Tift College of Education Assessment System - Georgia Professional by pptfiles


									Standard Two: Understanding the Assessment System and its
  Relationship to the Conceptual Framework and the Other

      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
What a unit must have in place to make its assessment process
meaningful and to demonstrate program, unit and faculty

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


      Standard 3                                             Standard 5
      Field Experiences and Clinical Practices               Faculty Qualifications, Performance,
                                                             and Development

Standard 1                                                                           Standard 6
                                       DATA                       DATA
Candidate Knowledge,                                                                 Unit Governance
Skills, and Dispositions                                                             and Resources

                                 Standard 2

                                 Assessment System and Unit

                                                                                     Standard 7
                                                                                     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

• 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
                  Standard 2 – A Closer Look

Data Expectations
• NCATE expects institutions to regularly and systematically
  collect, compile, aggregate, summarize, analyze, and use
  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
                                 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
• Dispositions                   • Analysis of Student
                                 • 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?

To top