Longwood University
Professional Education Unit
Continuous Assessment Plan
Page 1 of 9
September 8, 2008
Longwood Professional Education Unit Continuous Assessment Plan
Where We Started
Prior to July 2005, the Longwood Conceptual Framework consisted of ten standards that
were narrowly focused on teachers. The definitions associated with them began “Longwood
teacher candidates…” Also, the teacher work sample process, because of Longwood’s part in
the Renaissance Partnership grant, had been implemented over most but not all programs. In
order to facilitate compliance, the PEC voted that all candidates would complete a teacher work
sample during student teaching. This meant that some programs, such as those involved in the
partnership program, were actually completing the TWS twice whereas, for the most part, the
programs that were not previously requiring the TWS during student teaching continued not to
require the TWS. Work toward an assessment of professional dispositions was initiated, but
without consensus on next steps. Finally, review of the “unit-wide” assessments, namely the
student teacher and practicum evaluations, faculty recommendations, and lesson planning,
revealed a complex mixture of Conceptual Framework and TWS standards and indicators.
What We Attempted During the 2005-06 School Year
The Unit-Wide Assessment Committee, formed to address the issues above, first revisited the
Longwood Conceptual Framework. In an effort to broaden the definitions to embrace the
concept of “education professionals”, the ten original standards were redeveloped to a more
concise number of nine. Next, these were defined and a small number of key indicators was
created with rubrics for each standard that represented three levels of proficiency, “Indicator Not
Demonstrated”, “Indicator Partially Demonstrated”, and “Indicator Demonstrated”.
From this work, there were a few important developments. First, after much debate it was
decided that the “Diversity” standard should be embedded throughout the other standards to
prevent it from being viewed as an “add-on” standard. Thus the indicators for the rubric of this
standard are “borrowed” from the other standards—that is, while measuring all the other
standards, diversity is inclusively measured as well. Second, the “Professional Dispositions”
standard was recognized as unique enough to require a broader scale (1-5) with “3” considered
acceptable and with indicator descriptors that are more examples of possible displays of
dispositions rather than actual “look fors”. For example, for the disposition, “Values
Collaboration”, “3 - Acceptable” examples include “Collaborates and consults with others.
Accepts ideas of others. Relates adequately with others. Shares information and ideas.” Also,
because some dispositions considered important to the committee were only observable in the
classroom setting, these were developed as a two-tier dispositions assessment with the first tier
of dispositions indicators easy to evaluate in most any setting. These served as requirements for
entry into the initial teacher preparation program and the second tier became part of the
instruments related to evaluation of actual teaching performance.
Next, a data source matrix was developed and continually refined to reflect where across
most programs each of these standards and their associated rubrics would be used for assessment
purposes. This work continues as there are nuances among the various programs. But the goal is
for every program to identify courses or experiences where the rubric for each standard serves as
the rubric for a particular assessment event.
Page 2 of 9
September 8, 2008
In should also be noted that the TWS and its role in the assessment system were discussed at
length. It continues to be explored in a separate committee but consensus was obtained on the
relationship of the TWS indicators to the Longwood CF standards. Thus, programs have the
capacity to translate the TWS scoring results through the lens of the Longwood CF Standards.
Now the TWS better relates to our Longwood CF standards rather than the original TWS
standards and indicators influencing and infiltrating the unit-wide assessments.
After consensus on these Longwood CF Standards rubrics, instruments that were already
considered important were restructured to actually reflect these rubrics, so that:
• The faculty recommendation to enter the program (already a requirement) now reflects the
first tier of dispositions indicators.
• Each standard rubric is being used in a course based assessment. {Exceptions: Dispositions
(already measured) and Content Knowledge (measured by the SPA assessments required of
all programs)}.
• The Clinical Experience Evaluations are now composed of the Conceptual Framework
Standards and Indicators.
• Because of its scale difference, a separate Dispositions Assessment is given in conjunction
with the Clinical Experience Evaluations.
• The future teacher and principal surveys will now reflect the new rubric language.
In addition, the Clinical Experience Diversity Report, completed by students during the same
semester they are evaluated by the Clinical Experience Evaluation and Dispositions Assessment,
provides more information about the diverse school settings of which they have been placed.
Also, working discussions continue toward consensus that all programs will complete the
TWS at least once to additionally collect information on the Impact on Student Learning Report.
The establishment of six required assessments for all SPA, including assessment #5 “Impact on
Student Learning”, has been a major impetus in moving all programs to requiring the Teacher
Work Sample somewhere within the program assessment system. To date, all undergraduate
program coordinators have submitted SPA Assessment Plans to utilized the TWS to meet the
SPA assessment #5 requirement.
How Data Is Gathered and Disseminated
A two pronged approach to gathering data will be followed:
1. For those instruments that faculty, supervisors, cooperating teachers, or students
complete during clinical experiences, these individuals will be using Inquisite
surveys. These data will be downloaded by the Office of the Associate Dean,
cleaned up, and then added to an Excel workbook on Can Teach that is linked to the
unit Access NCATE Assessment Database. The “extra step” in this process, while
everyone is learning to complete these (or being penalized when they don’t), will be
downloading class rosters in courses associated with these and keeping record that
the associated data are entering the database.
Page 3 of 9
September 8, 2008
2. For those standards associated with particular courses, class rosters will be
downloaded into Excel workbooks that are created to allow faculty to score each of
their students on the standards. At the end of the semester, faculty will submit these
electronically so that the unit can add their data into the NCATE Assessment
Database.
Later in this document will be a standard by standard description of how these data are to be
collected.
Graduate Programs or other Special Programs
Without exception, every NCATE institution has programs that do not follow the norms.
What to do? For these programs, it was decided that they may focus on collecting assessment
data that is clearly related to their SPA standards. However, they must be able to talk about and
translate data in terms of how their standard are aligned to the Longwood Conceptual Framework
Standards. This applies to all graduate programs in which the indicators and rubrics created
would not apply because the rubrics still focus on teacher preparation, and physical education.
These share, by state of Virginia design, none of the courses associated with the other
undergraduate programs.
Continuous Collecting Assessment Data for each CF Standard (See Unit Assessment
Matrix)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Standard 1 – Content Knowledge: This standard is met through the SPA or state reports
that each program will write.
Standard 2 – Planning: This standard also is met through the SPA or state reports that each
program will write. Every SPA requires a “lesson planning” assessment (SPA Assessment
#3). In addition, the unit gathers some measure of planning from the Clinical Experience
Evaluations and Follow-up Surveys (all Inquisite based).
Standard 3 – Learning Climate: Data related to this standard is collected in one of two
courses: EDUC 487 and SPED 306.
Standard 4 – Implementation/Management: Data related to this standard is collected in
one of three courses: EDUC 487 and SPED 321. (What is the third course?)
Standard 5 – Evaluation and Assessment: Data related to this standard is collected in one
of two courses: EDUC 380 and SPED 325.
Standard 6 – Communication: This standard is measured globally as an item on the
Faculty Recommendation for admission into the Teacher Preparation Program which must be
scored at a “3 – At Standard” or better.
Standard 7 – Technology: Data related to this standard is collected in two courses: EDUC
381 and BSED 435.
Standard 8 – Diversity: Because the indicators for this standard are embedded in the first 5
standards, we will pull these data from the other databases. Specifically we glean data from
the following standards and indicators: CF Standard 1c, CF Standard 2b, CF Standard 3c,
3d, and 3f, CF Standard 4d, and CF Standard 5e.
Page 4 of 9
September 8, 2008
•
Standard 9 – Professional Dispositions: Data for this standard are collected from the
Faculty Recommendation form and Dispositions Assessments.
The data gathered through the above processes are continuously gathered and reported out by the
Program Areas and by the unit for discussion and revision of programs. As described in the LU
Conceptual Framework, we believe that highly effective education units develop and maintain an
assessment system that provides credible performance data on the progress and achievement of
each candidate available for feedback and reporting to the candidate, faculty, and program. Such
a system allows the unit faculty to monitor and report overall candidate progress toward
standards. The LU professional education unit along with IT has developed a system utilizing
Banner and “Can Teach” in which key unit-wide and program level assessment data are
electronically collected, stored, analyzed, and reported. The evolvement of the Assessment
Matrix reveals that the LU professional education unit and associated programs continue to
identify existing assessments. It, also, continues to develop new assessments to monitor
candidate progress toward core knowledge, skills, and dispositions. In identifying and/or
creating assessment, the unit and programs have sought to link them to Virginia Teacher and
Other Educator Professional Standards and to develop rubrics that use benchmark or other
standard language as part of the rubric scoring system.
Accuracy, Fairness, and Consistency
The Longwood University Professional Education Unit is committed to an assessment process
that is accurate, fair, and consistent. To ensure accuracy and fairness of assessment, critical
performances are developed by all faculty members who frequently teach a particular course.
They also work together to develop descriptive rubrics which best represents educational practice
for consistent scoring of performances assessment in that behaviors or “impressions” to score
candidate performance. The use of multiple assessments and evaluation tools ensures that
candidates are given every opportunity to demonstrate proficiency.
An example of LU’s commitment to “accuracy, fairness, and consistency” has been the resources
and research it has invested to ensure that these qualities exist in its development and scoring of
the TWS with the Renaissance Group, the culminating performance for initial preparation
programs. Historically, research (Denner et al, 2004) has determined that educators view the
TWS as a valid measure of key skills that prospective teachers need to be successful and that,
with training, even raters from different institutions can independently reach agreement on the
level of candidate proficiency. In addition to the use of research with the Renaissance Group
with regards to accuracy, fairness, and consistency, LU has instituted process that allows data
from instruments measuring students success to be reviewed by two individuals outside the
faculty of record. The individuals have become members of the PEC to help insure accuracy,
fairness and consistency in assessment. Research at Longwood University and other TWS
institutions consistently demonstrate the validity of the TWS instrument and the ability of scorers
to reach acceptable levels of agreement regarding candidate performance. (Denner, Norman,
&Lin, 2007, Norman, 2007)
Page 5 of 9
September 8, 2008
Important Note: We are in the process of developing a data management system that correlates
with Banner and will be able to collect this information in files that will load via the faculty and
amass the data for analysis and review constantly. These forms either will be or are available
on line. Faculty will be able to enter the data in “real-time” and from anywhere with internet
access.
Overview: Tally of Course Rosters to Download
Standard
Courses
1
None
2
None
3
EDUC 487
1
SPED 306
1
4
5
6
Tally (Unique Courses)
EDUC 487
SPED 321
1
EDUC 380
1
SPED 325
1
EDUC 425
1
EDUC 430
1
MUSC 442
1
SPED 321
7
EDUC 381
1
TOTAL
9 Courses
Page 6 of 9
September 8, 2008
Step-by-Step Guide for Collecting Other Unit-Wide Assessments
•
Faculty Recommendations 1 and 2: These recommendations are based on the first level of
CF Standard 9 – Dispositions and are completed prior to admission into Teacher Preparation.
This will be completed by faculty on an Inquisite survey and filed in the Office of
Professional Services.
•
Early Clinical Experience Evaluation: This is an Inquisite-based form that will follow the
process described under “How Data Will be Gathered”. It covers all CF Standards. This is
completed by the University Supervisor and Classroom Teacher.
•
Dispositions Assessment 1: This is an Inquisite-based form that will follow the process
described under “How Data Will be Gathered”. It covers CF Standard 9. It is designed to be
completed in conjunction with the Early Clinical Experience Evaluation.
•
Diversity Report 1: This is an Inquisite-based form that will follow the process described
under “How Data Will be Gathered”. It helps the unit collect data related to NCATE
Standard 4 – Diversity. It is designed to be completed in conjunction with the Early Clinical
Experience Evaluation.
•
Final Clinical Experience Evaluation: This is an Inquisite-based form that will follow the
process described under “How Data Will be Gathered”. It covers all CF Standards, as well as
many program specific standards. This is completed by University Supervisors and by each
Cooperating Teacher during the Student-Teaching semester. Note this form is different from
the Early Clinical Experience Evaluation because it branches into program specific items that
many program coordinators will use for the SPA Reports.
•
Dispositions Assessment 2: This is an Inquisite-based form that will follow the process
described under “How Data Will be Gathered”. It designed to be completed in conjunction
with the Final Clinical Experience Evaluation.
•
Diversity Report 2: This is an Inquisite-based form that will follow the process described
under “How Data Will be Gathered”. It helps the unit collect data related to NCATE
Standard 4 – Diversity. It is designed to be completed in conjunction with the Final Clinical
Experience Evaluation.
•
Teacher Work Sample: This is an Inquisite-based form that will follow the process
described under “How Data Will be Gathered”. This is the one instrument where its scores
will have to be disaggregated to show candidate performance on the CF Standards.
UG Programs
Program
Coordinators
Page 7 of 9
When TWS Occurs
September 8, 2008
Art
Kelly Nelson
Student Teaching
Business Education
Cheryl Davis
Student Teaching
Science Education
Suzzane Donnelly
Student Teaching
English
Gena Southall
Student Teaching
Social Studies
David Geraghty
Methods
Liberal Studies (ELED)
Nancy Powers
Partnership
Liberal Studies (MGE)
David Locascio
Partnership
Math
Wendy Smith
Methods
MLA
Susan Hildebrandt
Methods
Music
Pat Lust
Student Teaching
PHETE
Vonnie Colvin
Student Teaching (Graded by PHETE Faculty)
SPED
Peggy Tarpley
Partnership
Theatre
Pam Arkin
Student Teaching
•
Impact on Student Learning 1: This is an Inquisite-based form that will follow the process
described under “How Data Will be Gathered”. Candidates complete this form based on P12 student pre and post assessment data they reported in the Teacher Work Sample.
•
Impact on Student Learning 2: This is designed to be completed in conjunction with the
student-teaching project.
•
Teacher Survey (and other follow-up surveys): This is an Inquisite-based form that will
follow the process described under “How Data Will be Gathered”. It covers all CF
Standards.
References
Banks, J.A. (2002). An Introduction to Multicultural Education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Page 8 of 9
September 8, 2008
Gay, G. (2002). Culturally responsive teaching in special education for ethnically diverse students:
Setting the stage. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(6), 613-629.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other People's Children. New York: The New Press.
Denner, P., Norman, A. D., & Linn, S. (2007). Fairness and aspects of the consequential validity of
performance assessments using a teacher work sample. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Denner, P., Norman, A. D., Salzman, S., Pankratz, R. & Evans, S. (2004). The Renaissance
Partnership teacher work sample: Evidence supporting validity, score generalizability, and
quality of student learning assessment. ATE Yearbook XII, 23-56.
Forrest, S. N. (2004). Implications of No Child Left Behind on family literacy in a multicultural
community. Clearing House, 78(1), 41-45.
Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. (1992) Model Standards for Beginning
Teacher Licensing, Assessment and Development: A Resource for State Dialogue. Washington,
DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (1996). Standards for School Leaders. Washington,
DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Kounin, J. (1970). Discipline and Group Management in Classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What Works in Schools: Translating Research into Action. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McEwan, E. K. (2002). Ten Traits of Highly Effective Teachers: How to Hire, Coach, and Mentor
Successful Teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
National Board of Professional Teaching Standards. (2002). What Teachers Should Know and Be
Able to Do: The Five Core Propositions of the National Board. Arlington, VA: NBPTS National
Office. EPSBPRD2_WKUCAP_Current_030308.doc Page 17 of 17
Norman, A. D. (2007). WKU professional education unit assessment report – initial preparation
programs, academic year 2006-07. Western Kentucky University: College of Education and
Behavioral Sciences.
nd
Reeves, D. B. (2004). Accountability in Action: A Blueprint for Learning Organizations (2 Edition).
Denver, CO: Advanced Learning Press (ALP).
Reeves, D. B. (2002a). The Daily Disciplines of Leadership: How to Improve Student Achievement,
Staff Motivation, and Personal Organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Reeves, D. B. (March/April 2002b). Accountability-based reforms should lead to better teaching and
learning-period. Harvard Education Newsletter Online.
Sleeter, C. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the overwhelming
presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94-106.
The Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality Project. (2002). Renaissance teacher
work sample: Performance prompt, teaching process standards, and scoring rubrics. Author.
TSSA Collaborative. (2001). Technology Standards for School Administrators. Author.
Wayda, V., & Lund, J. (2005). Assessing dispositions: An unresolved challenge in teacher education;
Teacher candidates may know their subject, but are they suited for the job? The Journal of
Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 76, 34.
York-Barr, J., Sommers, W. A., Ghere, G. S., & Montie, J. (2001). Reflective Practice to Improve
Schools: An Action Guide for Educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
Page 9 of 9
September 8, 2008