(Confidential) Page 5
I.5.a Pages from catalogs and other printed documents describing general education, specialty/content
studies, and professional studies
I.5.b Examples of syllabi for professional education courses
I.5.c Conceptual framework(s)
I.5.d Findings of other national accreditation associations related to the preparation of education
professionals (e.g., ASHA, NASM, APA, CACREP)
I.5.e Updated institutional, program, and faculty information under institutional work space in AIMS
1.5.c COE Conceptual Framework.pdf
1.5.d CACREP Letter.pdf
See Attachment panel below.
Standard 1: Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions
Candidates preparing to work in schools as teachers or other school professionals know and
demonstrate the content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and skills, pedagogical and
professional knowledge and skills, and professional dispositions necessary to help all students learn.
Assessments indicate that candidates meet professional, state, and institutional standards.
1.1 Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions
1.1.a Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates
Summarize processes for development and outcomes from key assessments based on candidates'
demonstration of the content knowledge delineated in professional, state, and institutional
standards.
The conceptual framework for basic and advanced professional preparation programs at the University
of Nevada, Reno is organized around four themes: (1) a lifelong love of learning; (2) a strong fund of
knowledge concerning all aspects of education; (3) reflection on educational practices; and (4) valuing
democracy and multiculturalism. The College of Education teacher candidates know the content that
they plan to teach and can explain important principles and concepts delineated in professional, state,
and institutional standards. In the programs for initial licensure, content knowledge is developed through
subject specific requirements for candidates in the Integrated Elementary Teaching Program (IETP), in
the undergraduate Secondary Education program, and in the Initial Licensure Advanced Programs for
Elementary (pp. 8-9) and Secondary (pp. 5-6) (see Exhibits 1.3.a various program manuals). Because
passing of Praxis I exams is required prior to the candidates' admission to the teacher education
program, one hundred percent pass the Praxis I examination. Candidates in advanced programs for
teachers have an in-depth knowledge of the content that they teach as demonstrated by the possession of
a bachelor's degree in their area of expertise and their major GPA upon application to the program.
In the programs for initial licensure at the undergraduate and advanced program level, content
knowledge is measured initially through major/minor GPAs at entrance to the program and through
Portfolios (IETP Portfolio I, Secondary Portfolio I prior to entrance to Student Teaching Internship.
Content knowledge is assessed also through a wide battery of assessments, including PRAXIS I scores
in writing and math, internship assessments, and PRAXIS II scores. All programs have a minimum of an
(Confidential) Page 6
88% Pass Rate.
The PRAXIS I Writing assessment is used to measure basic writing knowledge of candidates for
admission to all initial teacher education programs. The PRAXIS I Math assessment is also used to
measure basic mathematical knowledge of candidates for admission to initial licensure teacher education
programs at both the undergraduate and advanced levels in the Integrated Elementary Teaching Program
(IETP) and Secondary Education. (Master's level 1st Time Licensure in Elementary and Secondary
requires PPST and offers options for it through GPA/GRE alternatives). To qualify for initial admission,
candidates must achieve minimum scores on the PRAXIS I of 172 in writing, and 172 in mathematics.
These scores are based on (a) recommendations from the Nevada Commission on Professional Standards
in Education, and (b) typical teacher education practices. The mean scores on the PRAXIS I for both
writing and mathematics by program for the past two years are listed in Exhibit 1.3.d (Praxis I Writing
and Math Mean Scores).
All Advanced Program candidates are assessed at entry with admissions data (GPA), mid-point
assessments (course), and at exit assessment (Portfolio II). A primary key indicator used to assess
content knowledge in candidates in the advanced programs for teacher education is the cumulative
undergraduate GPA, reviewed upon application into their respective programs (see Exhibit 2.3.d
Advanced Program Data).
If an applicant is applying as a graduate degree-seeking student to the Elementary Education advanced
degree program that qualifies them for initial licensure if they do not already have one, an overall
undergraduate GPA of 3.0 grade point average or higher is required for admission. If the regular 3.0
GPA is not met, consideration is given to those students whose "last-half" undergraduate is 3.0. Under
special conditions and with provisions, advanced programs throughout the unit may accept students with
undergraduate cumulative GPAs below 3.0. Students accepted under such provisional status, must
demonstrate through graduate GPA their content knowledge. For the Advanced program in Secondary
Education that qualifies them for initial licensure if they do not already have one, the applicant must
have a GPA of 3.0 or higher from accredited institution of higher institution. If the undergraduate GPA
is below a 2.75 the candidate will be given a prescribed program by the advisor. If the student achieves a
3.0 or better in the prescribed program with a grade of B or better in each course, the probationary
status* will be removed.
Exhibit 1.3.d (Advanced Mean GPA at Admission) and Exhibit 1.3.d (mean GPA by Program) shows
that candidates do possess the content knowledge. The lowest GPA occurred in Art and Career and
Technical Education (2.98 and 2.70 respectively).
Graduates' preparation in content areas for both Initial and Advanced Programs is assessed, among other
ways, in follow-up studies of graduates and their employers. In spring, 2014 the unit conducted a
comprehensive state mandated teacher Program Completers and Their Principals/Employers Survey. A
total of 78 program completers responded to the survey (49% response rate). Forty-five (45) principals
responded to the survey (response rate of 29%). Using a 5-point Likert scale from strongly agree to
strongly disagree, graduates were asked to scale a response to the following statement: "My coursework
in the content areas (math, English, science, social sciences, and other teaching areas) prepared me to
teach in my subject matter content and address the academic content standards of my district." Seventyseven percent (77%) strongly agreed or agreed with that statement; nine percent ( 9%) were neutral, and
14% either strongly disagreed (5.1%) or disagreed (9%). Eighty percent (80%) of Employers strongly
agreed or agreed with the statement; four percent (4.4%) were neutral, and 15.6% disagreed with the
statement. None of the employers strongly disagreed with the statement. The data was provided to the
Directors of Profession and Specialized Studies and Teacher Education and Human Development for
review.
(Confidential) Page 7
6000 character limit
1.1.b Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates
Summarize processes for development and outcomes from key assessments based on candidates'
demonstration of the pedagogical content knowledge delineated in professional, state, and
institutional standards.
In the unit's programs for initial licensure, pedagogical content knowledge is developed through content
specific education requirements. Pedagogical content knowledge is assessed through a variety of diverse
and comprehensive assessments. These assessments include (a) the education grade point average, (b)
the Final Evaluation Scores, (c) Praxis II scores, and (d) Exit (alumni) and Employer surveys. The
minimum assessment requirements for initial Teacher Education programs are listed in Exhibit 2.3.d
(Gates for Initial Certification).
Each teacher education candidate is assessed throughout their coursework prior to Internship. Portfolio I
is the second assessment, and this includes the candidate completing the self-assessment of dispositions
and discussing their disposition and professional behaviors as part of the essay in the portfolio. Portfolio
II/Internship is the third assessment for initial teacher licensure. Here the lead teacher and university
supervisor together with the intern complete the assessments (see Standard 3). These assessments are
included in Portfolio II. (Examples are available On-Site).
Lesson and unit planning by students is documented throughout their Student Teaching Internship
(typically a field-intensive professional experience during the candidate's final semester in an initial
program). In collaboration with the mentor teacher and their university supervisor, each candidate
prepares standards-based lessons and a teaching unit (as outlined in the Student Teaching Internship
Manual (see also Standard 3). The mentor and the supervisor oversee the planning work of the
candidate, observe the implementation and evaluation of the instruction, and provide feedback
identifying both strengths and areas for subsequent refinement. This feedback is documented on an
"Observation Evaluation Form" (included in the Manual). The lessons and analyses are discussed by all
parties to provide guidance and structure for the candidate's ongoing professional growth and
development (see Standard 3)
The creation of a Portfolio (e.g.,Portfolio I and Portfolio II) is another example of how candidates are
asked to demonstrate their mastery of pedagogical knowledge and skills at both the undergraduate initial
licensure and Advanced Program 1st Time Licensure levels. For the IETP, Portfolio I documents include
educational courses taken, a signed Teacher Education Candidate Professional Behaviors and
Dispositions form, a Reflective Essay, Artifact Analysis, Internship Goals and Composition, Artifacts,
and all Practicum Evaluations. The portfolio is assessed using a planned rubric designed to thoroughly
analyze the candidate's understanding and application of lesson and unit planning. In this analysis,
mentor and supervisor affirm that student learning standards are incorporated, with special attention to
issues of student diversity. The Secondary Education program also uses Portfolio I as an assessment
prior to student teaching. It differs from the IETP Portfolio in that the intent of Secondary faculty is to
have candidates focus more on the culminating coursework, including the content methods class. Hence
faculty evaluate candidates on GPA in certain courses for the five domains (Knowledge of Students and
Learning Environments; Knowledge of Subject Matter; Planning, Delivery, and Management of
Instruction, Assessment, and Professionalism). State standards are integrated and strictly adhered to as
indicated in Exhibit 2.3.d (Gates for Initial Certification).
Candidates in advanced programs for teachers demonstrate an in-depth understanding of the content of
their field and of the theories related to pedagogy and learning. They are able to select and use a broad
range of instructional strategies and technologies that promote student learning and are able to clearly
explain the choices they make in their practice. As advanced students progress through the program
(Confidential) Page 8
courses with specific pedagogic emphases, faculty members in those courses are able to assess
candidates' mastery of pedagogical knowledge and skills through a variety of assessments, including (a)
traditional tests, (b) reflection papers, (c) student presentations, (d) professional papers, and (e) work
samples. (Also see Exhibit 2.3.d Advanced Program Data and Standard 2).
Advanced program students who responded to the EBI Graduate Survey were asked about their level of
agreement with the following two statements: "I am confident that I can use engaging teaching methods
(pedagogy)" (Q65) and, "I am confident that I can actively engage students in the learning
process" (Q73). Seventy-five percent (75%) of the advanced program students (N=80) strongly agreed or
agreed with that statement. In terms of actively engaging students in the learning process, 72% of the
respondents (N=78) strongly agreed or agreed with that statement.
Results from the 2013-2014 Student Completers and Their Employers/Principals Survey (Completers
Survey) and the EBI Graduate Survey 2014 both reflect candidates' successful demonstration the
pedagogical content knowledge and skills. As mentioned previously, of the forty-five (45) principals
who responded to the Completers survey (response rate of 19%), 95% said they strongly agree or agree
that the unit's candidates had pedagogical content knowledge and skill (Q6). Eighty-eight (88%) percent
of the completers strongly agreed or agreed that they were prepared in pedagogy knowledge and skills.
Respondents in the EBI Graduate Survey (response rate of 30.7%) answered two questions: "I am
confident that I can use engaging teaching methods (pedagogy)." Data from the students who responded
to the Completers Survey (2013-2014) (see Exhibit 1.3.i) indicated that 82% strongly agreed or agreed
with the statement, "My teacher education program prepared me to use appropriate technology and/or
media in my teaching." Employers (86%) strongly agreed or agreed with that same statement on the
same survey.
6000 character limit
1.1.c Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates
Summarize processes for development and outcomes from key assessments based on candidates'
demonstration of the professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills delineated in professional,
state, and institutional standards.
University of Nevada College of Education teacher candidates can apply the professional and
pedagogical knowledge and skills delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards to
facilitate learning. Results of responses on questions in the EBI provide an example: Graduates' (n=132)
scored 6.16 out of 7 on Question 065, "I am confident that I can actively engage students in the learning
process." They scored 6.12 out of 7 in their agreement with Question 73, "I am confident that I can
actively engage students in the learning process."
Candidates at the initial level throughout the unit begin their professional coursework in an educational
foundations course at the sophomore or junior level. The specific course(s) taken by candidates is
determined by the program (e.g., all initial candidates take EDU 202, Society, the Students, and the
Secondary Schools or EDU 110, Society and Education, and EPY 330 Educational Psychology. IETP
candidates who choose the ELL endorsement also take EDUC 413, Education for a Changing World.
Professors of these educational foundations courses conduct ongoing classroom-based assessments to
assure that candidates possess appropriate initial levels of professional knowledge and skills in these
educational foundation areas. Additional documentation is ongoing throughout subsequent university
courses and field experiences. For example, In EDU 201 (Introduction to Elementary Education), one of
the earliest field experiences, candidates complete a 30 hour field experience in an elementary
classroom. In a personal essay about their philosophy of education, candidates discuss their beliefs about
the role of teachers, the beliefs about students and how they learn best, and the purpose of schooling.
(Confidential) Page 9
Candidates plan and teach a lesson to students in an elementary classroom, including an assessment of
the students. In collaboration with the lead teacher, candidates determine what and when to teach. The
lesson plan must be approved by the lead teacher and course instructor in advance of teaching it. After
the lesson is taught, candidates reflect on (a) what went well, (b) what didn't go well, (c) what they
would do differently if they were to teach this lesson again and (d) how did the students do on their
assessment. Webcampus support includes a lesson plan format and more details on what to incorporate
in the candidate's reflection. All initial teacher candidates are required to take coursework in family
engagement as mandated by the state.
During the student teaching internship for candidates at the initial level, the candidates' abilities to
implement instruction using multiple teaching strategies and differentiation are most comprehensively
observed, documented and discussed through an online format. For instance, interns upload lesson plans
for formal observations for their supervisor to review and make suggestions and comments before the
intern teaches that lesson. In a 2014 webcampus training for university supervisors, they said that they
wanted the pre-observation form added to the lesson plan in webcampus (online) because it gave them
more time to peruse it and give feedback before the lesson was taught. Professional Year candidates
continue their teaching tasks throughout the student teaching semester, enhancing their levels of
professional knowledge and skills their skills as they gain greater classroom instructional experience. In
this process, candidates gradually and systematically assume greater levels of professional responsibility
within the classroom, supported by the routine formative verbal and written assessments provided by
both mentors and university supervisors. Observations and subsequent conferencing between candidates,
mentors, and university supervisors are scheduled and conducted on a regular and frequent basis,
minimizing the potential emergence of any professional issues. The candidate's mentor provides daily
feedback, while the university supervisor provides weekly feedback online based on his/her observations
of the candidate, as well as "debriefings" with the mentor. These observations guide the ultimate
assessment of the candidate's skill levels on the Internship Final Evaluation. (See Summary Data in
Standard 3).
Candidates in the Advanced Programs of Initial Licensure (Elementary and Secondary) submit Portfolio
I for evaluation. In terms of Foundations (Domain 1), 2013 candidates' mean score for both Elementary
(N=7) and Secondary (N=15) were 5.0 and 5.0 respectively (out of 5 total possible points). (see Exhibit
2.3.d Advanced Program Data). In 2014, as part of a newly implemented comprehensive assessment
plan, the unit asked faculty to rate their advanced program students at the mid-point and exit of the
students' studies based on the National Board for Professional Teaching Standard (NBPTS)s. Results of
mid-point and exit evaluation scores appear in Exhibit 2.3.d (Advanced Program Data).
The Completer and Their Employer/Principal Survey (2014) is conducted every year (see 2.3.d Annual
Report of Follow-Up Studies). Many items on the survey assess knowledge of pedagogical knowledge
and skills. For example, Question 17 asks the degree to which the candidate was prepared to provide
developmentally appropriate instruction. Eighty-six percent (86%) of the students either strongly agreed
or agreed with that statement, and 82% of their employers strongly agreed or agreed. The EBI Graduate
Survey, 2014 mentioned above also asked respondents about pedagogical knowledge and skills, and the
mean for the 131 responses reflected that graduates were categorically "very satisfied" in their
pedagogical knowledge and skills across the ten questions.
6000 character limit
1.1.d Student Learning for Teacher Candidates
Summary processes for development and outcomes from key assessments based on candidates'
demonstration of the knowledge, skills, and ability to affect student learning.
(Confidential) Page 10
The EBI Graduate Survey (Exhibit 1.3.i), 2014 assessed Student Learning at the Initial and Advanced
Program Levels through eight (8) questions. Exhibit 1.3.d (EBI Results Student Learning) shows data
reflecting graduates' responses to student learning questions on the EBI survey. Graduates' responses
indicated that the highest score was students' abilities to establish equity in the classroom (Mean Score
6.16/7.0; 91% strongly agree/agreed/slightly agreed), and the lowest score was related to the question on
classroom management (Mean Score 5.76/7.0; 75% strongly agreed/agreed/slightly agreed.
The definitive evaluative marker for a unit preparing teachers is whether the candidate can bring about
learning in their students. The unit at the University of Nevada, Reno College of Education seeks to
document this programmatic outcome for its candidates through the Internship Final Evaluation. The
Framework for Teaching (see Exhibit 3b2.1 Internship Manual pp. 75-end) is the rubric with which
student teachers (interns) are evaluated. Standard 1 deals with Planning and Preparation and in
subsections 1A, 1C, and 1F interns must demonstrate proficient skills in planning for and assessing
diverse student populations. Exhibit 1.3.d shows Final Evaluation Scores for Planning and Preparation.
A rating of 3.00 or above is satisfactory—meaning it is effective performance. Data indicates that all
candidates were Satisfactory.
Advanced teacher candidates focus on student learning through the use of appropriate assessments. At
the advanced level, programs typically evaluate student learning for teacher candidates using specific
criterion-based assessments that provide analysis of candidate proficiencies.
For example, all candidates in Literacy take both EDRL 661 Diagnostic Assessment and Instruction
Literacy and EDRL 700 Literacy Assessment. Special Education master's degree students take EDSP
663 Assessment and Instruction in K-12 Math for Struggling Students and EDSP 652 Assessment For
Special Education Teachers. Educational Leadership students take EDRS 746 Data Based Decision
Making. School Counseling candidates take CEP 642a Assessment, and Elementary and Secondary
Education master's degree students take CTL 721 Evaluation of Classroom Learning. Portfolio I mean
scores for Advanced Program candidates in Elementary and Secondary Education in the area of
assessment of student learning was 5 out of 5.
All Advanced Degree candidates write professional papers/projects as part of their final product. In
2014, many master's degree students focused on student learning, and examples of their professional
papers are listed below (other examples available On-Site):
• Effects of Outdoor Education on Student Learning and Attitude
• Impacts on student attitudes toward Science with use of Weekend Field Trips
• Integrating disciplines for STEM education: the impact of integrating mathematics and engineering
• The Correlation in Scores between ELLs and Gender in Inquiry-based, modified sheltered instruction
in STEM Education
• The Effects of Inquiry-Based Teaching Approaches Compared to Textbook Science Instruction
• Same-Gender Classrooms and its Effect on Girls' Dispositions toward Mathematics
• Relating Graphs and Probability in a Problem Solving Environment: Can it Promote Deeper
Understanding of the Data?
• Dynamic Geometry Software(DGS): The Effects on Student Achievement, Professional Development,
Instruction, and Teachers' Beliefs
The results in Exhibits 4.3.a (see Tables 4.A.1- 4.A.4 EBI Survey Results) reflects similar conclusions to
what was found with the Employer Survey (2014) shown in Exhibit 1.3.j (Completers Survey).
Response rates for the Completers Survey was 49% and 30% for the EBI Survey. Candidates are
confident in their abilities to establish classrooms that are fair and believe that all students can learn.
Forty-five employers of the unit's graduates have similar perceptions of their skills and abilities. Data
from the Student Completers and Their Employers/Principals Survey (2.3.d Annual Report on Followup of Graduates, p. 75) shows that students rated the efficacy of their training in the area of diversity as
good to very good in most cases (see also Standard 4). For instance, for Question 1, 66 out of 78
(Confidential) Page 11
students responded with "Strongly Agree" or "Agree." For Question 2 about English Language Learners,
62 of 78 students responded with "Strongly Agree" or "Agree."
This data is cross-referenced by data from Employers (N=45) on the Completer survey. On the same
questions (1-3), employers either strongly agreed or agreed 90%, 62%, and 75% of the time. Hence,
based upon frequency of responses, it appears that both students and employers were in agreement about
amount and quality of their diversity training. When the EBI and the Student Completers Survey are
taken together, the data reflects students who rate themselves as quite well-prepared to work with
candidates with diverse backgrounds, academic backgrounds, learning styles. Nine (9) students on the
Completers Survey Disagreed with the level of training in special education by saying that they did not
agree that they were prepared to teach special education students. One of the reasons for this is that in
order to configure the IETP program into 120 credits, some coursework was lost. Although students can
obtain both an Elementary and Special Education endorsement upon graduation from the IETP, those
students in the other specialties of Early Childhood Education and ELL may not have the strength of
training they had prior to the IETP. The IETP program is looking into this.
The candidates in Advanced Programs were assessed on abilities to help all students learn. Exhibit 1.3.d
(EBI Results Adv Scores P12 Learning) related to teaching students of differing ethnic backgrounds,
academic backgrounds, and differing learning styles. Candidates in Advanced programs has strong
beliefs in their efficacy to teach all students.
6000 character limit
1.1.e Knowledge and Skills for Other School Professionals
Summarize processes for development and outcomes from key assessments based on other school
professionals' demonstration of the knowledge and skills delineated in professional, state, and
institutional standards.
Candidates for other professional school roles have an adequate understanding of the knowledge
expected in their fields and delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards. They know their
students, families, and communities; use data and current research to inform their practices; use
technology in their practices; and support student learning through their professional services.
Within the M.A. in School Counseling, program completion meets Nevada school counseling
certification requirements. Program completion requires the Counselor Preparation Comprehensive
Exam (CPCE). Initial licensure for school counselors in Nevada requires a master's degree of 51
semester hours with 700 hours of supervised experience and passing the National Counselor
Examination (NCE). The University of Nevada Counseling program prepares students to begin this
licensure process. The 2013 pass rate for the NCE is 100% (Exhibit 1.3.d Pass Rates for School
Counselors). The 2013 pass rate for the CPCE is 97% on the first administration and 100% after the
person retook the examination in the ensuing semester. The exhibit shows that school counseling
students score higher than the mean for other CACREP-accredited school counseling programs.
Candidates in Educational Leadership and School Counseling are assessed for their knowledge of
students, families, communities, their use of current research to inform their practices, and use of
technology in practice in their coursework throughout the program. For instance, EL advanced program
students take and successfully complete EDRS 746, Data-Based Decision Making and EDRS 700,
Introduction to Educational Research. In addition, these same students take Public Relations for
Schools, which includes studies related to families and communities.
School Counseling candidates also take EDRS 700. In addition, they take CEP 705, Advanced Human
(Confidential) Page 12
Growth and Development, CEP 751 Multicultural Counseling, and CEP 665,Child and Family
Guidance. Both Advanced Programs of EL and School Counseling have internships in which interns
learn how to apply the concepts into practice.
The counseling program administers a follow-up survey to its current students, graduates, and
supervisors every three years. The most recent survey was conducted in the 2013-2014 academic year.
Respondents were queried about curriculum and instruction, orientation and advisement, and the
teaching, research, and service components of the program. Related to Curriculum and Instruction,
respondents (N=58) were asked about the developmental nature and needs of individuals, consultation,
career development and family factors, types of research methods, and issues and trends in a
multicultural society. Exhibit 1.3.d (Counseling Follow up Survey Partial Results) shows data indicating
that school counseling candidates are well-prepared in their field. As can be seen, counseling students
rate their preparation as being very good. Counseling supervisors/employers responses also reflected
solid knowledge possessed by the unit's graduates. For instance, employers (N=12) gave high ratings
(out of 4) to questions related to candidates' handling of developmental crises (3.75), multicultural
concerns (3.50), consultation (3.54), conducting basic types of research for needs and program
evaluation (3.64), and career development (3.73). Although employers rated the graduates high on career
development and family issues, the one area of concern relates to graduates' scores. Graduates' mean
score was for this question was 2.65 . The counseling program is making a change in instructors for this
course (CEP 620) in an effort to boost candidate knowledge and skill in this area.
6000 character limit
1.1.f Student Learning for Other School Professionals
Summarize processes for development and outcomes from key assessments based on other school
professionals' demonstration of abilities to create and maintain positive environments, as
appropriate to their professional responsibilities, which support student learning in educational
settings.
In the School Counseling program, candidates are provided feedback on their ability to effect desirable
change in student behaviors through individual and group supervision. Goal-oriented and outcomesbased evaluations occur for individual, small group, and classroom guidance activities throughout the
program.
The successful external accreditation for the program in School Counseling supports the assertion of the
unit that within each program candidates demonstrate the ability to understand and build upon (a) the
developmental levels of students with whom they work; (b) the diversity of students, families, and
communities; and (c) the policy contexts within which they work.
Educational Leadership candidates demonstrate the successful application of student learning outcomes
through a variety of professional individual, small group, and classroom activities. In the practicum,
candidates develop a portfolio that includes (a) a philosophy statement as a building principal, (b)
documentation of a major objective or problem situation, (c) completion of activities from a suggested
list, (d) supporting materials for the practicum activities, (e) a diary or log of time working on the
objective/problem situation, and (f) a summary reflection. The promotion of student learning is a
primary goal for candidates in an advanced program in Educational Leadership, these projects
individually and collectively support and advance student learning. (Examples are available On site).
6000 character limit
1.1.g Professional Dispositions for All Candidates
(Confidential) Page 13
Summarize processes for development and outcomes from key assessments based on candidates'
demonstration of professional dispositions expected by the unit.
As reflected in the Gates (Exhibit 2.3.d), the University of Nevada, Reno is strongly committed to
developing and supporting appropriate dispositions among all of our candidates throughout all programs
within the unit. Candidates are familiar with the professional dispositions delineated in professional,
state, and institutional standards. Candidates demonstrate classroom behaviors that are consistent with
the ideal of fairness and the belief that all students can learn. Their work with students, families,
colleagues and communities reflects these professional dispositions.
The unit program has developed a set of professional behaviors and dispositions that all candidates are
expected to demonstrate (see Exhibit 1.3.a Elementary Education 1st Time Licensure Manual, pp. 1213). These dispositions include: 1) love of learning and strong fund of knowledge; 2) disposition toward
reflective practice; 3) disposition toward professional conduct; and, 4) disposition toward students and
diversity. The Secondary Education faculty also expects their students to adhere to a professional code
of conduct. The professional behaviors and dispositions for Secondary candidates includes behaviors
related to being a reflective practitioner, valuing multiculturalism and democracy, and behaviors related
to a love of learning and strong fund of knowledge. The tracking of these dispositions begins at
admission for both Initial and Advanced Programs for teacher licensure (see Exhibit 2.3.d Gates) and are
assessed again during Student Teaching Internship. In 2014, the Initial Teacher Licensing program,
IETP, began collecting data at admission, during the first semester of coursework, in two practicum
classes (313 an 413) prior to Student Teaching Internship, and during the internship.
Candidates are required to read and sign a Professional Behaviors and Dispositions Form for all Initial
Teacher Licensure Programs. This occurs at admission for IETP and Secondary Students and for those
in the 1st Time Licensure programs in both Elementary and Secondary Education. IETP candidates are
assessed in their first course, EDU 201, Introduction to Elementary Education, and during practicum
classes (EDES 313 and EDES 413 taken in their 3rd and 4th years, prior to Student Teaching Internship
in Portfolio I, during the Student Teaching Internship in Portfolio II. Table 1.15 below shows the mean
scores for the self-evaluations of candidates' dispositions for EDU 201 and the practicum supervisor's
mean scores for IETP candidates in two practicum classes, EDES 313 and EDES 413 for the 2013
school year. This is the first year that the new Professional Behaviors and Dispositions Form for IETP
has been used. Hence, no comparative or trend data or reliability studies are available until 2015. Data
shows that students were rated higher in the second practicum in every professional disposition.
Candidates in Initial Teacher Licensure and Advanced Programs demonstrate fairness and the belief that
all children can learn in various ways. These demonstrations occur in self-assessments, in interactions
with diverse populations, in interactions with faculty, and in clinical experiences such as practicums and
internship and through field experiences connected to coursework. Candidates are exposed to good
practices and are observed and assessed. Three of the dispositions listed in Table 1.15 related directly to
diversity, and the supervisors rated the candidates as acceptable to solid. Exhibit 1.3.f (Adv Portfolio
Scores All Domains) shows that advanced candidates in the 1st Time licensure master's degree programs
for elementary and secondary are satisfactory in dispositions.
In spring 2014 the unit partnered with the local school district to pilot a common evaluation form for
both the district's teachers and the unit's candidates (see also Standard 2). The evaluation form has
several standards related to and fairness and working with diverse populations.
Candidates in Advanced Programs can write professional papers as part of their final project or Portfolio
II. Examples of these professional papers (2014) are listed below and reflect interest and advocacy for
the beliefs in fairness and that all children can learn:
(Confidential) Page 14
• Myth, Stigma, and the Adolescent Discovery of Self: Using Television as a text in the Secondary
English Classroom
• Making the Invisible Visible: A study on how perception and social construction of race and affect the
learning environment
• The Challenges the Foreign Teachers face in the United States
• Pedaling to Mars: Impact on Student Attitudes, Interest, and Performance in STEM with a Mixed
Approach
• Using STEM practices to make Science more accessible to English Language Learners
• Dynamic Geometry Software (DGS): The Effects on Student Achievement, Professional Development,
Instruction, and Teachers' Beliefs
• Connecting Science and Mathematical Practices to English Language Learners' Photographs
• Same-Gender Classrooms and its Effect on Girls' Dispositions toward Mathematics
• The Correlation in Scores between ELLs and Gender in Inquiry-based, modified sheltered instruction
in STEM Education
• Learning Trajectories and STEM for AT Risk Learners
Follow-up studies of our graduates related to dispositions are conducted through the Student Completer
and Their Employers/Principals Survey, 2013-2014 and the EBI Graduate Survey, 2014. Exhibit 1.3.f
shows the results of responses on dispositions. Candidates were seen as being able to teach diverse
learners, be reflective in their practices, and were prepared to be teachers. There was one area that had a
response of 62%, and that was in being prepared to teach ELL students. As a result of that and other
initiatives, the unit will likely require ELL endorsement for all of its P12 candidates starting in 20152016. The unit has initiated putting ELL courses online to aid in this process.
6000 character limit
1.1.h Follow Up Studies
Summarize results from follow-up studies of graduates and employers regarding your teacher
education graduates' content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and skills, professional
and pedagogical knowledge and skills, ability to help all students learn, and professional
dispositions.
The unit utilizes two follow-up surveys to assess its program. The Program Completers and Their
Employers/Principals Survey is administered each year as required by the Nevada Department of
Education . The unit also commissioned Educational Benchmark, Incorporated (EBI) and collaborated
with them to produce a follow-up survey for those graduating between 2010-2013. In addition, as part of
the CACREP accreditation requirements, the counseling unit surveys its current students, recently
graduated supervisors, and supervisors. All of the data is reported in two annual documents which are
disseminated to division Directors in the summer: the Annual Report on Follow-Up of Graduates
(Exhibit 2.3.d) and the Graduate Program Data Report (2.3.d). These two reports present both
aggregated and disaggregated data on follow-up surveys of our graduates.
The unit administered the Program Completers and Their Employers/Principals Survey in May at the
College of Education Career Fair. This Career Fair is attended by 50% of the recent graduates, and the
Program Completer data was gathered at the fair for a response rate of 50% of the total number of
program completers. At the fair, we had 45 employers who had hired our graduates. This number
represented 29% of employers. The unit believed that administering the survey in person would greatly
enhance the response rate which had been dismal in the previous year--especially with employers.
Results of the Program Completers responses appear in aggregated form in the Advanced Program Data
(Confidential) Page 15
Report (p. 72), and the results of the Employers/Principals also appears on page 75. The report also
presents Program Completers and Their Employers Survey Trends (pp 78-79). The trend data is broken
down highest percentage Agreed items as well as the lowest percentage of Agreed items.
Data indicates that for Overall Effectiveness ("I was prepared to be a teacher by my teacher education
program"), 91% of completers and 91% of employers agreed that candidates were prepared. Eightyseven percent of Completers and 94% of employers agreed that our candidates were prepared to develop
lesson plans. Ninty-nine percent (99%) of completers and 89% of employers agreed that candidates were
reflective practitioners (dispositions). Eighty-six percent of completers and 78% of employers agreed
that candidates were prepared to become classroom teachers. Candidates' preparation in the area of
family engagement had 26% of completers and 9% of employers disagreeing or strongly disagreeing.
Twelve percent (12%) and 11% of employers disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that
candidates were prepared to work with children with disabilities. Five percent (5%) of the Completers
and 7% of employers felt that candidates were not prepared to teach ELL students, and 14% of
completers and 4% of employers thought candidates were not prepared to address behavior in the
classroom. The data is being evaluated by programs, and updates should be available in late fall, 2014.
Using a 5-point Likert scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree, graduates were asked to scale a
response to the following statement: "My coursework in the content areas (math, English, science, social
sciences, and other teaching areas) prepared me to teach in my subject matter content and address the
academic content standards of my district." Seventy-seven percent (77%) strongly agreed or agreed with
that statement; nine percent ( 9%) were neutral, and 14% either strongly disagreed (5.1%) or disagreed
(9%). Eighty percent (80%) of Employers strongly agreed or agreed with the statement; four percent
(4.4%) were neutral, and 15.6% disagreed with the statement. None of the employers strongly disagreed
with the statement. The data was provided to the Directors of Professional and Specialized Studies and
Teacher Education and Human Development for review.
The College of Education also worked closely with Educational Benchmarking, Inc. (EBI) to develop
and implement a follow-up survey of graduates (also see Exhibit 1.3.i EBI Tables). EBI administered an
electronic survey to our graduates from 2010-2013. The unit supplied the email addresses of 603
graduates and of the 576 emails that were verified, 19 opted out, and 177 responded (response rate of
30.7%). Confidentiality was ensured through EBI who sent 3 follow-up emails to participants. The
survey measured respondents' views of their learning along five dimensions: Management of Education
Constituencies, Classroom Equity and Diversity, Aspects of Student Development, Subject Matter:
Pedagogy, Classroom Management; and, Use of Technology. The demographic information (Exhibit
1.3.i EBI Demographic Data) reflects that the average respondent was a White, female undergraduate
student between the ages of 26-40 who majored typically either in Elementary or Secondary Education
and whose GPA was between 3.5-4.0 at graduation. Data on graduates indicates that graduates were
confident creating a lesson plan (Question 62); confident that they can teach effectively in their content
field (Question 64); and, confident that they can develop curricula in their content field (Question 63).
The Annual Report on Follow-up Surveys (Exhibit 2.3.d) presents aggregated and disaggregated data on
particular factors that had an overall impact on the results (6 is high score):
Mean Std Dev N % Responding
Factor 1 . Satisfaction: Quality of Instruction 5.48 1.15 154 87.0 %
Mean Std Dev N % Responding
Factor 7 . Satisfaction: Diverse Experiences 5.36 1.34 134 75.7 %
Mean Std Dev N % Responding
Factor 5 . Satisfaction: Career Services 4.38 1.53 126 71.2 %
This information has been disseminated to Division Directors.
(Confidential) Page 16
6000 character limit
1.2 Areas for Improvement Cited in the Action Report from the Previous Accreditation Review
Summarize activities, processes, and outcomes in addressing each of the AFIs cited for the initial
and/or advanced program levels under this standard.
There was one AFI for Standard 1.
1. There are no data to support that candidates have the dispositions outlined in the Conceptual
Framework (Advanced).
The College of Education Assessment Manual (Exhibit 2.3.c) outlines the procedures for collecting data
on advanced program candidate dispositions.
Exhibit 1.3.f (Advanced Portfolio Scores All Domains) presents data on advanced program candidate
dispositions. The data is disaggregated by program, and the mean score for the domain "Professionalism
" is 4.21 for Elementary 1st Time Licensure master's degree candidates and 3.93 for Secondary 1st Time
Licensure master's degree candidates.
The Advanced Program Data Report (2.3.d), disseminated in summer to division Directors contains data
related to advanced program candidates' dispositions. The dimensions of professional dispositions
assessed by the EBI include commitment to diversity, collaboration with colleagues, parents, and other
adults, and having a student focus. Page 28 of that report displays data from the EBI survey related to
professional dispositions. Data from the survey indicates that 55% of advanced level 1st time licensure
candidates and 57% of other advanced program candidates agreed that they were prepared to work with
families. Pages 23-24 show data indicating that 77% of Master's degree 1st Time Licensure students
agreed that education coursework enhanced their abilities to use a variety of instructional strategies, and
82% of other advanced program candidates felt the same.
12000 character limit
1.3 Exhibits for Standard 1
1.3.a State program review documents and state findings (Some of these documents may be available in
AIMS.)
1.3.b Title II reports submitted to the state for the previous three years
1.3.c Key assessments and scoring guides used for assessing candidate learning against professional and
state standards as well as proficiencies identified in the unit's conceptual framework (Some of this
information may be accessible for nationally recognized programs in AIMS. Cross reference as
appropriate.)
1.3.d Aggregate data on key assessments, including proficiencies identified in the unit's conceptual
framework (Data should be disaggregated by program and level regardless of location or method of
delivery.)
1.3.e Key assessments and scoring guides used for assessing professional dispositions, including fairness
and the belief that all students can learn
1.3.f Aggregate data on key assessments of candidates' professional dispositions (Data should be
disaggregated by program and level regardless of location or method of delivery.)
1.3.g Examples of candidates' assessment and analysis of P-12 student learning
1.3.h Examples of candidates' work (e.g., portfolios at different proficiency levels) from programs across
(Confidential) Page 17
the unit
1.3.i Aggregate data on follow-up studies of graduates
1.3.j Aggregate data on employer feedback on graduates
1.3.k Data collected by state and/or national agencies on performance of educator preparation programs
and the effectiveness of their graduates in classrooms and schools, including student achievement
data, when available
1.3.a Adv Prog Counseling.pdf
1.3.a Adv Prog Equity and Diversity.pdf
1.3.a Adv Prog Literacy.pdf
1.3.a Elem 1st Time Licensure.pdf
1.3.a Sec 1st Time Licensure.pdf
1.3.a Adv Prog Ed. Leadership.pdf
1.3.a Adv Progran Spec Ed_Part1.pdf
1.3.a Adv Progran Spec Ed_Part2.pdf
1.5.a UNR Catalog COE Page.pdf
1.5.d CACREP Accreditation Letter.pdf
1.3.c Advanced Performance Assessment.pdf
1.3.c IETP Portfolio I Guide.pdf
1.3.c Internship Evaluation Elements.pdf
1.3.c Secondary Portfolio I Guide.pdf
1.3.d Advanced Portfolio Scores.pdf
1.3.d Adv Mean GPA at Admission.docx
1.3.d EBI Results Adv Scores P12 Learning.docx
1.3.d EBI Results Student Learning.docx
1.3.d Mean GPA by Program.docx
1.3.d Pass Rates for School Counselors.docx
1.3.d Praxis Test Pass Rates.docx
1.3.f Adv Portfolio Scores All Domains.docx
1.3.f Completers Survey Disposition Results.docx
1.3.f IETP Dispositions Scores.docx
1.3.i EBI Results Working with Diversity.docx
1.3.i EBI Survey Content Knowledge.docx
1.3.i EBI Survey Demographic Data.docx
1.3.i EBI Survey Results Advanced Degree Responsdents.docx
1.3.i EBI Survey Student Learning.docx
1.3.i EBI Survey Technology Questions.docx
Exhibit 1.3.j Employers Survey Responses.docx
1.3.i Completers Survey Responses.docx
See Attachment panel below.
Standard 2. Assessment System and Unit Evaluation