Page 1 of 4
Procedures for ensuring that key assessments of candidate performance
are fair, accurate, consistent, and free of bias for programs in the Educational Studies Department:
Elementary and Secondary: Initial and Advanced Programs
There are four assessment used to evaluate the effectiveness of the Initial Programs in Elementary and Secondary
Education. Three of those assessments have been developed internally: the Exit Portfolio, analysis of Impact on P-12 Student
Learning, and Student Teaching Final Evaluation. The fourth assessment is an assessment that has been developed externally,
PRAXIS II. The PRAXIS II has established fairness, accuracy, consistency and free from bias measures.
Initial Programs:
Elementary and
Secondary
Fair
The three internally
developed assessments
have been curriculum
mapped and evaluated for
communication of
assessment expectations
and criteria. The
expectations for these
assessments are on-line
and given in EDUC F 200, a
required introductory
course for all candidates in
the initial programs.
The assessment
expectations are reviewed
in each of the cohort
methods blocks for
Elementary Education, by
course instructors in the
Secondary Programs, and
for all candidates in the
first Student Teaching
seminar by the Associate
Accurate
The rubric used to evaluate
the portfolio and the rubric
used by Cooperating
Teachers to make a final
evaluation of Student
Teachers are aligned with
the INTASC Standards. The
rubric used to assess the
Impact on P-12 Student
Learning has a separate
rubric. See, for example,
Exit Portfolio evaluation
sheet & Impact on P-12
Student Learning rubric
(http://new.ipfw.edu/dotA
sset/170708.pdf ), &
Student Teaching final
evaluation form
(http://new.ipfw.edu/dotA
sset/200385.pdf).
The accuracy of the
Cooperating Teacher’s
evaluation is compared to
Consistent
1) Cooperating Teachers
receive detailed
instructions about the
assessments they need to
carry out. Most Cooperating
Teachers have worked with
us before and have
experience assessing the
progress of Student
Teachers.
2) The assessors of the Exit
Portfolio, which includes
the Impact on P-12 Student
Learning, are Education
faculty. They receive a
review of the evaluation
procedures every semester.
Each portfolio has one
reading; if the score falls
below the Needs Major
Improvement cutoff (below
48/70) there is a second
reading. If the combined
Free from Bias
1) The Student Teacher
evaluation forms are
clear and precise, based
on the INTASC
Standards, which inform
all assessments in the
Initial Programs. They
are known to the
candidates, Cooperating
Teachers, and
University Supervisors.
If questions of bias in
the evaluations are
raised by candidates,
the Chair of Educational
Studies and the Director
of Field Experiences and
Student Teaching
intervene.
2) Expectations for the
portfolio are clearly and
often reviewed by
instructors with
Page 2 of 4
Fair
Dean. At the portfolio
checkpoints in both the
Elementary and Secondary
programs, candidates
upload a required number
of artifacts & reflections, in
preparation for their Exit
Portfolio. Thus, candidates
are continually working
with their portfolios
making the expectations
clear and, thus, fair to all.
See Portfolio Guidelines for
Elementary and Secondary
Education:
http://new.ipfw.edu/dotA
sset/146090.pdf. Also
available in Exhibit 2.1:
http://new.ipfw.edu/depa
rtments/education/standa
rds/2011accreditation/sta
ndard2/.
Accurate
that of the University
Supervisor’s. If they are in
stark contrast to each
other, the chair of the
Educational Studies
Department and the
Director of Field
Experiences and Student
Teaching work with both
parties and the candidate
to determine a path
forward.
The data from the portfolio
assessments are reviewed
and analyzed by the
Education faculty at the
Assessment Retreat in
August of each year. See
Exhibit 1.1 for 2011
Report:
http://new.ipfw.edu/depa
rtments/education/standa
rds/2011accreditation/sta
ndard1/.
Consistent
score still falls below 48, the
candidate has the
opportunity to revise and
resubmit the portfolio until
it reaches mastery. If there
is more than a 10 point
spread between the 1st
reading and the 2nd, a third
reading is required, and the
two highest are averaged
for the final score. The
Associate Dean reviews the
assessments of all portfolios
for accuracy in scoring
before releasing the
evaluation to the candidate.
We have been remarkably
consistent over the years
with the scoring of the
portfolios. See page 31 in
Exhibit 1.1, 2011 Report:
http://new.ipfw.edu/depart
ments/education/standard
s/2011accreditation/stand
ard1/.
Free from Bias
candidates.
3) All candidates have
equal access to all
equipment helpful in
submitting files to their
portfolios; computers,
software, scanners, and
technology support are
readily accessible on
campus for all
candidates to upload
and submit their
assessments.
4) Candidates also can
receive immediate help
from Mentoring Services
from our portfolio
vendor, TaskStream,
through email
(help@Taskstream.com)
or by calling 1-800-3115656 for any questions
.about the portfolio. The
Associate Dean, the
Assessment Assistant,
and the Data Manager
are also accessible
online and by phone to
the Student Teachers
each semester to
answer any questions
about portfolios.
Page 3 of 4
In the Advanced Program in Elementary and Secondary Education three assessments, the 18-Hour Portfolio
Checkpoint, the 33-Hour Portfolio Checkpoint, and the Capstone Assessment are used to evaluate the effectiveness of the program.
These assessments have been developed internally and meet the requirements for fair, accurate, consistent and free from bias, as
described below.
Advanced
Programs:
Elementary and
Secondary
Fair
The assessment system for
the Advanced Programs in
Elementary and Secondary
Education is made
available to candidates
online at
http://new.ipfw.edu/dotA
sset/149032.pdf. It is
introduced to candidates
in the first course in the
program, EDUA F500.
An assessment based on
the Conceptual
Framework,
http://new.ipfw.edu/dotA
sset/149122.pdf, and one
based on the NBPTS
Standards,
http://new.ipfw.edu/dotA
sset/149124.pdf, are
required in every course,
except the first, F500, and
the final Capstone course.
At the 18-hour and 33hour checkpoints, a series
of assessments are
completed, in addition to
the candidates assembling
all of the CF assessments
Accurate
The rubrics associated
with these assessments are
aligned with the IPFW SOE
Conceptual Framework
standards and the 5 Core
Propositions of the NBPTS
and the assessment. The
level of complexity of the
assessment is aligned with
the complexity of the
various standards. The
faculty gathers at the
Assessment Retreat in
August to review and
analyze the data generated
by these assessments, and
it is compared to data
generated from prior
years. The Exit Portfolio
data are reviewed at the
end of each semester.
From these ongoing
reviews of the data the
faculty determines
whether the assessments
are accurate.
Consistent
Since the CF and NBPTS
assessments are completed
in all but two courses in the
programs, there are
multiple raters for these
assessments. There are
informal training sessions
for scoring these
assessments on an as
needed basis. Candidates
submit their portfolios at
each of the two checkpoints
to the Coordinator of the
Elementary and Secondary
Advanced Programs. The
Coordinator asks faculty
members to assess a
candidate’s portfolio. The
evaluations of the portfolio
are given to the candidates
at portfolio checkpoint
meetings organized each
semester. In addition to the
Coordinator of the
programs, the Associate
Dean and other faculty
attend these meetings.
Through the discussions the
candidates share their
Free from Bias
The instructions for all
assessments and rubrics
are readable, clear, and
precise. They are made
public in several
different venues to all
candidates. Equipment
such as computers,
software, scanners, and
technology support are
readily accessible on
campus by all
candidates throughout
their programs. The unit
has a liaison librarian
who establishes
websites for each course
with links to research
tools especially tailored
to each course. The
librarian offers group
sessions to graduate
courses or individual
email or phone support.
Capstone presentations
and the two portfolio
checkpoints are
arranged in the
evenings when it is
Page 4 of 4
and NBPTS assessments
that have completed up to
that point in a portfolio.
Because the candidates
are, in effect, working on
their portfolios through
their entire program, they
are always aware of the
assessment requirements
for the program. We
believe this makes the
process fair. When they
turn in their portfolios at
the two checkpoints, they
have the option to revise
and resubmit if their
portfolio is judged
unacceptable.
experiences in the program.
They also have the
opportunity to give
feedback on the programs
themselves, their strengths
and weaknesses. Through
these checks and balances
in the assessment process,
we have multiple
opportunities to assess the
consistency of our
programs.
Also, candidates in the
Capstone course publically
present their research
projects to other
candidates, as well as to
invited faculty members,
who are then able to judge
the projects and participate
in the class discussion that
follows the presentation.
The assessments completed
during the Capstone course
are included in the Retreat
Reports, so consistency in
evaluations from year to
year can be compared.
convenient for working
educators to attend.
The use of the
University’s computer
tools, Blackboard, also
guarantee all
communication in the
course is publically
stated to ensure that it
is free from bias.