SELF STUDY
2 JULY 2014
WASHINGTON, DC
OVERVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
This self study document located in Exhibit i.5.a.
The Institution
American University (AU) was chartered by an Act of Congress in 1893 and
founded under the auspices of the United Methodist Church. Since its founding,
American University has aspired to one overarching goal: to serve as a great
national university, located in the nation’s capital, enriched by the city’s
incomparable resources, welcoming talented and dedicated students and
faculty from the United States and around the world. AU is an institution
committed to academic excellence. Its mission is grounded in the premise that
the quality of the student experience and engagement with the community,
nation, and world matters. AU students are drawn from across the country and
the world. Students come from all 50 states and almost 150 countries.
Throughout its history, AU has been dedicated to interdisciplinary inquiry,
international understanding, interactive teaching, research and creative
endeavors, and the practical application of knowledge. It values public service
and encourages the integration of academic programs and campus life with
the larger local, national, and international communities. It strives to combine the
finest qualities of a liberal arts college with the best qualities of a research
university that is home to many prominent professional schools.
The university enrolls more than 13,000 students, including approximately 7,300
undergraduate students; 3,700 graduate students; 1,700 law students; and more
than 600 visiting students. All schools and colleges, except the Washington
College of Law (WCL), have both undergraduate and graduate programs. Each
of the university’s seven schools has unique strengths. The School of Public Affairs
(SPA) is one of the nation’s oldest public policy schools and includes one of the
highest-ranked public affairs programs in the country. The School of International
Service (SIS) is ranked in the top 10 worldwide for both undergraduate and
graduate study. The Kogod School of Business (KSB) has been ranked as no. 21 in
the country for its undergraduate international business specialty and in the top
10th percentile for its MS in taxation program. The School of Communication
(SOC) has risen to prominence as a leader in professional education, with a
focus on investigative journalism, documentary film, and political
communication, enhanced by a new PhD in communication studies. The
College of Arts and Sciences (CAS), home to the School of Education, Teaching
& Health, provides the liberal arts foundation of the university and is home to
renowned artists, scientists, educators, and scholars in the social sciences and
humanities. The Washington College of Law is known for its highly ranked
programs, including international and clinical education. It is recognized for the
diversity of its student body and its commitment to the public interest. Together,
these six schools and colleges offer 68 bachelor’s degrees, 54 master’s programs,
10 doctoral programs, and 5 law programs, as well as undergraduate and
graduate certificate programs. A seventh school, the School of Professional and
Extended Studies (SPExS), was created in 2012 to oversee a range of programs
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 2
for nonmatriculated students, including the Washington Semester Program,
Washington Mentorship Program, Graduate Gateway Program, and Washington
Internships for Native Students.
In 2008, under the leadership of President Cornelius M. Kerwin, university students,
faculty, staff, alumni, and trustees worked collaboratively to develop a new
strategic plan designed to advance the university’s mission. The plan, AU in the
Next Decade: Leadership for a Changing World, was developed by a 20-person
committee that included members from every division on campus. A link to the
plan can be found in Exhibit i.5.a.
The Unit
The Education Preparation Provider (EPP) at American University is the School of
Education, Teaching & Health (SETH), housed in the College of Arts and Sciences
(CAS). The Dean of SETH is the head of the unit. SETH’s mission is the professional
development of dedicated and proficient teachers, educational leaders, health
professionals, and researchers. Graduates are equipped to accommodate
learner needs, nurture the strengths and talents of those they serve, and provide
leadership in large and small organizations, classrooms, educational institutions,
and public policy arenas.
SETH has had many accomplishments since the previous NCATE visit in 2007. We
continued to strengthen our commitment to teacher quality in DC public and
public charter schools with two additional grant programs that recruit and train
individuals to teach in STEM areas. These grants, Math for America and
Lab2Class, provide individuals with strong academic backgrounds in Math or
Science with a one-year residency program and academic, supervisory,
mentoring, and financial support to become fully certified teachers in DC
schools by means of a MAT in Secondary Education (Math or Science). Although
programs developed through these grants differ slightly in design from traditional
teacher education programs, expectations of teachers who complete these
programs mirror those of candidates in traditional programs.
Other enhancements are evident in our assessment and program management
system, described in detail in Standard 2 of this report, and in practices related to
our field experiences, outlined in Standard 3. In both areas, we provide
compelling evidence where we have strived to meet the NCATE standards at
the Target Level. SETH faculty and staff have implemented mechanisms to better
support candidate development and field experiences, to provide more
coherent advising and feedback to candidates and faculty, and to strengthen
relations with alumni and local school systems.
Programs
SETH offers programs that prepare teachers, educational leaders and managers,
education specialists, health promotion specialists, and researchers for careers in
schools, colleges and universities, federal, state and local government agencies,
business, and community and professional organizations. These programs
provide candidates with opportunities to collaborate with professionals in public
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 3
schools, educational organizations, and federal agencies through internships,
practica, and research. Training in international education prepares graduates
for careers in international organizations, nongovernmental organizations,
international schools, and government agencies.
SETH prepares teachers for initial certification in a total of nine teacher education
programs. These programs are designed to prepare teachers for Kindergarten
through 12th grade, in alignment with the District of Columbia’s licensure
requirements. Candidates complete their student teaching/internship
experiences at urban and suburban placements in public and non-public
schools throughout the DC metropolitan area. SETH offers no off-campus or
online professional education programs, nor does it support any branch
campuses.
SETH offers initial teacher education programs at undergraduate and graduate
levels and one advanced program at the graduate level. Programs of study for
each program can be found in Exhibit i.5.a. The status of the program review
process can be found in AIMS. The programs include:
Initial:
BA in Elementary Education
BA or BS in Secondary or K12 Education
Graduate Certificates in Early Childhood, Elementary, ESOL, K12, or Secondary
Education
MAT in in Early Childhood, Elementary, ESOL, K12, or Secondary Education
MA in Special Education: Learning Disabilities
Advanced:
MEd in Curriculum and Instruction: Education Policy and Leadership or Literacy
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 4
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Mission Statement of the Professional Education Unit
SETH is committed to advancing theory and professional practice through its
programs and the scholarly activities of our faculty. The faculty recognizes the
significance of education in contemporary life, the potential of education for
each individual, and our special responsibilities to produce individuals prepared
for the 21st century. SETH seeks to achieve its goals though creative teaching,
rigorous research, and professional service. It is committed to ongoing social
change, societal improvement, and advancing individual welfare and potential.
Graduates of SETH programs act as agents of social change through their work
as health professionals, teachers, researchers, managers, and administrators.
They share a professional belief in working towards excellence, equity,
community, and diversity.
Beyond SETH’s fundamental commitment to its students and alumni who work in
the community to advocate for the individual, both domestically and
internationally, it also prepares candidates to build a learning society in many
diverse environments and for many diverse populations. The outcome is to equip
graduates of SETH programs to meet individual needs, to nurture the strengths
and talents of those they serve, and to provide leadership in public policy
arenas.
The teacher education programs in the professional education unit are
anchored in a knowledge-based, research- and values-informed conceptual
framework. The framework was developed and adopted by the faculty in the
1990s and is revisited on an ongoing basis – the framework exists not only as a
standing document, but also as a fluid discussion within the unit, particularly as
we add new programs and consider our outcomes. The mission of SETH reflects
and reinforces this conceptual framework, which is derived from the teaching,
research, professional service, and value commitments of the faculty, and is
presented to students in each course via course syllabi (which can be found
online by clicking on the documents in Exhibit i.5.b). The current SETH conceptual
framework is presented in our conceptual framework document in Exhibit i.5.c.
The conceptual framework for SETH has at its center the core value of Reflection,
which is supported through the professional commitments and activities evoked
by teacher Beliefs, Knowledge, and Practice. The conceptual framework is
organized by the concepts of Community, Diversity, Equity, and Excellence, and
is operationalized through the 10 INTASC standards. Please see Exhibit i.5.c for
the Core Values and Process Elements of the conceptual framework and its
alignment with the INTASC, NCATE, and Program Standards.
Making the Conceptual Framework Operational: The INTASC Standards
Candidates’ understandings of the core value of Reflection and the organizing
principles of Community, Diversity, Equity and Excellence are evaluated using
the 10 INTASC standards. We use INTASC to organize the coursework, practica,
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 5
and assessments in SETH. Within the specific presentation of the INTASC standards
at AU, candidates demonstrate the development of the conceptual framework
in their beliefs, knowledge and practice. In the fall of 2012, we transitioned to the
new INTASC standards, realigning our conceptual framework, as well as NCATE
standards, Specialty Professional Association (SPA) standards and state program
standards. See Exhibits i.5.c and 2.4.a. for the alignment between and among
these sets of standards.
Development and Evolution of the Conceptual Framework
The main tenets of the conceptual framework were first developed in late 1990s.
However, the manuscript itself is fluid and exists on a shared drive where faculty
are able to undertake ongoing revisions and initiate discussions relative to the
framework. The document reflects the School’s core commitments to
Community, Diversity, Equity and Excellence, and includes connections to
current interests in educational opportunity and access to education for underrepresented groups. All of the full-time faculty members in the School have
participated in the development of the conceptual framework, either by
reflecting on the tenets in their courses, or by adding to or revising the document
as a result of ongoing faculty discussions. A current version of the document is
available in Exhibit i.5.c.
Candidate Proficiencies Aligned to Professional and State Standards
The District of Columbia’s Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE)
has adopted the INTASC standards as the state standards for professional
education programs. NCATE and INTASC standards outline the elements of what
all teachers should know and be able to do, and have been validated as the
behaviors that result in positive outcomes for students when they are articulated
into specific knowledge, skills and beliefs. Therefore, the development of these
behaviors, and how teacher candidates are given the opportunity to reflect on
those skills, can be found in the tools SETH uses to help students continuously
improve upon their practice. In each SETH assessment and rubric used in our
teacher education programs, one will note explicit indications of how
candidates should enact each of the standard behaviors of teachers. Alignment
charts can be found in Exhibits i.5.c and 2.4.a.
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 6
STANDARD 1
CANDIDATE KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND PROFESSIONAL DISPOSITIONS
SETH uses a number of assessments to measure the progress of candidates
toward meeting professional, state and institutional standards. We use a series of
key assessments in initial and advanced teacher education programs to
measure candidates’ content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge
and skills, professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills, professional
dispositions, and impact on student learning. Each professional education
program has been, or is being, reviewed by its appropriate specialty professional
association, or by the DC state agency. The status of other SPA and state reviews
is ongoing; the most accurate information about the reviews is found in AIMs and
Exhibit 1.4.a.
1a. Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates
SETH currently uses four measures to assess initial candidate content knowledge:
1) completion of content courses and/or transcript analysis; 2) performance on
Praxis II tests for initial programs; 3) thorough assessments aligned with INTASC
standards 4 & 5 for candidates’ final evaluation of student teaching or, in special
education, the Field Based Performance Assessment (FBPA); and 4) candidate
portfolios. In advanced programs, content related assessments are used in select
courses and are aligned with program-developed standards/learning outcomes.
Copies of key assessments and scoring rubrics are found in Exhibit 1.4.c.
Content Courses and Transcript Analysis: At the undergraduate level, all students
at AU complete a strong General Education studies program that provides an
introduction to research and study in five areas: the arts; philosophical studies;
literature and world history; social studies and communication; and the sciences.
In addition, undergraduates fulfill rigorous studies in writing and mathematics;
candidates in undergraduate programs in secondary education must meet all
requirements of their undergraduate content degree. Undergraduates satisfy this
requirement through the obtaining the required undergraduate GPA.
At the graduate level in initial teacher education programs (including special
education), candidates must establish proof that they have a well-rounded
undergraduate experience and have fulfilled general education and teacher
certification requirements through evaluation of their undergraduate
transcripts. Transcripts are analyzed in terms of degree requirements, specialty
professional association content standards in specific teaching fields, and DC
certification requirements. Prior to program entry, candidates undertake the
transcript analysis and submissions are reviewed by the SETH education program
director. Assessment data required for the transcript analysis are presented in
Exhibit 2.4.b. As the table indicates 67 to 100% of candidate met this requirement
at entry, all candidates met this requirement before completion.
Praxis II exams: As presented in AIMS, each program utilizes Praxis II exams
aligned to the content knowledge of the relevant area of licensure. These data
are present in Standard 1 for each initial program. As illustrated in these reports,
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 7
80% or more of the unit’s program completers pass content examinations in
states that require licensure examinations.
Final Evaluation of Student Teaching Assessment or the FBPA: Supervisors
complete assessments at the conclusion of student teaching or internship. The
assessments and data can be found in Exhibit 3.4.f. and 1.4.d. These assessments
make use of a 5-pt scoring rubric and illustrate that across all general education
programs, candidate scores range from 4 to 5. The FBPA makes use of a 4-pt
scale; scores for these standards range from 3.2 to 4. These data indicate
candidates have strong content knowledge and are able to apply content
knowledge to their teaching.
Portfolio Assessments: In Exhibit 1.4.d, data are presented for each initial program
relative to candidate performance on INTASC standards 4 (content) & 5
(application of content). Portfolio scores across all programs, which use a 3-pt
rubric, range from 2.25 to 2.71. For special education, data from assessments 1
and 2 demonstrate knowledge of special education content and principles;
scores range from 2.27 to 2.31. For both general and special education,
candidates are able to demonstrate knowledge of content relative to their
chosen program area.
At the advanced program level, content knowledge is evaluated through
assessments that occur in three courses in each track (Education Policy and
Leadership or Literacy) and that are aligned with program standards. Given that
the Curriculum and Instruction program was only recently initiated, there are no
data available.
1b. Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates
For initial programs, the unit currently uses two measures to assess candidates’
pedagogical content knowledge: 1) elements of the final evaluation of student
teaching or the FBPA; and 2) portfolio assessments aligned to INTASC Standards
6, 7 & 8 for general education and INTASC Standards 7 & 8 for special education.
Through these assessments, candidates demonstrate knowledge and skills of
instructional practice, including assessment, planning for instruction, and
instructional strategies. These data are highlighted in green in Exhibit 1.4.d. In
advanced programs, pedagogical content knowledge is measured through
assessments in two courses, EDU 683: Curriculum Design and EDU 525:
Educational Assessment.
Final Evaluation of Student Teaching Assessment or the FBPA: Items on this
assessment directly align to INTASC Standards 6, 7 and 8 (7, 8 for special
education) and assess pedagogical and professional knowledge and skills. Data
from these assessments make use of a 5-pt rubric (Exhibit 1.4.d) and illustrate that
across programs scores range from 4.5 - 4.87. The FBPA uses a 4-pt scale; scores
range from 3.2 - 3.7. Findings indicate that in both general and special
education, candidates demonstrate acceptable levels of performance relative
to pedagogical content knowledge and skills.
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 8
Portfolio Assessments: Portfolio assessments are submitted through the
professional teaching portfolio upon program completion. Through these
assessments of INTASC Standards 6, 7, and 8, candidates demonstrate
knowledge and skills of instructional practice, including assessment, planning for
instruction, and instructional strategies. Data (Exhibit 1.4.d) indicate that
candidates received scores of 2.5 - 2.78. In special education, scores aligned
with standards 7 and 8 and ranged from 2.35 - 2.41 out of 3. For general and
special education, candidates’ scores meet established acceptable level of
performance.
At the advanced level, candidates’ pedagogical content knowledge and skills
are evaluated through assessments that take place in two required courses, EDU
525 and 683. Assessments are presented in Exhibit 1.4.c. No data are available
for advanced programs at this time.
1c. Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates
The EPP currently uses two measures to assess candidates’ pedagogical and
professional knowledge and skills in initial programs: 1) Final Evaluation of Student
Teaching or the FPBA for INTASC 1, 2 & 3, and 4 & 6 for special education; and 2)
portfolio assessments. Data are presented in Exhibits 1.4.d.
Final Evaluation of Student Teaching Assessment or the FBPA: This assessment is
completed by supervisors at the conclusion of student teaching or internship.
Items are directly aligned to INTASC Standards 1, 2 & 3 and assess candidates’
pedagogical and professional knowledge and skills. For general teacher
education programs, scores range from 4 to 5 on a 5-pt scale, and from 3.2 to 4
on a 4-pt scale for special education. Data indicate that candidates
demonstrate acceptable levels of performance relative to professional and
pedagogical knowledge and skills in the classroom.
Portfolio Assessments: The portfolio assessments of INTASC standards 1, 2 & 3
focus on candidate knowledge and skills related to the learner and learning,
and include learner development, learning differences, and the learning
environment. The performative artifacts collected via the portfolio allow SETH
faculty to evaluate candidate pedagogical and professional knowledge and
skills; parallel measures are used in both teacher and special education. Data
indicate performance for each general education program (Early Childhood,
Elementary, K12, Secondary and TESOL). Portfolio scores, using a 3-pt rubric,
ranged from 2.55 - 2.87. For special education, scores ranged from 2.2 - 2.3.
Candidates represent their professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills
through the portfolio.
At the advanced level, candidates’ pedagogical and professional knowledge
and skills are assessed through an Action Research project presented in Exhibit
1.4.c. in the EDU 610 course. There are no data available at this time.
1d. Student Learning for Teacher Candidates
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 9
The EPP uses the Impact of Student Learning (ISL) and the Curriculum Based
Measurement for special education to measure the effect of teacher
candidates’ classroom practice on P-12 student learning; examples are
presented in Exhibit 1.4.g. Assessments are implemented in methods coursework
and require candidates to conduct formative and summative assessments of P12 learners.
The advanced programs use assessments in the internship (EDU 691 or 695) and
capstone (EDU 687) courses. No data are available for advanced programs.
1g. Professional Dispositions for All Candidates
The EPP uses qualitative measures to evaluate candidate disposition at program
completion. For initial programs, candidates undergo evaluation aligned to
INTASC Standards 9 & 10, included in final evaluation of student
teaching/internship and portfolio assessment. Data from portfolio and fieldbased assessments range from 2.25 to 2.61 out of 3, and demonstrate
performance at acceptable levels. See Exhibits 1.4.e and 1.4.d.
Advanced programs use assessments in the internship (EDU 691 or 695) and
capstone (EDU 687) courses. There are no data available at this time.
1.2 Moving Toward Target or Continuous Improvement
1.2.b Continuous Improvement
Summarize activities and changes based on data that have led to continuous
improvement of candidate performance and program quality.
The unit makes use of ongoing processes to evaluate programs at the unit,
program and student level in order to make informed decisions about activities
and program changes. Given our goal to equip our graduates with both
breadth and depth in terms of knowledge, skills attitudes and the ability to make
real and lasting change in the lives of P12 learners, we regularly reflect on data
from each of the decision levels into order to engage in continuous
improvement. More detail about our decision making process is outlined in
Standard 2 below.
The Educational Testing Service (ETS) now provides categorical data from the
Praxis II assessments. The EPP has evaluated these data, and although we find no
consistent trends in the Praxis II sub-categories, we are able to present these
data to SPAs and track data for state approved programs.
Transcript reviews are now completed prior to program admission. This ensures
that students with significant deficits are counseled out before beginning the
programs. These changes are described in Exhibit 2.4.g.
Since our previous submission, SETH has narrowed our assessment of the Impact
on Student Learning and is moving this process to the methods courses. This had
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 10
improved the quality of candidate preparation relative to working with P12
learners and better prepares candidates to focus on student outcomes in
student teaching. In addition, we developed a Student Teaching Course Rubric
in Fall 2012 that provides for ongoing evaluation of candidate growth relative to
professionalism, preparedness, instruction, learning environment and classroom
culture. Initial implementation of the rubric indicates that it is an effective tool by
which the EPP can measure candidate development over the student teaching
semester.
Based on feedback from the SPAs, SETH made significant adjustments to
program assessments, strengthening their alignment to content standards. These
changes are described in Exhibit 2.4.g. In addition, the EPP shifted assessments
from the unit level to the program level. Assessments are now also connected to
specific content in foundational and methods courses, rather than conducted
upon program completion. This change allows the EPP to make student-level
adjustments in programs of study or placements, while also allowing program
faculty the ability to refine course assessments to be more cohesive in nature.
Discuss plans for sustaining and enhancing performance through continuous
improvement as articulated in this standard.
Assessments for SETH’s initial education programs are comprehensive and
consistently applied. However, to ensure that SETH is continuously assessing and
improving all of its programs, we intend to begin implementing assessments in AY
2014-15 for advanced programs. Data from these assessments will be evaluated
based on the systems described in Standard 2. Data from the initial
implementation of some of these assessments will be available for the on-site
review
Across all programs, processes to collect data are constantly in refinement.
Currently some programs are under review by SPAs; these reviews may result in
SETH refining current assessment processes. In addition, we continue to improve
data collection processes and to increase inter-rater reliability.
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 11
STANDARD 2
ASSESSMENT SYSTEM AND UNIT EVALUATION
2a. Assessment System
SETH’s program and assessment management system allows the EPP to
operationalize the conceptual framework’s organizing principles of Community,
Diversity, Equity, and Excellence and the EPP’s professional commitments of
Knowledge, Beliefs, Practice, and Reflection. For initial programs, the INTASC
standards guide the system’s multiple assessments and the EPP’s key assessments
align to state or SPA standards. Assessments for advanced programs align to
learning outcomes identified by program faculty.
The EPP’s system includes comprehensive and integrated assessment and
evaluation measures that begin prior to initial program admission. Assessments
are both formative and summative and provide the EPP and its professional
community with developmental and ongoing data about candidates,
programs, and overall EPP performance. These data inform candidate advisory
actions and program improvement decisions.
Initial and advanced program faculty and staff make decisions about
candidate performance based on multiple assessments at key decision points.
Decision points for initial Programs are (1) Program Admission (2) Student
Teaching Entry (3) Student Teaching Completion (4) Program Completion and
(5) Employment and Performance Follow-up. Decision points for advanced
programs are (1) Program Admission (2) Advancement to Candidacy (3)
Program Completion and (4) Employment and Performance Follow-up. Details of
each assessment at each decision point can be found the Assessment Guide in
Exhibit 2.4.a.
The EPP employs several strategies to ensure that all assessment procedures are
fair, accurate, consistent and free of bias. First, key assessments are aligned with
institutional, state, national, and professional standards (see Exhibit 2.4.a),
ensuring that candidates are measured against recognized standards and the
organizing principles and professional commitments of the unit’s conceptual
framework. This transparency allows candidates to reasonably predict
evaluators’ expectations. Second, all faculty, both clinical faculty and
cooperating teachers, participate in at least one training session regarding
overall responsibilities and assessment tools. Third, the unit has developed rubrics
for assessments, provided to candidates and evaluators. Fourth, the unit has
developed policies for decision point assessments that allow candidates to
reflect upon work they have completed and resubmit components that do not
meet expectations or re-take a practical component.
The EPP relies on its professional community to evaluate the capacity and
effectiveness of its assessment system, including full-time and part-time faculty,
clinical faculty supervisors, supervisor leads, method leads, cooperating
teachers, partner school leaders and program alumni. Supervisor and methods
leads (Exhibit 3.4.d – Clinical Experience Personnel Chart) provide support to the
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 12
Director of the Office of Teacher Education, ensuring a link between the
cooperating teacher, the student, the faculty, and program staff. Leads use
assessments to monitor candidate progress and ensure data are available to
make decisions about candidate progression through Practicum and Student
Teaching. Leads meet with the Director of the Office of Teacher Education
formally three times per year (August, January, June), and informally as needed
to discuss candidate progress, provide feedback regarding practicum and
student teaching, report experiences of cooperating teachers and other school
personnel, and discuss the quality of assessment data. Supervisor leads also work
with individual supervisors to provide mentoring and feedback to candidates.
This lead structure was implemented in Fall 2012. The Special Education Program
has a similar process between the Director of the Special Education Program,
faculty, clinical faculty supervisors, cooperating teachers and school leaders. The
faculty of the Curriculum and Instruction program are currently developing its
professional community, which includes leaders from partner organizations and
internship placement sites.
The directors of initial and advanced programs work closely with faculty to
ensure the effective design and implementation of key assessments. Each
assessment includes a rubric or scoring guide, which indicates acceptable levels
of performance, and opportunities for resubmission. Given the cycle of SPA
resubmissions for the EPP, the utility and validity of data produced through key
assessments has mostly occurred during the rejoinder process. Relevant
feedback from SPA review is applied to the assessments of initial programs
reviewed by the state. Advanced program assessments are reviewed by peer
faculty through AU’s Learning Outcomes process required for Middle States
accreditation.
2b. Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation
The EPP uses a customized, web-based assessment and program management
system called GoEd (goed.american.edu), which is continuously maintained and
regularly improved upon to meet the needs of faculty, staff, candidates and the
professional community. Candidates in all programs enter the system as
prospects and maintain access to the system after graduation.
GoEd allows access to data from the University’s official database, including
contact information, course and schedule information, and grades. GoEd
imports data directly from the ETS Praxis system. Access to a candidate’s
account can be granted to internal users such as faculty, as well as external
users such as cooperating teachers.
GoEd provides regular, comprehensive data on program quality, unit operations,
and candidate performance at each decision point for initial and advanced
programs. Candidates have access to assessment rubrics and evaluative
feedback. Each semester, candidates and faculty complete assessments in the
system. Users access the system to provide evaluative feedback about their
experiences and about the effectiveness of assessments. All data can be
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 13
aggregated, summarized, and reported. Data can be disaggregated by
program and across time periods.
Data collected in GoEd are regularly and systematically compiled, aggregated,
summarized, analyzed, and reported internally and externally to improve
candidate performance, program quality, and EPP operations. GoEd data are
used in conjunction with data from the AU Office of Institutional Research to
complete SPA reports, PEDS reports, Title II reports, CAEP Annual Reports and
Learning Outcomes required by Middle States. Internally, data is reviewed to
monitor candidate progress and program effectiveness. See Exhibit 2.4.a for the
3-level Assessment Analysis Structure of Data Review and Analysis, also described
in Section 2c.
AU has a Policy on Student Academic Grievances that covers undergraduate
and graduate students (see Exhibit 2.4.e). The policy prescribes a 4-step process
that includes review by an annually appointed EPP grievance committee. The
Dean holds the official grievance files, as well as a file of informal complaints.
GoEd also has an area for staff to track communication with an individual
candidate, which allows all involved staff to have a full understanding of actions
taken regarding a candidate. Candidates may access these comments upon
request.
2c. Use of Data for Program Improvement
The EPP employs a 3-level assessment analysis structure to ensure data from
assessments are reviewed and analyzed regularly for program improvement
(Exhibit 2.4.a). For initial programs, LEVEL I data are reviewed each semester by
faculty, clinical faculty, cooperating teachers and the Director of the Office of
Teacher Education. These data are collected from course assessments, field
experiences, student teaching, and developmental portfolio tasks. Faculty and
clinical faculty supervisors submit data and review results to ensure candidates’
successful program continuation. Faculty may also use results to adjust instruction
in a course or adjust how they approach supervisory tasks. If a faculty or clinical
faculty member has evidence that an assessment may need to be adjusted in
order to gain more evidence of student performance or to better align with
standards, they bring these suggestions to the methods leads or supervisory leads
who present this information to the Office of Teacher Education or the Director of
the Special Education Program. During June supervisor lead meetings, data from
key assessments are discussed. If there are compelling findings, decisions about
program or assessment adjustments are proposed. The program director then
reviews these changes with the Dean and they determine if changes to courses
or non-key assessments should be made. The teacher education committee
provides guidance about changes that affect an entire program or a key
assessment. The Director of the Special Education Program follows a similar
process with faculty members, supervisor leads and the special education
committee.
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 14
The Dean, Director of the Office of Teacher Education, and faculty leaders who
compile SPA and state reports review LEVEL II data annually or biannually. Level II
data include data from program assessments, allowing a formal opportunity for
the Dean and directors to review aggregated program data with faculty
leaders. Given the rejoinder process, each program has been reviewed
approximately every two years. Since Fall 2012 and Spring 2013 SPA submissions,
two programs have been nationally recognized. We expect the remaining
programs to become fully nationally recognized in the next year. A proposed
process for internal review is outlined in Section 2c in Moving Toward Target and
will begin in Fall 2016.
The Dean, Director of Office of Teacher Education and Director of Special
Education review data at the EPP level (LEVEL III) annually for initial programs.
This analysis occurs during the compilation of external reports, including PEDS
reports, Title II reports, CAEP Annual Reports and the Learning Outcomes report
required by Middle States. Advanced program data are reviewed annually
through the Learning Outcomes report.
2.2
Moving Toward Target or Continuous Improvement
In order to describe work undertaken to move to the Target Level, excerpts from
the “target” rubrics of NCATE Standard 2 are cited in [brackets] below along with
specific examples of evidence to show that the EPP is moving to the Target Level
or present a timeline for moving toward target.
2a. Assessment System
[The unit, with the involvement of its professional community, is regularly
evaluating the capacity and effectiveness of its assessment system, which
reflects the conceptual framework and incorporates candidate proficiencies
outlined in professional and state standards.]
The EPP’s professional community, including full-time and part-time faculty,
clinical faculty supervisors, supervisor leads, method leads, cooperating
teachers, partner school principals, and program alumni each have a role in the
assessment system, which reflects the conceptual framework principles of
Community, Diversity, Equity and Excellence as well as the INTASC and SPA
standards, and standards designed for advanced programs in curriculum and
instruction. Evaluation of the system and assessments by these stakeholders
occurs at three levels described in Exhibit 2.4.a.
In AY 2013-2014, the EPP systematized the participation of alumni and school
leaders in the assessment system by developing and implementing alumni and
employment surveys. The EPP is also assisting the state in its efforts to develop an
educator database that tracks the performance of candidates licensed in DC.
The advanced program in curriculum and instruction is building its professional
community, which includes school leaders, alumni and leaders in policy
organizations.
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 15
[The unit regularly examines the validity and utility of the data produced through
assessments and makes modifications to keep abreast of changes in assessment
technology and in professional standards.]
The EPP collects data that are meaningful, valid, and useful in measuring
candidate performance and uses these data for program improvement. Each
key assessment includes a rubric, which indicates the acceptable level of
candidate performance. For initial programs, the validity and utility of data
produced has been proven during SPA or state review and rejoinder process. As
SETH programs continue to receive national recognition and are externally
reviewed less frequently, the Director of the Office of Teacher Education and the
Director of Special Education will design and implement a biannual internal
program review system. This system is projected to be in place in AY 2016-2017 in
order to provide enough time for SPA and state review feedback, revised
assessment implementation and effective system design. This process will
ultimately include the review of evidence regarding the relationship between
candidate performance assessments to candidate program success to
graduate success in the classroom (see below). A similar process will be adopted
by the advanced programs in AY 2017-2018.
[Decisions about candidate performance are based on multiple assessments
….Data show a strong relationship of performance assessments to candidate
success throughout their programs and later in classrooms or schools.]
The EPP has operated with an assessment system with multiple assessments
occurring at multiple decision points since 2006 for initial programs, and began
to implement this process in 2014 for advanced programs. Decision point details
are provided in Exhibit 2.4.a.
SPA and state review data show a strong relationship between performance
assessment outcomes and candidate program success. Faculty and program
directors regularly use assessment data to follow individual candidates and
monitor areas for improvement. For example, if a candidate performs poorly on
the unit-plan key assessment in a methods class, the faculty member and
director will alert the clinical faculty supervisor to provide additional support in
lesson and unit planning during field experience. Confirmation of the expected
growth occurs in the final evaluation of student teaching and professional
teaching portfolio assessments.
The employment and performance follow-up decision point has been recently
added and will be the focus of the work of the directors of SETH’s initial and
advanced programs in AY 2014-2015. An employment and performance followup survey for all programs is being designed and will be implemented in Fall
2014. The Director of the Office of Teacher Education is also providing feedback
to the state about the State’s Educator Preparation Program system, which is
currently being designed for operation in 2015. This system will provide
performance data about program graduates. Assessments at each decision
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 16
point for advanced programs are being implemented and tested in AY 2014–
2015.
[The unit conducts thorough studies to establish fairness, accuracy, and
consistency of its assessment procedures and unit operations. It also makes
changes in its practices consistent with the results of these studies.]
In the past two years the EPP has taken the following measures to ensure fairness,
accuracy and consistency in its assessment procedures and unit operations:
• Updated all assessments in initial programs to the new 2011 INTASC
standards, most notably the Professional Teaching Portfolio and Final
Evaluation of Student Teaching. It is important to the EPP that programs
reflect the education field’s new understanding about student learning,
research, common core standards, and teaching practice.
• Aligned key assessments in initial programs more closely to the individual
SPA standards as suggested by SPA reviewers. The EPP emphasizes the
importance of candidate knowledge of their discipline; these aligned
assessments provide an opportunity to specifically measure knowledge,
skills and dispositions defined by specialty associations.
• Updated rubrics for key assessments, including those used to assess
candidate performance at the completion of student teaching. Rubrics
were updated with guidance of supervisor leads, methods leads and the
Teacher Education Committee. Faculty and cooperating teachers who
use assessments were re-trained.
• Ensure that multiple reviewers complete the key assessments. For
example, the Final Evaluation of Student Teaching and the Lesson Plan
Analysis are both completed by the candidate, cooperating teacher and
clinical supervisor who discuss assessment results and how results might
differ among evaluators. In addition, two clinical faculty members score
the professional teaching portfolio. This ensures a consensus regarding a
candidate’s mastery of the INTASC standards. Currently, a third evaluator
is employed if scores differ by more than 10 points.
Many of these new assessments and rubrics are still being implemented for the
first time and data are currently being collected. The program directors will
review at least two implementations of these assessments with the supervisor
leads, methods leads and teacher education or special education committee in
order to determine if they are valid and providing useful data to assess
candidate performance. During assessment reviews, these stakeholders will
review the range of scores provided to each candidate to ensure training for
evaluators is resulting in accurate and fair assessments. These studies will occur in
June 2015. As assessments for the advanced programs are implemented, the
Director and faculty will employ many of these same techniques to ensure
assessments are fair, accurate and consistent.
2b. Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 17
SETH's assessment system provides regular and comprehensive data on program
quality, unit operations, and candidate performance at key program stages,
extending beyond the first year of completers’ practice. Assessment data from
candidates, graduates, faculty, and other members of the professional
community are based on multiple assessments from both internal and external
sources that are systematically collected.
In 2010, the EPP invested in upgrading and expanding its web-based, customized
assessment system. The Dean approved a vendor change to the GoEd system,
which provides for more robust portfolio, assessment, and reporting capabilities.
In 2012 GoEd expanded to include new modules to track prospective
candidates, monitor candidate advising, track faculty appointments, add a
separate portfolio for the Special Education program, and update the Teacher
Education portfolio system to include the new INTASC standards. Key
assessments continue to be implemented and scored through GoEd by faculty,
clinical faculty supervisors, cooperating teachers, and candidates. The system
allows cooperating teachers and clinical faculty supervisors access to real-time
assessment data about candidates and provides candidates a place to track
their performance at each decision point in the program. In addition, GoEd has
a robust reporting system that allows assessment data to be aggregated and
disaggregated in many ways – across semesters, by programs, by traditional and
alternative route, etc. Three important changes to the system have improved
candidate quality and overall unit operations.
• Prospective Candidates: The prospective student module allows unit staff
to track correspondence with candidates. This allows staff and faculty to
review the transcript analysis of candidates before program admission
and to notify them as early as possible if they have any content
deficiencies. A candidate can then work with program advisors to create
a plan to eliminate content deficiencies. This process has increased the
number of candidates admitted without content deficiencies.
• Candidate Advising: Program advisors use the system to track candidate
advising. During the initial advising session, advisors are able to outline the
entire program of study with candidates online. Any staff member who
communicates with a candidate enters advising notes, including
candidate complaints and resolutions. This system provides increased
program transparency to candidates and staff members. These changes
have helped integrate GoEd into all EPP processes and allows the EPP to
better track student progress through their programs.
• Key Assessments: As the EPP receives national recognition from the SPA
and state review process, key assessments are updated in the GoEd
system. Entering all SPA assessments into GoEd allows staff to hold faculty
accountable for completing required assessments. Candidates are also
more aware of the importance of content and discipline-specific
assessments.
• Faculty System: A new faculty module was created to collect syllabi,
faculty CVs, adjunct faculty rate information, and results of student
evaluations of faculty teaching. Adjunct faculty members also use the
system for re-appointment evaluations.
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 18
In AY 2014-2015, the EPP will turn its attention to expanding GoEd to include
information about candidates in their first year of practice. A new alumni section
is under development and will be operational by Fall 2014. This section will collect
employment data about candidates. Candidate surveys will be collected and
these data, when appropriate, will be linked to a candidate’s alumni account.
In addition, in AY 2014-2015 and 2015–2016, the EPP will add the advanced
programs key assessments to the GoEd system, train candidates how to use
these assessments, train faculty how to use the system to score these
assessments, and review the data from the assessments.
[These data are regularly and systematically compiled, aggregated,
summarized, analyzed, and reported publicly for the purpose of improving
candidate performance, program quality, and unit operations.]
Standard 2 Section 2c. above and Exhibit 2.4.a. explain the three-level system for
using data to improve candidate performance, program quality and EPP
operations. In the past year a related change to the EPP includes the creation of
the new positions of Methods Leads and Supervisor Leads, and their required use
of assessment data. These new leadership positions review data with the Director
of the Office of Teacher Education and the Director of the Special Education
Program and propose program changes when evidence indicates change is
recommended.
As the advanced program assessments are added to the system, full-time faculty
in those programs will follow the same framework to review data and propose
program changes as necessary.
[The unit has a system for effectively maintaining records of formal candidate
complaints and their resolution.]
The EPP will continue to follow the official American University Policy on Student
Academic Grievances.
[The unit is developing and testing different information technologies to improve
its assessment system.]
SETH budgets resources for the GoEd system to be maintained by an external
developer and upgraded when needed. The Dean approves all decisions
regarding changes to the system based on overall EPP benefit and specific
program requirements. The Director of the Office of Teacher Education and
program development staff regularly attend national conferences (AACTE,
CAEP, AERA, ISTE) to stay abreast of current trends in teacher education,
including new technologies that may enhance the unit’s assessment system.
Currently the EPP is focusing on system enhancements related to the collection
of employment and employment performance data from alumni.
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 19
2c. Use of Data for Program Improvement
[The unit has fully developed evaluations and continuously searches for stronger
relationships in the evaluations, revising both the underlying data systems and
analytic techniques as necessary. The unit not only makes changes based on the
data, but also systematically studies the effects of any changes to assure that
programs are strengthened without adverse consequences.]
Many of the changes made during the last three years to assessments have
been to the assessment procedures or rubrics. These changes were made based
on SPA reviewer feedback, peer review feedback, or feedback from faculty and
supervisors implementing assessments. As programs receive national recognition
and assessments are implemented multiple times, the unit will have additional
data available to study the effects of these assessment changes on the
programs, and on candidates’ performance after graduation. Please see Exhibit
2.4.g. for changes made in the past three years and their effect on programs.
In the next year the Director of the Office of Teacher Education will work with
faculty leads and special education faculty to design a monitoring system
focused on changes to assessments and assessment processes. This group’s
primary goal will be to monitor the effect of changes made to assessments and
improvements relative to candidate outcomes.
[Candidates and faculty review data on their performance regularly and
develop plans for improvement based on the data.]
Through the three levels of the Assessment Analysis Structure described earlier,
program stakeholders analyze data each semester, annually and biannually.
Plans for improvement are developed based on those data reviewed.
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 20
STANDARD 3
FIELD EXPERIENCES AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
Glossary for Standard 3
• Practicum = Field Experience Semester before Student Teaching
• Any field experience that is not Practicum will be outlined in detail.
• Student Teaching = Clinical Practice
• Supervisor = Clinical faculty
Element 3a. Collaboration between Unit and School Partners
Candidates in initial and advanced programs are placed in District of
Columbia/Maryland/Virginia (DMV) area schools. The education canvas of the
DMV area is vast and varied and our candidates experience diverse field and
clinical experiences as a result of AU’s location in this area. SETH’s Field
Placement Coordinator and Director of the Office of Teacher Education, in
partnership with local school districts, coordinate all practicum and student
teaching placements for initial undergraduate and graduate programs.
Principals and cooperating teachers are actively involved in the determination
of field placements. Once candidates indicate their preferences for practicum
or student teaching placement in GoEd (Exhibit 4.4.i), principals are contacted
and placements are discussed. There is regular communication with principals
regarding placement of candidates at their schools. Through a collaborative
process, candidates are matched with cooperating teachers. In Maryland and
Virginia schools, county placement coordinators are responsible for setting up
student teacher placements; SETH coordinates with these personnel before
contacting principals. The Director of the Office of Teacher Education visits every
placement while candidates are student teaching.
The EPP has written agreements with local school systems (Exhibit 3.4.a), as well
as written criteria for the selection of school faculty and cooperating teachers
(Exhibit 3.4.c).
SETH regularly submits and is awarded grants and contracts that formalize
partnerships with other organizations. One example is our Lab2Class grant, which
aims to increase the number of highly qualified science and math teachers in
high-needs schools in DC, and is funded by the Toyota USA Foundation and the
National Science Foundation (NSF). More information is provided in Exhibit 3.4.a.
Candidates enrolled in advanced programs undertake an internship aligned
with their program concentration (education policy or literacy) and complete 6
credits of field experiences through the EDU 691 or 695 courses. Placements for
the advanced MEd Educational Leadership or Literacy program are made jointly
by the program coordinator and the partner school contact.
Element 3b. Design, Implementation, & Evaluation of Field Experiences & Clinical
Practice
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 21
Throughout initial undergraduate and graduate programs, candidates develop
knowledge, skills, and dispositions in multiple field-based settings in the DMV
(Exhibit 3.4.b). The diversity of these schools enables candidates to complete
field experiences in both urban and suburban schools. In addition to diverse
locations, candidates also experience multiple grade levels. At a minimum,
candidates in elementary education must complete field experiences in a lower
level classroom (1st – 3rd grade) and an upper level classroom (4th – 6th grade).
Candidates in secondary education must complete field experiences at middle
school and high school levels. Candidates in the K-12 education program must
choose two experiences between the elementary, middle, and high school
levels.
Descriptions of these field experiences and clinical practice in undergraduate
and graduate programs follow. Further descriptions can be found in Exhibit 3.4.e.
Field and Clinical Experiences in Initial Programs
The unit’s undergraduate teacher education programs are designed to
transition candidates from observer to practitioner. Early field experiences
occur during sophomore and junior years. During sophomore year,
candidates complete a 20-hour observation course, EDU 321: Field
Experience in Teacher Education. This course includes weekly observations in
diverse classroom settings where students reflect on a selected dimension of
teaching and learning. Junior year, candidates complete EDU 492: Service
Learning in Teacher Education. This course includes a 40-hour field-based
experience. These syllabi are provided in Exhibit I.5.b.
During senior year, candidates complete Practicum and Student Teaching.
Practicum is completed in conjunction with methods coursework during the
first semester of senior year. This field-based experience involves observation,
small group instruction, and limited large group instruction. These methods
courses provide candidates the opportunity to develop instructional units,
which they test during field placements. Practicum placement includes 2
classroom days/week throughout the semester, totaling approximately 210
hours. Elementary practicum also complete an additional week in the
classroom at the end of the semester.
Student teaching is completed during the candidates’ final semester. This
culminating experience is a 2 day/week placement lasting 14 weeks and
totaling at least 400 hours in a classroom setting. During student teaching,
candidates prepare lesson plans, attend parent conferences, participate in
professional development workshops, provide direct instruction to students,
and conduct assessments of student performance. Candidates “take over”
the classroom for at least two weeks.
Candidates enrolled in the unit’s graduate certificate and Master of Arts in
Teaching programs complete practicum and student teaching as defined
above for undergraduate programs. This typically occurs during the last two
semesters of the program.
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 22
Candidates in the graduate program in special education undertake a
year-long internship at the Lab School of Washington and other DC public
and private school placements. This internship allows candidates to develop
in-depth experience in remedial and diagnostic special education in a selfcontained school for students with learning disabilities. During the internship,
which takes place over the entire K-12 school year, candidates also
undertake weekly observations of classrooms outside their placement
classrooms (including the arts, club, and science classrooms) and conduct
site visits to local DC public and public charter special education classrooms.
Field and Clinical Experiences in Advanced Programs
Candidates in advanced programs complete a 6-credit internship aligned with
their concentration. Candidates in education policy undertake an internship
focused on building pedagogical and professional knowledge of local, state
and federal policy; candidates in literacy undertake an internship designed to
build pedagogical and professional knowledge as it relates to literacy broadly.
Candidates in literacy are required to undertake a more focused internship in
order to receive the Reading Specialist endorsement offered by DC.
For both initial and advanced programs, SETH values the expertise of its many
partners and regularly organizes sessions to discuss program components with
them. We believe that collaboration with partners is the key to effective and
successful field-based experiences. After each semester of Student Teaching,
SETH faculty, cooperating teachers, and candidates evaluate the teacher
education program and clinical experience (Exhibit 3.4.d). Information from
written evaluations of programs and verbal feedback is used to guide the design
and delivery of future field and clinical experiences.
Element 3c. Candidates’ Development and Demonstration of Knowledge, Skills,
and Professional Dispositions to Help All Students Learn
SETH aims to support candidates throughout every stage of their program in
order to ensure that they develop and demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and
dispositions to help all students learn. As discussed previously, faculty use multiple
assessment strategies to monitor and assess the degree to which this occurs.
Below are examples of strategies used to ensure that candidates develop the
resources they need to be successful in the classroom:
● Observations: Supervisors regularly observe candidates’ teaching skills
during field experience and clinical practice, ensuring they receive
feedback within classroom settings at multiple points. Time for reflection
and feedback occurs between candidates and supervisors before and
after each observation. Candidates must share lessons with supervisors
prior to teaching, and meet with supervisors following taught lessons.
Observations are documented.
●
Lesson Planning Evaluations: Supervisors complete evaluations of
candidates’ lesson planning and teaching skills. Evaluations and data are
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 23
found in GoEd and include:
●
●
●
●
●
●
Lesson Plan Analysis and Implementation Form
Final Evaluation of Practicum Students
Midterm Evaluation of Student Teachers
Student Teaching Final Evaluation Form or FBPA
Student Teaching Final Evaluation Content Addendum Form
Student Teaching Course Rubric
Forms are located in Exhibit 3.4.f.
●
Candidate Reflection: Candidates reflect throughout field experiences
and clinical practice. Examples include:
o Candidates must schedule to reflect with assigned supervisors during
pre- and post-conference observation meetings of taught lessons.
Discussion includes strengths, areas of growth, and how their instruction
influenced student learning.
o Candidate portfolios provide another platform to reflect on beliefs and
practices to help all students learn. There are 20 entries in the portfolio
(2/INTASC standard). Each entry includes individual reflection where
candidates comment on the artifact, how it relates to the INTASC
standard, and how the candidate would change the artifact or
teaching experience to ensure that all students learn.
o Candidates discuss and reflect on field-based experiences during the
student teaching seminar. Each week candidates reflect on classroom
experiences and explore educational beliefs and practices,
culminating with a critical reflection document or case study analysis.
Through these strategies, SETH faculty help candidates develop, evaluate, and
reflect on the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that are essential to helping all
students learn.
3.2.a Standard on which the unit is moving to the target level
In order to describe work undertaken to move to the Target Level, excerpts from
the “target” rubrics of NCATE Standard 3 are cited in [brackets] below along with
specific examples of evidence to show that the EPP is moving to the Target Level
or present a timeline for moving toward target.
Element 3a. Collaboration between Unit and School Partners
[Both unit and school-based faculty are involved in designing, implementing,
and evaluating the unit’s conceptual framework and the school program.]
•
Faculty from SETH, the College of Arts & Sciences, supervisors, cooperating
teachers, and principals all have a voice in the design, delivery, and
evaluation of field experiences and clinical practice in SETH’s teacher
education programs. School-based faculty make decisions on Practicum
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 24
and Student Teaching placements and provide valuable feedback to the
program each semester.
[They each participate in the unit’s and the school partners’ professional
development activities and instructional programs for candidates and for
children.]
• All candidates in initial programs attend both school and district
professional development during Practicum and Student Teaching.
• Cooperating teachers who are highly rated by their school, district and
the EPP’s evaluation system are invited to be guest speakers in classes
and eventually adjunct instructors.
• Partner schools are invited to colloquium. SETH has also recently started to
invite P-12 stakeholders to school events such as the Larissa Gerstel Critical
Literacy Symposium and Educational Policy & Leadership Symposium.
[The unit and its school partners share expertise and integrate resources to
support candidate learning. They jointly determine the specific placements of
student teachers and interns for other professional roles to maximize the learning
experience for candidates and P–12 students.]
• The curriculum coordinator at the Lab School of Washington serves as an
in-residence faculty member with SETH and as an on-site supervisor,
assisting with placements and liaising with cooperating teachers and the
EPP to discuss candidates’ experiences, learning, and any modifications
required. This faculty member teaches the assessment course in the
special education program and works with prospective students to
facilitate placements at the Lab School and site visits to other schools with
inclusion models for K12 students with learning disabilities.
• The EPP has a dedicated Field Experience Coordinator whose primary
responsibility is to coordinate field experience and clinical practice
placements with the P12 stakeholders. This position also evaluates survey
data at the end of each academic year and makes changes to
placements as necessary. The Field Experience Coordinator also meets
with P12 partners each year to obtain feedback and discuss strategies for
strengthening field experiences and the academic preparation of our
candidates.
o The creation of this position has led to increased student
satisfaction with placements, which in turn has maximized the
learning experience for candidates and P12 students (Exhibit 1.4.i)
• Cooperating teachers provide feedback through written evaluations
completed at the conclusion of practicum or student teaching.
Cooperating teachers also provide verbal feedback to clinical supervisors
during required conferences.
Element 3b. Design, Implementation, & Evaluation of Field Experiences & Clinical
Practice
[Field experiences allow candidates to apply and reflect on their content,
professional, and pedagogical knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions in
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 25
a variety of settings with students and adults.]
• Candidates are required to participate in diverse Practicum and Student
Teaching experiences. This includes grade-levels (as discussed above)
and settings. At least one of these experiences must be in DC. Additionally,
candidates are encouraged to diversify the school type to experience at
least two of the following: traditional public, public charter, independent,
parochial, and private progressive schools.
• A recent major change in initial programs was moving Practicum from
one day/week to two days/week for all Secondary and K12 programs. This
occurred during AY 2013 – 2014.
[Both field experiences and clinical practice extend the unit’s conceptual
framework into practice through modeling by supervisor and well-designed
opportunities to learn through doing. During clinical practice, candidate learning
is integrated into the school program and into teaching practice. Candidates
observe and are observed by others.]
Field experiences bridge the gap between theory and practice and provide
ample opportunity for candidates to reflect on personal beliefs and practices.
The aim is for candidates to understand the relationship between the program
and the unit’s conceptual framework, and for faculty to assist candidates in
developing dispositions and beliefs that support the unit’s mission. Faculty strive
to ensure that our teacher education programs are recognized for their
preparation of teachers who understand and model a commitment to
excellence, equity, community, and diversity – four key components of SETH’s
conceptual framework.
• The EPP has created a structure to maximize learning through doing in
both Practicum and Student Teaching. This design begins with a support
structure that gives candidates consistent feedback. The Clinical
Experience Personnel Chart is provided in Exhibit 3.4.d; our model includes
Supervisor Leads, Methods Leads, Supervisors and Cooperating Teachers.
This model was implemented in Fall 2013.
• Students take methods courses in the final year of the teaching program,
during Practicum and Student Teaching. These courses develop
knowledge of effective instruction, specific to the content in which the
teacher candidates are obtaining licensure. The model is described on
pages 4-5 of the Clinical Experience Personnel Chart in Exhibit 3.4.d.
• Another well-designed component of Practicum and Student Teaching is
the role of the supervisors, cooperating teachers and candidates. In the
Field Experience Handbook (Exhibit 3.4.e), pages 9-10 outline the
expectations of these three roles during Practicum and pages 14-15
outline the expectations during Student Teaching. Note that candidates
must complete four observations each semester for a total of eight
observations. Two of eight observations are by the candidate’s
cooperating teacher. The other six are typically chosen by the university
supervisor or cooperating teacher based on the needs of the candidate.
This allows the candidate to observe best practices for areas of growth.
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 26
[They interact with teachers, families of students, administrators, college or
university supervisors, and other interns about their practice regularly and
continually. They reflect on and can justify their own practice. Candidates are
members of instructional teams in the school and are active participants in
professional decisions. They are involved in a variety of school-based activities
directed at the improvement of teaching and learning, such as collaborative
projects with peers, using information technology, and engaging in service
learning.]
• Candidates meet with university supervisors regularly. Appendix B in the
Field Experience Handbook (Exhibit 3.4.e) is a sample Practicum and
Student Teaching timeline. During Practicum, candidates meet with their
supervisors every 3-4 weeks. During Student Teaching, candidates meet
with their supervisors every 2-3 weeks.
• Candidates complete a Parent Conference Assessment. This assessment
was initiated in Spring 2013 as a response to SPA form feedback; data
collection in GoEd started in Fall 2014. The Parent Conference Assessment
and Rubric is provided in Exhibit 3.4.g.
• Candidates must be active participants in their placements, beyond the
classroom. The Student Teaching Rubric, Section IV Professional
Responsibility, assesses this factor and candidates must show evidence of
participation beyond the classroom in the Professional Teaching Portfolio
under INTASC Standards 9 and 10.
• Candidates are required to reflect on their Practicum during postobservation meetings, in their Professional Teaching Portfolio where
reflection is a component of each of twenty entries, and during the
Student Teaching Seminar where they complete an Undergraduate
Critical Reflection Paper or a Graduate Case Study. See the Student
Teaching Seminar Rubric in Exhibit 3.4.f.
• Undergraduate candidates complete a Service Learning course. The
syllabus for this course is in Exhibit I.5.b.
Candidates in advanced programs for teachers participate in field experiences
that require them to critique and synthesize educational theory related to
classroom practice based on their own applied research. Candidates in
programs for other school professionals participate in field experiences and
clinical practice that require them to design, implement, and evaluate projects
related to the roles for which they are preparing. These projects are theoretically
based, involve research and technology, and have real-world application in the
candidates’ field placement setting. More details about the internship
requirements and assessments for advanced programs can be found in the
internship syllabus for the Curriculum and Instruction programs (Exhibit 1.4.c).
Element 3c. Candidates’ Development and Demonstration of Knowledge, Skills,
and Professional Dispositions to Help All Students Learn
[Candidates work collaboratively with other candidates and supervisor to
critique and reflect on each others’ practice and their effects on student learning
with the goal of improving practice.]
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 27
•
The Impact of Student Learning (ISL) is an assessment completed during
Practicum and Student Teaching that is designed to measure the effect of
candidates’ instruction. For the ISL, the teacher candidate is required to
use pre- and post-assessment data and their instructional planning skills to
demonstrate student learning within their Practicum and Student
Teaching classrooms. A reflection about the pre- and post- assessments
and instructional plan is also required. The ISL rubric and data can be
found in Assessment 5 in the SPA reports. For any program without a SPA,
the rubric and data for ISL can be found in GoEd. After evaluating SPA
feedback that discussed the lack of content in the ISL assessment and
rubric, the EPP shifted ISL from a portfolio requirement to a methods
requirement in Fall 2013 and Spring 2014.
[Field experiences and clinical practice facilitate candidates’ exploration of their
knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions related to all students.]
During Practicum and Student Teaching experiences, forms are designed for
clinical supervisors, cooperating teachers and candidates to document the
candidate’s exploration of their knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions
related to all students. These forms are found in Exhibit 3.4.f and include sample
excerpts below. Data from these forms are located in GoEd.
• Observation Form
o Teacher candidate uses supplementary materials and/or
technologies effectively to ensure relevance and accessibility for
all learners.
o Teacher candidate differentiates instruction to meet particular
learner differences or needs in each area of development:
cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional and physical.
o Teacher candidate includes ways to make content accessible for
English Language Learners.
o Teacher candidate brings multiple perspectives to the discussion of
content, including attention to the learners' personal, family and
community experiences and cultural norms.
• Midterm Evaluation of Student Teachers
o Student intern displays knowledge of age appropriate student
developmental characteristics (emotional, social and intellectual).
o Various approaches to learning and different cultural backgrounds
are incorporated in lesson.
• Lesson Plan Analysis and Implementation Form
o Completed during Practicum and Student Teaching to evaluate
lesson plan as a written document and how it is implemented in the
classroom.
o Revised in Summer 2013 based on evaluations from faculty
members, candidates, cooperating teachers, and supervisors to
differentiate between lesson plan and lesson plan implementation.
o Revised form has proven effective for evaluating candidates’
lesson planning skills. Excerpts from the rubric include:
§ Essential questions exemplify instructional goals and methods
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 28
§
of inquiry for multiple cognitive levels
Instructional strategies promote active engagement of all
learners; critical thinking and problem solving skills are
differentiated to support learners of differing backgrounds,
learning styles and needs
[Candidates develop and demonstrate proficiencies that support learning by all
students as shown in their work with students with exceptionalities and those from
diverse ethnic/racial, linguistic, gender, and socioeconomic groups in
classrooms and schools.]
During Practicum and Student Teaching experiences, forms are designed for
clinical supervisors, cooperating teachers, and candidates to document the
candidate’s demonstration of knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions
related to all students. These forms are found in Exhibit 3.4.g and include selected
excerpts below:
• Final Evaluation of Practicum Students
o Student intern displays knowledge of age appropriate student
developmental characteristics (emotional, social and intellectual).
o Student intern incorporates various approaches to learning and
different cultural backgrounds in lesson.
• Final Evaluation Form for Student Teaching
o Knowledge of Characteristics of Age Group: Teacher creates
developmentally appropriate instruction.
o Suitability for Diverse Students: Teacher differentiates instruction to
meet particular learner differences or needs in each area of
development (cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional and physical).
o Knowledge of Students' Interests and Cultural Heritage: Teacher
brings multiple perspectives to the discussion of content, including
attention to learners' personal, family and community experiences
and cultural norms.
o Developmentally Appropriate Planning: Teacher individually and
collaboratively selects and creates developmentally appropriate
learning experiences guided by curriculum goals and content
standards.
o Differentiation: Teacher chooses appropriate strategies, materials,
and accommodations to differentiate instruction for individuals and
groups of learners.
• Student Teaching Course Rubric
o Lesson Plans - Created lesson plans that target all learners and
comprehensively encompass what occurs during the lesson, from
both the teaching and learning perspectives
o Developmentally Appropriate – Delivered instruction that was
intellectually, socially and emotionally appropriate
o Differentiation - Demonstrated differentiation for exceptional
learners and those with diverse cultural backgrounds
o Active Engagement in Learning - Connected content to student’s
background knowledge
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 29
STANDARD 4
DIVERSITY
4a: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Curriculum and Experiences
Diversity is a guiding principle within SETH’s conceptual framework. From the
outset, we work with candidates to develop theorized teaching practices by
providing them theoretical models focused on understanding notions of diversity
that take into account issues such as access, privilege, disadvantage, and
domination in children who are English language learners and who have
exceptionalities. These models for diversity include design aspects where
candidates explore what it would mean to re-design or create equitable spaces
for teaching and learning that best support the diverse abilities of young learners,
and the vast linguistic and cultural differences, which comprise the classroom
community. SETH candidates do not only read and talk about issues of diversity,
they also ‘live’ what it means to be a student in a classroom where their own
linguistic and cultural differences are respected and valued.
Throughout their teacher education programs, candidates have multiple
opportunities to engage as reflective practitioners. Some of the tools they use in
reflecting include journaling, engaging in research in the community,
conducting observations of learners in classrooms, and unpacking their own
experiences as young learners. In combination, these experiences provide a rich
data source, that when analyzed, helps our candidates understand what it
means to make informed decisions as classroom teachers.
Inherent in the conceptual framework is the requirement that candidates
continuously reflect on their teaching to ensure that they develop effective
strategies for working with diverse learners. More specifically, with respect to
diversity, candidates are expected to:
●
●
●
●
Examine policies, practices, and discourses that advantage some
individuals and groups while disadvantaging others;
Examine policies, practices, and discourses that limit individuals’
opportunities and groups’ full participation in schooling and in society;
Practice reflective habits of mind which promote democratic classrooms;
and
Understand that a democratic and equitable society is a necessary
condition for supporting diversity.
These proficiencies are developed through academic coursework and field
experiences. Although diversity is an overarching framework for every education
course, the courses presented in Exhibit 4.4.b. are specifically designed to enable
candidates to develop awareness and understanding of working with diverse
learners and to develop the aforementioned proficiencies. For example for initial
programs in EDU 205/521 students study diversity in schooling, in EDU 321/EDU
492/Practicum/Student Teaching provide candidates with a broad diversity in
field placements, EDU 541/545 expose candidates to accommodations to
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 30
address diversity in Student Learning based on disability and or language
background, EDU 609, and overview of pedagogical approaches with a focus
on diverse learners. In advanced programs, candidates consider and are
assessed on knowledge and skills related to diversity particularly through
assessments that take place in three courses, EDU-683 and EDU-525 and EDU-691.
The primary means for evaluating and assessing candidates’ understanding of
what it means to live in a diverse world and teach from a critical socio-cultural or
diverse perspective are completed during field experiences. These assessments
provide evidence regarding a candidate’s proficiency in diversity issues, as well
as their ability to differentiate instruction for diverse learners. For example, when
planning and implementing lessons, candidates are required to provide
evidence for differentiating instruction to support learners of differing
backgrounds, learning styles, and needs. These skills are assessed using the Final
Evaluation of Student Teaching, Student Teaching Course Rubric and the FBPA,
which can be found in Exhibits 1.4.d. and 3.4.f. Data from these items, aligned
with INTASC standard 2 (3 for special ed), range from 4.2 to 5 (3.2 to 3.8 for
special education). These data indicate to the EPP that candidates are
performing at expected levels of performance.
Another tool that measures candidates’ ability to work with diverse learners and
create inclusive classroom settings is the portfolio assessment aligned with INTASC
Standard 2. Data from the portfolio assessments can be found in Exhibit 1.4.d.
and scores range from 2.1 to 2.6 for both general and special education
candidates. Candidates’ scores indicate acceptable levels of performance.
Data for advanced candidates is not available at the time of this writing.
4b: Experiences Working with Diverse Faculty.
SETH provides candidates with the opportunity to work with diverse faculty. We
actively recruit and retain diverse faculty to support candidates in university
classrooms and in field-based settings, as is presented in the faculty
demographics chart in Exhibit 6.4.a. SETH faculty hold myriad life experiences
working with students from diverse cultural backgrounds and students with
exceptionalities. Data on faculty demographics are presented in Exhibit 4.4.d.
There are 32 faculty who work in initial programs only, five who work in advanced
programs, and six who work in both. Of these 43 faculty, 6 are black or African
American, 1 is Hispanic, and 11 self-report as “other”. The unit strives to provide
candidates with the opportunity to work with faculty from diverse backgrounds.
Approximately 25% of the unit’s faculty are members of a minority group. This
compares with a university-wide minority faculty population of almost 20 %. In
addition, over 90% of the teachers in the District of Columbia Public Schools are
members of a minority group. Candidates have the opportunity to work with
diverse faculty within the unit, and to work with racially diverse school-based
faculty. Not atypical of schools of education or P12 schools, the proportion of
females among SETH’s faculty is 75%.
4c: Experiences Working with Diverse Candidates
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 31
Candidates have ample opportunity to interact with other diverse candidates in
SETH and in the university. As indicated in Exhibit 4.4.e, candidates in both initial
and advanced program are of diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds. Of those
candidates who indicate their ethnic backgrounds, approximately 32% in initial
program and 38% of advanced candidates are from minority backgrounds.
Through academic coursework and field experiences, candidates are
encouraged to reflect on the organizing principles of SETH’s conceptual
framework (i.e., diversity, equity, community, and excellence) with peers both
inside and outside of university classroom settings. The recruiting practices of the
University, presented 4.4.h., provide guidance on how the EPP works to recruit a
diverse pool of candidates.
4d: Experiences Working with Diverse Students in P-12 Schools
In addition to enabling candidates to work with diverse faculty and diverse
peers, SETH also strives to provide candidates with ample opportunities to work
with diverse students in P–12 schools. Through field-based teaching experiences,
candidates are encouraged to explore the rich diversity of students throughout
the DMV area. Candidates work with diverse students in both public and charter
elementary and secondary school settings whose experiences are different from
their own. Three years of data about the ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic
characteristics of students in the unit’s primary partner schools are detailed in
Exhibit 4.4.f. These data indicate a wide variety of ethnic diversity and broad
representation of children with disabilities and English language learners. The
placement preference form, found in Exhibit 4.4.i., helps candidates select
diverse field placements.
4.2. Continuous Improvement
4a. Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Curriculum and Experiences
As mentioned above, diversity is a key element to our conceptual framework.
SETH faculty and staff continue to strive to create more opportunities for
candidates to work with diverse faculty, other diverse candidates and in diverse
field placements. We push our candidates to take diverse learners into
consideration as they work in the array of field-based placements available. As
described in Standard 3, the education canvas of the DMV area is vast and
varied; our candidates experience diverse field and clinical experiences as a
result of AU’s location. Field experience placements are monitored by the Office
of Teacher Education; the Director of the Office of Teacher Education and the
Field Placement Coordinator review field experience placement forms for each
candidate prior to making field and clinical experience placements. These
processes are designed to ensure that all candidates have completed a range
of diverse experiences either prior to or during student teaching. In the special
education program, SETH is striving to create more sustained diverse placements
in order for candidates to experience a broader range of students with learning
differences and English language learners. SETH has started a bilingual education
program that will influence candidate learning relative to English language
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 32
learners; this program is under review by the Office of the State Superintendent
of Education (OSSE).
4b. Experiences Working with Diverse Faculty and 4c: Experiences Working with
Diverse Candidates
Recent hires and outreach have expanded the breadth and depth of diversity
among faculty and candidates in both initial and advanced programs. Targeted
recruiting efforts across campus are designed to increase diversity among
faculty and candidates in teacher education. For example, SETH works with the
Center for Diversity and Inclusion, created as a part of AU’s 2008 Strategic Plan
(presented in Exhibit 4.4.h.). The Center works to achieve Transformational Goal
#5, which states that "American University embraces diversity in its broadest
sense, including diversity of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age,
religion, nationality, disability, socioeconomic standing, and intellectual
viewpoint. The university views diversity as an essential component of the
educational experience of our students and an important indicator of our
success in adapting to the dramatic demographic shifts that will occur in the
decades ahead." The mission of the Center for Diversity and Inclusion (CDI) is to
advance AU’s commitment to respecting & valuing diversity by serving as a
resource and liaison for students, staff, and faculty on issues of equity through
education, outreach, and advocacy. To achieve this mission, the Center is
dedicated to:
● Enhancing LGBTQ, multicultural, first generation, and women’s
experiences on campus;
● Promoting student retention, graduation, and academic
achievement;
● Collaborating with campus partners, in particular those that work with
international students, students with disabilities and students with
active religious affiliations to create a safe, supportive & empowering
community for all, regardless of identity.
In addition, SETH partners with The New Teacher Project, City Year, and Teach for
America to recruit alumni of their programs as candidates for our advanced
programs. These organizations also value diversity and help SETH recruit diverse,
high-quality candidates who are already committed to, and have experience
working with, students in urban schools.
4d: Experiences Working with Diverse Students in P-12 Schools
Experiences working with diverse sets of schools, from those that are majority
minority to those with a broader ethnic and cultural demographic, can help
candidates confront issues of diversity that affect teaching and student learning.
These experiences aid candidates in developing strategies for improving student
learning and candidates’ effectiveness as teachers. SETH’s special education
program influences the general education program through overlapping faculty
workloads; this focus on learner diversity, and instructional approaches such as
Response to Intervention (RtI), ensures all candidates develop skills to work with
children with language and cognitive disabilities.
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 33
STANDARD 5
FACULTY QUALIFICATIONS, PERFORMANCE, AND DEVELOPMENT
American University attracts outstanding full-time and part-time faculty. Located
in the center of urban and suburban school systems in the DMV area, SETH
recruits qualified full-time professional education faculty with rich experiences in
administrative and instructional positions in varied school systems. Full-time
faculty members are active scholars who have contemporary experience in P-12
classrooms. Many EPP adjunct faculty are retired or current principals, teachers,
or persons who bring a wealth of K-12 experience to their teaching and/or
supervisory work with the unit’s teacher education candidates
5a: Qualified Faculty
SETH faculty are a diverse group of individuals with varied school-based
experiences and expertise in professional education programs. Because SETH
encourages excellence in teaching, scholarship, and service pertaining to local,
national, and international communities, our faculty provide candidates with the
knowledge and guidance required to become exemplary teachers.
SETH employs 24 full-time faculty members, 15 of whom are involved in our
professional education programs. Additionally, five full-time faculty, with
appointments outside of SETH, have taught and/or supervised candidates in
professional education programs. 94% of these faculty have terminal degrees in
their teaching field. SETH also employs 55 professional education faculty with an
adjunct appointment. 28 of these faculty both taught courses and supervised
clinical placements, while 27 exclusively supervised clinical placements. All
university supervisors have the licenses, doctorates, and/or exceptional expertise
required for teaching or clinical supervision in professional education programs.
Qualifications of faculty for the 2013-2014 academic year can be found in AIMS
and in Exhibits 5.4.a and 5.4.b. Information relative to supervisor and cooperating
teacher qualifications can be found in Exhibit 3.4.c.
5b: Modeling Best Professional Practices in Teaching
The unit is dedicated to providing candidates with the theoretical and practical
tools required to be effective classroom teachers. More specifically, SETH faculty
engage candidates in content and experiences that prepare them to be
reflective and knowledgeable with the beliefs and professional commitments
defined in SETH’s conceptual framework. The teaching practices of SETH faculty
immerse candidates in a thorough analysis of content and pedagogy that
provides field-based experiences and helps develop an in-depth understanding
of the roles of community, diversity, equity, and excellence as organizing
principles. Further, SETH faculty integrate various technologies to engage
candidates in content and understand the importance of evaluating said
technologies to maximize effectiveness.
Candidates evaluate faculty by completing the Standard Evaluation of
Teaching (SET). Exhibit 5.4.f. presents aggregated student evaluation data for all
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 34
EDU course taught between Spring 2013 and Spring 2014. Data illustrates that by
SETH professional education faculty members are highly rated and SETH courses
are perceived as useful and worthwhile.
5c: Modeling Best Professional Practices in Scholarship
Under the new strategic plan, AU expectations for scholarly impact have notably
increased. According to a recent AU Faculty Activity Reporting System (FARS)
report, faculty members published approximately 55 books, 300 articles, and 150
book chapters during 2010 - 2012. All units place weight on discipline-specific
scholarly productivity in tenure-and-promotion decisions. Requirements for
scholarship are outlined in faculty manuals, presented in Exhibit 6.4.a. Moreover,
scholarship is heavily weighed when considering the reappointment of pretenured faculty. Scholarly output is also an important factor in the annual merit
evaluations of full-time faculty.
Recognizing the linkage between scholarship and teaching, AU employs faculty
who are actively involved in creativity and research, thereby engaging students’
passion for learning. As a whole, there is a breadth of scholarship and inspiration
among the unit’s professional education faculty. As indicated by the data in
Exhibit 5.4.d, SETH education faculty have published 33 journal articles and 18
book chapters, produced 77 conference presentations, and written 22 grant
proposals over the past five years.
5d: Modeling Best Professional Practices in Service
Members of the professional education faculty can serve on the SETH Faculty
Council, the CAS Educational Policy Committee, and in a myriad of other ways,
including ventures outside of the university. By nature, teacher education
programs are collaborative; faculty and candidates in the unit rely on faculty
across campus to assist in developing knowledge in programs and projects that
involve interdisciplinary study. Most of the service endeavors pursued by
professional education faculty directly benefit the teachers and students in the
public schools in the DMV area. For example, the Institute for Innovation in
Education (the IIE) in SETH prepares an annual report for the office of the
president on the work that AU faculty, staff and students do in DC schools.
Examples of EPP and faculty service can be found in Exhibit 5.4.d.
5e. Unit Evaluation of Professional Education Faculty Performance
The university regularly conducts faculty teaching evaluations to enhance the
competence and intellectual vitality of its programs. Full-time faculty members
are evaluated annually during the merit review process (Exhibit 6.4.a). Faculty
must submit annual reports concerning teaching, scholarship and service
endeavors, which are reviewed by teaching unit committees.
Recommendations for pay increases begin with these committees and proceed
up through the administration to the Board of Trustees. Thus, annual evaluation of
faculty directly impacts faculty compensation.
To be appointed and subsequently re-appointed, adjunct faculty participate in
a review process mandated by the Service Employees International Union
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 35
Collective Bargaining Agreement (Exhibit 5.4.f). Adjunct appointments last three
years. Consideration for re-appointment involves the review of Student
Evaluations of Teaching, observation of the adjunct’s instruction, and approval
by the SETH Dean, CAS Dean, and the CAS Dean of Academic Affairs. Adjuncts
also must submit syllabi each time they teach and an updated vitae annually.
Information about the evaluation system and a sample faculty evaluation
submission (through GoEd) can be found in 5.4.c.
5f. Unit Facilitation of Professional Development
Based on needs identified in faculty evaluations, AU provides opportunities for
the development of new knowledge and skills related to the conceptual
framework, performance assessments, diversity, technology, and other emerging
practices. SETH uses numerous strategies, policies and procedures that provide
professional education faculty with ongoing professional development. These
strategies include: implementing workshops, providing program management
system training sessions, supporting participation in professional organizations,
and providing travel funds for professional development at international,
national, and regional conferences. Examples are presented in Exhibit 5.4.g. In
addition, AU offers resources through the Center for Teaching, Research and
Learning (CTRL). Established in 1989, CTRL hosts an annual conference on
teaching and learning (Ann Ferren Conference on Teaching, Research and
Learning) and provides additional professional development resources.
5.2 Continuous Improvement
Over the past three years, AU has worked to provide more systematic and
consistent support and evaluation systems for non-tenure line, full-time faculty
(known as term faculty), as well as adjunct faculty. Term faculty guidelines for
promotion were developed in 2011, and are included in the Faculty Manual and
SETH guidelines (Exhibit 6.4.a). These guidelines continue to be developed and
refined. The adjunct faculty at AU unionized in 2013; the union agreement
(presented in Exhibit 5.4.f) requires regular evaluation of adjunct faculty. SETH is
working to develop tools to support evaluation processes and procedures, such
as classroom observation tools that can be used with in-person and online
classes.
Like other universities, AU continues to develop online educational opportunities.
While just a handful of teacher education courses are offered online, we strive to
engage in the development and use of technology that will enable the creation
of authentic learning environments in the online classroom. Several members of
the SETH faculty engage in online teaching and study the pedagogical
approaches used in the online classroom. Faculty publications and presentations
are provided in Exhibit 5.4.d.
In addition, SETH is uniquely positioned to study the internationalization of
teacher education, an area of growing interest. With grant support from the
Longview Foundation, we developed training kits to help faculty consider
international issues as they relate to domestic teacher preparation. Given AU’s
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 36
long history in international studies, this is an opportunity to provide leadership in
this area.
All of these activities directly impact candidate performance. As faculty bring
scholarly and practical experiences to courses and field placement, the quality
and meaningfulness of feedback to candidates is strengthened. Faculty
experience and knowledge of evidenced-based practices are directly
applicable to candidate development. For example, faculty knowledge of
classroom technology enables candidates to bring meaningful uses of social
media and interactive whiteboard to clinical placements. Faculty knowledge of
the varied systems of educational evaluation, from teacher evaluation systems
to data-dashboards for teachers, enriches candidate knowledge and skills
related to data-based decision-making.
Founded in 2010 and housed in SETH, AU’s Institute for Innovation in Education
(IIE), an interdisciplinary organization committed to conducting, administering,
and disseminating educational research and research-informed professional
development initiatives, supports faculty research. The institute’s researchers
undertake studies of education policy and education reform, health and
nutrition programming and research, learning technologies, and research on
learning disabilities and neuropsychology. The Institute’s mission is to bring
together a wide-ranging set of methodological and analytical approaches to
the study of educational policies and practices. Examples of the type of work
undertaken by the IIE are presented in Exhibit 5.4.d and will be available to the
Board of Examiners (BOE) team at the site visit.
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 37
STANDARD 6
UNIT GOVERNANCE AND RESOURCES
6.a: Unit Governance and Resources
SETH is the professional education unit at AU and has the leadership and
authority to plan, deliver, and operate coherent programs of study for teacher
education candidates. The Dean of SETH is the head of the unit and oversees all
faculty, staff and programs to ensure that candidates are prepared to be
successful teachers. The Dean is assisted by the Director of the Office of Teacher
Education and serves as the primary certification officer for the university in its
relationship with local school systems, particularly the DC Public Schools and the
Office of the State Superintendent of Education. The full-time faculty in SETH are
ultimately responsible for the university’s teacher education programs, and are
intimately involved in the design, implementation and assessment of the
programs. This includes curriculum changes, admission of candidates,
placement in clinical, field and internship settings, assessment of candidate
competencies, certification of program completers, and recommendation for
licensure. Day-to-day governance and management of the unit’s programs is
officially vested in several individuals and groups, including the Dean of the
School, SETH’s Faculty Council, the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences
(CAS), the CAS Educational Policy Committee, the Faculty Senate, the Dean of
Academic Affairs and the University Provost. In addition, faculty, staff, and
students in SETH participate in different levels of governance through their
membership on university-wide, college-specific, or student representative
bodies, committees, and councils. See Exhibit 6.4.b for the organizational chart.
SETH’s recruiting and admission practices are provided in Exhibits 6.4.c, d, &e.
Students have access to faculty advisors and staff who support their preparation,
which is comprehensively documented through our program and assessment
and management system, goed.american.edu.
6b. Unit Budget
The College of Arts and Sciences, as prescribed by the University Budget Office,
allocates sufficient financial resources to its various units, including SETH. SETH has
budgetary authority and support for initial and advanced teacher education
programs, including funding for the supervision of field experiences and
maintenance of candidate records. The best examples of this are found in the
materials available to the BOE team in the Office of the Associate Dean for
Budget and Finance in CAS, which include detailed data about the
comparative measures in CAS. CAS allocates an equitable number of teaching
fellowships and assistantships for deserving students in SETH. Research and other
areas of support are provided by graduate students, who are awarded
fellowships and assistantships based on academic merit, by CAS and SETH.
During AY 2013-2014, SETH received 23 graduate fellowships, with awards that
included tuition of 18 credits per year and $9000 stipends, as well as smaller
awards. Graduate students are also eligible for federal work-study awards for up
to 20 hours/week. Students are assigned teaching assistant, research, or service
duties to support faculty, based on the students' academic endeavors and past
professional experience, and in a manner mindful of enriching the students'
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 38
academic experience at AU. In addition, SETH houses a number of grants and
contracts that generate funds to support instruction and support activities, either
directly or through indirect cost recoveries. Using the indirect overhead charged
on grants, SETH has created a scholarship fund for graduate students while
supporting additional professional development and research activities for
faculty and candidates.
6c: Personnel
In SETH, a regular teaching load for a research active, full-time, tenure-line
faculty member is on average four 3-credit hour courses during an academic
year. Term faculty typically teach a total of six 3-credit hour courses per year,
with no more than 9 credit hours per semester. Specific teaching loads for SETH
faculty are determined by a number of factors, including a faculty member’s
responsibilities and his or her unique and diverse experiences. A description of
these factors can be found in the AU Faculty Manual and SETH evaluation
criteria in Exhibit 6.4.a. The teaching loads and workload reports are reported in
Exhibit 6.4.h. Class limits are determined with the CAS Deans Office and differ for
elective, general education, undergraduate requirements, and graduate
elective and required courses. Full and part-time clinical faculty supervise
student teachers, with no more than 4 candidates supervised in any given
semester. SETH’s clinical supervision workload model is presented in exhibit 3.4.d.
In addition to course load, SETH faculty keep regular office hours for student
advising as outlined in the manuals in Exhibit 6.4.a. Beyond these responsibilities,
faculty who advise in teacher education programs are members of the SETH
Undergraduate and Teacher Education Committee. All faculty in SETH serve on
other committees in SETH, the University Senate, or in CAS; most faculty members
are also involved in service to the community as well as to the University. Exhibit
5.4e provides details regarding SETH faculty service activities. Professional
development and technology training for faculty is supported by the Center for
Teaching, Research and Learning. Links to these materials can be found in Exhibit
6.4.j.
AU’s facilities as of fall 2013 comprise almost 4,000,000 square feet of area, in 54
on-campus buildings and several off-campus buildings. The facilities are
comprehensive and represent typical university uses. They include 140
instructional spaces, libraries, a student center, athletic and recreation facilities,
a theatre, an art museum, and many other specialized facilities. In addition to
new facilities, there have also been adaptations of existing facilities to meet the
university’s evolving needs. New research labs for biology and behavioral
neuroscience have been created in existing buildings to support the increased
emphasis on research and science education. Faculty offices have been added
to support the significant growth in faculty over the last five years. The main
offices of SETH are in Gray Hall, with additional offices and space in the Mary
Graydon Center, which was renovated in the spring of 2014 to accommodate
SETH faculty and staff. In addition to offices of 24 faculty and 12 staff members,
Gray Hall also includes two multi-purpose classrooms controlled by SETH (one is
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 39
shared with the Math Department), a conference room, and adequate storage
space.
University classes, including those in professional education, meet across the
universities campus in a variety of the 16 buildings with classroom facilities.
Assignment of classrooms is made according to the demands of the courses,
faculty needs, and student needs. Many University classroom facilities are new,
including a large number of classrooms with audio-visual and computer-aided
technology. The majority of classrooms are equipped with permanent faculty
podiums, overhead projectors, and internet access.
6e. Unit Resources including Technology
Faculty and candidates in SETH’s teacher education programs have access to a
substantial array of university resources to support their activities, particularly in
the University Library, the Center for Teaching, Research & Learning, the Office of
Institutional Assessment, and the Office of Information Technology.
Resources in the University’s Office of Information Technology
A major challenge faced by institutions like AU is the demand and cost of
technology. Information technology (IT) resources have improved significantly in
the past few years in direct response to the growing demand for technological
infrastructure and services. In 2008, a multiyear strategic roadmap was outlined
for IT, which is included in Exhibit 6.4.i. The roadmap targeted building out key
infrastructure and competencies, focusing on systems, processes, and people.
Since then, numerous key processes have been instituted internally, such as
change management, asset management, project management, service
management, incident management, and problem management. Much of the
infrastructure has been consolidated and standardized, resulting in a more stable
and manageable architecture. Legacy systems have been replaced with
industry-recognized enterprise-level systems. The campus now has adopted
many new enterprise systems, including a robust content management system, a
portal, a collaboration platform, enhanced administrative and student
information systems, a business intelligence platform, an integrated messaging
system, a storage area network, a firewall, and a network access control system.
Resources in the University Library
The University Library provides reference support, orientation, instruction, and
research assistance to meet the information and technology needs of students.
In recent years the library has expanded its online tutorials and provides laptops
and other technology for students working in the library. Reference support is
available online through live chat for students outside the library. The library is
open 24 hours a day with staff support available until midnight Sunday through
Thursday evenings and until 9 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. Surveys of library
use from midnight to 8 a.m. reveal the popularity of these hours for student
academic study. Student satisfaction with library service is consistently positive
and in the 2013 Campus Climate Survey, the university library received excellent
or good ratings from undergraduates. The education and teacher education
collections are selected by faculty, in collaboration with a full-time faculty
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 40
librarian, Alex Hodges, an education subject specialist. Mr. Hodges is the
Curriculum Materials and Education Librarian for Reference and Instruction and
a tenured faculty member in the library with an affiliate appointment in SETH.
6.2 Continuous Improvement
Over the past two years, the EPP has developed new structures of leadership to
support candidate field and clinical experiences. The position of supervisor lead
was created for both the teacher and special education programs. The
supervisor leads meet formally with the Director of the Office of Teacher
Education or the Director of the Special Education Program to review candidate
field placement data and survey findings. Additional information relative to
these processes is provided in Standard 2.
These new leadership structures enable SETH to provide more support of
candidates in field and clinical placements and greater access to both
academic and career advising. The collaboration among the supervisor leads,
program faculty and the EPP leadership (the Director of the Office of Teacher
Education and the Dean) had improved the delivery and depth of support for
teacher education candidates.
Given SETH’s successful receipt of grant funding from the NSF, US Department of
Education and other groups, we have been able to provide budgetary
allocations that not only support high-quality work within the unit and with our
school partners, but also provide us the opportunity to make continuous
education more affordable to candidates in initial and advanced programs.
In addition, the AU Library received an endowment to support the Curriculum
Materials Center (CMC) and the Larissa Gerstel Critical Literacy Collection,
managed by the education librarian, Alex Hodges. The CMC collections support
the curriculum of SETH. Publications within the CMC collections include:
textbooks (K-12), curriculum frameworks, lesson plans, juvenile literature
(children's and young adult), manipulatives, computer software, DVDs and VHS
videos. The Larissa Gerstel Critical Literacy Collection is housed in the CMC. The
Center is used by students, children, parents and the community and gives them
a safe, comfortable space for reading multicultural books that deal with critical
literacy and issues of social justice and equity.
6.3. Areas for Improvement
The unit was asked to consider three Areas for Improvement (AFI) at our last visit
in 2007. Each of the AFIs and the changes the unit continues to refine are
described below.
1. The unit has limited evidence that unit governance groups, councils, and
committees identified in the unit’s Bylaws take formal action on matters that fall
under their stated areas of responsibility.
The teacher education committee takes formal action on changes to our
programs and the special education faculty convene to make changes to the
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 41
special education program. This year, the committee, along with the new
Director who serves as the convener, has met to discuss curricular changes. Key
members of the committee served as writers for SPA reports. For example, the
teacher education committee and the special education faculty meet at the
end of each semester to review quantitative and qualitative data from
candidates in order to make changes to the programs and handbooks.
2. The formal process in place does not assure that changes to College of Arts
and Sciences (CAS) courses, which affect the curriculum of teacher preparation
programs in the unit, are made with the authority of the unit.
The Dean of the unit serves on the Chairs, Deans and Directors committee of the
CAS. It is through this committee that we are able to engage our colleagues
throughout Arts and Sciences in the support of our unit. There is time set apart
during a CDD meeting each year when the chairs of each department review
any planned curricular changes that may affect the teacher education
programs. During the 2013-2014 AY, SETH undertook a number of curricular
changes to teacher education programs after refining the programs based on
unit data. This included changes to the TESOL Certificate and MAT programs
(based on SPA feedback), modifying the Curriculum and Instruction Literacy
Program to allow candidates to apply for a reading specialist license and course
changes to the Early Childhood Certificate and MAT Program to better align to
NAEYC standards.
3. The unit lacks an official avenue whereby members of the professional
educational community participate in program design, implementation, and
evaluation of the unit and its programs.
Community members continue to participate in the development and
refinement of our programs through their work as supervisors of student teachers,
cooperating teachers and as advisers to our alternative route programs. SETH
considers various levels of individuals to serve as stakeholders in our program
design and delivery, including alumni, cooperating teachers, school
administrators and local families. In order to evaluate the quality of our
programs, SETH conducts regular surveys of these stakeholders, and reviews
these responses, along with data from program findings to make program-level
decisions. Examples of these assessments can be found in Exhibit 3.4.d.
American University, NCATE Self Study, Page 42