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