Continuous Assessment Plan
Science Education, Grades 8-12
Biology, Chemistry, Earth Science, Physics
Initial Preparation Program
Professional Education Unit
University of Kentucky
Fall 2006
A. Integration of Program Continuous Assessment with the Unit Assessment System
The Science Education Program utilizes a continuous assessment system designed to assess candidate
proficiency and program effectiveness. Continuous assessment of candidates involves a
developmental approach to educator preparation in which candidates are expected to progress toward
mastery of standards as they practice and gain competence with increasingly complex pedagogical and
professional tasks. Through continuous assessment, the program monitors candidate performance over
the duration of the program. Candidates are expected to progress over time as their involvement with
program activities increases. Candidates are expected to meet or exceed minimum program
expectations upon entry into the program. As involvement in classes and field experiences increase, a
higher level of performance is expected.
The Science Education Program Faculty uses candidate data to measure the progress of individual
candidates throughout the program and then uses aggregated candidate data in the process of
determining the effectiveness of the program. Selected data items collected on candidate proficiency
and program effectiveness in the Science Education Program is also fed into the unit assessment
system. For example, all programs collect candidate data using the Continuous Assessment Review
(CAR). The CAR is used at program admission, retention, and exit transition points to record
candidate performance on the appropriate Kentucky-adopted educator proficiency standards, the Unit
Functional Skills and Dispositions, and the Unit Technology Standards. The analysis of candidates’
performance on the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) standards also informs the unit
assessment system. In addition, data from the New Teacher Survey administered by the Kentucky
Education Professional Standards Board are reviewed by the program faculty. These data are an
essential element of the program evaluation component of the unit assessment system. Finally, a wide
range of basic data items, i.e., grade point averages (GPAs), admissions test scores, student teaching
evaluations, and PRAXIS II examination pass rates, is reviewed by the Science Education Program
Faculty, audited and monitored at the unit level, and fed into the unit’s comprehensive data system.
These data sets constitute important information for program development and unit operations.
B. Integration of Program Continuous Assessment Plan with Program Conceptual Framework
Program and end-of program assessments are evaluated in the context of candidates having the
theoretical background and practical skills needed to become effective science teachers. Candidates
are expected to make informed decisions in the selection of developmentally appropriate, hands-on,
investigative, process oriented, activities for high school students. Candidates are expected to be
creative and reflective in developing, implementing, and evaluating plans for teaching secondary
school science concepts and skills. Candidate dispositions must demonstrate sensitivity to diverse
student populations, the need for multiple teaching and assessment strategies, a commitment to asking
1
and answering teaching questions using appropriate literature and inquiry strategies, a preference for
reflective teaching activities, and a desire to serve as a change agent (leadership role) within the school
and school system.
C. Program Continuous Assessment Plan Integration with Standards and Program Activities
A primary focus of the Science Education Program is to meet multiple standards proposed by state and
national agencies (see Section 3). Collective and collaborating data are used to recommend program
changes/improvements.
D. Continuous Assessment Monitoring Checkpoints
Formal assessments are conducted at the following points:
Checkpoint 1: Admissions to the MIC Program (Prior to Fall Semester)
Checkpoint 2: Retention (End of Fall Semester)
Checkpoint 3: Exit (End of Spring Semester)
Follow-up: KTIP and Follow-up Surveys
E. Multiple Assessments
Multiple assessments are used to determine candidate progress throughout the program. These
assessments inform the program of candidate progress and provide input regarding program
adjustments.
Early Assessments:
Quality of References Presented For Admission to Program
Successful Completion of Required Courses – 128 Semester Hours and Undergraduate Degree
Course Content Grades – 33 Semester Hours in the Science Major with a Minimum GPA of 2.50
Hours of Support Course Work – 24 Hours+ in Support Area with Minimum GPA of 2.50
Overall Course Grades – 128 Semester Hours with GPA of 2.75 (Graduate School Requirement)
GRE Scores (Verbal, Quantitative, Writing) – 400, 400, 4 (ACT 18, PRAXIS I, or Composition
Course with a Minimum Grade of B in Lieu of 4 Writing Score)
Advising Sessions – Monitor Course Progress and Adherence to Program Requirements
Communication Skills (Oral and Written) – Writing Sample and Ability to Communicate with
Program Admission Interviewers
Understanding of Requirements for Becoming a Teacher – Program Admission Interview
Dispositions Exhibited for Becoming a Successful Science Teacher – Program Admission Interview
and Dispositions, Technology, and New Teacher Standards
Program Assessments:
University Classroom Work (Projects, Papers, Presentations)
Classroom Examinations
Advising Sessions – Monitor Progress in Program and Problems Encountered by Candidate
Field Placements – Monitor Performances Exhibited in Field Experience
Mid-Program Assessments – Dispositions, Technology, and New Teacher Standards
Planning Skills – Evaluation of Lesson and Unit Plans Prepared in Classes
Observations in Student Teaching –Informed Selection and Implementation of Appropriate, Planning,
Teaching Strategies, Student Assessment, Ability to Analyze and Discuss Teaching Effectiveness
2
Selection and Development of Portfolio Artifacts (Mid-point Review)
End-of-Program Assessments:
Written Masters Degree Examination
Portfolio (Portfolio Artifacts Are Uploaded to An Online, Electronic Portfolio System)
Portfolio/Exit Conference
Written Program Surveys – Student and Cooperating Teacher
Success in Finding Employment as Practicing Teacher
Continuous Assessment – Dispositions, Technology, and New Teacher Standards
PRAXIS II Scores in Content Area
Follow-up Assessments:
Performance in KTIP Experience
Written Program Surveys – Intern Teacher and Resource Teacher
Continuation of First Year Teacher Contract
F. Dispositions and Modes of Assessment
The combined program faculties of the UK educator preparation unit have established five (5) skills
and dispositions that underlie all UK educator preparation programs. These skills and dispositions
have been adopted and endorsed by the Science Education Program Faculty. The required skills and
dispositions are as follows:
Functional Skill and Disposition 1: Candidates communicate appropriately and effectively.
 Communicates successfully in formal presentations
 Communicates successfully in small groups and/or informal settings
 Uses nonverbal communications skills successfully
 Communicates successfully in writing (reports, essays, letters, memos, emails, etc.)
Functional Skill and Disposition 2: Candidates demonstrate constructive attitudes.
 Demonstrates knowledge and command of sociocultural variables in education
 Demonstrates constructive attitudes toward children, youth, parents, and the community
 Demonstrates awareness and acceptance of diversity in educational settings.
Functional Skill and Disposition 3: Candidates demonstrate ability to conceptualize key subject matter
ideas and relationships.
 Accurately states key subject matter ideas
 Explains key subject matter ideas
 Tailors key subject matter ideas to diverse populations
 Addresses misconceptions among students about key subject matter ideas
 Identifies real life examples to enhance student learning of key subject matter ideas
Function Skill and Disposition 4: Candidates interact appropriately and effectively with diverse
groups of colleagues, administrators, students, and parents in educational settings.
 Demonstrates acceptable educator behavior in diverse educational settings
 Demonstrates adaptability in reflecting on self in relation to diverse groups
3
Functional Skill and Disposition 5: Candidates demonstrate a commitment to professional ethics and
behavior.
 Demonstrates understanding of the Kentucky School Personnel Code of Ethics
 Complies with all legal requirements for educators in a knowledgeable and timely manner
 Demonstrates understanding of ethical issues related to own professional certification area
The Science Education Program Faculty uses the unit Continuous Assessment Review form to rate
each candidate at each of the three assessment points on the unit dispositions. When candidates
consider applying for a professional preparation program, they are provided with the unit’s set of
Functional Skills and Dispositions and a self-assessment form so that they can begin reflecting on their
own capability with each of the skills/dispositions. Candidates use artifacts as evidence of their
capabilities with each of the skills/dispositions items. Faculty accumulate evidence from coursework,
student portfolios, interviews, and supervisor ratings to determine their ratings. Candidates have an
opportunity to reflect with the faculty about the ratings and can use faculty feedback to accumulate
new opportunities to develop their skills and dispositions and to demonstrate them via artifacts.
G. Plans for Collecting 8-12 Student Impact Data
The Science Education Program is keenly aware of the importance of the issues of P-12 teacher quality
enhancement, promotion of increased achievement for P-12 students, and closing the achievement gaps
between P-12 student populations. The program is committed to developing future teachers who will
help address these issues. The program develops candidate research capability and studies the extent
to which pedagogical activities affect P-12 learning. Coursework requires candidates to plan,
implement, and assess lessons and units. Candidates analyze the results of their efforts, with
increasingly sophisticated tools as their experience with research methods grows. Candidates also gain
experience and facility in utilizing the results of CATS assessments to understand student needs and to
interpret student performance behaviors. In addition, the program plans to work with graduates of the
program to collect aggregated summary performance data from the Commonwealth Accountability
Testing System (CATS), particularly subject-specific summary data. The Science Education Program
has plans to collect student achievement data from the CATS for teachers successfully completing the
MIC Program. This would occur during teachers’ first-year participation in KTIP. Given the variety
of science content areas, student variables, and teaching/learning environments, this could prove to be
an important, but formidable, task.
4
H. Candidate and Program Feedback Chart
Green = Candidate Feedback
Red = Program Feedback
Admission
into program
Exit portfolio feedback;
Exit interview
feedback; Student
Teaching Observation
Evaluations
Checkpoint 3
Exit Assessment
Data
Initial Student
Data; Unit pass
rates on PRAXIS
II
Checkpoint 1
Admissions Data
Successful completion of
the Program; Job
Placement Rates; Student
Evaluations; Mentor
Teacher Evaluations
Successful completion of
Methods Course;
Effective Evaluations of
Retention Portfolios;
Faculty teaching
performance
Checkpoint 2
Mid-Point
Retention
Assessment Data
5
Retention
portfolio
feedback
I.
Use of Technology to Support the Assessment System
Candidates admitted to the program begin developing portfolio materials during each semester of the
program under the guidance of the Program Chair and other course instructors. Portfolio materials are
uploaded to an online portfolio system. Candidates post artifacts and demonstrate ways in which they
are meeting each New Teacher Standard. These materials are reviewed online by the science education
faculty person at the mid-point of the program and again at the end of the program. In addition to
portfolio materials uploaded by candidates, student teaching observation evaluations can be posted to
the candidates’ online portfolios.
At the unit level, the results of candidate reviews by the Science Program Faculty, in the form of
admission to program and completion from program, are recorded in the unit database and information
system. These data are readily retrievable and used in studies of cohort characteristics. Data relating
to testing, GPA, and progress through programs are also recorded and available. The unit web portal
system, which is under development, will permit the direct entry of candidate performance assessment
data into the comprehensive database system. One of the first of the portal-based data entry modules
will allow program faculties to directly enter continuous assessment ratings (CAR) into candidate
records. While the necessary portal modules have been under development, the Science Education
Program Chair has entered the CAR ratings into pre-formatted Excel Spreadsheets for submission and
storage at the unit level.
J. Process to Ensure Accuracy, Fairness, and Consistency of Assessments
The Science Education Program, along with the Mathematics Education Program, is managed by the
Math and Science Program Faculty. This group consists of science educators, mathematics educators,
science faculty, mathematics faculty, graduate mathematics and science education candidates, and
practicing science and mathematics teachers. The group represents a broad constituency, and it is
intended that this structure provide admission and retention processes that are accurate, fair, and
consistent. For example, candidates for program admission are reviewed by two- and three-member
interview committees representing membership of the Program Faculty. Following the interview,
interviewers share applicants’ admission portfolios, along with rating scales and notes, with the entire
membership of the Program Faculty. It is believed that this process provides a mechanism that is
accurate, fair, and consistent for all candidates for admission and all other decisions involved in the
management of the program.
6