Report on UAS Narrative Data for
Field Experience: Service Learning for Diversity
Reviewer: Phyllis Agness
Position: Assistant Professor, IPFW School of Education
Date:
August 2, 2005
Data Reviewed:
Semester
Number of Classes
Fall 2004
2
Standards Measured
# 1 & #5 of Conceptual Framework
This is a review of the reflections of students and the scoring of the rubric by the faculty
in two graduate courses in which the students participated in a “Service Learning for
Diversity” field experience. During this experience, the student is required to complete a
minimum of ten hours of participation in a setting that will provide him/her with “…an
opportunity to observe, interact with, and learn about populations of diverse learners, in
order to enrich their understanding of and sensitivity to diversity issues.” This setting is
to be other than the work place of the student.
1. Review of reflections, by element
Standard # 1 Democracy and Community:
Class # 1
Score of 4 (excellent) = 5 students
Score or 3 (good)
= 6 students
Score of 2 (fair)
= 1 student
Class # 2
Score of 4 (excellent) = 14 students
Standard # 5 Experience:
Class # 1
Score of 4 (excellent) = 7 students
Score of 3 (good)
= 5 students
Class # 2
Score of 4 (excellent) = 14 students
2. Analysis of the findings
As is obvious at a glance, the scores given by the professors in both classes are very high.
The scores in class #1 do show some variation. Although it was difficult to determine
why the professor gave the specific scores, there was a spread from a score of four to a
score of two. The overall scores were higher for standard #5 than for standard #1. This
becomes very understandable upon the reading of the students’ reflections. Most
students responded very positively to the assignment and felt that the field experience had
provided them with valuable opportunities to become better teachers. They related this
information to the standard of Experience. Responses were also positive related to
Democracy and Community, but students seemed to struggle a bit more with expressing
this growth.
It appeared that the reflections had not truly been read or evaluated for class #2. All
students received four points on each standard. This was in spite of the fact that there
were significant differences in the quality of the various reflections. Some were very
poorly written and showed no level of true reflection, while others were very reflective
and much better written.
The artifacts differed dramatically for the two classes. It was impossible to compare the
two. The students in class #1 had all done interviews with immigrants and had responded
to a set list of questions answered by their interviewee. No field experience site was
used, other than the home of either the interviewer or interviewee. The students in class
#2 all did have experiences at field sites. These, however, were also not consistent with
the intent of the assignment. Some experiences were mere visits to sites to gather
information, others were observations in special education or ESL classrooms, and others
were tutoring or direct involvement. Some students stayed within the building where
they teach and others wrote about experiences they had previous to the semester.
3. Implications of the analysis for
a. the assignment
The artifact assignments were disappointing, in that they did not keep with the spirit of
the field experience assignment. Some students did use the opportunity to experience a
diverse setting and a situation that was totally new to them. However, this did not appear
to have been a requirement.
The reflection assignment asks for the student to show significant learning and growth in
the category. If the students perceive that their grades in the class will somehow be
affected by their responses, they will respond in the expected way, rather than honestly.
b. the rubric
2
The rubric will only be beneficial in UAS evaluation if all faculty members use it in the
same way.
c. the students
The students’ responses about their experiences were enthusiastic. Some responses
seemed to be genuinely stated, and others appeared to be saying what was expected.
d. the instructors
The instructors appeared to either not understand or not “buy into” the purpose of the
field experience. This was, in fact, the first semester that this experience was
implemented in the program, and faculty members were genuinely confused about the
best way to organize a part of the program that would take place away from the
university.
e. the program
Student responses need to be reviewed in order to determine if the goals of the service
learning experience are being met. If honest responses can be obtained from students,
instructors will know what changes can be made for future semesters and which
experiences they should encourage students to pursue.
f. the program’s UAS
The “Service Learning for Diversity” assignment was designed to meet weaknesses in the
program noted during the most recent NCATE visit. This has been an honest attempt to
respond to the demands to change the program. Significant time and effort has gone into
the design and implementation of this experience. The UAS committee will need to
evaluate the effectiveness of the assignment and make necessary changes each semester
in order to make it a practical and beneficial assignment for students.
g. other
It is important to note students’ comments regarding their field experiences. The
comments are overwhelmingly positive and indicate that the students understand the
value of this type of assignment. Sample comments follow:
Class #1 – Standard #1
“It has opened my eyes.”
“It [the experience] allowed me to reflect on how diverse experiences influence all
aspects of living”
3
“I believe this experience has shown me how important each and every person in our
community is.”
“…experience has provided me with a different lens in which to see the world….this
experience has helped me understand that there are communities of learners that bring
with them completely different experiences than my own.”
Class #1 – Standard #5
“Every educator should have some sort of experiences with students from different
countries. The more and more we are diversified as a country, the more of a blending of
students we are going to encounter.”
“This field experience has given me new insight into the world of ESL students. I have a
better understanding of language barriers…and cultural adaptations.”
“It is hard to relate to others unless we are first able to understand their backgrounds.”
“More than the knowledge itself, it [the experience] has brought a unique aspect of
another’s experiences that will broaden my mind and make me a more tolerant educator.”
Class #2 – Standard #5
“What real worth are you to society if you only see one aspect of life? Everyone needs to
be grounded from time to time because we all get caught up in our own lives.”
“After such an experience one will be able to draw upon personal examples of situations
and knowledge in order to teach key concepts such as tolerance and individual self worth.
Without first-hand experiences like this one, an educator would be left somewhat
ignorant and would be more likely to fill the voids of knowledge with stereotypes and
prejudices. It is imperative that educators draw upon their time spent in actual settings so
that we can relate our lessons from them to the students in meaningful and educational
ways.”
4. Recommendations for changes in the
a. assignment format
b. rubric
c. assessment procedures
If the students are told that their grade for the assignment will be based on their artifact,
rather than their reflection, they may feel more comfortable about responding honestly.
This can only be done if the artifact is a written paper that is assigned related to the field
experience. The artifacts submitted for class #2 were merely one item (brochure, IEP,
child’s letter, etc.) from the field experience site. These could not be evaluated. This
4
leaves an option of either grading the reflection or giving no credit for the assignment.
This eliminates the option for the students to criticize the experience.
The assignment, rubric, and assessment procedures will only be successful if faculty
members are in agreement about the appropriate experiences, scoring of the rubric, and
use of the artifact and reflection as a part of the evaluation for a course grade.
It is the reviewer’s opinion that the students should receive a well-explained grade for
their field experience assignment. If they know that their score on the rubric will not
count for or against their grade in the course, they will feel more comfortable expressing
their true feelings about their experience. This will make the reflections more valuable.
It does not appear to be necessary that the students even know what they scored on the
rubric. The only purpose of the rubric is to inform the program, not to evaluate the
student.
d. the program
e. the program’s UAS
All members of the SOE (both full-time and part-time) need to be trained in the purposes
of the assessment system and the part that each member must play. If there is not a
consensus on site-placements and rubric scoring, the department chair and SOE dean and
assistant dean will need to make the decision and insist on its implementation. The
system is useless for purposes of assessment unless more uniformity is managed.
Summary:
This assessment process was being implemented for the first time during the semester
that these reflections were gathered. It was new and confusing for both faculty and
students. It is not surprising that there was lack of conformity. It is highly likely that the
system has worked more efficiently during spring and summer terms. At this point, it is
only necessary that this material and evaluation be used as a learning tool. That, after all,
is the role of education.
5
Field Experience: Service Learning for Diversity
Format for Writing a Reflection on an Artifact from the Field Experience
Name:_____________________________________ Program:____________________
Semester:_________________ Course No. and Title:___________________________
Location of Field Experience:______________________________________________
Hours completed: 10 or other:________ hours
ATTACH:
1. Artifact(s) from field experience.
2. Reflection
a. Description of artifact(s) and its/their relationship to the service
learning experience.
b. Reflection on how this shows my growth in Category 1 of the
Conceptual Framework, Democracy & Community: Foster a
democratic, just, inclusive learning community with all stakeholders.
c. Reflection on how this shows my growth in Category 5 of the
Conceptual Framework, Experience: Integrate field and/or clinical
experiences that reflect the diversity of educators, students, and schools
and help educators assess those experiences.
6
Indiana University – Purdue University Fort Wayne
School of Education
Field Experience: Service Learning for Diversity
Site of Field Experience:_________________________________________________
Address:______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Supervisor of Field Experience:___________________________________________
Student:_________________________________________ Semester:_____________
Course Instructor:______________________________________________________
Hours completed:_________ Course this Field Experience is paired with:__________
To the Site Supervisor:
As part of the School of Education’s revised M.S. programs in Elementary and
Secondary Education and Educational Leadership, M.S. candidates will complete at least
30 hours of field experience in a setting other than their own place of work during regular
school hours. The purpose of the field experience is for candidates to have an
opportunity to observe, interact with, and learn about populations of diverse learners, in
order to enrich their understanding of and sensitivity to diversity issues. At the same
time, we hope that our candidates can be of service to the educational or service agency
where they are placed.
The 30 hours will be divided into three 10-hour blocks. The candidate is hoping
to complete at least 10 hours at the site that you oversee. All candidates will be required
to complete these three 10-hour field experiences, M501 Service Learning for Diversity,
in tandem with three courses in their respective programs. Candidates will arrange these
opportunities themselves from a list of possible sites or by locating an appropriate
alternative site on their own. Satisfactory completion of this assignment will be a
requirement for the course with which the field experience is paired.
Thank you for letting this student in our Masters program participate in your
setting. We sincerely hope he or she can be of service to you.
Your comments about the candidate’s participation (continue on back if necessary):
Site Supervisor Signature: __________________________________Date:__________
Please Circle:
Satisfactory
or
Unsatisfactory
7