2.53

1.91

3.00

2.33

1.67

-

3.00

-

2.34

2.22

2.00

2.33

2.00

2.50

2.50

-

2.27

2.00

1.00

2.00

1.67

-

1.00

-

2.31

2.22

2.50

2.33

1.83

2.00

1.75

-

2.20

1.73

1.50

2.00

1.33

-

1.50

-

2.23

2.33

2.00

2.17

2.00

2.00

2.00

-

2.33

2.18

1.50

2.50

2.00

-

1.50

-

2.37

2.33

2.50

2.50

2.00

2.00

2.25

-

2.20

1.91

1.50

1.83

1.75

-

1.50

-

2.14

2.33

2.00

2.33

2.00

2.00

2.00

-

2.20

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.25

-

2.00

-

2.17

2.11

2.00

2.33

2.00

2.00

1.50

-

1.93

1.73

2.00

2.00

1.75

-

1.50

-

2.14

2.11

2.00

2.17

1.83

2.00

2.00

-

2.27

1.80

2.00

2.33

1.75

-

2.00

-

2.26

2.22

2.00

2.50

2.17

2.00

2.25

-

44

3a: Communicating with students CAEP 1.3, 1.4; InTASC 5 3b: Using questioning and discussion techniques CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8 3c: Engaging students in learning CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 1, 3, 4, 5, 8 3d: Using assessment in instruction CAEP 1.2; InTASC 6 3e: Demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness CAEP 1.3, 1.5, 2.3; InTASC 8 4a: Reflecting on Teaching CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9 4b.Maintaining accurate records CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9 4c: Communicating with Families CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10 4d: Participating in a Professional Community CAEP 1.1, 1.2; InTASC 10 4e: Growing and Developing Professionally CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9 4f: Demonstrating Professionalism CAEP 1.2, 1.3, 1.5; InTASC 9

2.27

2.00

2.00

2.33

1.75

-

1.50

-

2.29

2.33

2.00

2.33

2.33

2.00

2.25

-

2.20

1.73

2.00

1.67

2.00

-

1.50

-

2.17

2.11

2.00

1.67

2.00

2.00

1.75

-

2.33

2.09

2.00

2.33

1.50

-

1.50

-

2.29

2.33

2.00

2.17

2.00

2.00

2.00

-

2.20

1.73

2.00

2.00

1.33

-

1.00

-

2.20

2.33

2.00

2.33

2.00

2.00

2.00

-

2.27

2.00

2.00

2.33

1.67

-

2.50

-

2.23

2.22

2.00

2.33

2.17

2.00

2.25

-

2.20

2.09

2.00

2.33

1.67

-

2.50

-

2.09

2.22

2.50

2.33

2.33

2.00

2.25

-

2.27

1.82

2.00

2.00

2.00

-

2.50

-

2.23

2.22

2.00

2.33

2.33

2.00

2.25

-

2.13

1.73

N/A

1.67

1.33

-

2.00

-

2.11

2.11

2.00

1.83

1.83

2.00

2.00

-

2.13

2.00

N/A

2.33

1.00

-

2.00

-

2.20

2.22

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.50

2.25

-

2.00

1.73

2.00

2.83

1.00

-

2.50

-

2.11

2.11

2.00

2.67

2.00

2.00

2.50

-

2.20

2.18

2.00

2.33

1.00

-

2.00

-

2.26

2.33

2.00

2.50

2.17

2.00

2.50

-

45

Table 25: Survey to Clinical Supervisor/Mentor Teacher and University Supervisor (Spring 2016) EPP-Created Assessment Beginning spring 2016, the relationship between the mentor teachers and the university supervisors has been investigated to determine if they were able to create an environment in which the UAFS SOE teacher candidates were able to successfully complete all internship requirements. The assessment was revised in fall 2016, to align more closely with CAEP requirements, and was piloted in spring 2017

2016-2017

Promptness CAEP 2 Danielson 4 InTASC 10 Respect and Rapport CAEP 2 Danielson 2, 4 InTASC 10 Ideas Share CAEP 2 Danielson 4 InTASC 10 Information Share CAEP 2 Danielson 4 InTASC 10 Curriculum CAEP 2 Danielson 4 InTASC 10 Expectations CAEP 2 Danielson 4 InTASC 10 Improve Pedagogy CAEP 2 Danielson 4 InTASC 10 Communication CAEP 2 Danielson 4 InTASC 10

Spring 2017 Mentor Evaluations by Supervisor

Spring 2017 Supervisor Evaluations by Mentor ECE N=32

MLED N=9

BIOLOGY N=1

ENGLISH N=5

HISTORY N=4

MATH N=2

MUSIC N=3

SPANISH N=0

ECE N=31

MLED N=9

BIOLOGY N=0

ENGLISH N=5

HISTORY N=6

MATH N=2

MUSIC N=3

SPANISH N=0

3.80

3.83

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

3.67

-

3.83

3.11

-

4.00

4.00

3.50

3.00

-

3.88

3.71

4.00

3.80

3.75

3.50

3.67

-

3.77

3.11

-

4.00

3.83

4.00

4.00

-

3.75

3.67

4.00

3.75

3.75

4.00

3.67

-

3.77

3.11

-

3.80

4.00

3.50

3.33

-

3.81

3.86

4.00

3.60

4.00

4.00

4.00

-

3.77

3.11

-

4.00

4.00

4.00

3.33

-

3.72

3.83

4.00

3.60

3.75

4.00

3.67

-

3.61

3.11

-

3.60

4.00

4.00

3.00

-

3.72

3.71

4.00

3.40

3.75

3.50

3.67

-

3.81

3.11

-

4.00

4.00

4.00

3.33

-

3.75

3.83

4.00

3.40

3.75

4.00

4.00

-

3.81

3.11

-

4.00

4.00

4.00

3.33

-

3.78

3.83

4.00

3.60

3.75

4.00

3.67

-

3.74

3.11

-

4.00

3.83

4.00

3.67

-

46

Table 26: Novice Teacher Survey Results (Arkansas Department of Education – Proprietary Assessment) First year teachers are requested to complete the “Novice Teacher Survey” after completion of their first full year of teaching. The survey is designed to collect information on how well they feel their teacher education preparation program prepared them to teach. The survey was revised in 2015-2016, to reflect the Danielson FFT components. The survey questions and results are indicated below.

Instructions to the teachers were as follow: Please choose the number that most accurately reflects your level of preparation for each of the statement topics.

Scale: 1. NOT AT ALL prepared; 2. Inadequately-prepared; 3. Adequately-prepared; 4. Well-prepared; 5. VERY WELL-prepared Beginning with 2016-2017 data, the scale was changed to: 1-No assistance was given; 2-Some assistance was given; 3-Assistance was given; 4-Much assistance was given.

Domain Component

Statement

1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f 2a 2b 2c 2d 2e 3a 3b 3c 3d 3e 4a 4b 4c 4d 4e 4f

Knowledge of content and pedagogy Knowledge of students Instructional outcomes Knowledge of resources Coherent instruction Student assessments Environment of respect and rapport Culture for learning Managing classroom procedures Managing student behavior Organizing physical space Communicating with students Questioning and discussion techniques Engaging students in learning Using assessment in instruction Flexibility and responsiveness Reflecting on teaching Maintaining accurate records Communicating with families Participating in professional community Growing and developing professionally Showing professionalism Average of all items Number of respondents

2015-2016 UAFS Avg./State Avg.

2016-2017 UAFS Avg./State Avg. ADE Published Online

4.34/4.17 4.40/4.21 4.28/4.05 4.34/4.06 4.30/4.07 4.24/3.94 4.25/4.24 4.39/4.18 4.17/4.03 4.07/3.98 4.41/4.14 4.28/4.17 4.14/3.96 4.22/4.08 4.15/3.94 4.25/4.11 4.40/4.20 4.26/3.96 4.05/3.97 4.40/4.11 4.33/4.16 4.39/4.30 4.28/4.09 60

3.67/3.55 3.72/3.57 3.65/3.51 3.64/3.50 3.69/3.52 3.61/3.44 3.75/3.60 3.72/3.57 3.55/3.45 3.58/3.39 3.63/3.52 3.71/3.56 3.58/3.47 3.65/3.51 3.59/3.47 3.64/3.53 3.71/3.55 3.57/3.45 3.53/3.42 3.70/3.55 3.70/3.57 3.72/3.64 3.65/3.42 83

47