VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 26 POSTED ON: 7/30/2013
Standard Two: Understanding the Assessment System and its Relationship to the Conceptual Framework and the Other Standards Robert Lawrence, Ph.D., Director of Assessment Tift College of Education Mercer University Why We Assess • To provide evidence of candidate transformation • To demonstrate program effectiveness • To demonstrate faculty effectiveness • To demonstrate unit effectiveness • To engage in a process of continuous improvement that results in ongoing modification and improvement in both our teacher education programs and in our candidates’ performance. Critical Success Factors Related to Assessment What a unit must have in place to make its assessment process meaningful and to demonstrate program, unit and faculty effectiveness: 1. An organizational culture that values collaboration and a shared vision and responsibility among all members of the unit; 2. Strong leadership from the Office of the Dean or unit head; 3. A commitment by faculty to a process of continuous improvement, from both a programmatic and a personal /professional perspective; and 4. Reliable and valid instruments that yield useful data to faculty, students and the unit. NCATE Standard 2 • NCATE Standard 2 stipulates that the unit must have an assessment system that collects and analyzes data on applicant qualifications, candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate and improve the performance of candidates, the unit, and its programs. Setting the stage for assessment • An effective assessment system ensures that multiple assessments are used to generate data for informing program and unit changes. • Both qualitative and quantitative date provide information that can be used for instituting changes where necessary. Assessment: A Soul-Washing Experience The Conceptual Framework A Conceptual Framework establishes the shared vision for the unit’s efforts in preparing educators to work effectively in P-12 schools. It provides direction for our programs, courses, teaching, candidate performance, scholarship, service and accountability. A Conceptual Framework is knowledge-based, articulated, shared, coherent, and consistent with the unit and the institution’s mission - and is continuously evaluated. The Conceptual Framework Reflects the unit’s: The Conceptual Framework • Establishes a shared vision • Coherent • Consistent with the unit mission • Provides direction • Knowledge-based • Articulated Conceptual Framework Themes • Preparing informed, empowered, committed, and engaged educators (Georgia State University) • Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning (Kennesaw State University) • Preparing Critical Thinking Change Agents to Improve Academic Outcomes in Diverse Schools and Communities (Clark Atlanta University) • Positively Impacting Learning Through Evidence- Based Practice (Valdosta State University) Conceptual Framework Themes • The Transforming Practitioner: To Know, To Do, To Be (Mercer University) • Developers of Human Potential – Educating the Head, Heart, and Hands (Berry College) • Reflective Educators for Diverse Learners (Georgia Southern) • The Proficient Educator (Fort Valley State University) Standard 4 Diversity Standard 3 Standard 5 Field Experiences and Clinical Practices Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development DATA Standard 1 Standard 6 DATA DATA Candidate Knowledge, Unit Governance Skills, and Dispositions and Resources DATA DATA Standard 2 Assessment System and Unit Evaluation Standard 7 Candidate Conceptual Performance Framework Expectations Standard 8 Standard 2 – A Closer Look • Standard 2 – Assessment System and Unit Evaluation – addresses the unit’s assessment system to determine whether the system collects and analyzes data on applicant qualifications, candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate and improve the performance of candidates, the unit and its programs. • The unit’s Assessment System should generate candidate assessment data, as well as evaluative data related to unit policies and procedures. The system of assessment and unit evaluation should yield data that serves as evidence for meeting many of the components of the 5 other Standards. Standard 2 – A Closer Look Data Expectations • NCATE expects institutions to regularly and systematically collect, compile, aggregate, summarize, analyze, and use data throughout the full (five to seven years) accreditation cycle between onsite visits. • When the BOE team conducts the onsite visit, it should find evidence that the institution has three years of data for continuing accreditation. • Institutions that do not meet this minimum requirement will have an area for improvement (AFI) cited under Standard 2, indicating that the unit is not regularly and/or systematically collecting and summarizing assessment data. Standard 2 – A Closer Look 2a. Assessment System….at the Target Level • The unit, with the involvement of the professional community, is regularly evaluating the capacity and effectiveness of its assessment system, which reflects the conceptual framework, and incorporates candidate proficiencies outlined in professional and state standards; • Decisions about candidate performance are based on multiple assessments made at multiple points before program completion Standard 2 – A Closer Look 2b. Data collection, analysis and evaluation….at the Target level • Assessment data from candidates, graduates, faculty and other members of the professional community are based on multiple assessments from internal and external sources that are systematically collected as candidates progress through programs; • These data are disaggregated by program when candidates are in alternate route, off- campus and distance learning programs; Standard 2 – A Closer Look 2c. Use of data for program improvement….at the target level • The unit has fully developed evaluations and continuously searches for stronger relationships in the evaluations, revising both the underlying data systems and analytic techniques as necessary; • The unit not only makes changes based on the data, but also systematically studies the effects of any changes to assure that Standard Two’s impact on Standard One Evidence of candidate mastery of: •Content knowledge •Pedagogical content knowledge and skills •Professional and Pedagogical knowledge and skills •Impact on student learning •Knowledge and skills for other school professionals •Dispositions Common Key PSC Requirements Assessments • State Content Test • GACE II • Second Content Assessment • Content Knowledge • Planning Assessment Assessment • Clinical Practice Assessment • Portfolio • Effect on Student Learning • Summative Evaluations Assessment • Dispositions • Analysis of Student Learning • Dispositions Standard Two’s impact on Standard Three Accountability for clinical practice includes: •The application of both entry and exit requirements for candidates •Candidates’ demonstration of content, pedagogical, and professional knowledge aligned with standards •Candidates’ demonstration of proficiencies in early field experiences •Candidates’ application of the skills, knowledge, and professional dispositions defined by the unit in its conceptual framework, including the capacity to have a positive effect on P-12 student learning •Candidates’ demonstration of skills for working with colleagues, parents and families, and communities. Standard Two’s impact on Standard Four The assessment system will: •Assess proficiencies related to professional dispositions and diversity •Monitor the level of diversity among peers, professional education faculty, school-based faculty and faculty from other units Standard Two’s impact on Standard Five The assessment system will: •Include systematic and comprehensive evaluations of the professional education faculty Standard Two’s impact on Standard Six • Unit administrators are responsible for the development, operations and evaluation of an assessment system that will monitor and assess candidate performance, program efficacy and unit operations. Standard Two’s Impact on Standard Seven Monitors data collection on: üAdmission and program exit üField and clinical experiences üTechnology integration Standard Two’s Impact on Standard Eight • Professional Content Standards for the Program – State and/or National Standards – Educator Preparation Standards • Early Childhood Education 505-3-.16 • Mathematics (6-12) 505-3-.25 • Science (6-12) 505-3-.28 • Special Education General Curriculum 505-3-.30 • Educational Leadership PL6 505-3-.58 • How does the unit know? • 1 KEY assessment: • What other KEY assessments may also be included?
Pages to are hidden for
"Tift College of Education Assessment System - Georgia Professional "Please download to view full document