Eece Backward Design Unit and Lesson Plan Template

Document Sample
Eece Backward Design Unit and Lesson Plan Template Powered By Docstoc
					                               University of Hawaii at Manoa
                                    College of Education
                      Initial Teacher Preparation Program Responses
                                    NCATE Standard 2

1. What evidence suggests that data are examined to discuss or initiate change on a
   regular basis?

BEd in Elementary and Early Childhood Education
Faculty meeting agendas, minutes, and materials indicate the way we use data to in initiate
change.
 The student teaching assessments, completed by candidates and mentors (the pink form from
   the Dean's office), say candidates need more on assessment. Therefore, we are making a
   concerted effort to help them "think like assessors." Because the Tomlinson/McTighe text
   was circulated to faculty and we use the backward design lesson format for lesson planning
   as a common template in many ITE EECE courses, we anticipate that course instructors will
   order the book for ITE 317 next year and use it throughout the program.
 Another way we are using data to make changes is the new ITE 312 course design, to help
   candidates work with ESL students and specifics on classroom management--feedback from
   candidates, mentors and principals indicate that candidates need more in the area.
 Focus designation issues and the new application process are based on data and feedback
   from candidates, cohort coordinators, and OSAS advisors. The focus designations are to meet
   a graduation requirement, and we are trying to help candidates develop in the areas of
   writing, oral communication, ethics, and Hawaiian education. The "data" we use are
   candidates' needs that we discuss in faculty meetings.
 Issues and concerns shared with cohort coordinators drive decisions and lead to program
   improvement. These issues and concerns include field placement liaison/coordinator
   functions, the blocks of courses for each semester, and the ST and O/P orientation in January
   2006. We use feedback from candidates, mentors, and faculty to change the way we plan the
   program—back-to-back days for field experiences, a placement coordinator to establish a
   system (rather than haphazard requests) with our DOE partners, and our new orientation for
   year one students in August and year two students in January.
 New procedures have been developed in collaboration with OSAS to interview applicants for
   Fall Semester admission to the ITE ECE program. Discussions in faculty meetings on the
   need to screen for knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessitated the restructured process.
   We anticipate the group interviews process that is linked to the conceptual framework and a
   writing sample will help us to accept a higher percentage of candidates who will be
   successful in the program.

BEd and Post-Baccalaureate Program in Secondary Education
Program Operations: With the leadership of the program chair, ITE Secondary (2005-2006)
collected feedback on program operations from mentor teachers and university faculty through
focus groups at mentor teacher orientations, which are planned annually. Fall Semester 2005
focus group feedback highlighted unclear procedures for fieldwork and inappropriate assessment
forms for practica and student teaching. They described some weaknesses in the program. Notes
taken during focus group discussion at the Fall Semester 2005 orientations provide evidence.
Candidate Achievement: An annual timeline and process of review was designed by secondary
faculty (Spring Semester 2006 minutes) to share and use candidate data to improve the secondary
program. The timeline and Process follows:

                                     University of Hawaii
               Institute for Teacher Education--Secondary Education Program
Timeline and Process for Candidate Assessment Data Sharing and Data-Based Decision Making

The following data are aggregated and summarized at the end of Spring Semester each academic
year:
1) Data from TWS’s developed during both fall and spring of the previous academic. Summary
reports through TK20 describe the range of performance levels and the mean scores for
performance on each step of the TWS. The steps, in turn, reflect secondary program standards.
2) Data from student teaching evaluation forms completed in fall and spring 2006, reflect range
and mean scores on secondary program standards, that align with Hawaii teacher standards. In
fall, 2007 and later, student teaching evaluations will align directly to secondary program
standards.)
3) Data based on developmental portfolios completed in fall or spring of the previous academic
year, with ranges of performance and mean performance by secondary education program
standard. (It is anticipated that the first completed developmental portfolios will be submitted
fall, 2008.)

Beginning of fall semester each academic year: Faculty review aggregated data from
developmental and exit assessments (student teaching evaluation & TWS) to set plans for
improvement. Aggregated data are posted on the Secondary Education website (Evidence: fall
2006 website of ITE Secondary) with requests for comment by program candidates and mentor
teachers, faculty in Arts and Sciences, or other interested members of the professional
community. The chair, or designee, reviews comments and brings relevant concerns to the
attention of faculty for possible adjustments.

Fall and spring each academic year: Faculty and/or candidates implement and document plans
for improvement based on midpoint and/or exit candidate performance data.

Mid-spring each academic year: Faculty and candidates assess the effect of changes
implemented. Faculty review improvement efforts and make adjustments. They document
notable examples, exemplars, concerns, and questions. Mid-spring assessments are also posted
on the web with requests for comment from the professional community—candidates, mentor
teachers, and university faculty, in particular.

Program improvement data collected from mentor teachers and others in the professional
community are collected annually after Fall Semester orientation/focus group meetings.

Teacher Work Sample assessment data show that impact on student learning will be aggregated
in summer, 2006 and presented to faculty, candidates, and others in the professional community
in fall, 2006 for analysis. Assessment data will be presented at faculty meetings, in courses as
relevant to teacher candidates, and on the website, to inform and hear from mentor teachers and
other university faculty involved in the preparation of teachers.

The developmental portfolio assessment data, reflecting performance related to each
course/secondary program standard, will be submitted in evidence of proficiency required for
student teaching. The first semester of artifacts for the developmental portfolios will be
submitted to course faculty in spring, 2006. The first developmental portfolios representing all
courses in the professional sequence prior to student teaching will be available in spring, 2008.

BEd and MEd in Special Education
 Faculty meeting agenda and minutes: Most discussions and changes in the SPED Department
  occur at regularly scheduled, mandatory faculty meetings, which occur at least monthly
  during the entire academic year. Data gathered from various sources about the special
  education teacher preparation programs are shared with faculty. An agenda item, at the
  majority of faculty meetings, has been the SPED Assessment System and other committee
  reports. We continually discuss and initiate change. Additional formal and informal data
  from the COE, the Elementary and Secondary programs, OSAS, candidate feedback, and
  other relevant committee reports also are discussed and considered in decision-making.
 The SPED Assessment System: The required candidate products for the SPED Assessment
  System provide evidence that data are examined to initiate change. Several products have
  been revised or changed as a result of examining data.
 TEC minutes reflect discussions about data and program recommendations.
 SPED Program brochures indicate changes in teacher preparation programs, coursework, and
  sequencing.
 Revised Departmental Handbooks reflect changes.

BEd in Kinesiology and Leisure Science
The Kinesiology and Leisure Science (KLS) Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE)
faculty meet monthly to discuss the physical education program relative to course content,
sequence, and feasibility. An annual meeting of all physical education teacher candidates is also
held to provide updates, changes and general question and answer sessions. Moreover, the
Teacher Education Committee-Physical Education (TEC-PE) meets twice annually to ensure that
the PETE program and State Department of Education (DOE) Physical Education Content and
Performance Standards are addressed.

MEdT in Teacher Education
 Faculty recently used data from previous and current candidates to re-evaluate the
  culminating Plan B project and rework the Plan B into a multi-layered, across-program
  process (e.g., writing a grant or action research paper; presenting a professional paper at a
  conference, etc.).
 We use data to make changes in our course structure(s) as we tailor much of the field seminar
  courses around the feedback from candidates, mentors, and principals following the
  collective wisdom of candidates and school colleagues.
 Issues and concerns are shared with our school/complex mentor coordinators and those
  discussions drive our decisions and lead to program improvement.
   We use feedback candidates, mentors, and faculty to change the way we plan the program—
    moving candidates around schools from semester to semester, and across grade levels across
    semesters;
   We have ―exit point‖ data (i.e., number finalizing Plan B projects and graduating) to discuss
    program requirements and student and program effectiveness.

MEd in Counselor Education
 The Department gathers feedback from its three advisory councils (i.e., School Counseling,
  Rehabilitation Counseling, Community Services Counseling) and program candidates (i.e.,
  course evaluations) at least once each semester to ascertain positive aspects and areas in need
  of improvement in the various programs.
 Follow-up survey results are shared with faculty members, who revise course and program
  content, as appropriate

2. What data driven changes have occurred?

BEd in Elementary and Early Childhood Education
See changes addressed in Question #1.

BEd and Post-Baccalaureate Program in Secondary Education
Secondary education faculty committees were formed in late Fall and Spring Semesters, 2006, to
initiate data driven changes related to feedback on program operations. Faculty members met
on several occasions and collaborated to revise fieldwork handbooks and field evaluation forms.
Dates and outcomes of these meetings provide evidence. The revised fieldwork handbook was
distributed to teaching residents in spring, 2006. The revised evaluation forms will be distributed
to teaching residents and used for assessment in fall, 2006. The completed and revised secondary
handbook and field experience evaluation forms for practicum/student teaching also provide
evidence of these changes.

In an attempt to generate candidate achievement data, the secondary program chair led faculty in
restructuring the secondary portfolio into two parts. We worked on these changes in spring and
fall, 2005. Faculty designed a developmental portfolio to be submitted before teaching residency
and an exit portfolio to be submitted during student teaching using the teacher work sample.

The following sections provide more information about these two assessments--developed in
response to program self-study and feedback from the professional community.

Teacher Work Sample—the new Exit Assessment: Implemented Spring, 2006. The Secondary
Teacher Work Sample, our new exit portfolio, was adapted from the Renaissance Partnership
model to reflect the UH conceptual framework and secondary program standards. In it, teacher
candidates provide summative evidence of proficiency in each secondary program standard and
demonstrate that they are ‗knowledgeable, effective, and caring‘ educators who contribute to a
just and democratic society (the UH COE conceptual framework).

Secondary education faculty adopted the Teacher Work Sample approach at the final faculty
meeting in December 2005. A secondary faculty member with knowledge of the process was
charged with creating the guidelines and rubrics for the TWS by mid-January. It was
implemented, as a pilot in spring 2006. Revisions to refine the process will be devised at the end
of spring, 2006. Handbooks and orientations for candidates, mentor teachers, and university
coordinators were distributed in spring 2006. (Evidence: Handbook; orientation agendas and
dates, participant lists). Candidates post their teacher work samples on TK20, which reflects
individual work samples and summary data on all secondary candidates‘ performance.

The Teacher Work Sample/exit portfolio is submitted by student teachers in evidence of
proficiency required to complete the program. It focuses on application of knowledge and skill
to practice, with attention to teacher candidate impact on student learning.

Developmental Portfolio: In progress. Full implementation reached by spring, 2008. The
developmental portfolio, reflecting performance related to each course/secondary program
standard, will be submitted in evidence of proficiency required for student teaching; thus, it is a
midpoint assessment. The first completed developmental portfolios will be submitted by spring,
2008.

The developmental portfolio is course-based and reflects growth across the professional
program. It focuses on knowledge and skill developed in courses leading to student teaching.
Developmental portfolios provide evidence of pre-student teaching proficiency in relation to
each secondary standard. Faculty worked together to specify which courses provide pre-student
teaching evidence of proficiency in each secondary standard, to develop common rubrics to
assess candidate proficiency in meeting each standard, and to identify the performance task
options or artifacts. (Evidence: Course matrix specifying standard per course; rubrics for each
standard, performance task options.)

BEd and MEd in Special Education
 SPED Assessment System: Over the past five years, the candidates' products required for the
  Assessment System have been changed, revised, deleted, and/or new ones added.
 The Post Baccalaureate in Special Education program: The PB-SPED program was
  completely revised in 2005. The old program required that candidates have an existing
  elementary or secondary teaching license prior to enrollment. There were only two students
  enrolled in the program. The program was revised and the admission criteria changed to
  allow students with a Bachelor‘s degree in any field to be eligible to apply. Since the change,
  approximately 20 students are enrolled in the program.
 Course title changes: Feedback from Hawaii DOE personnel from the TEC meetings resulted
  in some course title changes. The M.Ed. in Special Education – Severe program offers
  courses for teaching students with Autism, but that was not reflected in the course titles. HI
  DOE personnel recommended that we change the titles to reflect Autism content, and the
  titles were changed.
 Program coursework sequence: The M.Ed. in Special Education – Mild/Moderate program
  suggested course sequence was changed beginning fall 2005. Feedback from candidates and
  faculty discussions provided impetus for that change.
 Enrollment limited in several 400 level courses: Several 400 level courses requested and
  were granted Focus Course designation, specifically Writing Intensive, during 2005 and
  2006. Those courses also require products from students for the SPED, Elementary, or
    Secondary Assessment Systems. The amount of work required of students and faculty
    resulted in a reduction in maximum enrollment from 30 to 20. The enrollment change should
    begin summer 2006.
   Applicant Interviews: SPED faculty interview all students seeking admission to a special
    education teacher preparation program. Data from candidate performance in the field after
    admission resulted in this change.

   Increased recruiting efforts: Data on low enrollment in some teacher preparation programs
    have resulted in an increase in recruiting efforts statewide.
   Mentor program initiated: Personnel were hired to support special education teacher
    preparation program candidates hired as emergency classroom teachers while seeking
    licensure. Data from student evaluations indicated candidates required more support in the
    field. Data from the mentor program indicates it is successful in assisting beginning teachers.
   Number of field observations standardized: Data from student evaluations indicated a need to
    standardize the number of field observations conducted by university faculty for the
    undergraduate and graduate field courses.
   Student load reduced for faculty involved in field supervision: Faculty feedback on workload
    and quality of field supervision resulted in a reduction in number of candidates assigned to
    each faculty member. Supervision loads are standardized for each field experience.
   Data from the Hawaii DOE indicated a need for a teacher preparation program for teachers of
    deaf and hard of hearing students. A SPED faculty member designed a program, wrote, and
    acquired federal grant funding to prepare two cohorts of students.

BEd in Kinesiology and Leisure Science
Data include (a) course and teaching evaluations, (b) field experience evaluations, (c) teaching
residency (formerly noted as student teaching) evaluations, (d) mentor evaluations, (e)
dispositions evaluations (from 2003 only), (f) PRAXIS II content exam scores, and (g)
candidates exit interview (surveys). Since the 2001 NASPE/NCATE report, entry into the
College of Education (COE) has not changed. Interested students must have a 2.75 GPA, pass
the PPST exam, 40-hours experience working with children, and a department interview. The
department interview continues to serve as the launching board for measuring and monitoring
candidates teaching dispositions.

Since the initial NASPE/NCATE accreditation in 2001, the PETE program has undergone
significant programmatic changes. Data suggest that physical education teacher candidates were
completing the program at an average of 5.5 – 6.0 years. Programmatic changes included
restructuring and consolidating courses. More specifically, Teaching Techniques courses were
consolidated from four (2-credit) (KLS 371, 372, 373, 374) courses to two (3-credits) (KLS 371,
372) courses. This actually provided more opportunity for candidates to remain longer at one
field experience site. As such, the addition of KLS 402 (field experience) provided another an
opportunity for field experience since candidates were participating in field experiences later
during their matriculation. This provided cohesion with the Methods course (KLS 404) and an
opportunity for an earlier more focused field experience. Data from the field experienceb
indicated that more field experiences were needed. Related to the field experienceb the Trans-
disciplinary Motor Clinic for Young Children was formed in 2001. The purpose of this motor
clinic was to provide an on-campus field experience for candidates. Children ages 3-7 years old
arrive on campus from 3:30-5:30p twice a week. At present, the motor clinic is a required
program for candidates and aligned with KLS 270 (Introduction to Teaching Physical
Education), KLS 334 (Movement Education K-6), KLS 443 (Physical Education for Students
with Disabilities), and KLS 477 (Motor Development and Learning).

With constant changes occurring within the Hawaii DOE, it is imperative that continuous
assessment and evaluation of program content be assessed. The State DOE provides input into
program via the TEC-PE committee, and recommendations are suggested. Such data are then
corroborated with the National Beginning Teacher Standards from NASPE and a common
ground is developed. Moreover, with the infusion of the Hawaii Teacher Standards Board, our
program is aligned with both NASPE and State teaching standards.

MEdT in Teacher Education
See changes above in Question #1.

MEd in Counselor Education
 Curricular, course sequence, and advising changes to ensure cohesiveness related to content
  and requirements regardless of instructor
 Conceptual framework core values, professional standards, and diversity and disability issues
  are addressed in all classes

3. How are assessment data shared with candidates and faculty?

BEd in Elementary and Early Childhood Education
 Faculty meetings (agendas, minutes, discussions, looking at data [such as Praxis scores],
  broad use of our email list, and a faculty notebook for materials that we add to all year long
  for each faculty member.
 Committees--agendas, minutes, reports to faculty. We also conduct student evaluations of
  faculty and courses that are used for contract decisions and for faculty to improve teaching
  and assessment in courses and field experiences.

BEd and Post-Baccalaureate Program in Secondary Education
As the timeline presented in #1 indicates, during fall semester of each academic year, faculty and
candidates examine and respond to data.

Beginning of fall semester each academic year: Faculty review aggregated data from
developmental and exit assessments (student teaching evaluation & TWS) to set plans for
improvement. Aggregated data are posted on the Secondary Education website (Evidence: fall
2006 website of ITE Secondary) with requests for comment by program candidates, mentor
teachers, faculty in Arts and Sciences, or other interested members of the professional
community. The chair, or designee, reviews comments and brings relevant concerns to the
attention of faculty for possible adjustments.

Mid-spring each academic year: Faculty and candidates assess the effect of changes
implemented. Faculty review improvement efforts and make adjustments. They document
notable examples, exemplars, concerns, and questions. Mid-spring assessments are also posted
on the web with requests for comment from the professional community—candidates, mentor
teachers, and university faculty, in particular.

Progress on improvements is also shared with candidates and faculty in spring, as indicated in
the timeline and process.

BEd and MEd in Special Education
 Assessment system data are shared with individual candidates by faculty in all courses and
  field experiences. Students are given hardcopies of evaluations and receive verbal and
  written feedback from faculty members for assessment system products (including
  dispositions ratings) completed in courses.

   Assessment data are shared in faculty meetings and other appropriate department meetings.
   When the TK20 electronic database is in full implementation, data will be available to
    faculty and students.
   Faculty members receive hard copy results of all student evaluations of courses and field
    experiences.

BEd in Kinesiology and Leisure Science
Data from evaluations are provided to PETE faculty at least once per semester. PETE faculty
members are required to take the evaluations and revise or restructure their courses based on the
evaluations. In some cases, PETE faculty will share candidates' course or field experiences data
with other faculty members. At this time, a discussion takes place to determine any necessary
interventions for candidates to be successful. Candidates are shown data during their classes or
on an individual basis, especially those dealing with dispositions.

Data obtained from the COE also provide input into programmatic changes. For instance, our
PETE faculty and candidates do not possess the technology applications necessary to be
knowledgeable in the field; that is, our ability to utilize technology has been rather limited. With
the initiation of the TK20 on-line data-based driven system, we hope to instill the importance of
technology for courses and how candidates can employ technology in their teaching.

MEdT in Teacher Education
 We assess all candidates at multiple points along the 2-year path. For example, they are
  assessed at mid-semester and end-of-semester in semesters 2, 3, and 4. In addition, they are
  assessed and conduct self-assessments using the HTSB 10 Teacher Standards in semesters 2,
  3, and 4.
 Faculty course evaluations are conducted and completed each semester. Faculty meetings
  (agendas, minutes, discussions, looking at data [such as Praxis scores], broad use of our
  email list, and we have a faculty notebook for materials that we add to all year long.
 Committees--agendas, minutes, reports to faculty. Like most programs, we conduct student
  evaluations of faculty and courses for every course; outcome data are then used for contract
  decisions and for faculty to improve teaching and assessment in courses and field
  experiences.

MEd in Counselor Education
   Faculty meetings are the primary vehicles for sharing assessment results with faculty
    members. However, the department also communicates program changes through a
    Department newsletter as well as updated advising sheets available in the Student and
    Faculty Handbooks.

4. Do candidates          and     faculty    members       use    data     to    improve      their
   performance?

BEd in Elementary and Early Childhood Education
The Plan of Assistance (POA) for improvement is something we have used for the past two
years, in response to faculty and mentor input. Students who experience difficulty meeting
expectations in the field are counseled with specific expectations and intervention strategies
identified collaboratively with the mentor teacher, supervisor, cohort coordinator, and student.

BEd and Post-Baccalaureate Program in Secondary Education
Use of Data on Program Operations:

Faculty members improve their performance based on focus group program operations data in a
number of ways. Faculty of ITE 406 seminar classes for student teachers in each content area
initiated changes in the curriculum to give greater focus on classroom environment/management
and to student teachers‘ impact on student learning. See evidence of such changes in the spring,
2006 ITE 406 language arts seminar syllabus. Minutes of meetings reflect ways faculty
participated in decisions and received relevant updated program forms.

Faculty worked together at faculty and committee meetings to use data to make the following
broader program improvements (See charts and rubrics generated for evidence):

   Identify, align, and publish the key courses responsible for each program standard
   Restructure candidates' developmental and exit portfolios
   Identify performance task options/artifacts that candidates submit in evidence of meeting
    standards for the developmental portfolio
   Develop and implement the teacher work sample as exit portfolio
   Create rubrics to score performance tasks/artifacts aligned to secondary program standards
    for both developmental and exit portfolios
   Utilize TK20 to aggregate data from both developmental and exit portfolios
   Review and adopt a timeline and process to use aggregated data for program improvement

When aggregated data on candidates‘ TWS performance are reviewed in fall of each year,
candidates and faculty examine the previous academic year‘s data about students‘ TWS strengths
and weaknesses and use that information to improve faculty support and/or candidate
performance.

Candidates improved their performance by learning to use technology to document their impact
on student learning. They uploaded their teacher work samples and course artifacts into the
TK20 data collection system for the first time during spring, 2006. TK20 reflects individual
student learning as well as program-wide patterns of achievement.
Candidates completing each step of the teacher work sample improve their performance when
they receive formative feedback before the final posting date on TK20. They make changes to
improve their work samples as they progress through the steps. After final posting, candidates
learn whether their work samples have demonstrated proficiency at the required level.
Proficiency means they are recommended for licensure to the Hawaii Department of Education.
Those who do not meet proficiency will be referred to seminar faculty who recommend minor
changes or repeating student teaching and the TWS process.

BEd and MEd in Special Education
 Candidates use the evaluation of their assessment system products and dispositions provided
  by individual faculty members to improve performance on future products. Advisors or
  cohort coordinators share midpoint checks with each student. Students are informed of
  midpoint progress and decisions for continuation in the program.
 Faculty use data on student performance on assessment system products to make decisions
  for continuing, revising, or deleting products. Any recommendations for change are
  discussed with the appropriate committees and approved by the full faculty.
 Faculty use student course evaluations to inform future course changes.

BEd in Kinesiology and Leisure Science
From the course evaluations, PETE faculty continuously examine how course content aligned
and corroborated with the Hawaii DOE standards relative to benchmarks and standards-based
grading. For instance, during the past 5-years the PETE program has used the Teaching Games
for Understanding Model as the conceptual framework for teacher education. Courses were
organized under categories such as Net/Wall, Field/Invasion, Striking/Target and Fitness. The
Hawaii DOE also supported this framework for its teachers and learners; however, there has
been a recent shift to focus on Health-Related Physical Fitness and Physical Activity across the
Lifespan (Lifelong Physical Activity). Hence, the Hawaii DOE has slowly shifted its conceptual
framework to include Lifelong Physical Activity in connection with Standards.

With the highest PRAXIS II Content Knowledge score across the country (cut-off score 160),
PETE faculty are concerned with how many candidates actually meet this criterion on their first
attempt. At present, 90% of candidates pass the PRAXIS II exam. As such, we believe that our
courses and field experiences are providing the Content Knowledge and Pedagogical Content
Knowledge necessary to pass the exam.

MEdT in Teacher Education
The intent of our multiple (mid- and end-of-semester) point evaluations in semesters 2, 3, and 4
is for candidates, faculty, and mentors to evaluate candidate performance and to assist in
candidate growth and development over the course of the 2-year program. All candidates are
assessed and conduct self-assessments using the HTSB 10 Teacher Standards in semesters 2, 3,
and 4.

MEd in Counselor Education
 Faculty use data from advisory councils and student course evaluations to inform future
  course, program, and advising changes.
5. Identify any notable examples, exemplars, concerns, and/ or questions.

BEd in Elementary and Early Childhood Education
Exemplars include many of the new materials we have developed (Plan of Assistance for
Improvement, new student handbook, faculty handbook we revise each month, book for faculty
discussion [Tomlinson and McTighe] for professional development, block scheduling for
cohorts, and new interview process for cohorts.

BEd and Post-Baccalaureate Program in Secondary Education
Candidates' TWS and Developmental portfolio sample course exemplars

BEd and MEd in Special Education
SPED Assessment System has been fully implemented in all teacher preparation programs. Data
have been gathered from 2000-2006. Notable results are as follows:
 All coursework in SPED align with the Council for Exceptional Children International
   Standards for the Preparation and Certification of Special Education Teachers. All course
   syllabi reflect the CEC Standards, the COE Conceptual Framework, and the SPED
   Department mission.

   2004-2005 Praxis Exams results = 97% pass rate on Content Knowledge Exam and 100%
    pass rate on Application Exam.
   BEd. in Elementary and Special Education candidates' pass rate in student teaching (2003-
    2005) = 100%; MEd. in Mild/Moderate Disabilities pass rate (2000-2005) = 95%; and MEd.
    in Severe Disabilities pass rate (2000-2005) = 92%.

BEd in Kinesiology and Leisure Science
One notable exemplar is our ability to grade teaching residency. Candidates are evaluated based
on multi-methods of data collection. Such methods include mentor teacher evaluation, checklist
and rubric scoring, and systematic observation. While, grading of teaching residency is based on
subjective evaluation, obtaining a letter grade is made possible by employing systematic
observations. Such systematic observations include the Academic Learning Time-Physical
Education (ALT-PE) and Physical Education Teacher Assessment Instrument (PETAI). Both
instruments are based on interval recording of teaching behaviors.

A major concern is the amount of time that candidates spend in teaching residency. Since 2001,
our program has shifted to include both elementary and secondary placements. Within a 17-week
semester (including final exam week), teaching residency offers approximately 9-weeks of
secondary and 8-weeks of elementary experiences. Mentors from the secondary placements have
voiced their concern that a 9-week placement is not sufficient. In fact, the PETE program has lost
many excellent mentors because of this time frame.

MEdT in Teacher Education
Exemplars include the revised Plan B process and the multi-point (twice p/semester x 2nd, 3rd, &
4th semester) assessment processes conducted by UH faculty in collaboration with Hawaii DOE
colleagues and mentors.

MEd in Counselor Education
The Department has a 2-3 year sequence of course offerings to ensure course availability and
timely completion programs.

6. What process has the unit adopted to ensure that its assessment procedures are fair,
accurate, consistent, and free of bias?

BEd in Elementary and Early Childhood Education
Group Interview of Applicants
In Spring Semester 2006, our faculty began a new group interview process for applicants. We
discussed procedures as a faculty, drafted interview questions, based on the EECE Professional
Dispositions for Teacher Candidates, reviewed them for fairness and accuracy, and piloted the
process with our statewide applicants. Two faculty members interviewed students in groups of
six. We took data from the pilot interviews and used them to improve the interview questions
and practiced scoring as a faculty during interview role-plays. In the Oahu interviews that
followed, two trained faculty members interviewed students in groups of six. After the
interviews, faculty compared scores to produce a combined score that we submitted as part of the
larger application process. The faculty debriefed about the entire process to improve it for next
term, with the intention of promoting fairness, accuracy, consistency, and freedom from bias.
The interview data are combined with other application data held by the Office of Academic
Services to provide equity to applicants in the interview process.

Shared Development of Plans of Assistance for Improvement
In 2004, our faculty discussed and adopted a protocol for writing Plans of Assistance for
Improvement for teacher candidates who experience difficulties in the program. To ensure
fairness, accuracy, consistency, and freedom from bias, the Plans are co-developed by
instructors, field experience supervisors, cohort coordinators, mentor teachers, and the
Elementary Co-Director of Teacher Education. The Plans are reviewed with teacher candidates,
who are included in the discussion of goals for the teacher candidates and supports from the
program. Teacher candidates are encouraged to submit a written response to the Plan if they so
choose. By involving a team of faculty members who are working with teacher candidates, our
goal is to ensure that they receive the needed support. In addition, this protocol prevents any
single faculty member from making a decision about a student--all decisions are made through a
team effort.

Shared Assessment of Field Experience and Student Teaching
Teacher candidates are assessed with two instruments during three semesters of field experience
and one semester of student teaching. The instruments are based on the ten Hawaii Teacher
Performance Standards and the Elementary and Early Childhood Education Professional
Dispositions for Teacher Candidates. At each assessment point, teacher candidates complete a
self-assessment, used in conference with assessments completed by mentor teachers and field
experience supervisors. This triangulation of data provides a means to fair, accurate, consistent,
and bias-free assessment of teacher candidates. The Elementary Co-Director and the EECE Field
Coordinator also are available to provide additional input when needed. Decisions are made in
teams, rather than at the direction of any single faculty member.

BEd and Post-Baccalaureate Program in Secondary Education
Programs promote fairness, accuracy and consistency of assessment scoring as follows:
Content validity - developing narrative statements that describe proficiency levels in rubrics
Reliability - providing assessment orientations for faculty and mentors
Consistency - examining paired scorings of exit and developmental portfolios based on
secondary standards and content areas

BEd and MEd in Special Education
Validity:
 The products in the SPED Assessment System provide adequate coverage of the CEC
   Standards. Each product is linked to more than one Standard and each Standard is assessed
   by more than one product. (See alignment charts).
 The tasks and projects candidates complete for the Assessment System provide an adequate
   representation of tasks expected of a special education teacher. The projects, such as
   assessment, IEP preparation, and lesson planning, are critical to job performance, and are
   authentic representations of job expectations.
 The Dispositions rating is representative of behaviors and attitudes typical of successful
   classroom teachers.

Reliability/Consistency:
 Products in the Assessment System score consistently across raters.
 Candidates struggling in knowledge, skills and/or dispositions have difficulties in multiple
    areas (consistent performance) across measures.

Fairness/Free of Bias:
 All candidates have an equal opportunity to complete all tasks for the Assessment System
   successfully, regardless of gender, ethnicity, or disability. Assessment System items have
   been examined by users and assessors for offensiveness, biased items, and resources.
 Procedures are in place to ensure that all candidates know the requirements of the SPED
   Assessment System and have opportunity to learn the content in an equal manner with other
   candidates. Candidates are given opportunity to remediate when completion of tasks is not
   successful initially. All course syllabi have been examined and standardized to include
   common information, such as the (a) COE Conceptual Framework, mission, and vision; (b)
   Department. vision; (c) alignment of the course to CEC and Hawaii Teacher Standards; (d)
   professional dispositions expected of all candidates; and (e) disability statement.

BEd in Kinesiology and Leisure Science
Within courses, PETE faculty members use an array of assessment modalities to ensure that a
fair, accurate and consistent evaluation is made for each candidate. Likewise, candidates (self-
reporting) and faculty members evaluate candidates' dispositions. A comparison is made between
faculty members' and candidates' evaluations. If there are large discrepancies between faculty
members' and candidates' evaluations, another faculty member provides an evaluation.
Another method employed by PETE faculty members is the use of systematic observations for
field experiences and teaching residency. In addition, our program videotapes candidates
teaching in both field experiences and teaching residency. As previously mentioned, systematic
observations determine the quality and efficacy of a candidates' effective teaching behaviors.
Random sessions are videotaped, the faculty member and student can together ―code‖ the
teaching session to determine whether or not effective teaching behaviors are exhibited. The
basis for such coding promotes an accurate, consistent, and free of bias evaluation of the
candidates' teaching episodes. If there are discrepancies, the faculty member, another faculty
member, or candidate can actually view and code the teaching behaviors of the candidate in
question.

MEdT in Teacher Education

MEd in Counselor Education
Standardized rubrics for assessment instruments based on professional organizational standards
(CACREP, CORE)
Common course syllabi following standardized formats
Shared assessment of field experiences among field supervisors and onsite mentor counselors, as
well as candidates
Consistent formats for evaluating candidates, mentor counselors, and field supervisors
Faculty agreement on consistent course evaluations and student surveys

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: Eece Backward Design Unit and Lesson Plan Template document sample