Unit Assessment (Draft Revisions January 2011; PEC Approved March 16 2011)Page 1
Professional Education Unit Assessment System
Missouri State University
Assessment of Purpose, Goals and Objectives
The Professional Education Unit assessment system is designed to facilitate collection
and analysis of data specific to professional education candidate performance, program
effectiveness and unit operations. The overarching goal of the system is to provide data that will
support the unit in program improvement and ensure candidate outcomes aligned with
institution, and professional standards (Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education-MDESE, 2006; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education-NCATE,
2008; Missouri State University MSU, 2009). An overview of unit assessment including goals,
corresponding objectives and procedures for evaluation are noted as follows with a more detailed
discussion of methods and procedures reported in subsequent components of the plan. This PEU
assessment plan links to and provides a framework for departmental assessment plans which are
supported by the Office of Institutional Research.
Table 1: Overview of unit assessment.
Unit Goals
Objectives
A. The unit
A1. The Unit’s CF is at minimum revised every 3 years to reflect a
implements an
knowledge base aligned to the professional literature, and learned society
assessment system that standards and the MSU mission.
incorporates the
A2. The Unit’s philosophy and purposes are clearly articulated within the CF
Conceptual
along with expected professional commitments and candidate dispositions.
Framework (CF) and
A3. The CF was developed and revised in collaboration with school and
candidate proficiencies community partners.
aligned to professional A4. Candidate outcomes are clearly articulated within the CF and regularly
standards.
assessed resulting in data to support program improvement.
B. The unit
B1. Professional education programs develop and implement assessment
implements an
plans that include multiple data sources for evaluation of candidate
assessment system that performance throughout the program of study, pre-admission to post
provides data specific
graduation.
to program quality,
B2. Program assessment data are analyzed with results reported to the
unit operations, and
Professional Education Unit-PEU and used to support program improvement
candidate performance and candidate performance.
at each stage of the
B3. PEU develops and implement strategic plans that improve candidate
program. Data are
performance, program quality and unit operations.
used to guide
B4. Faculty evaluation data are analyzed and used by programs to support
programs and support
faculty development, candidate outcomes and program improvement.
candidates.
Assessment Methods and Procedures
Each PEU program develops an assessment plan designed to monitor and support
candidate progress throughout the program of study. Program plans reflect Unit and professional
(learned society) standards and identify how candidate performances specific to standards are
assessed. In addition, program assessment plans document multiple internal and external data
Unit Assessment (Draft Revisions January 2011; PEC Approved March 16 2011)Page 2
sources that are used to guide program development and assess candidate outcomes related to
expected knowledge (cognitive), skills (behaviors) and dispositions (affective).
Candidate Assessment
Table Two summarizes the scope and sequence of candidate assessment for the
Professional Education Unit (PEU). These data are used with other program specific data sources
to conduct ongoing planning and to provide candidate support.
Table 2. Candidate/program assessment.
Timeline
Initial Candidate
PA = Portfolio
Internal
External
Artifact
EDC 150 or
ACT Scores;
Pre-admission
equivalent;
Attempt CBASE;
Highway Patrol
Background Check
Initiated
Internal
Advanced Candidate
External
Baccalaureate
Degree
Unit Assessment (Draft Revisions January 2011; PEC Approved March 16 2011)Page 3
Admission/
First Portfolio
Checkpoint
[or AAT]
GEN-ED GPA;
Secondary
Candidates Major
2.5 GPA; History
2.75; Maintain
GPA; Elementary
Candidates 2.50
GPA; ECE 304
(EC), ELE 410
(Ele), SEC 302
(Sec & Mid Schl),
EDC 150 Special
Section (transfer
students), SPE 310
or equivalent K-12
courses PED 200,
MUS 148 & 200;
Portfolio or
equivalent
authentic
assessment is
assessed to
measure
candidate’s
demonstration of
CF(s) and may be
indicated by
General Methods
Lesson/Unit Plan
and Clinical
Observation
Entries
CBASE Scores;
HP Background
Check Completed
UG GPA
Program Specific
Assessments
GRE
V, Q, A
References
Unit Assessment (Draft Revisions January 2011; PEC Approved March 16 2011)Page 4
Second Portfolio
Checkpoint
Third Checkpoint
Maintain GPA;
ECE 401 & 402
(EC), ELE 500
(Ele), Special
Methods content
area (Sec & Mid
Schl);
Portfolio or
equivalent
assessment is
assessed to
measure
candidate’s
demonstration of
CF(s) as indicated
by these Artifacts:
Educational
Philosophy,
Clinical Entries,
Obs/Field Evals,
Program/Content
Specific Methods
& Courses
Artifacts, Special
Methods
Lesson/Unit Plan.
Maintain GPA;
Met Criteria for
Student Teach;
Supervised
Teaching Course;
Portfolio or
equivalent
authentic
assessment (e.g.
Teacher Work
Sample) is assessed
to measure
candidate’s
demonstration of
CF(s) as indicated
by these Artifacts:
Clinical Entries,
Obs/Field Evals,
Program/Content
Specific Artifacts.
Supervised
Teaching
Lesson/Unit Plan
or TWS
Summative
evaluation of
portfolio or
equivalent
authentic
assessment
Candidacy
Program Approval
Review of Progress
Program Specific
Assessments
Unit Assessment (Draft Revisions January 2011; PEC Approved March 16 2011)Page 5
Graduation
First Year Out
Second Year Out
Third Year Out
GPA
Satisfactory
Completion of
Portfolio or
equivalent
authentic
assessment and all
program
Graduate Followup Focus Groups;
Beginning
Educator
Assistance
Renewal &
Support (BEARS)
Data or/and STEP
UP program
Graduate Followup
Graduate Followup
Praxis II
Prior to
Certification
Seminar or Thesis
Paper
Portfolio Review
PRAXIS II
scores
(certification)
Graduate Survey;
Employer Survey;
Teacher/
Administrator
Supply &
Demand;
Title II Report
Graduate
Follow-up
Employers
Survey
Teacher/
Administrator
Supply &
Demand
Graduate FollowUp Survey;
Employer Survey;
Teacher/
Administrator
Supply &
Demand;
Title II Report
Graduate Survey;
Employer Survey;
Teacher/
Administrator
Supply &
Demand;
Title II Report
Graduate
Follow-up
Employers
Survey
Teacher/
Administrator
Supply &
Demand
Graduate
Follow-up
Employers
Survey
Teacher/
Administrator
Supply &
Demand
Candidate Portfolios and Performance Assessment
All initial programs require candidates to maintain a professional portfolio or equivalent
authentic assessment that includes artifacts aligned with PEU and program standards. In the
Communication Science and Disorders (CSD) department, graduate programs which lead to an
initial certification have developed portfolio checkpoints and other evaluation systems
appropriate for Deaf Education and Speech Language. Other advanced programs require
portfolio or designate performance measures that also reflect program and professional
standards. Candidate progress for initial programs is assessed throughout the program of study
with distinct checkpoints noted at three phases of the program. At each checkpoint, candidate
progress is reviewed by faculty in accordance to program evaluation criteria to determine if the
portfolio is not meeting, meeting, or exceeding standards.
Program Review
Internal Program Review: Professional Education Committee
The Professional Education Committee (PEC) has designated a Program Review
Subcommittee. This subcommittee was established in 1997. The primary function of this
committee is to conduct peer review of all Professional Education Programs and to generate
reports that may be used to support program improvement and accreditation. Program evaluation
Unit Assessment (Draft Revisions January 2011; PEC Approved March 16 2011)Page 6
criteria began revision in August 2006 to align with the NCATE Unit Standards, 2006 edition,
DESE Quality Performance Indicators, PEU Conceptual Framework Learning Outcomes (CF)
and Missouri State institutional guidelines. Revised program review criteria were presented to
the PEC in November 2010. College level internal reviews are completed annually.
External Program Review: National, Learned Society and Missouri Department of Elementary
and Secondary Education
Programs within the PEU will submit a program review folio to the respective NCATE
affiliated learned society on a five-seven year basis. In addition, programs may submit program
review documents to learned societies that guide the particular field of study but are not NCATE
affiliated. All programs that offer initial certification will undergo accreditation review by the
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. The most recent external review
was successfully completed in October 2003.
Assessment of Professional Standards
Program Matrix
Program quality is in part determined through evidence that professional education
candidates are proficient in the content of the specialty standards. Standards describe what the
candidates should know and be able to do to ensure learning outcomes for children and youth
(NCATE, 2008). Programs within the PEU have adopted program matrices aligned with DESE
Quality Performance Indicators and PEU Conceptual Framework Learning Outcomes. The
program matrix includes candidate knowledge (cognitive), skills (behaviors) and dispositions
(affective) in correspondence with Missouri State, DESE, and NCATE 2008 guidelines. NCATE
standards, DESE Indicators, PEU Conceptual Framework Learning Outcomes are also indicated
on program syllabi with varied content and performance assessments outlined.
Additional Data Sources
Program assessment plans may include additional sources that meet unique needs. Most
programs utilize data generated from advisory groups and program review teams that include
school partners. These data are considered along with graduate follow up and Beginning
Educator Assistance Renewal and Support (BEARS) data to guide decisions regarding program
development and change. These data are used to gain information regarding the nature of the
professional education positions held by graduates as well as the perception of graduates and
community stakeholders regarding program effectiveness. According to university policy,
faculty evaluation is conducted to review progress in teaching, scholarship and service, as well as
a review of faculty progress with regard to public school outcomes documented in the PEU fiveyear plan.
Unit Assessment Results and Application of Data for Program Improvement
The Head of the Professional Education Unit will be responsible for coordinating
collection and analysis of all assessment data for the Unit. These data will be stored in
centralized databases with results used to support candidate outcomes and programs across the
Unit.
Unit Assessment (Draft Revisions January 2011; PEC Approved March 16 2011)Page 7
References
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (2006). Missouri
standards for teacher education programs and benchmarks for preliminary teacher education
programs. Columbia MO: DESE. Available
http://dese.mo.gov/schoollaw/rulesregs/documents/MoSTEP_10-06.pdf
Missouri State University (2009). The reflective practitioner: A conceptual framework
for teacher education. Springfield MO: MSU. Available
http://education.missouristate.edu/assets/peu/Conceptual_Framework_Rev_Mar_2009_APA_Up
dated_11-08.pdf
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2008). Professional standards
for the accreditation of teacher preparation institutions. Washington DC: NCATE. Available
http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=nX43fwKc4Ak%3D&tabid=669