Institutional Effectiveness Report by zM7F60w

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 31

									               Institutional Effectiveness Report

                  Academic Year 2006-2007

                         School of Education

                  Francis Marion University




Tracy Meetze, Ph.D.

School of Education Faculty Member
                            Table of Contents

Program Mission and Goals
5
Assessment Activities
7

Special Note
7

Results and Evaluation
8-20

      Goal 1: Content Knowledge
8-9
        Goal 2: Reflection
10-12

        Goal 3: Assessment of P-12 Student Learning
12-14

        Goal 4: Collaboration
14-16

        National Association for the Education of Young Children
14-18

        Goal 5: Faculty Teaching, Scholarship, and Service
19-20

Technology Currently Used in the School of Education
20-21

Changes in Place
21-22

Planned Changes
22-23

General Education
23

Appendix

        A:    Matrix of Checkpoints
24-29
        B:    Graduate Content Knowledge Rubric
30
        C:    Undergraduate Rubric for Working with Children of Poverty
31
        D:    Graduate Ability to Cause P-12 Student Learning Rubric
32
        E:    Undergraduate Assessment of Learners and Learning Rubric
33
        F:    Graduate Assessment Rubric
34
                                                                          2
         G:    Undergraduate Assessment of Clinical Practice Rubric
35
         H:    Graduate Clinical Rubric
36
         I:    New Proposed Conceptual Framework
                           37-39

List of Tables

      Table 1:    Praxis II Results and GPA for Initial Certification
Programs in the School of Education 9

      Table 2:       Results from Content Knowledge Rubric (Graduate
Programs Only)                         9

      Table 3:       Undergraduate ability to reflect on the needs of children
of poverty                  10-11

      Table 4:     Graduate candidate ability to reflect on the ability to
cause P-12 student learning     11-12

      Table 5:      Results of undergraduate performance on rubric to assess
learners and learning    12-13

         Table 6:    Results of graduate candidate performance on assessment
rubric                     13-14

       Table 7:      Results of undergraduate performance on assessment of
clinical practice rubric      15

         Table 8:    Results from graduate rubric to assess clinical
                               16

         Table 9:    Faculty excellence in teaching, scholarship, and service
                           19-20

         Table 10:   Technology use
                          20-21




                                                                                 3
PROGRAM MISSION AND GOALS

The School of Education at Francis Marion University strives to prepare
candidates to become successful educators. Since its inception, the School
of Education has graduated outstanding educators. Many of our graduates
have received accolades at the state and national levels. The list includes:

    One National Rural Teacher of the Year
    More than five Presidential Awards for Excellence in Teaching
     Mathematics and Science
    Two Millken Award winners
    More than 200 alumni who are National Board certified
    Two South Carolina teachers of the year
    Three South Carolina teacher of the year finalists
    Four South Carolina District Superintendents of the Year
    More than 50 Pee Dee area District Teachers of the Year

The mission of the School of Education, as stated in the 2006-2007 Francis
Marion University catalog, is:

       “Francis Marion University’s School of Education, where teaching
and learning are the highest priorities, prepares professional educators in the
Pee Dee region and beyond, for a rapidly changing, complex, and diverse
society through the acquisition of knowledge, and the processes of
reflection, assessment, collaboration, and critical thinking.”

Additionally, the Conceptual Framework of the School of Education, as
stated in the 2006-2007 Francis Marion University catalog, is:

                                                                               4
       “The Francis Marion University’s School of Education prepares
caring and competent teachers for the 21st century.”
       The undergraduate level teacher candidate, as well as the Master of
Arts in Teaching Learning Disabilities (MAT-LD) candidate, will
demonstrate attributes of a caring teacher professionally through the
Professional Disposition Assessment Form in the five major areas of:
 professional commitment, respect for the learning process, ethical
standards, respect for families, cultures, and communities, social justice, and
respect for colleagues, Prekindergarten-12 students, faculty, and staff.

       The undergraduate level teacher candidate will demonstrate
competencies of a teacher professional as measured by knowledge of
content, ability to plan and implement instruction, clinical experiences,
ability to impact P-12 student learning, assessment of P-12 student learning,
work with children of poverty and integration of technology.

       The MAT-LD teacher candidate and advanced degree participants will
demonstrate competencies of a teacher professional as measured by
knowledge of content, ability to plan and implement instruction, clinical
experiences, ability to impact P-12 student learning, assessment of P-12
student learning, and an understanding of the diverse characteristics of
children via case studies.

From this mission statement and conceptual framework, there are several
goals that can be outlined as priorities for the School of Education:

   1. School of Education candidates will be able to exemplify proficiency
      in content knowledge of education courses.

   2. School of Education candidates will be able to reflect on the needs of
      P-12 students.

   3. School of Education candidates will be able to assess P-12 student
      learning.

   4. School of Education candidates will be able to successfully and
      positively collaborate with various educational professionals.

   5. School of Education faculty will excel in teaching, scholarship, and
      service.

                                                                               5
ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES

The School of Education uses a number of assessment tools to assess the
above goals. These tools include: (1) standardized assessments such as
Praxis I and II; (2) a series of rubrics (Appendix B- H) that are used in
various courses as checkpoints in various programs; (3) student work
samples, and (4) state of South Carolina teacher evaluation tool, Assisting,
Developing, Evaluating Teaching (ADEPT).

Please note that candidates will be scored using rubrics at various
checkpoints in their respective programs. These checkpoints can be found
on a matrix for various programs (Appendix A).

SPECIAL NOTE

It must be noted that there will be no comparative data in this report as a
result of a new assessment system in place for the School of Education.
Recommendations from the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher
Education (NCATE) accreditation team in 2004 were duly noted and have
been acted upon, thus yielding a new assessment system. The data in this
report will be from the 2006-2007 school year only. Further, as a result of
the new assessment system, there are checkpoints for which there are no
data. This is due to times courses are offered. This has been noted and a
review of data checkpoints and matrices is a part of the planned changes for
the School of Education.




RESULTS AND EVALUATION

Goal 1: Content Knowledge

Benchmark: Candidates must earn a passing score on the Praxis II
standardized assessment in Content Area in their area of specialization as
well as the Principles of Learning and Teaching (PLT). This must be
accomplished prior to student teaching, which is a pre-requisite to
graduating with South Carolina teacher certification. Undergraduate
students must also obtain a grade point average (GPA) of at least 2.5 in all
courses in the School of Education to remain in the program. Additional
                                                                               6
checkpoints include recommendations from EDUC 300 professors and
cooperating P-12 teachers to gain admission into the program as well as
Praxis II scores, an outside measure of content knowledge to enter student
teaching.

In graduate programs that are not initial certification programs (M.Ed.
Learning Disabilities, M.Ed. Early Childhood, and M.Ed. Instructional
Accommodation), candidates will receive at least a score of 5, Advanced, on
a scale of 6, with Master being the highest score possible on a rubric to
measure content knowledge (Appendix B).

Results: Of 72 candidates in 2006-07, 58 (81%) passed Praxis II in order to
enter student teaching. Students who were unable to pass the exam were
given the option to take an alternative course (EDUC 491) that would allow
them to graduate, without teacher certification. Eight students in 2006-2007
chose this option. Another option is for students to take a semester off to
attempt to pass the exam again. Five students chose this option. Three
Secondary Education majors chose to graduate with a degree in their
respected disciplines but without teacher certification. Any education course
in which the student receives a grade of C or below must be re-taken prior to
student teaching.

Please note Praxis II results for the undergraduate Early Childhood,
Elementary, Secondary, and MAT-Learning Disabilities in Table 1 below, as
these are the only initial certification programs.

Content knowledge is measured in the Early Childhood M.Ed. Learning
Disabilities, and Instructional Accommodation graduate programs using a
rubric for such (Appendix B). The data from assessment using this rubric is
then entered into the newly formed assessment system. This data can be
found in Table 2.

Table 1.   Praxis II Results and average GPA for Initial Certification
Programs in the School of Education

Program        Percent of Candidates Passing     Average GPA in Education
               Praxis II and Principles of       Courses of Candidates (2006-
               Learning and Teaching (PLT)       2007)
               (2006-2007)
Early          100%                              3.557
Childhood
                                                                             7
Elementary      65%                                 3.650
Secondary       81%                                 3.396
MAT-            100%                                3.890
Learning
Disabilities

Table 2.  Results from Content Knowledge Rubric (Graduate
Programs Only)

Program                             Average Score on Rubric with a
                                    Scale of 0-6
M.Ed. Learning Disabilities         5.6
Early Childhood                     5.0
Instructional Accommodation         Data not yet available due to times
                                    course is offered

Goal 2: Reflection

Benchmark: Candidates will be able to employ reflection in order to
determine the needs of children of poverty in undergraduate programs, while
candidates will reflect on their ability to cause P-12 student learning in the
School of Education graduate programs.

The rubric (Appendix C) to assess the undergraduate candidates’ ability to
reflect upon the needs of children of poverty is used to track growth of
undergraduate candidates’ ability to reflect on the needs of children of
poverty from introductory level education courses (EDUC 290/299) through
the end of the program (EDUC 490). Ideally, the mean score on this rubric
will increase as candidates move through the program. Table 3 will provide
this information.

The rubric (Appendix D) to assess the ability to cause P-12 student learning
will be used to assess graduate candidates’ ability to reflect on the ability to
impact the learning of P-12 students. The goal is for all candidates to be at
least a 4, Continuing, on the rubric. The mean score on this rubric for the
various graduate programs can be found in Table 4. .

Results: There was growth shown in undergraduate candidates on their
ability to reflect on the needs of children of poverty from the first checkpoint
to the last in their respective programs.

                                                                                   8
Table 3. Undergraduate ability to reflect on the needs of children of
poverty.

Early Childhood
Course/Checkpoint                       Mean Score on a Scale of 0-4
EDUC 290/299 (first checkpoint)         2.5
ECE 391 (last checkpoint)               3.8


Elementary
Course/Checkpoint                       Mean Score on a Scale of 0-4
EDUC 290/299 (first checkpoint)         2.5
EDUC 380 (last checkpoint)              3.3

Secondary
Course/Checkpoint                       Mean Score on a Scale of 0-4
EDUC 290/299 (first checkpoint)         2.5
EDUC 434/5/6 (last checkpoint)          no data*

* There is no data for this course, as the faculty member was out on medical
leave, and data was not collected.

The goal for all graduate candidates to receive at least a 4, Advanced, on this
rubric at various checkpoints was met.


Table 4. Graduate candidate ability to reflect on the ability to cause P-
12 student learning.

Early Childhood
Course/Checkpoint                       Mean Score on a Scale of 3-6
EDUC 797                                4.8
EDUC 722                                5.5




Instructional Accommodation
Course/Checkpoint                       Mean Score on a Scale of 3-6
EDUC 797                                4.8

                                                                              9
MAT and MEd. Learning Disabilities
Course/Checkpoint                Mean Score on a Scale of 3-6
EDUC 769/770                     4.6


Goal 3: Assessment of P-12 Student Learning

Benchmark: Candidates in the School of Education will be able to assess P-
12 student learning. A rubric (Appendix E) entitled “Assessment of
Learners and Learning” is used to assess this goal in the undergraduate
program. It is the goal that all candidates will be a 2, Intermediate Teacher,
or above prior to student teaching.

A rubric (Appendix F) entitled “Assessment” is used to assess this goal in
the graduate program. It is the goal that all candidates will be at least a 5,
Advanced Teacher.

Results: In the undergraduate program, the benchmark was met. This
information can be found in Table 5.

Table 5. Results of undergraduate performance on rubric to assess
learners and learning

Early Childhood
Course/Checkpoint                        Mean Score on a Scale of 0-4
ECE 313                                  3.1
ECE 320                                  3.7


Elementary
Course/Checkpoint                        Mean Score on a Scale of 0-4
ELE 316                                  2.9
ELE 317                                  2.9
EDUC 311                                 2.8

Secondary
Course/Checkpoint                        Mean Score on a Scale of 0-4
EDUC 393                                 2.0
EDUC 434/5/6                             2.0


                                                                                 10
In the graduate program, the benchmark was not met in all areas. The Early
Childhood program met the benchmark at all checkpoints; however, the
Instructional Accommodation and Learning Disabilities programs met the
benchmark in one of two checkpoints. The results can be found in Table 6.


Table 6. Results of graduate candidate performance on assessment
rubric.

Early Childhood
Course/Checkpoint                       Mean Score on a Scale of 3-6
EDUC 622                                5.5
EDUC 722                                5.0
EDUC 797                                5.0

Instructional Accommodation
Course/Checkpoint                       Mean Score on a Scale of 3-6
EDUC 622                                5.0
EDUC 797                                4.8

MAT/M.Ed. Learning Disabilities
Course/Checkpoint                       Mean Score on a Scale of 3-6
EDUC 622                                5.0
EDUC 769/770                            4.4

Goal 4: Collaboration

Benchmark: School of Education candidates will successfully and positively
collaborate with the necessary parties throughout courses and clinical
experiences.

A rubric (Appendix G) is used to assess undergraduate candidates at various
checkpoints in clinical experiences through the program. It is the goal that
all undergraduate candidates will achieve at least a 2, Intermediate Teacher,
on the rubric.

A rubric (Appendix H) is used to assess graduate candidates at various
clinical checkpoints through the program. It is the goal that all graduate
candidates will achieve at least a 5, Advanced, on the rubric.


                                                                             11
Results: The benchmark for the undergraduate program was partially met.
While growth was shown from the first to the last checkpoint, not all
checkpoints yielded a mean of at least 2, Intermediate Teacher Candidate.
Results can be found in Table 7.



Table 7. Results of undergraduate performance on assessment of
clinical practice rubric.

Early Childhood
Course/Checkpoint                     Mean Score on a Scale of 0-4
EDUC 300                              1.6
ECE 319                               1.8
ECE 391                               3.7


Elementary
Course/Checkpoint                     Mean Score on a Scale of 0-4
EDUC 300                              1.3
EDUC 392                              1.9

Secondary
Course/Checkpoint                     Mean Score on a Scale of 0-4
EDUC 300                              1.3
EDUC 393                              2.0
EDUC 434/5/6                          4.0

The benchmark for the graduate program was partially met. While the
benchmark was met in the Learning Disabilities program, it was not met in
the Early Childhood and Instructional Accommodation programs. .Results
can be found in Table 8.


Table 8. Results from graduate rubric to assess clinical

Early Childhood
Course/Checkpoint                     Mean Score on a Scale of 3-6
EDUC 797                              4.8
EDUC 724                              5.5

                                                                            12
Instructional Accommodation
Course/Checkpoint                       Mean Score on a Scale of 3-6
EDUC 797                                4.8

MAT/M.Ed. Learning Disabilities
Course/Checkpoint                       Mean Score on a Scale of 3-6
EDUC 769/770                            5.0


To compliment the above referenced assessments in goals 1-4, the Early
Childhood programs also have assessments and activities aligned with the
National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).

       The Early Childhood Education (ECE) program faculty remains
aware of and involved in early childhood-related professional activities
through conferences, workshops, and other meetings. These events help
faculty provide meaningful instruction [to ECE majors] based on continuing
research in the areas of child development and learning; much of this
research is driven by the National Association for the Education of Young
Children (NAEYC), establishes guidelines or standards for ECE
undergraduate and advanced programs. Both programs at FMU continue to
include many different experiences to address the needs and goals of teacher
candidates, public school students and school staff, families, and the
community.

      Examples of these instructional experiences are listed below, in
categories pertaining to NAEYC standards:

I.    Child Development

      A.    Undergraduate: Teacher candidates write reports based on their
            observations of preschool through primary level children. They
            also do multimedia presentations on the developmental
            appropriateness of classroom environments.

      B.    Advanced: Graduates summarize articles from professional
            literature then give the implications of article content for their
            own classroom, school, and district practices.

II.   Family and Community

                                                                                 13
       A.   Undergraduate: Teacher candidates dialogue with parents and
            staff involved in a Florence School District 1 Family Literacy
            program. Candidates also do a home visit in conjunction with
            the Family Literacy program, and they interact with at least one
            parent while engaging in a practicum prior to Student Teaching.
            A reflections paper is then written on communications with
            parents in the community, the home, and the school.
       B.   Advanced: Graduates help plan and present a workshop for
            parents, childcare providers, and community agency staff who
            assist children and entire families.

III.   Observing, Assessing, Documenting

       A.   Undergraduate: Teacher candidates do an assessment portfolio.
            They also administer [and write a report about] the Informal
            Reading Inventory (IRI) to first graders who have been
            identified as children of poverty.

       B.   Advanced: Graduates administer some of the Piagetian tasks to
            students whom they bring to the FMU campus. Graduates then
            analyze and report on students’ processes of working on and
            completing tasks.

IV.    Teaching and Learning

       A.   Undergraduate: Teacher candidates complete a product called
            an Instructional Unit-Based Work Sample that includes
            background information on students, a one or two week unit
            integrating different subject areas, an analysis of student
            learning, and a teacher self-assessment.

       B.   Advanced: Graduates plan (and present) a number of
            instructional experiences for preschool and school-age students.
            At the Family/Community workshop, a folder containing these
            experiences and accompanying child development research is
            given to each participant.

V.     Professionalism

       A.   Undergraduate: Teacher candidates participate in data
            collection for the
                                                                          14
             Center of Excellence for Preparing Teachers of Children of
             Poverty, the
             S.C. math conference, and visits to special schools such as the
             Center of
             Inquiry in Columbia, S.C.

       B.    Advanced: Graduates plan a staff development session for their
             coworkers, at their site of employment. This staff development
             is based on graduates’ interaction with community agency staff,
             learning about the role of community agencies in helping
             children, families, and schools.



Goal 5: Faculty Teaching, Scholarship, and Service

Benchmark: School of Education faculty will participate and excel in
teaching, scholarship, and service.

Results: School of Education faculty, in keeping with university
expectations, excel in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service.
Examples can be found in Table 9.

 Table 9. Faculty Excellence in teaching, scholarship, and service
Teaching                Scholarship               Service
Compared to the         Faculty in the School of Faculty in the School of
course evaluations of Education have              Education have provided
faculty of the          accomplished the          service to the department,
university as a whole, following in terms of      university, and
the School of           scholarship over the last community in the
Education faculty       year:                     following ways over the
scored better on all 13     Five of 22 (23%) last year:
course evaluation             faculty members          One hundred
items for the Fall and        have had scholarly        percent of the
Summer of 2006.               work published in         School of
Spring 2007 is not yet        the form of peer          Education faculty
available.                    reviewed articles         serves on at least
                              and textbooks             one committee
Additionally, more            over the course of        within the School
than half of the              the year.                 of Education.
School of Education         Fourteen of 22            The School of
                                                                           15
faculty has engaged in     (64%) faculty           Education has
course revisions over      members have            representation in
the last year as           made                    shared faculty
program changes have       presentations at        governance. Five
been made.                 conferences and         of 22 members
                           workshops over          (23%) are
                           the course of the       members of
                           last year.              university
                          Eight of 22 (36%)       committees.
                           faculty members        Nine of 22 faculty
                           have scholarly          members (41%)
                           works in progress.      provide service to
                                                   the community at
                                                   both the local and
                                                   state levels.
                                                  Faculty hosted
                                                   more than 200
                                                   School of
                                                   Education
                                                   candidates at
                                                   Education Club
                                                   meetings
                                                   throughout the
                                                   2006-07 school
                                                   year.
                                                  Francis Marion
                                                   University School
                                                   of Education has
                                                   the largest
                                                   partnership with
                                                   the Teacher Cadet
                                                   program in the
                                                   state.

Technology Currently Used In the School of Education

Table 10. Technology Use

Technology Used                     Course Used In
   Webpage link                       Teacher Cadets
                                       Teaching Materials Center
                                                                    16
    Webpage                               Education Alumni Committee
                                            Nominations
                                           Teaching Materials Center

    Smart Board                           Multiple Courses

    Blackboard                            Multiple Courses


    Assistive Technology                  Grant written to include in
                                            Learning Disabilities courses

    Alpha Smarts                          EDUC 611, CS 150
    Movie Maker                           EDUC 611
    Handhelds                             EDUC 312, CS 150

Changes in Place

The School of Education has made many general changes over the last year
as well as many program specific changes.

Changes made to the School of Education as a whole include:

     Changed the EduMate assessment system to a more user friendly
      system that is more readily able to generate the data needed to assess
      and track teacher candidates.
     Updated the student teaching and clinical handbooks.
     Reviewed the Education and Economic Development Act passed in
      2005 to initiate program adjustments to meet the requirements of this
      legislation.
     Reviewed and adjusted advisement procedures to be more efficient.


In the undergraduate Elementary program, ELE 301, Teaching Reading and
ELE 401, Assessing Reading, were consolidated to make one course, EDUC
312, Teaching and Assessing Reading. EDUC 311, an assessment course,
was added as a new course. An Elementary Education Committee was also
formed to focus on policies and procedures specific to the program. A
suggested course sequence was also developed.
                                                                          17
In the undergraduate Secondary program, all standards were revised to
reflect SPA standards as well reduce the number of credit hours for
candidates. The format of the Secondary Education Program Sheets was
also revised to reflect these changes. A suggested course sequence was also
developed.

In the graduate programs, there are no substantial changes in place; however,
there are several proposed changes in progress for the upcoming 2007-2008
academic year. (See next section.)

Planned Changes

The School of Education as a whole has several new changes in the making.
Additionally, there are program specific changes that have been proposed.

In the next year the School of Education hopes to:

    Revise the Conceptual Framework and Mission Statement of the
     School of Education to reflect more emphasis on knowledge, skills,
     and dispositions (Appendix I)
    Revise the rubrics being used to assess candidates at various
     checkpoints
    Revise the checkpoints at which these rubrics will be assessed
    Adopt a system of collecting and scoring student work samples
     electronically (Live Text)
    Revise the Capstone Sequence (EDUC 797/8/9) in the graduate
     program
    Add a course in the graduate program to provide a correlated study of
     divergence and other learning profiles (i.e. Poverty)
    Refine middle school course to prepare for candidates entering the
     newly created middle school program

General Education

The School of Education voted to eliminate EDUC 303, a technology
course, from the education curriculum. Therefore, two sections of CS 150
have been modified to fit the needs of education majors. These two sections
are for education majors only.



                                                                          18
Appendix A: Matrix of Checkpoints

Undergraduate:

                       Ed      Ed 300   CP I   CS    Psych   Hlth 315 Elem 314   Elem 315 E
                     290/299                   150    315
  Knowledge



Content knowledge                        X
    (Praxis I)




    Content                              X
  Knowledge:
  Content GPA




                       Ed      Ed 300   CP I   CS    Psych   Hlth 315 Elem 314   Elem 315 E
                     290/299                   150    315
     Skills



Lesson Planning                                                          X          X
     Skills




Assessing Clinical               X
    Practice




                                                                        19
 Ability to Cause                                                       X
Student Learning




                      Ed      Ed 300   CP I   CS    Psych   Hlth 315 Elem 314   Elem 315 E
                    290/299                   150    315
 Assessment of
  Learners and
    Learning

    Teaching          X         X
   Children of
     Poverty



 Ability to Use                               X
  Technology




 Dispositions




  Professional                  X
   Attitudes




 Respect for the                X
Learning Process




                                                                       20
Ethical Standards                    X




   Respect for                       X
    Families




Respect for Colleagues, P-           X
 12 Students, Faculty &
          Staff




Graduate

     Matrix of Graduate Program Coverage and Assessment: Standards 2-8


                                                                         21
              Key: IA – Instructional Accommodation (MEd)
                   LD – Learning Disabilities (MAT and MEd)
                   ECE – Early Childhood Education (MEd)

 Programs/Standards                 2    3    4   5    6      7   8
Courses    IA    LD         ECE
621                                 X                  X          X
622                                      X                    X
623                                                           X   X
           741   760        721     X                             X
12-hr
611                                                               X
624                                                    X
           742              722     X    X
                 761                X    X                        X
745              746                          X   X
           797   663/4      797               X   X           X   X
           798              798               X   X
30 hr.
           744   763/4      724     X    X    X   X    X      X   X
           799              799          X    X   X    X      X   X
                 769/770            X    X    X   X    X      X   X
Praxis II        X          X       X
36+ hr.




                                                                      22
   Appendix B: Content Knowledge Rubric (Graduate)

                                Content Knowledge Rubric

Component      Unacceptable            Continuing              Advanced                   Master
                   (0-3)                  (4)                     (5)                      (6)
Knowledge    Knowledge base is      Knowledge base         Knowledge base is       Subject knowledge is
of content   minimal or there is    has some               accurate and            excellent. Knowledge
             evidence of severe     connection to the      appropriate.            base demonstrates a
             misconceptions,        learning process       Connection to the       thorough
             overgeneralizations,   and student            learning process        understanding of the
             or lack of an          learning but the       and student             connections to the
             awareness and          connection may be      learning is clear and   learning process and
             understanding of       unclear or largely     thorough. An            student learning. An
             the learning process   tangential. May        awareness of            awareness of
             and student            also reflect some      individual learning     individual differences
             learning.              misconceptions,        differences is          in language, culture,
                                    overgeneralizations,   apparent. No            and experience that
                                    or lack of an          evidence of any         could impact student
                                    awareness of           misconceptions or       learning is evident.
                                    individual learning.   overgeneralizations.




                                                                                                 23
Appendix C: Rubric for Working with Children of Poverty
(undergraduate)

Rubric for Work with Children of Poverty

  Novice           Beginning        Intermediate         Advanced         Well-Prepared
  Teacher           Teacher           Teacher             Teacher             Teacher
 Candidate         Candidate                             Candidate          (Target for
     0                 1                  2                  3           Undergraduate)
                                                                                   4
Candidate’s      Candidate has     Candidate has a     Candidate        Candidate
knowledge,       little or no      basic               demonstrates     demonstrates the
skills,          knowledge of      understanding       an ability to    ability to
dispositions,    the               that children       apply              efficaciously
and              characteristics   living in           applicable            function as an
experiences      and               poverty enter       theoretical and       instructional
are not yet      instructional     formal              research data         leader of
compatible       needs of          education with      to                    children living
with the         children of       unique                  plan             in poverty.
teaching role.   poverty.          experiences,             appropria  develop and
                                   characteristics,         te               deliver
                                   and needs that           instructio       appropriate
                                   indicate specific        nal              instructional,
                                   instructional            activities,      assessment,
                                   strategies.              interact        and
                                                            meaningf  create school,
                                   Candidate                ully and         family, and
                                   demonstrates an          appropria        community
                                   understanding            tely             partnership
                                   of the                   (includin        plans that are
                                   environmental            g the            unique to
                                   and experiential         developm         children living
                                   elements that            ent of the       in poverty.
                                   are                      classroo
                                   characteristic of        m
                                   the culture of           communi
                                   poverty,                 ty), and
                                   including               access
                                   language and             and
                                   cognitive                utilize
                                   development,             appropria
                                   metacognitive            te
                                   processes and            resources
                                   motivational             for
                                   needs.                   children
                                                            and
                                                            families

                                                                                         24
                                                          of
                                                          poverty.




Appendix D: Ability to Cause P-12 Student Learning Rubric (graduate)

                       Ability to cause student learning Rubric

Component         Unacceptable          Continuing        Advanced              Master
                        (0-3)                (4)              (5)                  (6)
Use of          Instructional        Instructional     Instructional     Instructional
instructional   methods used in      methods used      methods are       methods and
methods &       the lesson are not   may be            suitable for      materials optimize
materials to    appropriate for      appropriate in    students in       opportunities to
                students.            terms of skill    terms of skill    engage students in
cause student
                                     level for         and content, as   active learning in
learning                             students, but     well as age,      which they can
                                     may not be age-   gender, and       develop higher
                                     appropriate or    interests.        order thinking and
                                     engage the        Methods and       problem solving
                                     learner.          materials are     skills, improve
                                                       used creatively   communication,
                                                       to engage the     and increase their
                                                       learner.          independence as
                                                                         learners.




                                                                                         25
Appendix E: Assessment of Learners and Learning Rubric
(undergraduate)


Rubric for Assessment of Learners and Learning

  Novice          Beginning      Intermediate        Advanced           Well-Prepared
  Teacher          Teacher         Teacher            Teacher               Teacher
 Candidate        Candidate                          Candidate            (Target for
     0                1                2                 3             Undergraduate)
                                                                                4
Candidate’s      Candidate      Candidate can      Candidate can      Candidate creates
knowledge,       can prepare    match              prepare simple     uses and analyzes
skills,          objectives     assessment         assessment         data from a variety
dispositions,    and classify   instruments        instruments with   of assessment
and              them in the    with objectives.   the coaching of    instruments
experiences      Revised                           the instructor.    including
are not yet      Bloom’s                                              traditional and
compatible       Taxonomy of                       Candidate can      alternative
with the         Educational                       analyze student    measures.
teaching role.   Objectives.                       data from
                                                   assessments to     Candidate can use
                                                   suggest            assessment data to
                                                   improvements in    improve teaching,
                                                   the assessment     learning and
                                                   and/or             curriculum.
                                                   instruction.

                                Candidate                             Assessments are
                                demonstrates                          based on South
                                awareness of                          Carolina
                                South Carolina                        Curriculum
                                Curriculum                            Standards and
                                Standards.                            reflect an
                                                                      integrated view of
                                                                      those standards.




                                                                                      26
Appendix F: Assessment Rubric (graduate)

                            Assessment Rubric

  Component    Unacceptable         Continuing            Advanced              Master
                  (0-3)                 (4)                  (5)                 (6)
  Assessment   Assessment        Cites appropriate    Cites appropriate    Cites valid
  Measures     measures cited    measures, but may    measures in          measures in
               are not valid     not describe them    operational terms.   appropriate
               for the stated    in appropriate       Results are          operational terms.
               purpose, and/or   operational terms.   interpreted          Results are
               results have      Interpretation of    accurately and       concisely
               been              results may be       specifically.        interpreted and
               interpreted       inaccurate or                             integrated with
               incorrectly.      insufficiently                            other information
                                 specific.                                 to provide a
                                                                           cohesive
                                                                           understanding of
                                                                           student
                                                                           performance.




                                                                                   27
Appendix G: Assessment of Clinical Practice Rubric (undergraduate)

Rubric for Assessment of Clinical Practice


 Beginning Teacher        Intermediate        Advanced Teacher            Well Prepared
     Candidate              Teacher              Candidate                   Teacher
         1                                           3                   (Target for UG)
                                 2                                               4
Candidate performs     Candidate shows       Candidate                Candidate displays
classroom/school       evidence of           successfully teaches     skills planning,
duties as required     successful tutoring   under carefully          implementing and
                       or small group        controlled               assessing student
Candidate              instruction.          conditions.              learning.
dispositions presage
successful teaching.                         Candidate prepares       Site coordinator and
                                             thoroughly and           college supervisor
                                             presents in a manner     rate the candidate as
                                             consistent with          being well prepared
                                             course instructions.     for teaching.

                                             Evidence exists that     Evidence exists that
                                             students learn under     students learn at a
                                             the candidate’s          high level under the
                                             instruction              candidate’s
                                                                      instruction
Supervisor ratings                           Class assessments        High ratings on the
are adequate or                              related to clinical      last 4 CORs
higher.                                      practices are rated at
                                             a B or better.




                                                                                         28
   Appendix H: Clinical Rubric (graduate)

                           Evaluation of Clinical Practice Rubric

   Component        Unacceptable          Continuing             Advanced                Master
                       (0-3)                 (4)                    (5)                   (6)

Clinical Practice   Participation      Participation         Performance            Performance
                    inconsistent       consistent with       demonstrates the       reflects a
                    with               early stages of       ability to integrate   comprehensive
                    professional       professional          multiple elements      understanding of
                    behavior.          development.          into a                 the learning process
                    Performance        Performance and       comprehensive          and the student’s
                    may reflect        comments may be       understanding of       ability to learn.
                    misconceptions     tangential, or may    the learning process   Strategies for
                    about learning     focus on some         and the student’s      assistance are both
                    and/or learners,   important aspects     ability to learn.      creative and
                    or lack of         of student learning   Strengths,             practical, and
                    attention to and   while ignoring        limitations, task      oriented toward the
                    respect for the    relevant              requirements and       long-term benefit
                    viewpoints of      components.           relevant classroom     of the learner.
                    fellow                                   variables are taken    Opportunities for
                    participants.                            into consideration.    collaboration are
                                                                                    recognized, and
                                                                                    potential
                                                                                    implementation
                                                                                    difficulties are
                                                                                    explored and
                                                                                    anticipated.




                                                                                                29
Appendix I: New Proposed Conceptual Framework for the School of
Education

                  Conceptual Framework Clarification

School of Education Conceptual Framework:
       The School of Education prepares competent and caring teachers to work
       with diverse students in an equitable and effective way.

Competence
     A. Knowledge of content that candidates plan to teach

       B. Professional knowledge and skills required of a highly qualified teacher
              1.     Ability to plan
              2.     Ability to apply skills and knowledge in a clinical setting
              3.     Ability to cause learning in p-12 students
              4.     Ability to assess learning and learners
              5.     Ability to work with children of poverty
              6.     Ability to use technology

Caring as measured by the following professional dispositions
   Respect for diverse learners: When teaching diverse students, the caring
   candidate’s
       1. Instructional/assessment flexibility and accommodations to individual
           differences reflect his/her belief that all students can learn.
               Descriptors of the belief that all students can learn:
                    Has a positive impact on student learning
                    Promotes a safe and supportive learning environment
                    Establishes high and challenging standards
                    Uses technological resources to promote success for all students.

       2. Demeanor toward students consistently reflects a sense of fairness and high
          expectations.
             Descriptors of fairness and high expectations
                  All students are treated equitably
                  Finds alternative pathways to make students successful
                  Refuses to give up on students
                  Does not use demographics as an excuse for student failure
                  No student is singled out for abuse or neglect.
                  Promotes equitable access to resources (including technology) for
                     all students



   Respect for the teaching profession: When working in a university or school
   environment, the caring candidate
      3. Exhibits a consistently high level of professionalism
                                                                                         30
       Descriptors of professionalism:
           Is reliable and punctual in attendance
           Follows directions
           Completes assignments on time
           Is professionally productive and uses available resources
              (including technology) to enhance productivity
           Dresses and grooms professionally
           Reflects actively, persistently, and carefully about teaching
           Uses available opportunities including technological resources to
              grow professionally
           Demonstrates appropriate communication skills (written and oral)
           Models and teaches ethical practice including ethical and safe use
              of technology
           Maintains confidentiality of students and families
           Upholds goals and standards of the teaching profession
           Refrains from choices and/or actions that could harm students

4. Works cooperatively and respectfully with peers, university faculty, parents,
   and school faculty and staff
      Descriptors of cooperation and respect:
           Respects the opinions and contributions of others
           Works collaboratively and appropriately
           Uses technological tools to enhance cooperation and
              communication among peers, university faculty, parents, and
              school faculty
           Follows and implements established school policies
           Maintains appropriate relationships with peers, university faculty,
              parents, and school faculty
           Responds positively to constructive criticism and implements
              recommendations.
           Acknowledges and respects differences in culture, race, gender,
              SES, religion, age, and lifestyle preference




                                                                               31

								
To top