1.4.c.1 Key Assessments Descriptions
This exhibit contains an explanation of key assessments and a description of scoring guides. See Exhibit 1.4.c.2 for complete rubrics.
A. Initial Programs
B. Advanced Programs
MA in Education
MA in Education, Educational Leadership and Administration (Preliminary Administrative Services Credential)
MA in Psychology, School Psychology (Pupil Personnel Services Credential)
MA in Communication Sciences and Disorders (Speech-Language Pathology Credential)
MA in Agricultural Education
A. Initial Programs
Note: Initial program key assessments are presented in one group because five key assessments are similar, and just one varies
between programs/pathways.
Initial.1 Field Evaluations, Mid and Final
Each program pathway conducts evaluations of candidates in both student teaching semesters. Evaluations are based upon the Teacher
Performance Expectations identified by the California on Teacher Credentialing. Together with our school partners, the SOE
developed TPE rubrics (one for general education candidates and one for education specialist candidates) to help candidates,
cooperating teachers and faculty understand what observable classroom behaviors are indicators of each of the TPEs for candidates at
different levels of teaching proficiency. These rubrics are used throughout the teaching practicum by university supervisors,
candidates and cooperating/mentor teachers to assess candidate progress, focus observations, inform conversations about teacher
development and to set goals for growth. In order to track student progress and inform program improvement, university supervisors
in all pathways enter final TPE Rubric Scores into the online STEPS system. TPEs 1-13 are teaching performance expectations for all
candidates, G1-G3 are additional expectations for candidates earning an education specialist credential.
TPE 1: Specific Pedagogical Skills for Subject Area Instruction
TPE 2: Monitoring Student Learning During Instruction
TPE 3: Interpretation and Use of Assessments
1
TPE 4: Making Content Accessible
TPE 5: Student Engagement
TPE 6: Developmentally Appropriate Teaching Practices
TPE 7: Teaching English Learners
TPE 8: Learning About Students
TPE 9: Instructional Planning
TPE 10: Instructional Time
TPE 11: Social Environment
TPE 12: Professional, Legal and Ethical Responsibilities
TPE 13: Professional Growth
G1: IEP Transition Planning
G2: Post-Secondary Transition Planning
G3: Case Management
Initial.2 Dispositions Evaluations
The dispositions development process engaged faculty, administration, and k-12 partners in a series of activities designed to identify a
shared core of beliefs about the knowledge, skills and dispositions of professional educators. The deliberations were informed by the
unit’s conceptual framework and the ten principles of the INTASC standards, and led to the identification of five dispositions focusing
on (D1) Appreciates and values human diversity (D2) Believes all children can learn (D3) Is committed to continuous self-directed
learning and reflective practice, (D4) Takes pride in the education profession, and (D5) Is committed to the use of democratic values.
A focus group of public school teachers and university supervisors was then formed to translate these dispositions into observable
behaviors. The resulting rubric describes specific behaviors associated with each of the five dispositions. This rubric includes four
performance standards. Candidates are assessed on dispositions in both teaching practica. In order to track student progress and inform
program improvement, university supervisors in all pathways enter final Disposition Rubric Scores into the online STEPS system.
Initial.3 Mid-Program Key Assessments
Each initial credential program monitors candidate progress mid-way through the program using a key assessment that is specific to
the program goals and standards.
a Multiple Subject: Content Area Tasks (CATs)
2
Multiple Subject candidates are required to complete Content Area Tasks (CATs) in the three additional core subject areas:
math, science and social studies. For each of these subject areas, candidates submit a Planning Instruction and Assessment task.
Each CAT is evaluated on one of the three rubrics for the Planning Instruction and Assessment Planning Instruction and
Assessment task as follows: Math: Establishing a Balanced Instructional Focus, Science: Making Content Accessible, and
Social Studies: Designing Effective Assessments. Faculty scoring CATs are trained and calibrated, and 15% of the CATs are
double-scored. Each CAT is a portion of the PACT and scored using PACT rubrics. Add CATs Handbook
b Single Subject: Unit Plan
Students write a unit plan for EDTE 533: Subject Area Pedagogy I, a course that runs concurrently with the Practicum I
teaching experience. The assessment measures candidates’ ability to: 1) plan a series of coherent lessons aligned with state
academic content standards; 2) write and align unit goals, objectives, and assessments, 3) design formative and summative
assessments, 4) apply varied and appropriate instructional strategies, 5) and apply SDAIE strategies to support ELLs. The unit
is evaluated using 13 performance items (e.g., rationale, goals, objectives, assessments) and candidates earn a score out of 100
points.
c Adapted Physical Education: Unit Plan
Candidates create an eight-week unit plan to prepare their students for the Special Olympic Track and Field Competition. The
unit is evaluated on a 30 point rubric, including format, strategies, preparation and progression.
d Agriculture Specialist: Clinical Evaluation
This instrument is one of the summative evaluations for the Agricultural Specialist program completers. The instrument is
completed by the lead cooperating teacher at the Practicum student teaching site at the end of the semester and submitted along
with the other assessment documents required.
The instrument is organized into nine sections including:
 Productive Teaching Techniques (PTT)
 Effective Classroom Management (ECM)
 Positive Interpersonal Relationships (PIR)
 Professional Responsibility (PR)
 Future farmers of America (FFA)
 Supervised Agricultural Experience Program (SAEP)
3



Department Management (DM)
Personality and Personal Characteristics (PPC)
Technical Knowledge (in animal and plant sciences, agricultural mechanics, ornamental horticulture, natural
resources/forestry, and agribusiness) (TK)
For each competency, the candidate is rated on a Likert scale with 4 = Exceptional, 3 = Strong, 2 = Satisfactory, 1 = Weak, and
NA = Not Applicable. The candidate must score at least a satisfactory on all competencies.
e. SPED Course Embedded Assignments
Mild/Moderate Credential: “Anchor Assignment: Framing Routine Training and Implementation” from SPED 672 Curriculum
and Instruction, Mild/Moderate. A research-based, planning routine from the Strategic Instruction Model developed by the
University of Kansas will be presented during an in-class training. Candidates will implement the routine in their classrooms
for differentiated instruction of pupils in general and special education. The assignment will also demonstrate Candidate
knowledge in the Common Core Standards and the collaborative role of education specialists with general education teachers.
More specific details and an assignment rubric will be posted on Blackboard.
Moderate/Severe: “Anchor Assignment: Intervention Study”
SPED 637 Curriculum and Instruction, Moderate/Severe
The anchor assignment for this course will involve teaching a lesson to a student with a moderate to severe disability using an
evidence based practice that is supported through research. This assignment will provide you with an opportunity to practice
writing and implementing lesson plans, assessing your student, and recording data on progress. By video recording the
instruction, you will also have the opportunity to reflect on your work, receive peer feedback, and incorporate ongoing feedback
into your lesson plans and instruction. This assignment will be an ongoing project throughout the semester. A hard copy of this
assignment will be due on the last day of class. For a complete description of the assignment please see the assignment handout
on the course website.
Initial.4 Performance Assessment of California Teachers (PACT)
The PACT Teaching Event assesses candidate performance in five areas: Planning (P), Instruction (I), Assessment (A), Reflection (R)
and Academic Language (AL). Candidates’ performance in these areas is evaluated on twelve rubrics represented in the charts below.
Candidates submit the PACT Teaching Event during the student teaching (Teaching Practicum II) semester. Teaching events are
4
evaluated on a four-point scale. A score of 1 is considered a failing score. All handbooks and rubrics are available on the PACT
website
Education Specialist Traditional and Intern Pathways: (Transitioning to PACT in by Spring 2015)
“Anchor Assignment: Intervention Research Paper” from SPED 680: Advanced Methods/Curriculum for Students with Autism
Spectrum Disorders The Anchor Assignment will provide students with the opportunity to write a paper on an evidence-based practice
for students with autism. The candidate researches an evidence-based practice for students with autism, design an intervention,
implements the intervention and collects data. Then, students write a paper including a detailed explanation of the intervention(s),
current instructional practices, a review of current literature on selected intervention(s), assessment of the efficacy of those
interventions, and recommendations for future research in this field.
Initial.5 CSU System-wide Exit Survey
Beginning in Fall 2005, all campuses within the California State University (CSU) system have participated in a system-wide exit
survey of initial credential program graduates. At CSU, Chico participation in the survey is a requirement for all credential program
completers. Each year, the CSU Center for Teacher Quality provides the individual campuses aggregated data electronically
preformatted with statistical computations complete.
Initial.6 CSU System-wide Evaluation of First Year Teachers
The CSU System-wide Evaluation of Teacher Preparation, administered by the CSU Center for Teacher Quality, provides the results
of surveys administered to both graduates of initial credential programs completing their first year as in-service teachers and their
employers on their perceptions of the quality of preparation they received in their programs. The results for each campus are provided
as composite scores on groups of questions substantively related to each other.
5
B. Advanced Programs
MA in Education
MA in Ed.1 Writing Proficiency: Initial Writing Assessment
Applicants to the MA in Education program must submit an original piece of academic writing. The website directs them to choose
one of six topics and to use the MA in Education Writing Rubric to guide their writing. The Graduate Coordinator uses the writing
rubric to evaluate the writing samples and assign a score. The rubric contains seven criteria (presentation of ideas, organization, use of
evidence, quality of evidence, conclusion, mechanics, APA formatting) with descriptors for four levels of performance (unacceptable,
partial/inconsistent, acceptable/mostly consistent or exceptional/consistent. Applicants can earn up to 28 points. A candidate must earn
at least 17 points for acceptance (among other admission requirements). Admitted candidates who earn between 17 and 21 points will
be considered “conditionally classified” as a graduate student until they successfully pass the graduate writing course.
MA in Ed.2 Writing Proficiency: In-program Writing Proficiency
To advance to candidacy, candidates must submit two work samples from their coursework. The candidate’s faculty advisor evaluates
these work samples according to the MA in Education Writing Rubric. Candidates who score a 24 or above on the rubric (out of 28)
are eligible for advancement to candidacy, if they have met other program requirements.
MA in Ed.3 School Community Equity Study from EDMA 600: Critical Perspectives in Education
Candidates complete a study of a school and community, including demographics overview, equity survey, school handbook analysis,
community map, interview with a community based agency or organization. They then synthesize this data and write a report that
describes the role of the school in the community. Papers are scored out of 30 points using the Equity Study Rubric, then scaled to a 4
point rubric (unacceptable, developing, proficient, exemplary)
MA in Ed.4 Assessment Project from EDMA 602 Assessment and Evaluation of Learning
Assessment, Technology, Student Learning
Candidates create assessment instruments, administer the assessment to students, analyze data using technology, use the results to
inform their understanding of student learning, and critique the assessment tool. Scores are earned on a 10 point scale, then converted
to a 4 point scale (unacceptable, acceptable beginning, acceptable professional, exemplary).
6
MA in Ed.5 Action Research Project from EDCI 601 Curriculum Development and Instructional Design
The AR project is designed to provide an opportunity for you to look closely at a question related specifically to their current position
in education. Candidates formulate a question, collect and analyze data, engage in reflections and determine future directions. The
assignment is scored on a rubric out of a total of 40 points, then scaled to a 4 point rubric (unacceptable, developing, proficient,
exemplary).
MA in Ed.6 Culminating Activity
As a culminating activity for the Masters in Education degree, candidates may choose to complete a thesis, project or comprehensive
exam. Both the project and the thesis include an oral defense and a written document, as described in the Guide to Graduate Studies.
Upon completion, the candidate’s thesis or project committee assigns a score to the written document and oral defense (unacceptable,
pass, pass with distinction). Comprehensive exams are blind-scored by the School of Education Comprehensive Exam Committee,
using the Comprehensive Exam Rubric. Scores from the three options are recorded according to a 3-point scale (0=not pass, 1=pass,
2=distinction).
MA in Ed.7 Exit Survey
Candidates complete an online exit survey (22 items) that measures perception of preparedness in areas identified by program learning
outcomes.
7
Preliminary Administrative Services Credential
EDAD.1 Writing Proficiency: Initial Writing Assessment
Applicants to the MA in Education program must submit an original piece of academic writing. The website directs them to choose
one of six topics and to use the MA in Education Writing Rubric to guide their writing. The Graduate Coordinator uses the writing
rubric to evaluate the writing samples and assign a score. The rubric contains seven criteria (presentation of ideas, organization, use of
evidence, quality of evidence, conclusion, mechanics, APA formatting) with descriptors for four levels of performance (unacceptable,
partial/inconsistent, acceptable/mostly consistent or exceptional/consistent. Applicants can earn up to 28 points. A candidate must earn
at least 17 points for acceptance (among other admission requirements). Admitted candidates who earn between 17 and 21 points will
be considered “conditionally classified” as a graduate student until they successfully pass the graduate writing course.
EDAD. 2 Writing Proficiency: In-program Writing Proficiency
To advance to candidacy, candidates must submit two work samples from their coursework. The candidate’s faculty advisor evaluates
these work samples according to the MA in Education Writing Rubric. Candidates who score a 24 or above on the rubric (out of 28)
are eligible for advancement to candidacy, if they have met other program requirements.
EDAD. 3 Mid-Program Portfolio Review
Candidates present oral and written documentation of completed courses in the program to date, a review of accomplishments towards
their Professional Growth Plans, a summary of their strengths and areas for professional growth, and a review of their Portfolios,
including progress in field-embedded coursework, and documentation of meeting CPSELS and CCTC Administrative Standards. The
mid-program review is scored on a 4 point scale (1=not proficient, 2=developing,3=proficient,4=exemplary) according to five leadership
roles.
EDAD. 4 Accountability System from EDAD 615 Field-Based Accountability: Managing for Learning
In their field placements, candidates evaluate the current instructional program using formative and summative measures from their
school’s accountability system. The assignment is scored on a 40 point scale, then scaled to a four point scale (1=not proficient,
2=developing,3=proficient,4=exemplary)
8
EDAD. 5 Final Portfolio Evaluation
The portfolio is compiled throughout the program and includes a number of course-embedded assignments linked to the candidates’ fieldbased experiences. The portfolio is evaluated on a four-point scale (1=not proficient, 2=developing,3=proficient,4=exemplary). The
elements of the portfolio include:







Developing a Vision for Learning: Theory to Practice
Community/School Site Demographic Study
Crisis Response: Oral and Written
Management of Funds and Facilities
Staff Development Plan
Using Research
Leadership for Diversity
EDAD.6 Culminating Activity
As a culminating activity for the Masters in Education degree, candidates may choose to complete a thesis, project or comprehensive
exam. Both the project and the thesis include an oral defense and a written document, as described in the Guide to Graduate Studies.
Upon completion, the candidate’s thesis or project committee assigns a score to the written document and oral defense (unacceptable,
pass, pass with distinction). Comprehensive exams are blind-scored by the School of Education Comprehensive Exam Committee,
using the Comprehensive Exam Rubric. Scores from the three options are recorded according to a 3-point scale (0=not pass, 1=pass,
2=distinction).
EDAD.7 Exit Survey
Candidates complete an online exit survey (22 items) that measures perception of preparedness in areas identified by program learning
outcomes.
9
Pupil Personnel Services: School Psychology
PPS.1 School Psychology Practicum Field Site Evaluations (PSY 688) In the second year of the program, students are assigned to a
school or schools for two days/week. In the fall of that year, students provide group and individual counseling, classroom skill
development units, and behavioral consultation to students and teachers. During this time they are supervised by a credentialed school
psychologist on site and also receive support and supervision on campus from their instructors in PSYC 634 (School Counseling and
Interventions) and PSYC 636 (Behavioral Consultation). In the spring of year 2, students continue to work in the schools during their
School Psychology Practicum (PSYC 688), but broaden their roles to include more activities related to school psychology service
delivery. They are again supervised by credentialed school psychologists on site and attend a three-hour seminar on campus once
weekly where, together with school psychology internship students, they discuss cases, share experiences, present on various topics,
and offer support to one another. As one way to monitor student progress and to evaluate the professional skills, knowledge,
dispositions and professional work characteristics of each candidate, the Field Supervisor Rating for School Psychology Practicum
students is completed by each candidate’s field-site supervisor. Candidates are rated on the following 10 competencies, using a 4 point
scale:
1 – Competence is currently limited. Close supervision and instruction are required.
2 – Competence is progressing satisfactorily. Moderate supervision and more experience are required.
3 – Competence is approaching an independent level. Little supervision is required.
4 – Competence is very well developed and reflects a capacity for independent functioning with little or no supervision required.
ND – No data or insufficient information is available to make a rating at this time.
1. Professional knowledge base
2. Personal & professional qualities
3. Communication/rapport
4. Behavioral consultation & intervention
5. Counseling & wellness promotion
6. Evaluation/assessment
7. Program development
8. Appreciation of and experience with diverse populations
9. Ethical practices
10. Effective use of research and technology
--Overall rating of practicum student
--Successful completion of practicum
10
PPS.2 School Psychology Internship Field Site Evaluations (PSY 689B) The second key assessment is ratings of field-site
supervisors for students near completion of internship (PSYC 689B). A similar rating form to that noted above, but more specific to
the internship, is used by supervisors in conjunction with 689B competencies to rate students. Both rating form and competencies are
included with the syllabus for PSYC 689B. Students are rated on a scale from 1 to 4 on various elements of 11 different domains
including an “overall” performance rating. Ratings on all of the elements from each domain are then averaged, and a mean score for
the entire cohort on each domain is derived.
PPS.3 Culminating Activity: Comprehensive Exam (PSY 696) or Thesis (PSY 699T) The third key program assessment is
performance on a culminating activity – either the comprehensive exam (PSYC 696) or thesis (PSYC 699T) to be completed in the
spring semester of the third year.
Two instructors, who rated responses as “unacceptable,” “acceptable” or “superior” following a specific rubric, independently scored
each response.
PPS.4 National School Psychology Exam (Praxis II)
To earn a credential, candidates must pass the PRAXIS II. Domains of Practice assessed by PRAXIS II are:
1.
Data-Based Decision Making
2.
Research-Based Academic Practices
3.
Research-Based Behavioral and Mental Health Practices
4.
Consultation and Collaboration
5.
Applied Psychological Foundation
6.
Ethical/Legal and Professional Foundations
PPS.5 Exit Survey
Candidates complete an exit survey that measures perception of preparedness in areas identified by program learning outcomes. Given
domains, they rank their preparedness 1=Minimally Prepared, 2=Prepared, 3=Well Prepared
11
Communication Sciences and Disorders
CMSD.1 Comprehensive Examination – taken before spring of the 2nd year. Comprehensives consist of 6 questions written over
two days. Each faculty member writes and scores 1-2 questions. Questions cover the 9 areas of learning required by our accrediting
body. Scoring is as follows:
 3.7 = Outstanding
 3.69 - 2.1 - Acceptable
 2.0 or below - Unacceptable
CMSD.2 PRAXIS – the national standardized examination for all CMSD students. Students cannot receive certification unless
they pass this test. The national passage rate for this test hovers around 75%.
 700+ = Outstanding
 600-699 = Acceptable
 Below 600 = Unacceptable
CMSD.3 Clinic Assessment – an assessment form for clinical performance. The assessment was developed by faculty and clinical
staff. It consists of a 1-5 rating of 28 clinical skills, in 6 domains:
1. Prevention
2. Evaluation
3. Intervention
4. Interpersonal Skills
5. Reporting
6. Professional Behavior and Responsibilities
The assessment is conducted at the end of each of three internships completed during the 2nd year and the end of on-campus clinical
practicum for 1st year graduate students.
 Average of 4.5 - 5= Outstanding
 Average of 3.0 – 4.5 = Acceptable
 Average 2.9 or below= Unacceptable
12
CMSD.4 Performance Review –portfolio. Information is added each semester. We review the portfolios periodically throughout
the 2 year program. Areas include Basic Human Communication Process Phonological and Language Disorders Speech Disorders
Neurogenic Disorders Audiology/Hearing Clinical Management Professional Issues/ Psychometrics/Research
We provide a rating to the students as follows:
 1 = Outstanding
 2 = Acceptable
 3 = Unacceptable
CMSD.5 Exit Survey
Candidates complete an online exit survey that measures perception of preparedness in areas identified by program learning outcomes.
Ratings are on a 5 point scale
1= poor
2= minimal
3= satisfactory
4= very good
5= exceptional
13
MS in Agricultural Education
This program graduated its first cohort in Spring of 2014. Data has not yet been collected on all of these measures. It will be available
in fall of 2014.
AgEd.1 Writing Proficiency: Initial Writing Assessment*
Applicants to the MA in Agricultural Education program will submit an original piece of academic writing. The website directs them
to choose one of six topics and to use the MA in AgEd Writing Rubric to guide their writing. The coordinator will use the writing
rubric to evaluate the writing samples and assign a score. The rubric contains seven criteria (presentation of ideas, organization, use of
evidence, quality of evidence, conclusion, mechanics, APA formatting) with descriptors for four levels of performance (unacceptable,
partial/inconsistent, acceptable/mostly consistent or exceptional/consistent. Applicants can earn up to 28 points. A candidate must earn
at least 17 points for acceptance (among other admission requirements). Admitted candidates who earn between 17 and 21 points will
be considered “conditionally classified” as a graduate student until they successfully pass the graduate writing course.
AgEd.2 Writing Proficiency: In-program Writing Proficiency
To advance to candidacy, candidates must submit two work samples from their coursework. (AGED 600: Research Methods, AGED
602: Advanced Teaching Methods) The candidate’s faculty advisor evaluates these work samples according to the MA in Agricultural
Education Writing Rubric. Candidates who score a 24 or above on the rubric (out of 28) are eligible for advancement to candidacy, if
they have met other program requirements.
AgEd3. Instructional Accommodation from AgEd 608 Teaching Diverse Students in Agricultural Education: Based on a
student’s IEP, observation, and curriculum outline, candidates design a specific lesson, including instructional materials to address a
specific instructional objective(s) within the agricultural education curriculum. They utilize at least three effective teaching strategies
discussed during the course, either through lecture notes, research papers, or course discussion. The lesson plan should identify an
instructional approach, including required materials, appropriate technology, instructional environment and objective(s), prerequisite
skills necessary, introduction to the lesson (i.e. motivation, hook, or interest approach), steps for teaching the lesson, check for student
understanding, and student practice. The lesson or activity used must provide an instructional accommodation needed by the student.
AgEd.4 Program Plan Project from AgEd 601 Program Planning in Agricultural Education
This project is a determination of your mastery of the program development process and concepts. Each student develops an
educational plan from an actual concern/need that has been identified for a specific district/community. This should be a new plan of
14
your design and NOT be a report of a plan currently being implemented. The plan should address the points listed below (use as a
guide), a reference list (APA format), and appendices (could include needs assessment instrument, sample lesson materials, marketing
materials, etc.).
The program plan should address the following points:
a. Introduction/Background (including current local situation/problem statement, desired local situation, and significance using pre‐
needs results as part of your narrative)
b. Community Involvement/Partners (including selection and involvement of an advisory committee, stakeholder input,
collaboration/partners, recruitment of volunteers, etc. Include in appendices a job description for a volunteer to help with the program)
c. Procedures for conducting a needs assessment to provide data useful in identification of problems, needs, and concerns.
d. Identification of priority issues and target audience to be reached (how these are determined, methods used, etc.).
e. Logic model
f. List of program objectives (short, medium, and long term)
g. List of learning opportunities (i.e. program activities) to be developed to address the program objectives (include a description of
the subject matter)
h. Develop a plan of action for one of the learning opportunities listed above (including educational/instructional objectives, teaching
methods and techniques, educational materials, resources needed and/or obtained, learning assessment/evaluation method used to
assess instructional objectives)
i. Procedures for implementing the program (include time line/schedule, marketing efforts, program monitoring, etc.)
j. Procedures for evaluating the program outcomes (evaluation methods used, identification of outcome indicators for achievement of
program objectives)
k. Communicating program value (reporting results to key individuals, groups, and stakeholders – who they are, type of reporting
method used, etc.
AgEd.5 Unit Assessment Design and Evaluation from AgEd 610 Assessment in Agricultural Education
Students create a unit exam which must be developed from at least five individual lessons plans or a unit lesson plan in agricultural
contexts which include at least two formative assessments. The exam includes a variety of assessment questions (multiple choice,
true/false, short answer and matching) and at least one alternative assessment rubric relevant to agricultural education curriculum.
They also must include at least one rubric (from any unit plan from any agriculture course) designed specifically for experience-based
courses such as mechanics or floral design. Using appropriate technology, candidates prepare a report evaluating the data collected
through the unit exam. They identify how the information will be used to modify instructional objectives, inform practice, evaluate
course objectives, and provide feedback to their agricultural education program.
15
AgEd.6 Culminating Activity
As a culminating activity for the Masters in Agricultural Education degree, candidates may choose to complete a thesis, project or
comprehensive exam. Both the project and the thesis include an oral defense and a written document, as described in the Guide to
Graduate Studies. Upon completion, the candidate’s thesis or project committee assigns a score to the written document and oral
defense (unacceptable, pass, pass with distinction). Comprehensive exams are blind-scored by the School of Education
Comprehensive Exam Committee, using the Comprehensive Exam Rubric. Scores from the three options are recorded according to a
3-point scale (0=not pass, 1=pass, 2=distinction).
AgEd.7 Exit Survey
The AgIDEA consortium is currently developing an exit survey to be used across programs.
16