2h. Assessment of Unit Operations:
Candidate and Supervisor Evaluation of Clinical and Field Experiences
Candidate Evaluation of University Supervisor
Unit operations and procedures related to field and clinical experiences are rated by both candidates and
university supervisors. Candidate and supervisor evaluations of placements and mentors for each site are paired
to review whether or not the site and mentor are continuing to meet the needs of the program. When mentors
and placements receive one or more “2’s” (disagree) from both supervisor and student, the program discusses
discontinuing the placement site. Those aggregated data are summarized in this table:
2003-2011 University Supervisor Mean Ratings of Placements and Mentors
Item
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
The philosophy of the placement is consistent
with that of the program
4.20
4.12
4.33
4.28
4.45
4.42
4.40
4.32
Candidate is able to develop curricula or
activities that support learning objectives
4.31
4.44
4.67
4.57
4.48
4.42
4.40
4.32
There is a balance between observation and
participation
4.38
4.17
4.44
4.39
4.44
4.55
4.52
4.46
4.48
4.18
4.50
4.44
4.57
4.53
4.51
4.53
4.60
4.49
4.56
4.55
4.78
4.47
4.83
4.76
Added 2007 at field coordinators
request to increase information
about mentors
4.70
4.56
4.51
4.65
4.45
4.60
4.44
4.58
4.53
4.35
4.41
4.31
4.47
4.50
4.41
4.43
4.43
4.31
4.35
4.36
4.43
4.65
4.60
4.58
4.47
4.34
4.50
4.47
4.56
4.62
4.51
4.60
4.45
4.57
4.40
4.51
4.45
4.44
4.51
4.45
4.40
4.53
4.51
4.41
4.41
4.51
4.45
4.46
4.44
4.53
4.44
4.44
4.45
4.47
4.39
4.46
4.43
4.49
4.55
4.48
4.44
4.49
4.47
4.47
4.51
4.42
4.32
4.49
4.49
4.45
4.47
Time engaged in teaching or professional
practice is adequate
The school or agency is welcoming to candidates
Mentor is welcoming to candidates
Mentor gave valuable and honest feedback
Mentor gave appropriate amount of support
Candidate is provided the opportunity to reflect
on their practice and make changes
Overall, the placement is appropriate
Balance between theory and practice
Supports disposition every child can learn
Mentor
Strong interpersonal skills
Able to articulate classroom or agency practice
Record of effective practice with diverse pop.
Articulate ways to differentiate instruction
Uses a variety of assessments
Demonstrates ongoing self-initiated engagement
in prof. dev.
Demonstrates exemplary practice
Demonstrated credibility
Initiated collaboration
Professional language
Optimistic Language
Added 2008 at field coordinators request to
increase information about mentors and
placement decision making
Items added 2008 at field coordinators
request to increase information about
mentors and placement decision making
Number of Responses:
101
464
167
127
364
Mean based on five-point scale with 1 being lowest and 5 being highest
379
471
439
These data, initially high, have fluctuated little over the years of implementation. Field coordinators have been
vigilant in terms of field experience, and added items that they felt would give them additional insights. These
additional items were also fairly stable in terms of university supervisor ratings. Field coordinators meet
monthly and will continue to review the data and discuss additional items.
Candidates also evaluate each placement. The increased number of responses corresponds to our move to a
paperless system and web-site posting of assessments. Field coordinators felt that they were ot getting the data
they needed about the quality of university supervision, and pulled those questions to generate an evaluation
specific to candidates’ perceptions of their supervision experience. During the 2009 10 academic year, to gather
information specific to our commitment to diversity, inclusion, and differentiation, addition items were added.
Data have demonstrated increased candidate satisfaction and positive perceptions of placements. In addition,
candidates seem to be more involved earlier, in that ratings of the statement “Too much time was spent
observing” have consistently decreased.
Candidate Evaluation of Placement Unit Wide Summary
01
02
02
03
03
04
04
05
05
06
07
08
08
09
09
10
10
11
The philosophy of the placement was consistent with that
of my program.
3.62
3.31
3.54
4.50
4.07
4.28
4.25
4.29
4.46
During my placement I was able to develop curriculum that
supported my objectives.
4.19
3.71
3.76
4.35
4.00
4.17
4.35
4.17
4.52
During my placement I was able to implement instructional
strategies consistent with my preparation (classes, earlier
field experiences).
4.06
3.84
3.74
4.32
4.40
4.36
4.25
4.39
4.56
Too much time was spent observing before I began to
teach.
2.78
2.42
2.89
2.86
2.24
2.55
2.36
1.92
1.78
3.58
3.54
3.55
3.50
3.66
3.58
3.91
3.88
4.18
3.44
3.98
3.39
4.25
4.14
4.19
4.19
4.18
4.20
3.85
3.82
3.64
4.44
4.07
4.25
4.24
3.99
4.21
4.34
4.33
3.82
4.22
4.50
4.36
4.59
4.66
4.69
4.12
4.02
3.68
4.48
4.40
4.44
4.40
4.62
4.67
4.07
3.51
3.74
4.56
4.05
4.30
4.26
4.45
4.48
4.34
4.12
3.87
4.43
4.52
4.48
4.58
4.50
4.58
4.08
3.76
3.82
4.57
4.43
4.50
4.45
4.49
4.42
4.08
3.82
3.84
4.50
4.39
4.45
4.40
4.44
4.45
Item
By the end of my placement I had experienced full
responsibility for the classroom.
The actual amount of teaching time was adequate.
I felt prepared to teach the subjects/grade levels for which
I was responsible.
I felt prepared to interact interpersonally with my
students.
I felt prepared to work with the cultural, ethic, linguistic,
ability, or socioeconomic diversity in my placement.
I was able to individualize instruction to meet student
needs.
I had a good relationship with my mentor teacher.
My mentor teacher gave me valuable and honest feedback
which helped me improve my teaching skills.
My mentor teacher gave me the appropriate amount of
support.
The faculty and administrators in the setting were
supportive and made me feel welcome.
4.13
3.81
3.82
4.24
4.48
4.36
4.53
4.38
4.43
I was able to reflect on my teaching practices and made
necessary changes.
4.18
4.43
3.79
4.44
4.53
4.49
4.50
4.42
4.55
I had a good relationship with my university supervisor.
4.18
4.18
3.70
4.48
4.06
4.27
4.35
My university supervisor gave me valuable and honest
feedback which helped me improve my performance in the
classroom.
3.88
4.03
3.64
4.74
3.81
4.27
4.35
My university supervisor provided me with appropriate
support.
3.88
4.39
3.62
4.55
3.67
4.11
4.24
My educator preparation program adequately prepared
me for this placement.
3.95
3.61
3.41
4.22
3.93
4.08
3.98
4.32
4.30
My professional education coursework had a strong
influence on my practices.
4.08
3.97
3.49
4.03
4.08
4.05
4.07
4.33
4.34
3.75
3.38
3.63
3.81
4.04
3.93
4.24
4.32
4.32
4.22
4.72
3.89
4.25
4.43
4.34
4.52
4.44
4.56
4.45
4.46
4.19
4.49
3.08
3.28
4.18
4.26
470
468
My mentor teacher had a great influence on my practices.
Overall, my placement was rewarding.
The classroom was diverse.
I had an opportunity to adapt instruction for a student with
an IEP.
I saw effective examples of co-teaching, a general educator
and an intervention specialist working collaboratively in
the same classroom.
Added to provide additional information related to
the level of inclusion and differentiation in the
placement.
I had opportunities to plan instruction with an intervention
specialist
167
120
592
Number of responses
Scale of 5 - 1 very low to 5 very high
127
184
211
514
Moved to
separate
evaluation.
In 2008 09 programs piloted a candidate evaluation of the university supervisor to provide more detailed
feedback than that supplied by the items on the candidate evaluation of placement. The survey was put in
place, and in 2009 2010 university supervisor items were deleted from the candidate evaluation of placement
and the university supervisor evaluation was institutionalized. Though these data represent unit-wide data,
programs are provided with data specific to the university supervisor. These person-specific data are used to
provide feedback to the supervisor, or, in some cases, to discontinue using them in the role.
Candidate Evaluation of University Supevisor
Program:
08
09
09
10
10
11
11
12*
396
383
453
231
4.45
4.51
4.55
4.58
4.36
4.46
4.48
4.46
4.34
4.46
4.56
4.42
My university supervisor responded promptly to my telephone calls.
4.23
4.32
4.53
4.42
My university supervisor's comments were constructive and provided me with positive
direction.
4.42
4.48
4.51
4.52
N
I had a positive relationship with my university supervisor.
My university supervisor gave me valuable feedback that helped me improve my
performance.
My university supervisor responded promptly to my emails.
3.99
4.20
4.14
4.01
My university supervisor was respectful for the educational program of my classroom.
My university supervisor visited the school at appropriate times.
4.54
4.57
4.62
4.62
4.46
4.55
4.67
4.64
My university supervisor played an important role in my professional development.
My mentor made positive statements regarding UC's supervision and my supervisor.
Based on my interactions with my mentor, it was clear that the University Supervisor did a
good job of explaining the goals, procedures, and expectations regarding the experience.
4.03
4.19
4.20
4.27
4.20
4.30
4.33
4.31
4.07
4.13
4.21
4.10
My university supervisor was perceived as an accomplished school professional.
My university supervisor reflected on my practice and justified his or her comments.
My university supervisor and I had adequate time for jointly conducting conferences and
assessments of my performance.
4.50
4.53
4.58
4.66
4.44
4.49
4.59
4.54
4.31
4.46
4.54
4.44
4.45
4.59
4.65
4.66
4.37
4.40
4.45
4.43
4.40
4.50
4.56
4.58
My university supervisor worked collaboratively with my mentor.
My university supervisor demonstrated knowledge in pedagogy and classroom
management.
The amount of supervision I received was appropriate to the nature of the experience.
I received the required number of visits