School of Teacher Education
901 South National Avenue Springfield, Missouri 65804-0095 (417) 836-6797 Fax: (417) 836-6252
To:
Dr. Craig, Associate Dean of the College of Education
From:
Gay A. Ragan, PEC Program Review Subcommittee Chair
Date:
Regarding:
Program Review
The following is a Professional Education Committee (PEC) Program
Review Overview and Scope Report that was completed for the
Program. The report contains a summary of each reviewer’s comments and
suggestions based on a revised Overview and Scope Guide which contains
additional quality indicators for sections 2, 3, and 7 as established by
NCATE and/or DESE requirements as of the date above. It should also be noted
that a new section, Section B. Program Summary, has been added prior to the
Knowledge Base section. In response to a request from Dean Hough, all
programs should create a narrative as a program summary highlighting important
points from sections #1-8.
We welcome your review of the following report and any questions you have
about the report.
_Gay A. Ragan__________________________
Signature, PEC Subcommittee Program Review Chair
Cc:
Dr. Hough, Head of the Unit
Dr. Lynda Plymate, PEC President
____________________
Date
Southwest Missouri State University
Professional Education Committee Program Review
Overview and Scope (revised 4.8.03)
Program:__ ______________ Date:_ _____
Program Contact Person :__ ______________________
SECTION A. WEBSITE ACCESSIBILITY
____
1. Program materials are complete.
____
2. Program materials are easily
accessible on the web (i.e.,
hyperlinks are active,
format/organization of materials
logical; key information &
supporting documentation easy to
locate).
_____
3. The Program has adequately
represented itself through the
materials submitted.
Reviewer’s Comments:
SECTION B. PROGRAM SUMMARY
____
1. Program Summary concisely
highlights unique features of each
section #1-8.
____
2. Program Summary clearly
communicates key points of each
section #1-8.
Reviewer’s Comments:
2
Quality Indicators
Comments and Suggestions
(Completed by the Review Team)
SECTION 1. KNOWLEDGE BASE
Evidence related to standards:
MoSTEP Standard 2
NCATE Standard 1
The program has a knowledge base or program
Reviewer’s Comments:
overview that documents:
__ Alignment to the Conceptual Framework (CF)
as well as state and professional standards
(MoSTEP and DESE discipline specific).
__ Discipline based best practices (may reference
to the literature or provide description).
SECTION 2. PROGRAM MATRIX
Evidence related to standards:
MoSTEP: Standards 1, 2
NCATE: Standard 2
The program has a matrix that:
Reviewer’s Comments:
___ MoSTEP Matrix
___ Content (Subject) Area Matrix
___ Certification Matrix showing alignment
to program (to be provided by
Certification Office)
__ Includes essential knowledge, skills, and
dispositions expected of program candidates.
__ Is aligned to the CF, state and professional
standards.
__ Documents candidate expectations in regard to
diversity.
__ Documents candidate expectations in regard to
technology.
*Note for initial programs, the Portfolio
Guide will meet this requirement.
Additional documentation is optional.
3
SECTION 3. PROGRAM SYLLABI
Evidence related to standards:
MoSTEP: Standards 1, 2, 3
NCATE: Standard 1, 2, 3
The program syllabi should:
Reviewer’s Comments:
__ Provide evidence that all PEU courses (as
designated on list available from PEU
office) are aligned with MoSTEP
Standards
__ Provide evidence of all content area
syllabi (preference being evidence of
alignment with MoSTEP Standards)
__ Reference the PEU CF, state and specialty area
standards (candidate knowledge skills and
disposition from program matrix).
__ Provide evidence of how CF learner outcomes
and state and professional standards are
assessed.
__ Provide evidence of varied instructional
approaches.
__ Provide evidence of candidate preparation with
integration of technology.
__ Provide evidence of candidate preparation with
diverse learners.
SECTION 4. PROGRAM ASSESSMENT PLAN
Evidence related to standards:
MoSTEP: Standards 1, 2, 3, 4
NCATE: Standard 1, 2, 3
The program has an assessment plan that yields
evidence regarding what candidates know and can
do. The plan meets institutional guidelines for
program assessment. Indicators include:
__ Undergraduate/Initial Programs -Professional
Preparation Portfolio (required) –description of
process for 3 checkpoint system
or
__ Graduate/Advanced programs –description of
portfolio system if applicable or equivalent 3
checkpoint system.
Reviewer’s Comments:
All programs:
__ Multiple external and internal data sources are
used to evaluate candidate progress and
program effectiveness.
__ Procedures to support and advise candidates
that do not meet program requirements are
evident.
__ Procedures for ongoing evaluation of candidate
progress toward standards (candidate
knowledge skills and dispositions specific to
CF, MoSTEP, and specialty area) are present.
4
SECTION 5. ASSESSMENT SUMMARY/OUTCOME DATA
Evidence related to standards:
MoSTEP: Standards 1, 2, 3, 4
NCATE: Standard 1, 2, 3
Outcomes related to the assessment plan are
reported, analyzed, and applied in program
improvement. At minimum program teams conduct
annual review and provide documentation as
follows:
__ Summary of candidate progress toward
standards (CF, MoSTEP, and specialty area)
including outcomes in settings with P-12
students.
__ Evidence that candidates were prepared to
teach diverse learners.
__ Evidence that candidates effectively integrated
technology to achieve outcomes with P-12
students.
__ Summary of assessment results from multiple
external/internal sources and evidence that data
were used for program improvement and
candidate support.
__ Evidence that external/internal review data
were used in program improvement/ decisions.
(Address national and state accreditation reports
and evidence of how review data were used to
support candidates and improve the program.)
Reviewer’s Comments:
SECTION 6. DESCRIPTION OF CLINICAL AND FIELD EXPERIENCES
Evidence related to standards:
MoSTEP: Standards 1, 2, 3
NCATE: Standard 1, 2, 3
The program has clinical and field experiences that:
Reviewer’s Comments:
__ Meet the recommended guidelines of the PEC.
__ Are sequenced and intensive.
__ Prepare candidates to work with all students
including those with diverse learning needs.
__ Prepare candidates to integrate technology with
effective outcomes for P-12 students.
__ Support candidate performances aligned with
program standards (matrix).
___Include sample assessments/field experience
evaluation forms that support quality indicators.
SECTION 7. PROGRAM FACULTY
Evidence related to standards:
MoSTEP: Standard 5
NCATE: Standard 5
Program faculty demonstrate teaching, scholarship
and service that supports program outcomes as
evidenced by:
Reviewer’s Comments:
__ PEAR form completed for all program
faculty of PEU courses (as designated on
list available from PEU office).
5
__ Two page faculty vita (see vita format PEU
website).
__ PEU five-year plans that reflect outcomes in the
public schools and relationship to program
support.
__ Artifacts supporting program outcomes
(publications, grants, research projects awards).
__ Procedures for faculty evaluation are present
including systems to evaluate P-12 school
outcomes.
SECTION 8. PROGRAM REVIEW/CERTIFICATION OUTCOMES
Evidence related to standards:
MoSTEP: Standards 6
NCATE: Standard 6
The program participates in external and/or internal
review processes as evidenced by:
__ External review reports (NCATE Program
Review and other).
__ PEC internal Program Review report and
evidence of action taken.
__ Annual program assessment summary
documenting outcomes and how program data
were applied.
Reviewer’s Comments:
The program meets state certification
requirements as evidenced by:
__ Description of current program/list of required
courses (excerpt from catalog sufficient).
__ Missouri Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education (DESE) certification
requirements (supplied by accreditation
office/Head of the Unit).
__ DESE program approval documents (supplied
by accreditation office/Head of the Unit).
__ External review reports (supplied by
accreditation office/Head of the Unit).
__ PEC internal program review report (supplied
by accreditation office/Head of the Unit).
Please supply any additional documentation
as deemed appropriate.
Section 9. Supporting Program Documents
Include any additional documentation that further
supports stated quality indicators.
Recommendations include but are not limited to the
following:
Reviewer’s Comments:
__ Advisement policies and worksheets.
__ Student/program handbook.
__ Student organization information and
outcomes.
__ Program scholarships and profiles of students
receiving scholarships.
6
__ Program advisory committee minutes and
summary of outcomes.
__ Recruitment materials/brochures, summary of
recruitment efforts including recruitment of
diverse students.
__ Department/College workload policies.
__ Minutes from program meetings and
information about program review and
development teams including evidence that
program teams include diverse representation
and representation from P-12 schools.
7