Exhibit 1.3.d Initial Program
1
Exhibit Data and summaries of results on key assessments, including proficiencies
1.3.d
identified in the unit’s conceptual framework (Initial Program)
Initial Program
Developmental key assessments of professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions are tied
to CSC’s Visionary Leader conceptual framework. There are three developmental key assessments
designed around the candidate’s field experiences; each field experience is tied to a professional
education course. Each of these key assessments features both an internal reviewer (course professor) and
an external reviewer (P-12 cooperating teacher(s)).
Key Assessment #1: Freshman Level—EDUC 131 Intro to Teaching Summary Data
Scoring guides/rubrics: CSC EDUC 131 Observation Experience & Report Evaluation (professors’
rubric); CSC EDUC 131/PSYC 231 Field Log and Classroom Teacher Candidate Evaluation Report (P12 cooperating teachers’ rubric)
Table 1b.1: EDUC 131 Intro to Teaching Cooperating Teachers’ and Professors’ Data (Summary) (CSC
IR—Standard 1, p. 8)
Thinking Skills
Average
2.77
2.92
2.82
2.86
0.76
0.87
0.81
SD
Professionalism
Average
Grand
3.81
3.76
3.84
3.73
3.86
3.82
2.88
2.70
2.94
3.00
3.80
Total N =
752
0.43
0.47
0.40
0.51
0.39
0.42
0.87
0.74
0.88
0.86
SD
0.36
Scale: 4—Advanced (A-level), 3—Proficient (B-level), 2—Progressing (C-level), 1/0 Unacceptable (D/F level).
Methodology/
Technology
Human Relations/
Diversity
Communication
Assessment
Leadership
SD
Average
Alertness
Attendance
Communication
Attitude
Appearance
Cooperation
EDUC 131 Intro to Teaching Summary Data--Fall 2007- Summer 2011
Cooperating Teachers’ Evaluation
Professors’ Evaluation from Observation Report
0.83
For complete data sets use these links: EDUC 131 Professors Tables-Charts and EDUC 131 Cooperating
Teachers Tables-Charts
Key Assessment #2: Sophomore Level—PSYC 231 Educational Psychology Summary Data
Scoring guides/rubrics: CSC PSYC 231 Observation Experience & Report Evaluation (professors’
rubric); CSC EDUC 131/PSYC 231 Field Log and Classroom Teacher Candidate Evaluation Report (P12 cooperating teachers’ rubric)
Table 1b.2: PSYC 231 Educational Psychology Cooperating Teachers’ and Professors’ Data (Summary)
(CSC IR—Standard 1, p. 9)
PSYC 231 Educational Psychology Summary Data--Fall 2007- Summer 2011
SD
Average
3.09
3.14
3.12
3.13
3.14
3.13
3.18
3.13
0.37
0.41
0.37
0.41
0.30
0.36
0.96
0.96
0.97
0.96
0.44
Scale: 4—Advanced (A-level), 3—Proficient (B-level), 2—Progressing (C-level), 1/0 Unacceptable (D/F level)
0.97
0.99
0.98
For complete data sets use these links: PSYC 231 Cooperating Teachers Tables-Charts and PSYC 231
SD
Thinking Skills
3.77
Professionalism
3.16
Methodology/
Technology
Average
3.21
Human Relations/
Diversity
Alertness
3.09
Communication
Attendance
3.16
Assessment
Communication
3.13
Leadership
Attitude
3.14
SD
Appearance
Average
Grand
Total N =
526
Professors’ Evaluation from Observation Report
Cooperation
Cooperating Teachers’ Evaluation
0.97
Exhibit 1.3.d Initial Program
2
Professors Tables-Charts
Key Assessment # 3: Junior Level—EDUC 300/EDUC 320 Observation and Participation
Scoring guides/rubrics: EDUC 300/320Observation & Participation (P-12 cooperating teachers’ rubric)
Table 1b.3: EDUC 300/320 Observation & Participation Cooperating Teachers’ Data (Summary) (CSC
IR—Standard 1, p. 10)
Elementary Grand Average N = 194
Elementary Grand SD
Middle Grades Grand Average N = 3
Middle Grades SD
Secondary Grand Average N = 181
Secondary Grand SD
Grand Average Total N = 378
Grand SD
3.76
3.75
3.64
3.87
3.67
3.84
0.44
0.45
0.52
0.33
0.49
0.39
3.94
3.83
3.50
4.00
3.83
3.75
0.12
0.37
0.47
0.00
0.37
0.42
3.73
3.73
3.64
3.81
3.63
3.79
0.49
0.47
0.54
0.42
0.55
0.47
3.75
3.74
3.62
3.85
3.65
3.81
0.44
0.46
0.52
0.35
0.51
0.43
Scale: 4—Advanced (A-level), 3—Proficient (B-level), 2—Progressing (C-level), 1/0 Unacceptable (D/F level)
3.62
0.51
3.50
0.50
3.65
0.52
3.62
0.52
3.76
Standard
Deviation
Average
Thinking Skills
Professionalism
Methodology/
Technology
Human Relations/
Diversity
Communication
Assessment
Leadership
EDUC 300/320 Observation & Participation
Summary Data by Conceptual Framework Items Spring 2008 – Spring 2011
3.76
0.44
3.78
0.30
3.73
0.48
3.74
0.45
For complete data sets use this links: EDUC 300/320 O and P CF Charts
Note: Due to an oversight, only the cooperating teachers completed the rubric for this level; the professor evaluated the
candidate’s report, and entered course grades partially based on the candidate’s report and the result of the cooperating teacher’s
evaluation.
Culminating key assessment of content knowledge, professional knowledge, skills, and
dispositions are tied to CSC’s Visionary Leader conceptual framework. Culminating key assessments
are designed to measure candidate performance during the clinical practice (teacher internship/student
teaching) semester. Multiple reviewers rate the candidate’s performance, including the candidate’s own
self-evaluation and reflection. Each of these ratings is based on the same rubric. Additionally, measures
of content knowledge proficiency are collected at this level.
Key Assessment # 4: Senior Level—Performance during Teacher Internship (clinical practice)
Presented below are the summary tables for candidate performance during the teacher internship. Data are
disaggregated and summarized by areas of Standard 1. Data links provide additional data tables which
are disaggregated by program and by attendance site.
Scoring guides/rubrics: Teacher Intern Checklist (P-12 Cooperating Teacher; College Supervisor;
Candidate Self-Evaluation)
Table1a.4: Content Area/Subject Matter Knowledge as Measured by Teacher Intern Checklist
(Summary) (CSC IR—Standard 1, p. 4)
Content Area/Subject Matter Knowledge as Measured by Teacher Intern Checklist
SelfEvaluation
College
Special
Methods
Supervisor
College
Education
Supervisor
Cooperating
P-12 Teacher
2nd Experience
SelfEvaluation
College
Special
Methods
Supervisor
College
Education
Supervisor
Education Groups
Cooperating
P-12 Teacher
1st Experience
Grand Elementary & Secondary Content Area/Subject Matter Knowledge as Measured by Teacher Intern Checklist Spring 2008-Spring
2011
3.67
3.64
3.68
3.57
3.72
3.78
3.76
3.74
Grand Average N = 336
0.55
0.50
0.57
0.52
0.49
0.41
0.44
0.45
Grand SD
Scale: 4—Advanced (A-level), 3—Proficient (B-level), 2—Progressing (C-level), 1/0 Unacceptable (D/F level)
Complete elementary and secondary program comparisons, including elementary sites and secondary
Exhibit 1.3.d Initial Program
3
traditional and post-baccalaureate candidates may be viewed in the TIC Content Area Knowledge
spreadsheet.
Table 1b.4: Mean Ratings for Conceptual Framework Items Relating to Pedagogical Content Knowledge
and Skills as Measured by Teacher Intern Checklist (Summary) (CSC IR—Standard 1, p. 12)
1st and 2nd Experience Summary
College
Supervisor
Special
Methods
Supervisor
SelfEvaluation
Grand Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Skills Average All
3.72
3.66
3.61
3.61
Groups Spring 2008 - Spring 2011 N = 336
0.42
0.39
0.29
0.44
Grand KS SD Spring 2008 - Spring 2011 N = 336
Scale: 4—Advanced (A-level), 3—Proficient (B-level), 2—Progressing (C-level), 1/0 Unacceptable (D/F level)
Cooperating
P-12 Teacher
SelfEvaluation
Skills
Special
Methods
Supervisor
Conceptual Framework Items Relating to Pedagogical
Content Knowledge and Skills
College
Supervisor
Cooperating
P-12 Teacher
Knowledge
3.68
0.46
3.60
0.43
3.47
0.34
3.58
0.45
Complete elementary and secondary program comparisons, including elementary sites and secondary
traditional and post-baccalaureate candidates, may be viewed in the 1st and 2nd TIC Program Pedagogical
Content Knowledge and Skills Summaries spreadsheets.
Table lc.l: Mean Ratings for Conceptual Framework Items Relating to Professional and Pedagogical
Knowledge and Skills As Measured by the Teacher Intern Checklist (Summary) (CSC IR—Standard 1, p.
16)
1st and 2nd Experience Summary
Grand Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and
3.76
3.70
3.65
3.69
3.71
Skills Average All Groups Spring 2008 - Spring 2011 N = 336
0.38
0.37
0.35
0.39
0.43
Grand KS SD Spring 2008 - Spring 2011 N = 336
Scale: 4—Advanced (A-level), 3—Proficient (B-level), 2—Progressing (C-level), 1/0 Unacceptable (D/F level)
SelfEvaluation
Special
Methods
Supervisor
College
Supervisor
Cooperating
P-12 Teacher
Skills
SelfEvaluation
Special
Methods
Supervisor
College
Supervisor
Conceptual Framework Items Relating to Professional
and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills
Cooperating
P-12 Teacher
Knowledge
3.62
0.42
3.57
0.40
3.65
0.40
Complete elementary and secondary program comparisons, including elementary sites and secondary
traditional and post-baccalaureate candidates, may be viewed in the 1st and 2nd TIC Program Professional
and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills Summaries spreadsheets.
Table 1d.1: Mean Ratings for Conceptual Framework Items Relating to Effects on Student Learning as
Measured by the Teacher Intern Checklist (Summary) (CSC IR—Standard 1, p. 19)
1st and 2nd Experience Summary
3.55
3.51
3.57
3.63
3.76
0.51
0.56
0.60
0.54
0.47
Grand KS SD Spring 2008 - Spring 2011 N = 336
Scale: 4—Advanced (A-level), 3—Proficient (B-level), 2—Progressing (C-level), 1/0 Unacceptable (D/F level)
0.42
0.50
0.44
For full data sets use these links: 1st Experience TIC Effects on Student Learning and 2nd Experience TIC
Effects on Student Learning spreadsheets.
SelfEvaluation
College
Supervisor
3.68
Special
Methods
Supervisor
Cooperating
P-12 Teacher
SelfEvaluation
3.79
Grand Average All Groups Student Learning Spring 2008 Spring 2011 N = 336
Special
Methods
Supervisor
3.75
Conceptual Framework Items Relating to Effects on
Student Learning
College
Supervisor
2nd Experience
Cooperating
P-12 Teacher
1st Experience
Exhibit 1.3.d Initial Program
4
Table 1g.5: Mean Ratings for Conceptual Framework Items Relating to Professional Dispositions as
Measured by the Teacher Intern Checklist (Summary) (CSC IR—Standard 1, p. 34)
1st and 2nd Experience Summary
College
Supervisor
Special
Methods
Supervisor
SelfEvaluation
Cooperating
P-12 Teacher
Professional Dispositions
3.75
3.72
3.70
3.71
0.51
Grand SD Spring 2008 - Spring 2011 N = 336
Scale: 4—Advanced (A-level), 3—Proficient (B-level), 2—Progressing (C-level), 1/0 Unacceptable (D/F level
0.47
0.33
0.50
Conceptual Framework Items Relating to Dispositions
Grand Dispositions Average All Groups Spring 2008 - Spring 2011 N = 336
Complete elementary and secondary program comparisons, including elementary sites and secondary
traditional and post-baccalaureate candidates, may be viewed in the 1st and 2nd TIC Program Summaries
Dispositions Summary All Programs Tab spreadsheet.
Key Assessment # 5: Senior Level—Content Knowledge
Content knowledge is measured using: 1) the grade point average (GPA) calculated ONLY on the
candidate’s subject matter/content area endorsement courses; 2a) Content Area Assessment Rubric
(secondary/middle grades candidates) OR 2b) Praxis II score (elementary education, early childhood
education, yearly childhood unified education, and special education—mild/moderate); and 3) the content
knowledge performance during the teacher internship as measured using the Teacher Intern Checklist.
Scoring guides/rubrics: Content Area Assessment Rubric; Teacher Intern Checklist (P-12 Cooperating
Teacher; College Supervisor; Candidate Self-Evaluation)
See full table: Standard 1 Table 1a.1: Elementary and Special Education Candidates’ Content
Knowledge Scores
Table 1a.1: Elementary and Special Education Candidates’ Content Knowledge Scores (Summary) (CSC
IR—Standard 1, p. 3)
Overall GPA
@ Graduation
Elementary &
SPED
Endorsement
Content GPA
Minor GPA
Praxis II
Scores for
Elem &
SPED only
TIC Content
?
Cooperating
Teacher
TIC
Content ?
Supervisor
TIC
Content ?
Self
Elementary & SPED Content Areas Total Fall 2007 - Spring 2011 N = 228. Data are calculated on Spring 2008-Spring 2011 data (N
= 216). Fall 2007 = 12; Fall 2007 is not included in calculations as Fall 2007 is based on a 5-point scale.
Average
3.50
3.61
3.59
173.55
3.66
3.83
3.85
SD
0.33
0.34
0.46
14.22
0.52
0.30
0.21
Scale: 4—Advanced (A-level), 3—Proficient (B-level), 2—Progressing (C-level), 1/0 Unacceptable (D/F level)
See full table: Standard 1 Table 1a.2: Secondary Education and Specialized Endorsement Candidates’
Content Knowledge Scores
Table 1a.2: Secondary Education and Specialized Endorsement Candidates’ Content Knowledge Scores
(Summary) (CSC IR—Standard 1, p. 3)
Overall GPA
@ Graduation
Education
Courses GPA
Endorsement
Content
GPA
Content
Area
Assessment
Score
TIC Content
?
Cooperating
Teacher
TIC
Content ?
Supervisor
TIC
Content ?
Self
Secondary Education and Specialized Endorsement Content Areas (K-12; K-8; 7-12) Total Fall 2007 - Spring 2011 N = 160; N = 175
with Fall 2007 (Fall 2007, used a 5-point scale)
3.56
3.76
3.58
3.49
3.75
3.83
3.67
Average
0.29
0.22
0.29
0.38
0.38
0.26
0.39
SD
Scale: 4—Advanced (A-level), 3—Proficient (B-level), 2—Progressing (C-level), 1/0 Unacceptable (D/F level).
Exhibit 1.3.d Initial Program
5
See full table: Standard 1 Table 1a.3: Middle Grades Candidates’ Content Knowledge Scores
TIC Content
? Self
Middle Grades Total Spring 2008 - Spring 2011 N = 14; 4 Middle Grades candidates completed Praxis II exam
3.62
3.86
3.54
3.64
3.24
3.30
179.80
3.62
Average
0.31
0.24
0.50
0.34
0.42
0.64
3.43
0.30
SD
Scale: 4—Advanced (A-level), 3—Proficient (B-level), 2—Progressing (C-level), 1/0 Unacceptable (D/F level)
TIC Content
? Supervisor
TIC Content
?
Cooperating
Teacher
Praxis II
Scores
Content
Area
Assessment
Score 2
Content
Area
Assessment
Score 1
2nd Content
Area GPA
1st Content
Area GPA
Education
Courses
GPA
Overall
GPA @
Graduation
Table 1a.3: Middle Grades Candidates’ Content Knowledge Scores (Summary) (CSC IR—Standard 1, p.
3)
3.56
0.42
3.57
0.47
For complete data sets with disaggregation by endorsement area and program level, use the following
links: Content Areas with Praxis II Summary, Content Area Assessment Secondary-Specialized
Endorsements, Middle Grades Key Assessment Content Knowledge KSD –Middle Grades Content Tab 1
Key Assessment # 6: Senior Level—Effects on P-12 Student Learning
Scoring Guide/Rubric and assignment: Teacher Work Sample Rubric, TWS assignment, and TWS lesson
reflection questions
Elementary TWS Fall 2007 - Spring 2011 Totals
3.61
3.74
3.30
3.12
3.37
2.98
0.62
0.44
0.73
0.79
0.83
1.05
Secondary TWS Fall 2007 - Spring 2011 Totals
3.65
3.54
3.28
3.15
3.19
3.09
Grand Average Total N = 170; missing n = 8
0.81
0.76
0.76
0.85
0.99
1.02
Grand SD
Elementary & Secondary TWS Fall 2007 - Spring 2011 Totals
3.47
3.56
3.35
3.14
3.23
3.02
Grand Average Total N = 354; missing n = 13
0.82
0.77
0.80
0.96
1.14
1.05
Grand SD
Scale: 4—Advanced (A-level), 3—Proficient (B-level), 2—Progressing (C-level), 1/0 Unacceptable (D/F level)
Grand Average Total N = 184; missing n = 5
Grand SD
Professional
Presentation
Decision Making,
Self-Reflection/
Evaluation
Instructional
Plans
Display
Description of
Data
Pre-/Post-tests
Instructional
Setting/ Context
Table of
Contents
Table 1a.5: All Candidates - Teacher Work Sample--Fall 2007 through Spring 2011 ) (CSC IR—
Standard 1, p. 5)
Average
/ SD
3.34
0.69
3.10
0.76
3.32
0.53
3.25
0.86
3.05
0.87
3.27
0.67
3.23
0.86
3.08
0.93
3.26
0.74
For full data sets use these links: TWS Elementary Summary and TWS Secondary Summary.
Middle grades candidate data are included with their chosen Block group.
Follow-up studies of content knowledge, professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions
are tied to CSC’s Visionary Leader conceptual framework. Follow-up studies are conducted to
measure initial program candidates’ perception of their preparation and their employers’ assessment of
their preparation as teachers. Each of these ratings is based on the same rubric.
Key Assessment # 7: Post-graduation—Follow-up Survey
Scoring guides/rubrics: CSC Education Department Graduate Follow-up Self-Survey; CSC Education
Department Graduate Follow-up Employer Survey
Standard 1 Tables Related to the Graduate and Employer Follow-up Survey Results:
Table 1b.5: Conceptual Framework Items Relating to Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Skills as Measured by
Initial Program Follow-up Survey (Summary) (CSC IR—Standard 1, p. 13)
Table 1c.2: Conceptual Framework Items Relating to Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills as
Measured by Initial Program Follow-up Survey (Summary) (CSC IR—Standard 1, p. 17)
Table 1d.2: Conceptual Framework Items Relating to Effects on Student Learning as Measured by Initial Program
Follow-up Survey (Summary) (CSC IR—Standard 1, p. 21)
Exhibit 1.3.d Initial Program
6
Table 1g.6: Conceptual Framework Items Relating to Professional Dispositions as Measured by Initial Program
Follow-up Survey (Summary) (CSC IR—Standard 1, p. 36)
Exhibit 1.3.d: Conceptual Framework Items as Measured by Initial Program Follow-up Survey
Leadership
(K) 7.2 I understand the importance of the role of the teacher as a school and
community leader.
(S) 7.3 I view myself as a leader in the school community and enthusiastically
contribute by assuming leadership roles.
(D) 7.1 I can engage students, guardians, peers, administrators, and community
members in a professional and ethical manner to lead toward common goals.
Professionalism
No questions were asked inadvertently.
Communication
(K) 4.2 I have a good working knowledge of varied communication strategies.
(S) 4.3 I can employ varied communication strategies to facilitate
communication between various stakeholders including parents, administrators
and the school community.
(D) 4.1 I can demonstrate, model and use skills and knowledge to promote
effective communication with students and all other educational stakeholders.
Human Relations/Diversity
(K) 2.2 I can establish human relationships with diverse educational stakeholders.
I understand the impact personal and general bias about gender, race, religion,
student exceptionalities, gender-orientation, socio-economic status and geographic
area has on public education.
(S) 2.3 I can integrate a variety of instructional strategies and methods to
encourage the critical examination of student beliefs about tolerance and diversity.
(D) 2.1 I can model and exhibit tolerance for all persons and backgrounds; foster
relationships with school colleagues, parents, and agencies of the larger
community based on an understanding of the impacts of internal and external
forces on public education.
Thinking Skills
(K) 1.2 I have a working understanding of the value of developing advanced
thinking skills within students.
(S) 1.3 I can utilize a variety of educational strategies and methods to encourage
the development of content area knowledge, critical thinking and problem solving
skills within students.
(D) 1.1 I can model promote inquiry, critical analysis and subject knowledge
synthesis within all students.
Assessment
(K) The candidate provides a wide variety of assessments to promote student
growth, as well as modifications for every student’s ability level.
(S) The candidate utilizes formative and summative assessments to monitor
student progress and to adjust instruction.
(D) The candidate values the opportunity to utilize varied assessment tools and
date to make informed instructional and curricular decisions.
Methodology/Technology
(K) The candidate recognizes the need for a variety of technology enhanced
instructional strategies based on current research and best practice.
(S) The candidate consistently uses a variety of instructional methodologies and
technologies to deliver lesson presentations.
(D) The candidate demonstrates the active willingness to design, model and
promote learning activities that are consistent with identified learning objectives.
Grand Average Conceptual Framework Items Spring 2008-Spring 2010
N =240; returned graduate = 29; employer = 12
Grand SD
3.82
(.38)
3.33
(.75)
3.66
(.50)
Employer
Graduate
Self
3.39
(.57)
3.67
(.50)
3.36
(.60)
3.53
(.48)
3.26
(.61)
3.40
(.59)
3.33
(.53)
3.48
(.55)
3.33
(.72)
3.58
(.49)
3.17
(.69)
3.72
(.52)
3.50
(.65)
3.17
(.80)
3.59
(.62)
3.38
(.54)
3.39
(.56)
3.25
(.60)
3.55
(.50)
3.34
(.71)
3.27
(.62)
3.31
(.65)
3.41
(.67)
3.64
(.46)
3.42
(.64)
3.61
(.56)
3.55
(.62)
3.36
(.67)
3.25
(.83)
3.33
(.75)
3.62
(.55)
3.59
(.49)
3.74
(.39)
3.25
(.72)
3.59
(.56)
3.66
(.66)
Average/SD
3.50
(.50)
3.75
(.43)
3.72
(.45)
Dispositions
Employer
Average/SD
Dispositions
Self
Skills
Employer
Average/SD
Skills Self
Knowledge
Employer
Grand Average Spring 2008-Spring 2010
N =240; returned graduate = 29; employer = 12
Average/SD
Knowledge
Self
Conceptual Framework Items as Measured by Initial Program
Follow-up Survey
3.18
(.72)
3.33
(.75)
3.45
(.56)
3.33
(.75)
3.59
(.56)
3.33
(.75)
3.63
3.40
3.55
3.33
3.55
3.38
3.58
3.37
0.55
0.63
0.57
0.65
0.56
0.65
0.49
0.59
Scale: 4—Advanced (A-level), 3—Proficient (B-level), 2—Progressing (C-level), 1/0 Unacceptable (D/F level)
For full data set use this link: Initial Program Follow-up Survey