Docstoc

Overview

Document Sample
Overview Powered By Docstoc
					                    College of Education
                 Professional Education Unit




        Continuing Accreditation
          Institutional Report

Submitted to:
Board of Examiners of the
National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education
and the Arkansas Department of Education
August 2009

http://www.astate.edu/education
          Table of Contents

OVERVIEW …………………………………………………………………...…………. 3

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS ………………………………………...……………   10

STANDARD 1 ………………………………………………………………………….…       13

STANDARD 2 ………………………………………………………………………….....    44

STANDARD 3 …………………………………………………………………………….       58

STANDARD 4 …………………………………………………………………………….       68

STANDARD 5 …………………………………………………………………………….       78

STANDARD 6 …………………………………………………………………………….       88

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS ………………………………………………………….    100
                                Overview of Arkansas State University

A. Overview of the University

       1. History

Arkansas State University (ASU) was one of four state agricultural schools established in 1909.
ASU began operation as a vocational school in 1910 but was soon reorganized as a junior college
in 1918. In 1925, the Arkansas Legislature renamed the institution the State Agricultural and
Mechanical College. During the same time period, the legislature authorized extending of
curriculum, offering senior-level courses and the granting of degrees. The first baccalaureate
degree was awarded in 1931. In 1933, the legislature changed the name to Arkansas State
College. A branch campus at Beebe, Arkansas was added by the Arkansas Legislative General
Assembly in 1955. Additional campuses have been created at Mountain Home and at Newport.
A milestone occurred in January of 1967 when the Arkansas State Legislature passed an act
authorizing university status. As a result, effective July 1, 1967 Arkansas State College
officially became Arkansas State University. A doctoral degree program in Educational
Leadership awarding the Doctor of Education (EdD) began in 1992. Subsequently, doctoral
degree programs in Environmental Science, Heritage Studies and Molecular Bioscience
awarding the Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) have been added.

On December 16, 2005, the Board of Trustees of Arkansas State University authorized the
separation of the administration of the ASU System and the ASU-Jonesboro campus. Dr. Leslie
Wyatt continued to serve as the ASU System President and the position of Chancellor was
created to oversee the administration of the ASU-Jonesboro campus. Following a national
search, Dr. Robert Potts was appointed the first Chancellor, effective November 15, 2006.

The Arkansas State College Department of Education was formed in 1930. The first Bachelor of
Science in Education (BSE) was awarded in 1931. The first advanced degree program, the
Master of Science in Education (MSE), was established at ASU in 1955. Other master’s degree
programs have since been added. Specialist degree programs were implemented in 1969. As
previously noted, the EdD in Educational Leadership, which is not a part of our Institutional
Report was established in 1992. The College of Education and the Professional Education Unit
have maintained NCATE accreditation since 1954.

       2. Mission

The ASU mission statement proclaims that, ―Arkansas State University educates leaders,
enhances intellectual growth, and enriches lives.‖ The mission is rooted in the core values of
being student-centered, learning-centered, pursuing excellence, embracing diversity, supporting
and recognizing service, and holding high standards of character and integrity. Dedicated to
teaching, research, and service, the university provides students with a broad educational
foundation that helps students develop critical thinking, analytical skills, decision-making
capabilities, and communication skills.




                                                                                                  3
        3. Institutional Characteristics

ASU has a Carnegie classification of Master’s 1 and a rating of Four-Year 3 by the Southern
Regional Education Board. Located in northeast Arkansas, ASU is the only public
comprehensive university in the Mississippi Delta region of the state. ASU is a multi-campus
system which draws students primarily from 25 counties across northeast Arkansas. This service
area encompasses metropolitan, suburban, and rural communities. The main campus is located in
Jonesboro (population 59,358), the only metropolitan area in the university’s service area. The
majority of students come from the five-county area surrounding the main campus. Branch
campuses are located in Beebe, Mountain Home and Newport. ASU also reaches out across the
Mississippi Delta area to the Ozark Mountains through partner institutions (ASU Beebe, ASU
Mountain Home, ASU Newport, East Arkansas Community College, Mid-south Community
College and Arkansas Northeastern College) and to other areas of Arkansas through distance
learning initiatives.

B. Overview of Teacher Education Unit

                                           Table 1
               Professional Education Faculty and Graduate Teaching Assistants
                           # faculty full    # of faculty full-   # of faculty who are      # of graduate
                         time in the unit       time in the          part-time at the    teaching assistants
Academic Rank                                 institution but           institution         or supervising
                                             part-time in the       (adjunct faculty)      clinical practice
                                                    unit
Professors                      13                   4
Associate Professors            17                   6
Assistant Professors            23                   2
Instructors                     22                   1                    25
Lecturers                       0
Other
TOTAL                           75                  13                    25                     0

Source: Professional Education Faculty Information Document Summary (2008-2009), COE Dean’s Office




                                                                                                           4
                                                    Table 2
                      Initial Teacher Preparation Programs and Their Review Status (2008-2009)
                                                            Agency or                                        National
                                        Number of           Association          Program          State     Recognition
                           Award        Candidates          Reviewing             Report         Approval    Status by
Program Name               Level         Admitted           Programs           Submitted for      Status     NCATE
                                                                                  Review
                                                                                                             Nationally
                                                                                                   State
Languages                   BSE              4                ACTFL                 Yes                     Recognized
                                                                                                 Approved
                                                                                                            w/conditions
                                                                                                   State     Nationally
Early Childhood             BSE             223               NAEYC                 Yes
                                                                                                 Approved   Recognized
Early Childhood
                                                                                                   State    Nationally
Education/Special           BSE              28            NAEYC/CEC                Yes
                                                                                                 Approved   Recognized
Education
                                                                                                   State     Nationally
Social Science              BSE              19                NCSS                 Yes
                                                                                                 Approved   Recognized
                                                                                                             Nationally
                                                                                                   State
English                     BSE              20                NCTE                 Yes                     Recognized
                                                                                                 Approved
                                                                                                            w/conditions
                                                                                                   State     Nationally
Mathematics                 BSE              21               NCTM                  Yes
                                                                                                 Approved   Recognized
Mid-Level Education                                                                                State     Nationally
                            BSE             113               NMSA                  Yes
(4-8)                                                                                            Approved   Recognized
                                                                                                             Nationally
                                                                                                   State
General Sciences            BSE              8                 NSTA                 Yes                     Recognized
                                                                                                 Approved
                                                                                                            w/conditions
                                                                                                   State
Agriculture Education       BSA              8                STATE                 Yes                        N/A
                                                                                                 Approved
                                                                                                   State
Business Technology         BSE              15               AACSB                N/A                         N/A
                                                                                                 Approved
                                                                                                   State
Art and Design              BSE              7                NASAD                N/A                         N/A
                                                                                                 Approved
                                                                                                   State
Music                       BME              20               NASM                 N/A                         N/A
                                                                                                 Approved
                                                                                                   State
Physical Education          BSE              40               STATE                 Yes                        N/A
                                                                                                 Approved
                                                                                                   State
Theory and Practice         MSE              13               STATE                N/A                         N/A
                                                                                                 Approved
TOTAL                                       524

        Source: ASU Professional Education Programs: Statistical Summary # 27 2008-2009 (pages 12 and 19)




                                                                                                               5
                  4. Advanced Programs

                                                       Table 3
                           Advanced Preparation Programs and Their Review Status (2008-2009)

                                              Number of          Agency or           Program        State       National
    Program Name            Award Level       Candidates         Association          Report       Approval   Recognition by
                                               Enrolled          Reviewing         Submitted for    Status       NCATE
                                                                 Programs             Review
                                                                                                                Nationally
Gifted & Talented                                                                                    State
                               Master’s            47            NAGC/CEC               Yes                    Recognized
Education                                                                                          Approved
                                                                                                               w/conditions
Special Education              Master’s                                                              State      Nationally
                                                   70                CEC                Yes
(P-4)                                                                                              Approved    Recognized
                                                                                                                Nationally
Special Education              Master’s                                                              State
                                                   51                CEC                Yes                    Recognized
(4-12)                                                                                             Approved
                                                                                                               w/conditions
                               Master’s                                                              State      Nationally
Educational Leadership                            129               ELCC                Yes
                                                                                                   Approved    Recognized
                                                                                                     State      Nationally
Educational Leadership       Specialist’s          62               ELCC                Yes
                                                                                                   Approved    Recognized
Curriculum &                   Master’s                                                              State      Nationally
                                                   35               ELCC                Yes
Instruction                                                                                        Approved    Recognized
                                                                                                                Nationally
                               Master’s                                                              State
Reading                                            23                IRA                Yes                    Recognized
                                                                                                   Approved
                                                                                                               w/conditions
                                                                                                                Nationally
Early Childhood                Master’s                                                              State
                                                   25              NAEYC                Yes                    Recognized
Education                                                                                          Approved
                                                                                                               w/conditions
                                                                                                                Nationally
                                                                                                     State
School Psychology            Specialist’s         16*               NASP                Yes                    Recognized
                                                                                                   Approved
                                                                                                               w/conditions
                               Master’s                                                              State
School Counseling                                  38             CACREP                N/A
                                                                                                   Approved        N/A
                               Master’s
Agriculture Education                              3                 N/A                N/A          N/A           N/A
Business Technology            Master’s
                                                 39**                N/A                N/A          N/A           N/A
Education
                               Master’s
Physical Education                                 2                 N/A                N/A          N/A           N/A
                               Master’s
Music Education                                    0                 N/A                N/A          N/A           N/A
                               Master’s
English Education                                  2                 N/A                N/A          N/A           N/A
                               Master’s
Social Science Education                           4                 N/A                N/A          N/A           N/A
                               Master’s
Biology Education                                  2                 N/A                N/A          N/A           N/A
                               Master’s
Mathematics Education                              2                 N/A                N/A          N/A           N/A
TOTAL                                             588

          Source: Kathryn Jones, Office of Institutional Research, Planning and Assessment


                                                                                                                  6
* NASP enrollment is not included in the Office of Institutional Research, Planning and Assessment data
**The numbers for this program includes not only Master’s level, but also students enrolled in the program of study
(MSE Business Technology website)

In the eight Master’s degree programs in subject content areas such as English, Music, and
Biology, advanced candidates are required to take Introduction to Statistics and Research, ELFN
6773; Philosophies of Education, ELFN 6763; and an advanced elective in Curriculum and
Instruction. These nine semester hours contribute to the awareness and comprehension of
student learning.

        5. Off-campus, Distance Education, and Alternative Programs

Off-campus Programs. ASU-Beebe and ASU-Mountain Home currently offer a number of
associate degrees with ASU-J providing the final two years of a BSE. In addition, Arkansas State
University offers bachelor’s degree programs at degree centers affiliated with partnership
community colleges: East Arkansas Community College in Forrest City, Arkansas Northeastern
College in Blytheville, and Mid-South Community College in West Memphis.

Distance Education Programs. The Department of Teacher Education and the Department of
Educational Leadership, Curriculum, and Special Education continue to use Compressed Video
Network (CVN) for selected courses. The number of courses offered online within the
Professional Education Unit has grown modestly over the past five years. This department has
also begun offering selected courses via online. The Department of Educational Leadership,
Curriculum, and Special Education, however, has been the most active distance education
program. At present, 83% of the degree program in Special Education is being offered on-line. In
2008, ASU-Jonesboro entered into an agreement with Higher Education Holdings of Dallas,
Texas to offer selected programs throughout the institution via a high-tech delivery system with
marketing and technical support for the university. In the fall of 2008 the Masters in Educational
Theory and Practice (non licensure) became the first program to be offered in this manner.

Alternative Programs. The Professional Education Unit offers a master’s degree (Master’s in
Educational Theory and Practice) which has licensure track within it for selected secondary
education programs. Since there are few students in this program, this program is in the process
of being phased out effective August 14, 2009 (i.e., students will no longer be admitted into the
program). The teacher education department is in the process of proposing a MAT degree for P-
4, 4-8 and secondary programs, which will be more comprehensive in scope and also replace the
METP.

The Department of Teacher Education also cooperates with the Arkansas Department of
Education (ADE), in compliance with an Arkansas statute that requires community colleges to
provide reading courses in the ADE’s Non-Traditional Licensure Program, by providing courses
both on and off campus using ASU professors.

        6. Changes since Last NCATE Visit




                                                                                                                  7
Programs delivered via the Web. The MSE in Special Education (83% of the program is on-
line). The MSE in Educational Theory and Practice is being delivered via the web in partnership
with Higher Education Holdings (HEH).

Initial Conceptual Framework. A revised Conceptual Framework for initial programs was put in
place beginning in the fall 2008 based on a unit-wide endeavor with input from stakeholders.

Faculty. Five temporary positions have been converted to full-time permanent faculty positions;
three faculty positions at ASU Beebe and two faculty positions at ASU Mountain Home. The
number of faculty at ASU Beebe campus having terminal degrees increased by two beginning
fall of 2006; both are tenure-track positions. There are four full-time permanent lines at the ASU
Mountain Home campus; one is a tenure-track line.

Budget. Budgetary resources for the College of Education and the Professional Education Unit
are comparable to other colleges and units with regard to capital, infrastructure, technology,
supplies and services, and library expenditures.

Governance. Changes in the Professional Education governance system have provided for
greater representation at the Council of Professional Education (COPE), and allowed the forums
to have a more direct voice in the governance system. All forum chairs are permanent members
of the Council of Professional Education.

Outreach/Partnerships. (a) The Advanced Placement Institute is in its sixth year and served over
1,300 plus teachers from five states. (b) Educational Renewal Zone (ERZ) promotes K–12
school improvements through partnerships with the university, K-12 public schools and regional
cooperatives (ERZ School Involvement 2008-2009 Report, ERZ 2007-2008 Report). (c) The
Rural and Delta Institute for Math and Science partnerships are two of the statewide networks of
twelve centers from STEM Education located at each of the eleven state universities and one
private university. The Delta Institute serves educators in an eight-county region south of
Jonesboro consisting of the Crowley’s Ridge and Great Rivers Educational Service Centers
which include 28 school districts and 112 schools. The Rural Institute serves educators in a
nine-county region north and west of Jonesboro consisting of the Northeast and North Central
Educational Services Centers as well as part of Crowley’s Ridge Service Center. It includes 37
school districts and 128 schools. The partnerships serve nearly 100,000 K-12 students of which
over 50,000 live in poverty (Northeast Arkansas Regional Partnership for Math/Science
Education Report).

Arkansas State University’s Professional Education Unit has prepared well for the Board of
Examiners’ review. There are many strengths of our unit that we would like to bring to your
attention.

Over the last few years we have had the opportunity to secure the employment new highly
qualified faculty members who have had a significant impact on the unit and the different degree
sites. In addition, we have a good cadre of experienced faculty members. The melding of our
experienced and newer faculty members have strengthened the unit. Furthermore, diversity has




                                                                                                  8
been and will continue to be a high priority and one of the strength’s of the unit is our diverse
faculty.

There has been a marked improvement in the governance structure and operations since our 2002
NCATE visit. As a result, all stakeholders are represented through membership in the
Professional Education Faculty and all are eligible to be a member of a forum. Furthermore, all
programs have representation on the Council of Professional Education (COPE). Other marked
improvements have been the strengthening of the assessment program, the outreach of selected
academic programs via on-line courses and the development of new degree centers and the
restructuring of our MSE Reading Program.




                                                                                                    9
                                   Conceptual Frameworks

Within the Arkansas State University (ASU) College of Education are mutually held beliefs and
values evident throughout the objectives of each program. These values and beliefs are inherent
in specific preparation programs and are related to the shared underpinnings of teaching and
learning within each program’s conceptual framework.

The mission of the initial level teacher education programs at Arkansas State University is to
prepare future educators who manifest these commonly held beliefs and values about schools,
students, families, and society. ASU pre-service teachers must demonstrate specific knowledge,
skills, and dispositions identified by P-12 professionals, the academic community of Arkansas
State University, Specialty Area groups (SPAs), as well as state and national standards for the
professions. Advanced programs reflect knowledge, skills, and dispositions relevant to specific
academic areas as outlined by frameworks of each program.

As the community and society around ASU’s College of Education has changed and grown the
advanced programs’ have carefully and thoroughly examined its professional role within this
changing society. Greater awareness of diversity and the growing need to respond to diversity
issues in a manner that allows incorporation of disparate groups into society’s mainstream has
become a major focus of our institution. Based upon these changing perspectives, the ASU
Professional Education Programs have revisited and revised their conceptual frameworks in
response to our changing society, changing demographics, and the need for increased parity and
equity in education.

While the initial programs in teacher education adopted the Learning to Teach/ Teaching to
Learn conceptual frameworks theme in the late 1990’s, the model has evolved, changed, and
developed into a more complex set of frameworks. Revisions since 2004-2005 to the Learning
to Teach/Teaching to Learn model addressed foundations and purposes which enable pre-service
teachers to respond to society’s growing complexity and also to address diversity more
explicitly. Within ASU’s Professional Education Unit, all early childhood, middle level and
secondary programs for initial teaching licensure are under the umbrella of the Learning to
Teach, Teaching to Learn conceptual framework.

While the Professional Education Unit adopted Learning to Teach, Teaching to Learn as its
broad framework for pre-service teachers, the advanced programs within the College of
Education determined that frameworks germane to each licensure and academic area would best
be served through the development of relevant research-based frameworks. Therefore, program
goals, objectives and outcomes in the advanced programs were developed based upon each
program’s frameworks. The mission and goals of the College of Education are supported and




                                                                                             10
enhanced by these frameworks in the initial programs as well as by advanced program
frameworks.

The Department of Educational Leadership, Curriculum and Special Education provides
advanced programs for the preparation and licensure of school leaders and special education
faculty. The standards of the Educational Leadership Constituency Consortium (ELCC
Standards) serve as the conceptual framework for the MSE in Curriculum and Instruction, the
MSE in Educational Leadership, and the EdS in Educational Leadership (See MSE in
Educational Leadership Conceptual Framework, MSE in Curriculum and Instruction Conceptual
Framework, EdS in Educational Leadership Conceptual Framework). Outcomes are embedded
throughout the performance-based activities designed to accomplish program goals. These
standards are recognized by The National Policy Board for Educational Administration, as well
as Arkansas State University, as the conceptual framework for advanced programs in
Educational Leadership that prepare district and building level leaders, curriculum directors and
supervisors.

The Gifted Education program, which is a part of the Department of Educational Leadership,
Curriculum and Special Education, adopted the National Association for Gifted Children and
Council for Exceptional Children’s ten professional standards as its conceptual frameworks (See
Gifted Education Conceptual Framework). This program includes performance-based activities
designed to promote the success of all students by instilling in candidates the capability and
disposition to provide an optimal learning environment for individuals.

The Special Education advanced program, also a part of the Educational Leadership, Curriculum,
and Special Education Department, developed a conceptual framework P-4 and 4-12 based upon
the Council for Exceptional Children’s (CEC) 10 professional standards. The model is
performance-based and addresses knowledge, skills and dispositions relevant to standards and
outcomes identified by CEC (See Special Education Conceptual Framework).

The School Psychology initial licensure advanced program has as its goal to educate future
school psychologists so that graduates have expert skills in assessment, intervention,
consultation, research, program planning, and evaluation to work with students, teachers,
administrators, parents, and other professionals. The program goals address the eleven domains
recognized by the National Association of School Psychologists (See School Psychology
Conceptual Framework ).

Supporting the Teaching/Learning Process is the conceptual framework model adopted by the
Master of Science in Education Degree in School Counseling. Supporting the
Teaching/Learning Process frameworks are clearly outlined through goals and objectives
relevant to its mission and outcomes. The appropriate professional standards established by the
American School Counselor Association, the Association for Counselor Education and




                                                                                               11
Supervision, and the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs
are embedded within the Supporting the Teaching/Learning Process frameworks.

The Department of Teacher Education houses advanced programs in Early Childhood Education,
Middle Level Education, and Reading. The conceptual framework model for these programs is
Empowering Teachers as Leaders and has four broad frameworks: 1) Embracing Diversity; 2)
Reflective Decision-Making; 3) Professional Community; and 4) Strengthening Pedagogy.
Faculty designed this framework: 1) to address the commonalities among programs; 2) to
highlight the advanced programs’ goals and outcomes; 3) to incorporate all specialty program
area requirements; and 4) to meet the demands of changing societal demographics.

All Unit Conceptual Frameworks with Appendices




                                                                                           12
STANDARD 1: CANDIDATE KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND PROFESSIONAL
DISPOSITIONS

Candidates preparing to work in schools as teachers or other school professionals know and
demonstrate the content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and skills, pedagogical and
professional knowledge and skills, and professional dispositions necessary to help all students
learn. Assessments indicate that candidates meet professional, state, and institutional standards.

1a. Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates.

1a.1. What are the pass rates of teacher candidates in initial teacher preparation programs
on state tests of content knowledge for each program and across all programs (i.e., overall
pass rate)?

The unit’s overall pass rate on Praxis II content examinations across four academic years (2005-
2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009) for all initial teacher preparation programs is 92%
(N=1,386) (see Table 4). Overall, the data reflect that teacher candidate graduates possess
excellent content knowledge. However, in the one program (Early Childhood Special Education
Program) candidates have not performed well. Overall, a three year 56% pass rate is reported.
This is a concern of the unit and is being addressed in the appropriate committees and
departments.

With the exception of Early Childhood Special Education Program, these assessments indicate
our candidates have gained the requisite knowledge to begin their teaching careers.

1a.2 (Programs Not Nationally Reviewed) What data from other key assessments indicate
that candidates in initial teacher preparation programs demonstrate the content knowledge
delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards?

All professional education programs are nationally recognized through SPA reports, state
reports, or accredited by national agencies.

1a.3. (Programs Not Nationally Reviewed) What data from key assessments indicate that
advanced teacher candidates demonstrate an in-depth knowledge of the content knowledge
delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards?

All professional education programs are nationally recognized through SPA reports, state
reports, or accredited by national agencies.

1a.4. What do follow-up studies of graduates and employers indicate about graduates'
preparation in the content area? If survey data are being reported, what was the response
rate?

Initial Programs




                                                                                                13
The Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Alumni (Follow-up) survey of
teacher education graduates (initial) has been in place for approximately 20 years. The purpose
of this survey is to provide an assessment of the teacher education programs by former graduates
one and three years after graduation. The 2004-2005 survey consisted of 37 items across 8 major
areas of competency and the 2006-2007 survey, which was based on the March 2005 conceptual
framework, consisted of 60 items across the same 8 major areas of competency. Respondents
rated each item on a scale: 1 (not very competent), 2 (reasonably competent), and 3 (quite
competent). One question from the 2004-2005 survey was aligned with the graduates'
preparation in the content area. This survey had a 13% return rate out of 284 graduates. Two
questions from the 2006-2007 survey are aligned with the graduates' preparation in the content
area. This survey had a return rate of 17.8% out of 314 graduates surveyed.

        2004-2005             Quite Competent         Reasonably Competent   Not Very Competent
3. My ability to present
current and accurate                    91.9 %                8.1%                      0%
subject matter information.

        2006-2007             Quite Competent         Reasonably Competent   Not Very Competent
61. My ability to present
current and accurate
                                        82.1 %                16.1%                     0%
subject matter information.

62. My ability to
demonstrate an
understanding of the
                                        78.6%                 19.6%                     0%
central content and
concepts of the subject
matter.

Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Exiting Teacher Interns is completed
by all graduates at the end of their internship experience. Therefore, the return rate on this
survey is 100%. The 2006-2008 surveys consisted of 67 items across the 8 major areas of
competency as outlined in the March 2005 conceptual framework. Respondents rated each item
on a scale: 1 (not very competent), 2 (reasonably competent), and 3 (quite competent). Two
questions from these surveys were aligned with their ability to present content. Means were
calculated on each of the items.

                                                 2006-2007                     2007-2008
                                                   mean                          mean
61. My ability to present current and
accurate subject matter information.                2.7                           2.5

62. My ability to demonstrate an
understanding of the central content                2.7                           2.5
and concepts of the subject matter.

The initial licensure conceptual framework, Learning to Teach, Teaching to Learn was revised in
May of 2008 in order to refine the previous version and also to more explicitly identify diversity
criterion. As a result, the Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Exiting
Teacher Interns survey was also revised to accommodate the changes. Respondents rated each


                                                                                                  14
item on a scale: 1 (unacceptable), 2 (acceptable), and 3 (exemplary/target). Within this survey
six items are aligned with content. Mean scores were calculated for each item.

                                                                      2008-2009
                                                                        mean
32. The TEP prepared me to present current and accurate
                                                                         2.72
subject matter information.
33. The TEP prepared me to demonstrate an
understanding of the central content and concepts of the                 2.69
subject matter.
34. The TEP prepared me to use explanations and
                                                                         2.68
representations that link curriculum to prior learning.
35. The TEP prepared me to engage students in
                                                                         2.67
interpreting ideas from a variety of perspectives.
36. The TEP prepared me to use methods inquiry that
                                                                         2.64
are central to the subject matter.
37. The TEP prepared me to base instruction on the
subject area standards established by the appropriate
                                                                         2.51
Specialized Professional Associations (SPAs). (See
university supervisor for SPA evaluation form.)

Passing Praxis III/Pathwise is a requirement in order to move from an initial teaching license to a
standard teaching license in the State of Arkansas. Praxis III/Pathwise is a strong performance
based measurement. Furthermore, Praxis III/Pathwise training is required of all Professional
Education Faculty who teach initial professional education courses and a few of the advanced
professional education courses. Praxis III/Pathwise is also embedded in all initial professional
education courses. ―Pathwise is built on a framework of essential teaching skills as defined by
professional educators, the Pathwise Classroom Observation System is an assessment tool for the
evaluation of the classroom performance of student teachers and first year teachers.‖ (Pathwise
Orientation Guide, p. 3). Domain A: Organizing Content Knowledge for Student Learning of the
Praxis III/Pathwise examination is aligned with the graduates' preparation in the content area.
On this domain, graduates’ scores on each of the subcategories from the 2004 to 2008
examinations were above 2.5 on 3.0 scale.

On the Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Alumni (Follow-up) survey and
the Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Exiting Teacher Interns survey our
graduates indicated that their preparation in the content area was acceptable. Furthermore,
Praxis III/Pathwise Domain A scores further validate the Professional Education Unit is
adequately addressing the content criterion.

Advanced Programs

Graduate follow-up data were collected between 2003 and 2008 for the MSE in Reading
Education and the MSE in Early Childhood Education programs immediately upon exit of their
program. The surveys inquired as to the relevance of their graduate education and the degree to
which the graduate program prepared him or her in their role in the profession. Items 1, 2, 3 and
4 on both surveys, are aligned with knowledge, comprehension or understanding of the content
of the respective programs. Responses on both the MSE in Reading Education Exit Survey and



                                                                                                  15
the MSE in Early Childhood Education Exit Survey, indicate that graduates have consistently felt
that they were either well prepared or generally prepared.

The Psychology Department’s EdS School Psychologist Exit survey administered in 2005-2008
was completed by all program completers immediately upon exit from their program. The
follow-up survey is aligned with their conceptual framework, which is based on NASP
Standards. Item 2.12 on the survey is aligned with knowledge, comprehension or understanding
of the content. A total mean of 2.11 on a 3.0 scale (1 = unsatisfactory, 2 = acceptable and 3 =
superior) was recorded from the responses to item 2.12 on the EdS School Psychology follow-up
survey. The Psychology Department also conducted a EdS School Psychologist Constituent
survey in 2005. Item 2.12 on this survey was also aligned with knowledge, comprehension or
understanding of the content. Means for item 2.12 was 2.0 on a 3.0 scale (1 = unsatisfactory, 2 =
acceptable and 3 = superior) indicating that they felt the level of preparation in this area was
acceptable. This indicates that graduates and constituents have responded that the preparation
was acceptable in this area.

The graduate exit survey for MSE Special Education and MSE Gifted and Talented is completed
by all program completers immediately upon exit from their program. The follow-up survey is
based upon their conceptual framework, which is based on NAGC/CEC Standards. Standards 1
and 9 on both the surveys are aligned with knowledge, comprehension or understanding of the
content of the respective programs. Responses on the MSE Gifted and Talented Exit Survey and
on the MSE Special Education Exit Survey both indicate that graduates have consistently felt
that they were either exemplary or acceptable in their practice.

The MSE Educational Leadership, MSE Curriculum and Instruction and the EdS Educational
Leadership programs are all based upon their conceptual framework, which is based on ELCC
Standards. Items 2.1 and 2.2 on all three surveys are aligned with preparation in pedagogical
content knowledge and skills. Responses on the MSE Educational Leadership follow-up survey,
MSE Curriculum and Instruction follow-up survey and the EdS Educational Leadership follow-
up survey, all indicate that graduates have consistently perceived that they were either exemplary
or acceptable in their practice.

The results from these advanced programs follow-up surveys indicate that ASU graduates are
being more than strongly prepared in the respective content areas. Furthermore, overall pass
rates on Praxis II content licensure examinations for the last four years (2005-2009) have been
94% (see Table 5). This indicates that ASU graduates have been adequately prepared in their
knowledge, comprehension and understanding of the content of the respective programs

1b. Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates.

1b.1. (Programs Not Nationally Reviewed) What data from key assessments indicate that
candidates in initial teacher preparation programs demonstrate the pedagogical content
knowledge and skills delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards?

All professional education programs are nationally recognized through SPA reports, state
reports, or accredited by national agencies.



                                                                                                  16
1b.2. (Programs Not Nationally Reviewed) What data from key assessments indicate that
advanced teacher candidates know and apply theories related to pedagogy and learning,
are able to use a range of instructional strategies and technologies, and can explain the
choices they make in their practice.

All professional education programs are nationally recognized through SPA reports, state
reports, or accredited by national agencies.

1b.3. What do follow-up studies of graduates and employers indicate about graduates'
preparation in pedagogical content knowledge and skills? If survey data have not already
been reported, what was the response rate?

Initial Programs

The Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Alumni (Follow-up) 2004-2005
survey consisted of 37 items across 8 major areas of competency and items 3, 4, and 5 directly
relate to preparation in pedagogical content knowledge and skills.

        2004-2005            Quite Competent      Reasonably Competent      Not Very Competent
3. My ability to present
current and accurate
information in the subject       91.9 %                   8.1%                      0%
matter area.

4. My ability to integrate
general education with           62.2%                    32.4%                     0%
subject matter formation.
5. My ability to
demonstrate knowledge of         56.8%                    37.8%                     0%
appropriate technologies.

The Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Alumni (Follow-up) 2006-2007
survey was aligned with the March 2005 conceptual framework. This follow-up survey
consisted of 68 items across 8 major areas of competency and items 19, 21, 22, and 23 directly
relate to preparation in pedagogical content knowledge and skills.


         2006-2007           Quite Competent      Reasonably Competent      Not Very Competent
19. My ability to address
student diversity through
planning, selecting
materials, and                   69.6%                    28.6%                     0%
selecting/creating
appropriate activities for
learning.
21. My ability to develop
clear learning goals             75.0%                    19.6%                    1.8%
appropriate for students.
22. My ability utilize           73.2%                    23.2%                    1.8%



                                                                                                 17
appropriate materials and
resources.
23. My ability to create or
select appropriate teaching
methods, learning
activities and instructional            69.6%                    23.2%                     1.8%
materials that are aligned
with the learning goals of
the lesson.

The Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Exiting Teacher Interns (2006-
2008) survey was also aligned with the March 2005 conceptual framework. This follow-up
survey also consisted of 67 items across 8 major areas of competency and items 19, 21, 22, and
23 directly relate to preparation in pedagogical content knowledge and skills.

                                                     2006-2007                    2007-2008
                                                       mean                         mean
19.The TEP prepared me to address
student diversity through planning,
selecting materials, and                                2.4                          2.4
selecting/creating appropriate
activities for learning.
21. The TEP prepared me to develop
clear learning goals appropriate to                     2.6                          2.6
students.
22. The TEP prepared me to utilize
                                                        2.7                          2.5
appropriate materials and resources.
23. The TEP prepared me to create
or select appropriate teaching
methods, learning activities, and
                                                        2.7                          2.5
instructional materials that are
aligned with the learning goals of
the lesson.

The initial licensure conceptual framework, Learning to Teach, Teaching to Learn was revised in
May of 2008 and the Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Exiting Teacher
Interns survey was also revised to accommodate the changes. Respondents rated each item on a
scale: 1 (unacceptable), 2 (acceptable), and 3 (exemplary/target). This follow-up survey
consisted of 64 items across 9 major areas of competency and items 26, 27, and 28 directly relate
to preparation in pedagogical content knowledge and skills.

                                                                         2008-2009
                                                                           mean
26. The TEP prepared me to develop clear learning goals
                                                                           2.73
appropriate to students.
27. The TEP prepared me to utilize appropriate materials
                                                                           2.75
and resources.
28. The TEP prepared me to create or select appropriate
teaching methods, learning activities, and instructional
                                                                           2.71
materials that are aligned with the learning goals of the
lesson.




                                                                                                  18
On the Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Alumni (Follow-up) survey and
the Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Exiting Teacher Interns survey our
graduates indicated that their preparation in pedagogical content knowledge and skills was
acceptable. Furthermore, data from Domain C: Teaching for Student Learning, from 2004 to
2008 Praxis III/Pathwise examination helps validate that our graduates are adequately prepared
in pedagogical content knowledge and skills.

Advanced Programs

Graduate follow-up data were collected between 2003 and 2008 for the MSE in Reading
Education and the MSE in Early Childhood Education programs immediately upon exit from
their program. The surveys inquired as to the relevance of their graduate education and the
degree to which the graduate program prepared him or her in their role in the profession. Items
6, 7, 10, and 14 on both surveys are aligned with preparation in pedagogical content knowledge
and skills of the respective programs. Responses on both the MSE in Reading Education Exit
Survey and the MSE in Early Childhood Education Exit Survey, indicate that graduates
consistently perceived that they were either well prepared or generally prepared.

The Psychology Department’s EdS School Psychologist Exit survey administered in 2005-2008
was completed by all program completers immediately upon exit from their program. The
follow-up survey is aligned with their conceptual framework, which is based on NASP
Standards. Items 2.3, 2.10 and 2.11on the survey are aligned with preparation in pedagogical
content knowledge and skills. Total means, which were greater than 2.0 on a 3.0 scale (1 =
unsatisfactory, 2 = acceptable and 3 = superior) were recorded from the responses to these three
items on the EdS School Psychology follow-up survey on how well the candidate was prepared
in this area. The Psychology Department also conducted a EdS School Psychologist Constituent
survey in 2005. Items 2.3, 2.10 and 2.11on this survey were also aligned with preparation in
pedagogical content knowledge and skills. Means for these items were greater than 2.0 on a 3.0
scale (1 = unsatisfactory, 2 = acceptable and 3 = superior) indicating that they felt the level of
preparation in this area was acceptable. This indicates that graduates and constituents have
responded that the preparation was acceptable in this area.

The graduate exit survey for MSE Special Education and MSE Gifted and Talented is completed
by all program completers immediately upon exit from their program. The MSE Gifted and
Talented Exit Survey, and the MSE Special Education Exit Survey are both based upon their
conceptual framework, which is aligned with the NAGC/CEC Standards. Standards 4, 7, and 8
on both of the surveys are aligned with preparation in pedagogical content knowledge and skills.
Responses on the MSE Gifted and Talented Exit Survey, and on the MSE Special Education Exit
Survey, both indicate that graduates have consistently felt that they were either exemplary or
acceptable in their practice.

The MSE Educational Leadership, MSE Curriculum and Instruction and the EdS Educational
Leadership programs are all based upon their conceptual framework, which is based on ELCC
Standards. Items 2.2 and 2.3 on all three surveys are aligned with preparation in pedagogical
content knowledge and skills. Responses on the MSE Educational Leadership follow-up survey,
MSE Curriculum and Instruction follow-up survey and the EdS Educational Leadership follow-



                                                                                                19
up survey, all indicate that graduates have consistently perceived that they were either exemplary
or acceptable in their practice.

The results from these advanced programs follow-up surveys indicate that our graduates are
being adequately prepared in pedagogical content knowledge and skills.

1c. Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates.

1c.1. What data from key assessments indicate that candidates in initial teacher
preparation and advanced teacher preparation programs demonstrate the professional and
pedagogical knowledge and skills delineated in professional, state, and institutional
standards to facilitate learning?

Initial Programs

All key assessments (Philosophy of Education Paper Artifact, Field Experience Summative
Assessment Artifact, Internship Summative Evaluation Artifact, Learning to Teach, Teaching to
Learn Portfolio Artifact, Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Alumni
(Follow-up Survey), and Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Exiting
Teacher Interns in the programs offered in the College of Education are directly connected to the
standards of our conceptual framework Learning to Teach, Teaching to Learn. A significant
portion of our conceptual framework incorporates professional and pedagogical knowledge and
skills. One other key assessment, Praxis II Principles of Learning, is specifically designed to
measure pedagogical knowledge and skills. This is an externally administered examination. The
last key assessment, which is also externally administered, is the Praxis III/Pathwise
examination. The table below identifies alignment between the standards of the Learning to
Teach, Teaching to Learn conceptual framework found in key assessments as well as the
components of the Praxis II Pedagogy exam and the Praxis III/Pathwise exam with professional
and pedagogical knowledge and skills.

         Key Assessment           Professional Knowledge and Skills   Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills
Philosophy of Education Paper     Standard 1: Professionalism         Standard 4: Curriculum
                                                                      Standard 6: Teaching Models
                                                                      Standard 8: Assessment
Field Experience Summative        Standard 1: Professionalism         Standard 4: Curriculum
Assessment                        Standard 9: Reflective Teaching     Standard 5: Subject Matter
                                                                      Standard 6: Teaching Models
                                                                      Standard 8: Assessment
Learning to Teach, Teaching to    Standard 1: Professionalism         Standard 4: Curriculum
Learn Portfolio                   Standard 9: Reflective Teaching     Standard 5: Subject Matter
                                                                      Standard 6: Teaching Models
                                                                      Standard 8: Assessment
Internship Summative Evaluation   Standard 1: Professionalism         Standard 4: Curriculum
                                  Standard 9: Reflective Teaching     Standard 5: Subject Matter
                                                                      Standard 6: Teaching Models
                                                                      Standard 8: Assessment
Teacher Education Preparation     Standard 1: Professionalism         Standard 4: Curriculum
Programs Assessment by Alumni     Standard 9: Reflective Teaching     Standard 5: Subject Matter
(Follow-up Survey)                                                    Standard 6: Teaching Models
                                                                      Standard 8: Assessment


                                                                                                   20
Teacher Education Preparation          Standard 1: Professionalism           Standard 4: Curriculum
Programs Assessment by Exiting         Standard 9: Reflective Teaching       Standard 5: Subject Matter
Teacher Interns                                                              Standard 6: Teaching Models
                                                                             Standard 8: Assessment
Praxis II Principles of Learning                                             The entire examination
Praxis III/Pathwise                    Domain A: Organizing Content          Domain A: Organizing Content
                                       Knowledge for Student learning        Knowledge for Student learning
                                       Domain C: Teaching for Student        Domain C: Teaching for Student
                                       Learning                              Learning

All professional education courses are aligned with the Learning to Teach, Teaching to Learn
conceptual framework. Professional education courses are also required to be aligned with
respective national standards and so indicated in course syllabi. An alignment matrix has also
been developed to insure that our conceptual framework is aligned with Arkansas State’s initial
teacher standards.

Advanced Programs

Professional and Pedagogical knowledge and skills in advanced programs offered by the College
of Education are tied to the various programs’ respective SPA standards. Key assessments
within the SPA reports measure these criterions. The table below indicates which key SPA
assessments measure Professional and Pedagogical knowledge and skills.

                                       Professional Knowledge and Skills     Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills
NAGC/CEC Assessments                   1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8                   1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
ELCC Assessments                       1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8                1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
IRA Assessments                        1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8                1, 2, 3, 4, 5
NAEYC Assessments                      1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7                      1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
NASP Assessments                       1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8                1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Source: SPA Reports

1c.2. What data from key assessments indicate that candidates in initial teacher
preparation programs consider the school, family, and community contexts and the prior
experiences of students; reflect on their own practice; know major schools of thought about
schooling, teaching, and learning; and can analyze educational research findings? If a
licensure test is required in this area, how are candidates performing on it?

The Learning to Teach, Teaching to Learn conceptual framework standards provide data which
support the candidate’s ability to responsibly consider school, family, community contexts, and
the prior experiences of students; ability to reflect on their own professional practice; know and
apply major schools of thought about schooling, teaching, and learning; and can analyze
educational research findings. The table below identifies the Learning to Teach, Teaching to
Learn conceptual framework standards in the key assessments which measure the identified
criterion.

Key Assessment          consider the school,   reflect on their own   know major           analyze educational
                        family, and            practice               schools of thought   research findings
                        community                                     about schooling,
                        contexts and the                              teaching, and



                                                                                                              21
                     prior experiences                         learning
                     of students
Philosophy of        Standard 2:                               Standard 4:
Education Paper      Diversity                                 Curriculum
                                                               Standard 6:
                                                               Teaching Models
                                                               Standard 8:
                                                               Assessment
Field Experience     Standard 2:         Standard 9:           Standard 4:       Standard 9:
Summative            Diversity           Reflective Teaching   Curriculum        Reflective Teaching
Assessment           Standard 3:                               Standard 6:
                     Communication                             Teaching Models
                     Skills                                    Standard 8:
                                                               Assessment
Learning to Teach,   Standard 2:         Standard 9:           Standard 4:       Standard 9:
Teaching to Learn    Diversity           Reflective Teaching   Curriculum        Reflective Teaching
Portfolio            Standard 3:                               Standard 6:
                     Communication                             Teaching Models
                     Skills                                    Standard 8:
                                                               Assessment
Internship           Standard 2:         Standard 9:           Standard 4:       Standard 9:
Summative            Diversity           Reflective Teaching   Curriculum        Reflective Teaching
Evaluation           Standard 3:                               Standard 6:
                     Communication                             Teaching Models
                     Skills                                    Standard 8:
                                                               Assessment
Teacher Education    Standard 2:         Standard 9:           Standard 4:       Standard 9:
Preparation          Diversity           Reflective Teaching   Curriculum        Reflective Teaching
Programs             Standard 3:                               Standard 6:
Assessment by        Communication                             Teaching Models
Alumni (Follow-up    Skills                                    Standard 8:
Survey)                                                        Assessment
Teacher Education    Standard 2:         Standard 9:           Standard 4:       Standard 9:
Preparation          Diversity           Reflective Teaching   Curriculum        Reflective Teaching
Programs             Standard 3:                               Standard 6:
Assessment by        Communication                             Teaching Models
Exiting Teacher      Skills                                    Standard 8:
Interns                                                        Assessment

An example of two of key assessments are Teacher Education Preparation Programs
Assessment by Exiting Teacher Interns and Teacher Education Preparation Programs
Assessment by Alumni (Follow-up Survey). Candidates exiting the program in 2007 and 2008
rated their ―…ability to communicate as needed with parents and guardians about student
learning‖ (item 9) and the ―…prepared me to participate in school and community
communications‖ (item 10) resulting in a 2.3 and 2.4 mean respectively (3.0 scale).

Praxis III/Pathwise is the required examination for moving from an initial teaching license to a
standard teaching license for the State of Arkansas. Items A1: Becoming familiar with relevant
aspects of students’ background knowledge and experiences, A2: Articulating clear learning
goals for the lesson that are appropriate to the students, D1: Reflecting on the extent to which
the learning goals were met, D2: Demonstrating a sense of efficacy, D3: Building professional
relationship with colleagues to share teaching insights and to coordinate learning activities for
students and D4: Communicating with parents or guardians about student learning within this

                                                                                                  22
examination assesses whether graduates consider the school, family, and community contexts
and the prior experiences of students; reflect on their own practice; know major schools of
thought about schooling, teaching, and learning; and can analyze educational research findings.
Praxis III/Pathwise standards are imbedded in all professional education courses (see course
syllabi and alignment matrix between Learning to Teach, Teaching to Learn conceptual
framework and Praxis III/Pathwise). Between 2004 and 2009, 1086 graduates took this
examination and 1082 passed it for a 99.6% pass rate (see Praxis III/Pathwise table).

Collectively, the data from our key assessments and our state licensure examination all indicate
that candidates in programs at ASU consider the school, family, and community contexts, the
prior experiences of students; reflect on their own practice; know major schools of thought about
schooling, teaching, and learning; and can analyze educational research findings.

1c.3. What data from key assessments indicate that advanced teacher candidates reflect on
their practice; engage in professional activities; have a thorough understanding of the
school, family, and community contexts in which they work; collaborate with the
professional community; are aware of current research and policies related to schooling,
teaching, learning, and best practices; and can analyze educational research and policies
and explain the implications for their own practice and the profession?

Data from key assessments measuring candidates’ ability to reflect on their practice; engage in
professional activities; have a thorough understanding of the school, family, and community
contexts in which they work; collaborate with the professional community; are aware of current
research and policies related to schooling, teaching, learning, and best practices; and can analyze
educational research and policies and explain the implications for their own practice and the
profession in our advanced programs are tied to the various programs’ respective SPA standards.
Key assessments within the SPA reports measure these criteria. The table below indicates which
key SPA assessments measure the candidates ability to reflect on their practice; engage in
professional activities; have a thorough understanding of the school, family, and community
contexts in which they work; collaborate with the professional community; are aware of current
research and policies related to schooling, teaching, learning, and best practices; and can analyze
educational research and policies and explain the implications for their own practice and the
profession.

                Reflect on their       Engage in              Understand            Collaborate            Aware of
                Practice               Professional           School, Family        with the               Current
                                       Activities             and                   Professional           Research and
                                                              Community             Community              Policies related
                                                              Contexts                                     to Schooling,
                                                                                                           Teaching and
                                                                                                           Learning and
                                                                                                           Best Practices
NAGC/CEC        1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,   1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,   1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8   1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,   1, 2, 4, 8
Assessments     8                      8                                            8
ELCC            1, 2, 7                1, 2, 3, 4, 5          1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7   1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Assessments
IRA             1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6       1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,   1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7   1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7       1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
Assessments                            8                                                                   8
NAEYC           1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6       1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,   1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7   1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7       1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,


                                                                                                                            23
Assessments                            8                                                                    8
NASP             2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8   1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,   1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,   1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,   1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
Assessments                            8                      8                      8                      8
Source: SPA Reports

1c.4. What do follow-up studies of graduates and employers indicate about graduates'
preparation related to professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills? If survey data
have not already been reported, what was the response rate?

Initial Programs

The Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Alumni (Follow-up) 2004-2005
survey consisted of 37 items across 8 major areas of competency and items 6, 7, 8, 15, 17 and 20
directly relate to preparation in pedagogical content knowledge and skills.

         2004-2005                Quite Competent              Reasonably Competent                Not Very Competent
6. My ability to develop
instructional materials and
strategies based upon
                                       62.2%                              32.4%                               0%
developmental
characteristics of learners.

7. My ability to adjust
instruction to students’               45.9%                              54.1%                               0%
individual learning rates.
8. My ability to teach
utilizing effective
instructional procedures               67.6%                              32.4%                               0%
appropriate to students’
development.
15. My ability to execute
planned instruction and
                                       70.3%                              29.7%                               0%
class activities according
to best practices.
17. My ability to reflect
upon classroom experience
                                       78.4%                              21.6%                               0%
to improve subsequent
teaching.
20. My ability to adapt
instruction to promote
students’ learning based               56.8%                              43.2%                               0%
upon their strengths and
life experiences.

The Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Alumni (Follow-up) 2006-2007
survey was aligned with the March 2005 conceptual framework. This follow-up survey
consisted of 68 items across 8 major areas of competency and items 15, 20, 24, 51, 53, 58, 59
and 60 directly relate to preparation in pedagogical content knowledge and skills.


        2006-2007                 Quite Competent              Reasonably Competent                Not Very Competent



                                                                                                                             24
15. My ability to grow and
develop professionally
                                       83.9%               16.1%                      0%
(service, membership, use
of research, advocacy).
20. My ability to address
students’ growth and
development while                      67.9%               28.6%                      0%
planning and
implementing instruction.
24. My ability to adapt
instruction to promote
students’ learning based               69.6%               28.6%                      0%
upon their strengths and
life experiences.
51. My ability to adapt
assessment strategies to
promote student learning               66.1%               30.4%                      0%
based on the strengths of
the student.
53. My ability to assess
                                       64.3%               33.9%                      0%
students’ prior knowledge.
58. My ability to access
knowledge from a variety
of sources and to assess               69.6%               28.6%                      0%
the validity of information
obtained.
59. My ability to interpret
norm-referenced and
                                       58.9%               33.9%                      5.4%
criterion-referenced test
data to facilitate learning.
60. My ability to modify
instructional plans and to
                                       71.4%               25%                        1.8%
evaluate curriculum
according to best practices.

The Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Exiting Teacher Interns (2006-
2008) survey was also aligned with the March 2005 conceptual framework. This follow-up
survey also consisted of 67 items across 8 major areas of competency and items 15, 20, 24, 51,
53, 58, 59, and 60 directly relate to preparation related to professional and pedagogical
knowledge and skills.

                                               2006-2007                    2007-2008
                                                 mean                         mean
15. The TEP prepared me to grow
and develop professionally (service,
                                                  2.6                           2.5
membership, use of research,
advocacy).
20. The TEP prepared me to address
students’ growth and development
                                                  2.6                           2.5
while planning and implementing
instruction.
24.The TEP prepared me to adapt
instruction to promote students’                  2.5                           2.5
learning based upon their strengths


                                                                                                 25
and life experiences.
51. The TEP prepared me to adapt
assessment strategies to promote
                                                            2.5                 2.5
student learning based on the
strengths of the student.
53. The TEP prepared me to assess
                                                            2.6                 2.5
students’ prior knowledge.
58. The TEP prepared me to access
knowledge from a variety of sources
                                                            2.6                 2.5
and to assess the validity of
information obtained.
59. The TEP prepared me to
interpret norm-referenced and
                                                            2.4                 2.3
criterion-referenced test data to
facilitate learning.
60. The TEP prepared me to modify
instructional plans and to evaluate
                                                            2.6                 2.5
curriculum according to best
practices.

The initial licensure conceptual framework, Learning to Teach, Teaching to Learn was revised in
May of 2008 and the Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Exiting Teacher
Interns survey was also revised to accommodate the changes. Respondents rated each item on a
scale: 1 (unacceptable), 2 (acceptable), and 3 (exemplary/target). This follow-up survey
consisted of 64 items across 9 major areas of competency and items 4, 5, 10, 11, 14, 25, 29, 55,
57, 62, 63, and 64 directly relate to preparation related to professional and pedagogical
knowledge and skills.

                                                                    2008-2009
                                                                      mean
4. The TEP prepared me to build professional
                                                                      2.76
relationships including receptivity to supervision.
5. The TEP prepared me to grow and develop
professionally (service, membership, use of research,                 2.72
advocacy).
10. The TEP prepared me to demonstrate respect for
differences among individuals from varied backgrounds                 2.68
and geographical regions.
11. The TEP prepared me to address student diversity
through planning, selecting materials, and                            2.69
selecting/creating appropriate activities for learning.
14. The TEP prepared me to promote the best attributes
of all students and maintains high expectations for all               2.71
learners, including those with special needs.
25. The TEP prepared me to address students’ growth
and development while planning and implementing                       2.71
instruction.
29. The TEP prepared me to adapt instruction to
promote students’ learning based upon their strengths                 2.71
and life experiences.
55. The TEP prepared me to adapt assessment strategies
to promote student learning based on the strengths of the             2.67
student.



                                                                                             26
57. The TEP prepared me to assess students’ prior
                                                                         2.66
knowledge.
62. The TEP prepared me to access knowledge from a
variety of sources and to assess the validity of                         2.66
information obtained.
63. The TEP prepared me to interpret norm-referenced
                                                                         2.51
and criterion-referenced test data to facilitate learning.
64. The TEP prepared me to modify instructional plans
                                                                         2.65
and to evaluate curriculum according to best practices.

On the Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Alumni (Follow-up) survey and
the Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Exiting Teacher Interns survey our
graduates indicated that their preparation in professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills
was acceptable. Furthermore, data from Domain D: Teacher Professionalism, from 2004 to
2008 Praxis III/Pathwise examination validates our graduates are adequately prepared in
professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills.

Advanced Programs

Graduate follow-up data were collected between 2003 and 2008 for the MSE in Reading
Education and the MSE in Early Childhood Education programs immediately upon exit from
their program. The surveys inquired as to the relevance of their graduate education and the
degree to which the graduate program prepared him or her in their role in the profession. Items 8
and 9 on both surveys are aligned with preparation related to professional and pedagogical
knowledge and skills of the respective programs. Responses on both the MSE in Reading
Education Exit Survey and the MSE in Early Childhood Education Exit Survey, indicate that
graduates perceived that they were either well prepared or generally prepared.

The Psychology Department’s EdS School Psychologist Exit survey administered in 2005-2008
was completed by all program completers immediately upon exit from their program. The
follow-up survey is aligned with their conceptual framework, which is based on NASP
Standards. Items 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.8, 2.9, and 2.11on the survey are aligned with preparation
related to professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills. Total means, which were greater
than 2.0 on a 3.0 scale (1 = unsatisfactory, 2 = acceptable and 3 = superior) were recorded from
the responses to these items on the EdS School Psychology follow-up survey on how well the
candidate was prepared in this area. The Psychology Department also conducted a EdS School
Psychologist Constituent survey in 2005. Items 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.8, 2.9, and 2.11on this survey
were also aligned with preparation in pedagogical content knowledge and skills. Means for these
items were greater than 2.0 on a 3.0 scale (1 = unsatisfactory, 2 = acceptable and 3 = superior)
indicating that the respondents felt the level of preparation in this area was acceptable. This
indicates that graduates and constituents have responded that the preparation was acceptable in
this area.

The graduate exit survey for MSE Special Education and MSE Gifted and Talented is completed
by all program completers immediately upon exit from their program. The MSE Gifted and
Talented Exit Survey, and the MSE Special Education Exit Survey are both based upon their
conceptual framework, which is aligned with the NAGC/CEC Standards. Standards 2, 3, and 10
on both of the surveys are aligned with preparation related to professional and pedagogical


                                                                                                27
knowledge and skills. Responses on the MSE Gifted and Talented Exit Survey, and on the MSE
Special Education Exit Survey, both indicate that graduates have consistently felt that they were
either exemplary or acceptable in their practice.

The MSE Educational Leadership, MSE Curriculum and Instruction, and the EdS Educational
Leadership programs are all aligned with their conceptual framework, which is based on ELCC
Standards. Items 1.5, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 on all three surveys are aligned with preparation related to
professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills. Responses on the MSE Educational
Leadership follow-up survey, MSE Curriculum and Instruction follow-up survey and the EdS
Educational Leadership follow-up survey, all indicate that graduates perceived that they were
either exemplary or acceptable in their practice.

The results from these advanced programs follow-up surveys indicate that ASU graduates are
being adequately prepared in relation to professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills.

1d. Student Learning for Teacher Candidates.

1d.1. (Programs Not Nationally Reviewed) What data from key assessments indicate that
candidates in initial teacher preparation programs can assess and analyze student learning,
make appropriate adjustments to instruction, monitor student learning, and develop and
implement meaningful learning experiences to help all students learn?

All professional education programs are nationally recognized through SPA reports, state
reports, or accredited by national agencies.

1d.2. (Programs Not Nationally Reviewed) What data from key assessments indicate that
advanced teacher candidates demonstrate a thorough understanding of the major concepts
and theories related to assessing student learning; regularly apply them in their practice;
analyze student, classroom, and school performance data; make data-driven decisions
about strategies for teaching and learning; and are aware of and utilize school and
community resources that support student learning?

All professional education programs are nationally recognized through SPA reports, state
reports, or accredited by national agencies.

1d.3. What do follow-up studies of graduates and employers indicate about graduates'
ability to help all students learn? If survey data have not already been reported, what was
the response rate?

Initial Programs

The Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Alumni (Follow-up) 2004-2005
survey consisted of 37 items across 8 major areas of competency and items 12, 18, 19, and 21
directly relate to ability to help all students learn.

       2004-2005             Quite Competent        Reasonably Competent       Not Very Competent
12. My ability to use a           81.8%                     8.1%                      5.4%


                                                                                                 28
variety of techniques and
materials appropriate to all
learners.
18. My ability to plan and
utilize instruction as well
as class activities that are           59.5%                          40.5%                           0%
sensitive to gender and
cultural diversity.
19. My ability to plan and
utilize instruction as well
as class activities that are
                                       40.5%                          54.1%                           5.4%
developmentally
appropriate to the needs
of exceptional learners.
21. My ability to create a
community of learners that
                                       48.6%                          51.4%                           0%
value the unique attributes
of all students.

The Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Alumni (Follow-up) 2006-2007
survey was aligned with the March 2005 conceptual framework. This follow-up survey
consisted of 68 items across 8 major areas of competency and item 11directly relate to ability to
help all students learn.


        2006-2007                 Quite Competent              Reasonably Competent          Not Very Competent
11. My ability to assume
responsibility for student             82.1%                          16.1%                           0%
learning.

The Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Exiting Teacher Interns (2006-
2008) survey was also aligned with the March 2005 conceptual framework. This follow-up
survey also consisted of 67 items across 8 major areas of competency and item 11 directly relate
to ability to help all students learn.

                                                      2006-2007                              2007-2008
                                                        mean                                   mean
11. The TEP prepared me to assume
                                                         2.7                                    2.6
responsibility for student learning.

The initial licensure conceptual framework, Learning to Teach, Teaching to Learn was revised in
May of 2008 and the Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Exiting Teacher
Interns survey was also revised to accommodate the changes. Respondents rated each item on a
scale: 1 (unacceptable), 2 (acceptable), and 3 (exemplary/target). This follow-up survey
consisted of 64 items across 9 major areas of competency and items 1 and 14 directly relate to
ability to help all students learn.

                                                                                2008-2009
                                                                                  mean
1. The TEP prepared me to assume responsibility for
                                                                                      2.72
student learning.



                                                                                                              29
14. The TEP prepared me to promote the best attributes
of all students and maintains high expectations for all                   2.71
learners, including those with special needs.

On the Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Alumni (Follow-up) survey and
the Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Exiting Teacher Interns survey our
graduates indicated that their preparation in ability to help all students learn was acceptable.

Advanced Programs

Graduate follow-up data was collected between 2003 and 2008 for the MSE in Reading
Education and the MSE in Early Childhood Education programs immediately upon exit from
their program. The surveys inquired as to the relevance of their graduate education and the
degree to which the graduate program prepared him or her in their role in the profession. Items
3, 9 and 14 on both surveys are aligned with preparation related to ability to help all students
learn. Responses on both the MSE in Reading Education Exit Survey and the MSE in Early
Childhood Education Exit Survey, indicate that graduates have consistently perceived that they
were either well prepared or generally prepared.

The Psychology Department’s EdS School Psychologist Exit survey administered in 2005-2008
was completed by all program completers immediately upon exit from their program. The
follow-up survey is aligned with their conceptual framework, which is based on NASP
Standards. Items 2.1, 2.7, and 2.9 on the survey are aligned with preparation related to ability to
help all students learn. Total means, which were greater than 2.0 on a 3.0 scale (1 =
unsatisfactory, 2 = acceptable and 3 = superior) were recorded from the responses to these items
on the EdS School Psychology follow-up survey on how well the candidate was prepared in this
area. The Psychology Department also conducted a EdS School Psychologist Constituent survey
in 2005. Items 2.1, 2.7, and 2.9 on this survey were also aligned with preparation in pedagogical
content knowledge and skills. With the exception of 2.7 Prevention, Crisis Intervention and
Mental Health (1.75), means for these items were greater than 2.0 on a 3.0 scale. This indicates
that graduates and constituents have responded that the preparation was acceptable in this area.

The graduate exit survey for MSE Special Education and MSE Gifted and Talented is completed
by all program completers immediately upon exit from their program. The MSE Gifted and
Talented Exit Survey, and the MSE Special Education Exit Survey are both based upon their
conceptual framework, which is aligned with the NAGC/CEC Standards. Standards 7 and 8 on
both of the surveys are aligned with preparation related to ability to help all students learn.
Responses on the MSE Gifted and Talented Exit Survey, and on the MSE Special Education Exit
Survey, both indicate that graduates have consistently perceived that they were either exemplary
or acceptable in their practice.

The MSE Educational Leadership, MSE Curriculum and Instruction, and the EdS Educational
Leadership programs are all aligned with their conceptual framework, which is based on ELCC
Standards. Item 2.2 on all three surveys is aligned with preparation related to ability to help all
students learn. Responses on the MSE Educational Leadership follow-up survey, MSE
Curriculum and Instruction follow-up survey and the EdS Educational Leadership follow-up



                                                                                                  30
survey, all indicate that graduates perceived that they were either exemplary or acceptable in
their practice.

The results from these advanced programs follow-up surveys indicate that our graduates are
being adequately prepared in relation to ability to help all students learn.

1e. Knowledge and Skills for Other School Professionals

1e.1. What are the pass rates of other school professionals on licensure tests by program
and across all programs (i.e., overall pass rate)?

With a total of 358 candidates taking advanced licensure examinations, the overall pass rate from
2005-2009 is 94% for advanced programs.

Link to Table 5: Pass Rates on Content Tests for Other School Professionals

1e.2. (Programs Not Nationally Reviewed) What data from other key assessments indicate
that other school professionals demonstrate the knowledge and skills delineated in
professional, state, and institutional standards?

All professional education programs are nationally recognized through SPA reports, state
reports, or accredited by national agencies.

1e.3. What do follow-up studies of graduates and employers indicate about the knowledge
and skills of other school professionals? If survey data are being reported, what was the
response rate?

Graduate follow-up data were collected between 2003 and 2008 for the MSE in Reading
Education program immediately upon exit of their program. The surveys inquired as to the
relevance of their graduate education and the degree to which the graduate program prepared
them with the knowledge and skills to be successful in their role in the profession. Items 1, 2, 3,
4, 6, 11, 13 and 14 on the survey were aligned with being prepared with the knowledge and skills
to be successful in their role in the profession. Responses on the MSE in Reading Education Exit
Survey indicate that graduates perceived that they were either well prepared or generally
prepared.

The Psychology Department’s EdS School Psychologist Exit survey administered in 2005-2008
was completed by all program completers immediately upon exit from their program. The
follow-up survey is aligned with their conceptual framework, which is based on NASP
Standards. Items 2.2, 2.3, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, and 2.11on the survey are aligned with being prepared
with the knowledge and skills to be successful in their role in the profession. Total means, which
were greater than 2.0 on a 3.0 scale (1 = unsatisfactory, 2 = acceptable and 3 = superior) were
recorded from the responses to these items on the EdS School Psychology follow-up survey on
how well the candidate was prepared in this area. The Psychology Department also conducted a
EdS School Psychologist Constituent survey in 2005. Items 2.2, 2.3, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, and 2.11on
this survey were also aligned with being prepared with the knowledge and skills to be successful



                                                                                                 31
in their role in the profession. With the exception of item 2.8 Home/School Community
Collaboration (mean of 1.6), means for these items were greater than 2.0 on a 3.0 scale (1 =
unsatisfactory, 2 = acceptable and 3 = superior). This indicates that graduates and constituents
have responded that the preparation was acceptable in this area.

The graduate exit survey for MSE Special Education and MSE Gifted and Talented is completed
by all program completers immediately upon exit from their program. The MSE Gifted and
Talented Exit Survey, and the MSE Special Education Exit Survey are both based upon their
conceptual framework, which is aligned with the NAGC/CEC Standards. Standards 1, 2, 3, 7, 8,
9, and 10 on both of the surveys are aligned with being prepared with the knowledge and skills to
be successful in their role in the profession. Responses on the MSE Gifted and Talented Exit
Survey, and on the MSE Special Education Exit Survey, both indicate that graduates have
consistently felt that they were either exemplary or acceptable in their practice.

The MSE Educational Leadership, MSE Curriculum and Instruction, and the EdS Educational
Leadership programs are all aligned with their conceptual framework, which is based on ELCC
Standards. Items 1.5, 2.2, 6.1, and 6.2 on all three surveys are aligned with being prepared with
the knowledge and skills to be successful in their role in the profession. Responses on the MSE
Educational Leadership follow-up survey, MSE Curriculum and Instruction follow-up survey
and the EdS Educational Leadership follow-up survey, all indicate that graduates perceived that
they were either exemplary or acceptably prepared in their knowledge and skills to be successful
in their respective areas of expertise.

Overall, data from these studies indicate that a majority of graduates reported they are either well
prepared or prepared with the knowledge and skills to be successful in their respective areas of
expertise.

1f. Student Learning for Other School Professionals

1f.1. (Programs Not Nationally Reviewed) What data from key assessments indicate that
candidates can create positive environments for student learning, including building on the
developmental levels of students; the diversity of students, families, and communities; and
the policy contexts within which they work?

All professional education programs are nationally recognized through SPA reports, state
reports, or accredited by national agencies.

1f.2. What do follow-up studies of graduates and employers indicate about graduates'
ability to create positive environments for student learning? If survey data have not
already been reported, what was the response rate?

Initial Programs

Data from Domain B: Creating an Environment for Student Learning of the 2004-2008 Praxis
III/Pathwise examination provides an indication of how well our graduates are doing in creating




                                                                                                   32
positive environments which facilitate student learning. Means between 2.4 and 2.9 on a 3.0
scale were recorded for all years on all criteria under this domain.

The Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Alumni (Follow-up) 2004-2005
survey consisted of 37 items across 8 major areas of competency and items 9, 13, 21, 25, and 27
directly relate to creating a positive environment for student learning.

          2004-2005           Quite Competent     Reasonably Competent     Not Very Competent
9. My ability to create a
positive classroom
atmosphere that is secure,        94.6 %                  5.4%                     0%
inviting, and accepting of
diverse ideas and opinions.
13. My ability to manage
the classroom to maximize
                                  54.1%                  29.7%                    10.8%
productive use of
instructional time.
21. My ability to create a
community of learners that
                                  48.6%                  51.4%                     0%
value the unique attributes
of all students.
25. My ability to
communicate in a manner
                                  83.3%                  16.2%                     0%
that fosters positive
interaction with students.
27. My ability to display
appropriate behavior and
appearance with respect to        91.9%                   8.1%                     0%
school climate, culture,
and profession.

The Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Alumni (Follow-up) 2006-2007
survey was aligned with the March 2005 conceptual framework. This follow-up survey
consisted of 68 items across 8 major areas of competency and items 38- 48 directly relate to
creating a positive environment for student learning.


         2006-2007            Quite Competent     Reasonably Competent     Not Very Competent
38. My ability to create an
environment of respect            85.7%                  12.5%                     0%
and appropriate rapport.
39. My ability to create an
environment that promotes         85.7%                  12.5%                     0%
fairness.
40. My ability to
communicate in a manner
                                  87.5%                  10.7%                     0%
that fosters positive
interactions with students.
41. My ability to plan and
implement appropriate
                                  69.6%                  26.8%                     0%
procedures for the
effective use of



                                                                                               33
instructional time.
42. My ability to manage
the classroom to maximize
                                     66.1%               26.8%                       3.6%
productive use of
instructional time.
43. My ability to utilize
appropriate instructional
and classroom
                                     66.1%               26.8%                       1.8%
management procedures
appropriate to students’
development.
44. My ability to create a
positive classroom
atmosphere that is secure,           78.6%               19.6%                       0%
inviting, and accepting of
diverse ideas and opinions.
45. My ability to manage
student behavior
throughout instructional             64.3%               26.8%                       7.1%
time, appropriately and
effectively.
46. My ability to engage
the students and maintain
the focus on the lesson by           64.3%               21.4%                       3.6%
utilizing effective
instructional techniques.
47. My ability to establish
and maintain consistent
                                     64.3%               23.2%                       7.1%
standards for student
behavior.
48. My ability to attend to
students’ behavior during
                                     67.9%               26.8%                       3.6%
instruction, group work,
and/or practice.

The Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Exiting Teacher Interns (2006-
2008) survey was also aligned with the March 2005 conceptual framework. This follow-up
survey also consisted of 67 items across 8 major areas of competency and items 38- 48 directly
relate to creating a positive environment for student learning.

                                             2006-2007                      2007-2008
                                               mean                           mean
38. The TEP prepared me to create
an environment of respect and                   2.7                            2.6
appropriate rapport.
39. The TEP prepared me to create
an environment that promotes                    2.7                            2.6
fairness.
40. The TEP prepared me to
communicate in a manner that
                                                2.7                            2.6
fosters positive interactions with
students.
41. The TEP prepared me to plan
                                                2.5                            2.5
and implement appropriate


                                                                                                 34
procedures for the effective use of
instructional time.
42. The TEP prepared me to manage
the classroom to maximize                               2.5                    2.4
productive use of instructional time.
43. The TEP prepared me to utilize
appropriate instructional and
classroom management procedures                         2.5                    2.4
appropriate to students’
development.
44. The TEP prepared me to create a
positive classroom atmosphere that
                                                        2.7                    2.6
is secure, inviting, and accepting of
diverse ideas and opinions.
45. The TEP prepared me to manage
student behavior throughout
                                                        2.4                    2.4
instructional time, appropriately and
effectively.
46. The TEP prepared me to engage
the students and maintain the focus
                                                        2.6                    2.5
on the lesson by utilizing effective
instructional techniques.
47. The TEP prepared me to
establish and maintain consistent                       2.4                    2.5
standards for student behavior.
48. The TEP prepared me to create
an environment of respect and                           2.7                    2.6
appropriate rapport.

The initial licensure conceptual framework, Learning to Teach, Teaching to Learn was revised in
May of 2008 and the Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Exiting Teacher
Interns survey was also revised to accommodate the changes. Respondents rated each item on a
scale: 1 (unacceptable), 2 (acceptable), and 3 (exemplary/target). This follow-up survey
consisted of 64 items across 9 major areas of competency and items 43-52 directly relate to
creating a positive environment for student learning.

                                                                   2008-2009
                                                                     mean
43. The TEP prepared me to create an environment of
                                                                      2.8
respect and appropriate rapport.
44. The TEP prepared me to create an environment that
                                                                      2.8
promotes fairness.
45. The TEP prepared me to communicate in a manner
                                                                      2.82
that fosters positive interactions with students.
46. The TEP prepared me to plan and implement
appropriate procedures for the effective use of                       2.72
instructional time.
47. The TEP prepared me to manage the classroom to
                                                                      2.65
maximize productive use of instructional time.
48. The TEP prepared me to utilize appropriate
instructional and classroom management procedures                     2.65
appropriate to students’ development.
49. The TEP prepared me to manage student behavior                    2.6



                                                                                            35
throughout instructional time, appropriately and
effectively.
50. The TEP prepared me to engage the students and
maintain the focus on the lesson by utilizing effective                 2.67
instructional techniques.
51. The TEP prepared me to establish and maintain
                                                                        2.66
consistent standards for student behavior.
52. The TEP prepared me to attend to students’ behavior
                                                                        2.67
during instruction, group work, and/or practice.

On the Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Alumni (Follow-up) survey and
the Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Exiting Teacher Interns survey our
graduates indicated that their ability to create positive environments for student learning was
acceptable. Furthermore, data from Domain B: Creating an Environment for Student Learning
of the 2004-2008 Praxis III/Pathwise examination validates that our graduates are doing an
acceptable job in creating positive environments which facilitate student learning.

Advanced Programs

Graduate follow-up data were collected between 2003 and 2008 for the MSE in Reading
Education and the MSE in Early Childhood Education programs immediately upon exit from
their program. The surveys inquired as to the relevance of their graduate education and the
degree to which the graduate program prepared him or her in their role in the profession. Items
4, 5, and 14 on both surveys are aligned with the graduates’ ability to create positive
environments for student learning. Responses on both the MSE in Reading Education Exit
Survey and the MSE in Early Childhood Education Exit Survey, indicate that graduates have
consistently perceived that they were either well prepared or generally prepared.

The Psychology Department’s EdS School Psychologist Exit survey administered in 2005-2008
was completed by all program completers immediately upon exit from their program. The
follow-up survey is aligned with their conceptual framework, which is based on NASP
Standards. Items 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.8 on the survey are aligned with the graduates’ ability to
create positive environments for student learning. Total means, which were greater than 2.0 on a
3.0 scale (1 = unsatisfactory, 2 = acceptable and 3 = superior) were recorded from the responses
to these items on the EdS School Psychology follow-up survey on how well the candidate was
prepared in this area. The Psychology Department also conducted a EdS School Psychologist
Constituent survey in 2005. Items 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.8 on this survey were also aligned with the
graduates’ ability to create positive environments for student learning. With the exception of
item 2.8 Home/School Community Collaboration (mean of 1.6), means on these items were
greater than 2.0 on a 3.0 scale (1 = unsatisfactory, 2 = acceptable and 3 = superior). This
indicates that graduates and constituents have responded that the preparation was acceptable in
this area.

The graduate exit survey for MSE Special Education and MSE Gifted and Talented is completed
by all program completers immediately upon exit from their program. The MSE Gifted and
Talented Exit Survey, and the MSE Special Education Exit Survey are both aligned with their
conceptual framework, which is based on NAGC/CEC Standards. Standards 1, 2, 3, 5, and 10 on
both of the surveys are aligned with the graduates’ ability to create positive environments for


                                                                                                36
student learning. Responses on the MSE Gifted and Talented Exit Survey, and on the MSE
Special Education Exit Survey, both indicate that graduates have consistently felt that they were
either exemplary or acceptable in their practice.

The MSE Educational Leadership, MSE Curriculum and Instruction and the EdS Educational
Leadership programs are all aligned with their conceptual framework, which is based on ELCC
Standards. Items 2.1, 2.2, 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 on all three surveys are aligned with the graduates’
ability to create positive environments for student learning. Responses on the MSE Educational
Leadership follow-up survey, MSE Curriculum and Instruction follow-up survey, and the EdS
Educational Leadership follow-up survey, all indicate that graduates have consistently felt that
they were either exemplary or acceptable in their practice.

The results from these advanced programs follow-up surveys indicate that our graduates are
being adequately prepared, as other school professionals, to create positive environments for
student learning.

1g. Professional Dispositions for All Candidates.

1g.1. What professional dispositions are candidates expected to demonstrate by completion
of programs?

Initial Programs

Expected candidate dispositions are the foundation of our current conceptual framework,
Learning to Teach, Teaching to Learn. Underlying dispositions are as follows:

   1. Is professional and responsible
       Discrete (handles confidential information responsibility)
       Punctual
       Initiative
   2. Acts in and ethical manner
   3. Treats students/individuals fairly
   4. Interacts appropriate with students
   5. Values and respects individuals and their differences
   6. Compassionate towards others
   7. Believes all students can learn

Advanced Programs

   1.   Is professional and responsible
   2.   Acts in and ethical manner
   3.   Treats students/individuals fairly
   4.   Values and respects individuals and their differences
   5.   Believes all students can learn
   6.   Demonstrates life-long learning/professional development


                                                                                                37
1g.2. How do candidates demonstrate that they are developing professional dispositions
related to fairness and the belief that all students can learn?

In the pre-internship field placements and the internship placements candidates have the
opportunity to demonstrate their dispositions related to fairness and the belief that all students
can learn. This is over the course of two semesters (i.e., usually during the last two semesters
before completion of the program). The pre-field placement provides closer monitoring by the
university supervisor and allows for more specific feedback prior to internship.

Furthermore, the Department of Teacher Education has developed a Professional Behavior Plan
which seeks to monitor students’ dispositions within the context of professional education
classes and field experiences. Candidates are given a copy of this document when they are
admitted into the Teacher Education Program. Candidates must sign that they have read the
document and that they agree to abide by the dispositions of the plan. Candidates who do not
abide by the plan may be removed from the program.

1g.3. What data from key assessments indicate that candidates demonstrate the
professional dispositions listed in 1.g.1 as they work with students, families, colleagues, and
communities?

Initial Programs

The specific criterion (identified below) of each of the nine standards of the Learning to Teach,
Teaching to Learn conceptual framework are aligned with the dispositions listed in the
Institutional Report prompt 1.g.1. Each of our key assessments (Philosophy of Education Paper
Artifact, Field Experience Summative Assessment Artifact, Internship Summative Evaluation
Artifact, Learning to Teach, Teaching to Learn Portfolio Artifact, Teacher Education
Preparation Programs Assessment by Alumni (Follow-up Survey, and Teacher Education
Preparation Programs Assessment by Exiting Teacher Interns) seeks to gather data on these
criteria that are aligned with the dispositions.

       Professionalism: The teacher candidate behaves in a professional, ethical, and legal
       manner.

       The teacher candidate will model appropriate professional conduct by:
                  Demonstrating punctuality in all routines germane to the educational
                     process
                  Exhibiting responsible behavior in the presence of students, parents and
                     faculty
                  Demonstrating initiative in the teaching process
                  Modeling ethical behavior in the presence of students, parents, and faculty

       Diversity: The teacher candidate utilizes a variety of teaching strategies to develop
       a positive teaching-learning environment where all students are encouraged to
       achieve their highest potential.


                                                                                                     38
The teacher candidate will help all students learn by:
           Demonstrating respect for differences among groups of people and
              individuals from varied backgrounds and geographical regions
           Communicating with students and families in ways that demonstrate
              understanding of and compassion for all family structures
           Addressing student diversity through, planning, selecting materials, and
              selecting/creating appropriate activities which include and enrich students’
              experiences and cultures
           Exhibiting an awareness of different learning styles and adapting
              instruction appropriate for all students
           Inviting all students to extend their thinking to achieve their highest
              potential

Communication Skills: The teacher candidate demonstrates effective
communication skills.

The teacher candidate demonstrates effective communication skills by:
           Utilizing active listening skills, speaking clearly, writing clearly, and by
              providing positive feedback to students
           Utilizing a variety of means to communicate with diverse students
           Providing ongoing dialogue with parents or guardians concerning student
              learning

Curriculum: The Teacher Candidate plans and implements curriculum
appropriate to the students, grade level, content, and course objectives.

The teacher candidate will plan and use curriculum appropriate to students, content and
course objectives by:
            Planning instruction which applies to state and national standards
            Utilizing a variety of practices to allow diverse learners to be successful
            Demonstrating that development, language, social interaction and culture
               influence thinking and learning of all students
            Integrating the curriculum with content areas, technology and life
               experiences as appropriate
Subject Matter: The teacher candidate understands the central concepts, tools of
inquiry, and structures of the discipline(s) he or she teaches and can create learning
experiences that make these aspects of subject matter meaningful for students.

The teacher candidate understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and the
structures of the discipline(s) he or she teaches and can create learning experiences that
make these aspects of subject matter meaningful for students by:
         Using explanations and representations that link curriculum to prior learning
         Developing and using curriculum that encourages students to see, question,
            and interpret ideas from diverse perspectives



                                                                                         39
       Teaching Models: The teacher candidate implements a variety of teaching models.

       The teacher candidate implements a variety of teaching models by:
               Ensuring appropriate individual instruction
               Guiding students in cooperative learning and in the development of positive
                 human relationships

       Classroom Management: The teacher candidate utilizes appropriate classroom
       management strategies.

       The teacher candidate develops classroom management skills by:
               Helping students develop a sense of fairness and respect
               Establishing and maintaining rapport with students
               Communicating and demonstrating appropriate behavioral standards

       Assessment: The teacher candidate utilizes a variety of assessment strategies to
       monitor student learning and to determine adjustments in learning activities.

       The teacher candidate utilizes a variety of assessment strategies to monitor student
       learning and to determine adjustment in learning activities by:
               Utilizing individual and group, formal and informal assessment to determine
                  prior knowledge and student attainment of the learning objective

       Reflective Teaching: The teacher candidate reflects on teaching and learning.

       The teacher candidate develops reflective teaching skills by:
               Planning and analyzing instructional techniques prior to teaching
               Analyzing his/her teaching techniques in order to build on strengths and
                 improve areas for further growth
               Accepting responsibility for his/her actions

   In addition to the key assessments that specifically measure the conceptual framework, three
   areas on the Praxis III/Pathwise examination strongly align with fairness and the belief that
   all students can learn, i.e. Domain B1: Creating a climate that promotes fairness, Domain
   B2: Establishing and maintaining rapport with students and Domain D2: Demonstrating a
   sense of efficacy.

Advanced Programs

Professional dispositions as they work with students, families, colleagues, and communities in
our advanced programs are tied to the various programs’ respective SPA standards. Key
assessments within the SPA reports measure these criterions. The table below indicates which
key SPA assessments measure Professional dispositions.

                                                 Developing Professional Dispositions Working with
                                                 Students, Families and Colleagues



                                                                                                 40
NAGC/CEC Assessments                              2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
ELCC Assessments                                  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
IRA Assessments                                   2, 3, 4, 5, 6
NAEYC Assessments                                 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
NASP Assessments                                  2, 3, 4, 7
Source: SPA Reports

1g.4. What do follow-up studies of graduates and employers indicate about graduates'
demonstration of professional dispositions? If survey data have not already been reported,
what was the response rate?

Initial Programs

The Praxis III/Pathwise examination’s Domain B1: Creating a climate that promotes fairness,
Domain B2: Establishing and maintaining rapport with students and Domain D2:
Demonstrating a sense of efficacy are indicators of graduates’ professional dispositions.
Graduates’ mean scores range from 2.4 to 2.8 on a 3.0 scale indicating that overall graduates are
performing at an acceptable level on the dispositions that these particular criterion measure.

The Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Alumni (Follow-up) 2006-2007
survey was aligned with the March 2005 conceptual framework. This follow-up survey
consisted of 68 items across 8 major areas of competency and 26 items were directly related to
measuring dispositions. These items have been highlighted in purple for easy identification.
Over 98% of graduates indicated that they were either quite competent or reasonably competent
on these items.

The Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Exiting Teacher Interns (2006-
2008 ) survey was as also aligned with the March 2005 conceptual framework. Respondents
rated each item on a scale: 1 (unacceptable), 2 (acceptable), and 3 (exemplary/target). This
follow-up survey consisted of 67 items across 8 major areas of competency and 26 items were
directly related to measuring dispositions. These items have been highlighted in purple for easy
identification. The means of graduates’ responses were between 2.3 and 2.7 on these items
related to professional dispositions.

The initial licensure conceptual framework, Learning to Teach, Teaching to Learn was revised in
May of 2008 and the Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Exiting Teacher
Interns (2008-2009) survey was also revised to accommodate the changes. Respondents rated
each item on a scale: 1 (unacceptable), 2 (acceptable), and 3 (exemplary/target). This follow-up
survey consisted of 64 items across 9 major areas of competency and 25 items were directly
related to measuring dispositions. These items have been highlighted in purple for easy
identification. The means of graduates’ responses were between 2.51 and 2.85 on these items
related to professional dispositions.

On the Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Alumni (Follow-up) survey and
the Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Exiting Teacher Interns survey our
graduates indicated that they demonstrated positive dispositions. Furthermore, data from



                                                                                               41
Domain B: Creating an Environment for Student Learning of the 2004-2008 Praxis III/Pathwise
examination helps validate that our graduates are demonstrating positive dispositions.

Advanced Programs

Graduate follow-up data was collected between 2003 and 2008 for the MSE in Reading
Education and the MSE in Early Childhood Education programs immediately upon exit from
their program. The surveys inquired as to the relevance of their graduate education and the
degree to which the graduate program prepared him or her in their role in the profession. Items
3, 4, 5, and 14 on both surveys are aligned with the graduates’ demonstration of professional
dispositions. Responses on both the MSE in Reading Education Exit Survey and the MSE in
Early Childhood Education Exit Survey, indicate that graduates have consistently perceived that
they were either well prepared or generally prepared.

The Psychology Department’s EdS School Psychologist Exit survey administered in 2005-2008
was completed by all program completers immediately upon exit from their program. The
follow-up survey is aligned with their conceptual framework, which is based on NASP
Standards. Item 2.8 on the survey was aligned with the graduates’ demonstration of professional
dispositions. The total mean for item 2.8 was 2.22 on a 3.0 scale (1 = unsatisfactory, 2 =
acceptable and 3 = superior) was recorded from the responses to these items on the EdS School
Psychology follow-up survey on how well the candidate was prepared in this area. The
Psychology Department also conducted a EdS School Psychologist Constituent survey in 2005.
Item 2.8 on this survey was also aligned with the graduates’ demonstration of professional
dispositions. The mean for item 2.8 Home/School Community Collaboration was 1.6 indicating
that this is an area of concern.

The graduate exit survey for MSE Special Education and MSE Gifted and Talented is completed
by all program completers immediately upon exit from their program. The MSE Gifted and
Talented Exit Survey, and the MSE Special Education Exit Survey are both aligned with their
conceptual framework, which is based on NAGC/CEC Standards. Standards 3, 5, 9, and 10 on
both of the surveys are aligned with the graduates’ demonstration of professional dispositions.
Responses on the MSE Gifted and Talented Exit Survey, and on the MSE Special Education Exit
Survey, both indicate that graduates have consistently felt that they were either exemplary or
acceptable in their practice.

The MSE Educational Leadership, MSE Curriculum and Instruction and the EdS Educational
Leadership programs are all aligned with their conceptual framework, which is based on ELCC
Standards. Standards 2, 3, 4, and 5 and sub-categories on all three surveys are aligned with the
graduates’ ability to create positive environments for student learning. Responses on the MSE
Educational Leadership follow-up survey, MSE Curriculum and Instruction follow-up survey
and the EdS Educational Leadership follow-up survey, all indicate that graduates have
consistently felt that they were either exemplary or acceptable in their practice.

The results from these advanced programs follow-up surveys indicate that our graduates are
being adequately prepared in the area of professional dispositions.




                                                                                               42
Optional

1. What does your unit do particularly well related to Standard 1?

Our initial licensure programs for early childhood and middle level education have a strong
emphasis on pedagogy.




                                                                                              43
STANDARD 2: ASSESSMENT SYSTEM AND UNIT EVALUATION

The unit has an assessment system that collects and analyzes data on the applicant
qualifications, the candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate and
improve the unit and its programs.

2a. Assessment System

2a.1. How does the unit ensure that the assessment system collects information on
candidate proficiencies outlined in the unit's conceptual framework, state standards, and
professional standards?

Data on candidate performance on each of the Conceptual Frameworks, state standards, and
professional standards are collected via several mechanisms. These mechanisms include College
Live Text, adopted by the unit as a primary method for collecting, aggregating /disaggregating
and reporting candidate data on unit assessments related directly to initial licensure program
coursework. College LiveText is an electronic portfolio system that is accessible through the
internet. It is a file cabinet system, with data mining capabilities. Students are able to design
portfolios to show their teaching abilities, and the unit is able to access data to show that students
are able to perform as a classroom teacher.

Faculty members are responsible for evaluating course embedded unit assessments using College
LiveText. The College LiveText Director is responsible for aggregating and disaggregating this
data and reporting it to the Associate Dean/NCATE Coordinator, who in turn disseminates it to
the appropriate, committee, department or program.

The Professional Education Programs office, which oversees the admission to the Teacher
Education program for initial licensure candidates and also oversees the licensure processes for
all candidates, collects and maintains Praxis I, Praxis II and Praxis III/Pathwise data. This office
collects and provides data related to the Internship Summative Evaluation (clinical evaluation),
another unit assessment of candidate program performance. The Professional Education
Programs office has additional responsibility for collecting the unit assessments of the interns’
evaluations. These intern evaluations include the:

      Teacher Intern Evaluation of School Experience (where they were placed for their
       internship),
      Teacher Intern Evaluation of University Supervisors
      Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Exiting Teacher Interns
      Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Alumni

The advanced programs’ assessments and data, reflecting their respective conceptual frameworks
and program needs are more program specific. These programs conduct their own graduate



                                                                                                   44
follow ups and other candidate assessments based upon their respective candidate populations,
conceptual frameworks and professional standards. The advanced level programs in the unit are
all associated with their respective SPA and, the unit’s performance was excellent, with all SPAs
nationally recognized (some with conditions) (Table 3).

Initial licensure candidates are expected to post assignments to the College LiveText system and
faculty are expected to evaluate these specific assessments. Annual reports are run to assure that
data have been collected; systems are in place to remind faculty of their reviewing responsibility.
Candidates are made aware of their responsibility for providing their assessments via course
syllabi, the Teacher Education Handbook, and various department/program websites.

Candidate work is collected throughout the program and evaluated using rubrics based upon the
appropriate conceptual framework; these data are monitored via College LiveText. For initial
licensure programs, candidate performance on three unit-specific assessments is collected at
three points during the program:

           1. Initial professional education courses (ECH 2022/MLED 2022 Introduction to
              Teaching or SCED 2514 Introduction to Secondary Teaching) : Philosophy of
              Education
           2. Field Experience clinical performance prior to internship (ECH 4013 Pre-
              Internship Field Experience, MLED 4034 Classroom Management and
              Curriculum Applications or SCED 3515 Performance Based Instructional
              Design): Field Experience Summative Evaluation
           3. Internship: Learning to Teach, Teaching to Learn Portfolio


Praxis data are also collected on candidates at three different points. Praxis I data are collected at
program entry; Praxis II data are collected prior to candidate graduation and Praxis III/Pathwise
data are collected within three years of the candidate’s first employment. As stated earlier, the
Professional Education Programs office, as part of its monitoring of candidate performance
through the gates related to the Professional Education program and field experiences, collects
the Praxis I and II data. This office also collects, via the State Department of Education, the
Praxis III/Pathwise data.

The initial conceptual framework is aligned with the state standards for initial teacher education
programs. Additionally, SPA standards are imbedded in all professional education courses (see
course syllabi). Data are collected and interpreted specifically based on the conceptual
framework and the SPA standards through the identified unit assessments and SPA assessments.
The unit’s successful performance on the SPAs and State Reports provide strong evidence that
professional standards are addressed by the unit for programs with such reviews as well as
performance on the unit’s assessments. Alignment matrices were developed to assure that the
initial conceptual framework is properly aligned with Praxis III/Pathwise and Arkansas State
Standards for Initial Licensure (ASU Conceptual Framework and Arkansas Standards for



                                                                                                   45
Beginning Teachers Alignment Matrix and ASU Conceptual Framework and Praxis III/Pathwise
Alignment Matrix).

2a.2. What are the key assessments used by the unit and its programs to monitor and make
decisions about candidate performance at transition points such as those listed in Table 6?

Link to Table 6 - Unit Assessment System: Transition Point Assessments

For undergraduate initial licensure programs, which operate under the common conceptual
framework of Learning to Teach/ Teaching to Learn, there are a series of checkpoints where
candidate progress is monitored. Praxis I (Math, Reading, Writing subtests) is used as a key
assessment for admission to the program. Pass rates (2006-2007 data) range from 61% (Writing)
to 78% (Math). Minimum pass scores for the Praxis I have been set by the Arkansas Department
of Education and the unit has adopted these scores (Math – 171, Reading – 172, Writing – 173).
Other requirements for admission include overall GPA (minimum 2.5), and the Philosophy of
Education Paper. This paper is a unit assessment for candidates completing the ECH/MLED
2022, Introduction to Teaching and SCED 2514, Introduction to Secondary Teaching courses at
ASU-Jonesboro. Data from 2007-2008 the Philosophy of Education Paper show that over 90%
of candidates are rated as Exemplary/Target or Acceptable on this assessment and data from
2008-2009 the Philosophy of Education Paper show that 98% of candidates are rated as
Exemplary/Target or Acceptable on this assessment.

There are several checkpoints related to internship. Admission to internship for initial licensure
programs is based primarily on overall and major GPA, including successful completion of all
required major courses. Exit from internship includes successful completion of the internship
experience (course grade). The unit assessment collected at this point, which is related
specifically to the internship is the Internship Summative Evaluation. From 2006-2009 all
candidates scored at least a 9.25 on a 10.0 scale on each of the eight standards. It should be
noted that there are procedures in effect to provide remediation for interns who early in the
internship experience seem unlikely to be successful; to complete the experience interns must be
identified as at least acceptable on all indicators of the Internship Summative Evaluation.

Program completion is dependent upon a successful completion of the internship experience; the
clinical assessments for internship align with the Learning to Teach, Teaching to Learn
Conceptual Framework. Additional assessments focus primarily on the overall GPA and the
GPA in professional education courses. While candidates must complete the Praxis II
assessments to graduate, no programs at the initial licensure level require passing scores to
graduate. Some of our Praxis II Scores (content and Principles of Learning and Teaching exams)
are below the state averages. One of the primary reasons for this is that ASU does do not require
the passage of Praxis II exams to be admitted, or to exit the teacher education program, unlike
many Arkansas universities. Universities who require passing Praxis II exams for admission or
to exit the program will have a 100% pass rate, thus skewing the state averages.

Two post-graduation assessments assist the unit in monitoring the effectiveness of the teacher
preparation program. First, the state mandated Praxis III/Pathwise examination scores are
available for consideration. Second, the Office of Professional Education Programs completes
exit and follow up surveys of the initial licensure program graduates on an annual basis targeting


                                                                                                46
first year and third year teachers (Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by
Alumni and Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Exiting Teacher Interns).

Unlike the initial licensure programs, which operate under a common assessment system and
conceptual framework, the advanced licensure programs and non-licensure graduate programs
are much more individual and tend to be independent of each other. Common admission
standards to graduate programs include GPA (typically either 2.75 or 3.00) and acceptable scores
on the Millers Analogy Test (MAT) or the Graduate Record Examination (GRE). All advanced
licensure programs require documentation of the initial license.

Advanced licensure programs use the Praxis II for the licensure area as a program assessment
and opportunity to monitor candidate performance. Special education and education leadership
programs are primary examples of such programs. Advanced program candidates’ performance
are strong with an overall pass rate of 94% across 4 years of data. One advanced licensure
program (Special Education) requires passage of the Praxis II (state required special education
content examination) prior to entering the clinical field experience.

Graduate school policy at ASU requires all candidates for master’s degrees to take a
comprehensive examination over their respective program of study. The comprehensive
examination may be written or oral or both, or may involve a practicum or internship experience
as determined by the department in which the major is earned.

Individual programs have different approaches to the comprehensive examination policy; for
example, Education Leadership programs and the Early Childhood program have moved to a
more authentic practicum/performance based portfolio assessment approach; the School
Counseling and the Reading programs continue to implement the more traditional
comprehensive written examination model.

                                ASU Graduate Programs
                             Comprehensive Exit Examinations
              Graduate Program                                 Type of Assessment
MSE- Curriculum and Instruction                  Portfolio
MSE- Educational leadership                      Portfolio
EdS - Educational Leadership                     Portfolio
MSE- Special Education P-4                       Portfolio
MSE- Special Education 4-12                      Portfolio
MSE –Gifted and Talented                         Portfolio
MSE- Reading                                     Written Examination
MSE-Early Childhood                              Portfolio
EdS -School Psychology                           Written Examination-Oral Examination If
                                                 Necessary
MSE- School Counseling                           Written Examination-Oral Examination If
                                                 Necessary

Most graduate programs have a stated GPA expectation for successful completion; generally this
is a 3.0.



                                                                                             47
2a.3. How is the unit assessment system evaluated? Who is involved and how?

While the unit had developed a unit assessment plan for the last NCATE visit in 2002, a more
authentic method to evaluate and improve the unit assessment system has been developed over
the last several years. Until 2006, the Program Evaluation Committee was the primary unit level
reviewer of program data; each program was required to supply action plans for program
improvement based upon multiple program data. Most programs chose to focus on SPA-related
issues. The Program Evaluation Committee made an annual report to Council on Professional
Education (COPE) and the Head of the Unit.

These action plans were all independent and program-specific and did not focus on unit-wide
data. While this provided an excellent mechanism for individual programs to use data-driven
decision making for improvement, there was no clear process for evaluating the unit as a whole.
The unit assessment plan in 2002 identified unit assessments; however, there was no formal
protocol in place for the consistent and systematic unit-wide collection and review of the data
from those assessments. The Head of the Unit and the COPE membership realized this was a
deficiency in the unit assessment system. As a result in 2007, COPE and the Head of the Unit
established the Unit Assessment Committee as a standing committee of COPE. This action
provided the unit with an entity whose sole responsibility is to review all aspects of the unit’s
assessment system: both reviewing the system’s data and reviewing the effectiveness of the
system. The Unit Assessment Committee became a functioning part of the unit governance in
2007.

The Unit Assessment Committee has the primary responsibility for reviewing and analyzing unit
assessment data and making recommendations to the Head of the Unit. Any recommendations
are forwarded to the Head of the Unit via the Council on Professional Education. Therefore,
there is opportunity for individuals representing all the Forum groups (P-4, 4-8, 7-12, P-12 and
advanced) as well as the chairs of the other standing COPE subcommittees to review the
recommendations prior to their submission to the Head of the Unit.

As the individual with ultimate responsibility for the unit, the Head of the Unit provides a Unit
Assessment Annual Report based on the unit assessment data that is distributed to stakeholders
which has been approved by COPE. Collectively the Unit Assessment Committee, COPE and
the Head of the Unit are responsible for evaluating and continuously improving the unit
assessment system. The Head of the Unit is ultimately responsible for making
recommendations/decisions regarding the unit assessment system.

2a.4. How does the unit ensure that its assessment procedures are fair, accurate, consistent,
and free of bias?

These are on-going tasks on the part of the unit. One common approach used throughout the unit
is to use the common course syllabi, developed with input from all faculty members involved
with teaching the course. The strengths of using a common syllabus for a course, regardless of


                                                                                                    48
instructor, is this leads to: (1) a more common approach to covering course content; (2) exposure
of candidates to the knowledge, skills and dispositions expected for mastery in the course; (3)
some accountability for faculty to assure the identified knowledge, skills and dispositions are
addressed and then assessed using some common assignments and assessments, (4) consistency
in how information is presented to and what expectations are made of candidates. Common
syllabi also help assure consistency of program and content in programs such as Education
Leadership, Early Childhood and Mid-Level Education which are taught at multiple sites.

Rubrics and assessments are developed by faculty members, area groups, and departments and
these items are provided to candidates prior to usage. Rubrics are reviewed and refined on an
on-going basis. The same syllabi and rubrics are used at the degree centers and in distance
education courses.

Fairness

General descriptions of the unit assessments can be found on the Teacher Education Assessment
Management System (TEAMS) website. Unit assessments and rubrics are posted on the website
for candidates so that they have multiple opportunities to learn what is being assessed and the
expectations for those assessments. This is in addition to what is documented in the common
course syllabi. Unit assessments are actual assignments from individual courses. Our unit
assessments are aligned with the subject matter, which is taught in the respective courses.

As faculty work with candidates in courses and field experience placements, faculty members
will often share examples of exemplar works with candidates to assist them in better
understanding unit expectations.

There have been ongoing efforts to increase support to candidate performance on Praxis I and
Praxis II. For example, the initial professional education courses make a concerted effort to
connect candidates with university and unit resources, such as PLATO (an online tutor for Praxis
I), which may improve candidate performance. The unit is investigating similar options for
Praxis II. Study guides and other resources for Praxis II are provided both online and in
individual courses.

Every effort is made by the unit to assure that all candidates, regardless of licensure or program
area, campus, course delivery method, and/or ethnicity are provided access to the same
resources. All candidates have access to the same information via handbooks, web resources, and
in courses. Ongoing technical support has also been provided to candidates in the use of
College LiveText.

Accuracy

All initial licensure unit assessments are aligned with the Learning to Teach, Teaching to Learn
Conceptual Framework. The Professional Education Faculty worked collaboratively to determine



                                                                                                49
what course assessments were common among the initial licensure programs. The initial
licensure program is rich in field experiences and these experiences are authentic to the
candidates’ programs, two of the course-based unit assessments are clinical evaluations of
candidate performance in the field, with rubrics based upon the Learning to Teach, Teaching to
Learn conceptual framework. The other two course-based unit assessments highlight the
entrance to the program (Philosophy of Education Paper) and program exit (Learning to Teach,
Teaching to Learn Portfolio); again, the rubrics, developed through a collaborative process
across programs, are based on the conceptual framework.

All advanced program assessments are based upon their respective conceptual frameworks. The
individual nature of the advance programs precludes common course-based assessment in these
programs. Each program creates its own assessment; these assessments are aligned with their
respective SPAs and conceptual frameworks.

Consistency

The practices described at the beginning of this section for using common syllabi are one of the
unit’s strongest approaches for providing consistency. Faculty have worked together to create
common expectations for students. The Professional Education Faculty also are working together
to be more consistent across programs with respect to candidate expectations on unit
assessments. This is practiced in our pre-intern field and internship placements where the
university supervisor and the clinical supervisor are both rating a candidate’s performance.
Although, no inter-rater reliability studies have been conducted, it is rare when the clinical
supervisor and the university supervisor disagree on the assessment.

One example of an effort to improve the consistency of assessments has been implemented by
the Department of Teacher Education where most Professional Education classes are taught by
multiple instructors. Course groups for each course in the department have been created and
they are made up of the faculty from the different sites who have or will teach the identified
course. Lead instructors for courses have been identified and one responsibility these individuals
have is to assure that faculty in the course group are familiar with and understand the standard
assessments within the courses. Faculty members in the groups work together to assure all
faculty members understand the assessment and the rubric. In addition, these course groups
provide an opportunity to work together to refine the assessments, provide opportunity to
improve accuracy and decrease bias. Similar approaches are taken in all advanced programs to
improve the quality of instruction and the consistency of assessment.

While at this point the unit has not run inter-reliability studies, the data do suggest a high level of
consistency of candidate rating. For example, very few candidates are identified as not
acceptable on the Internship Summative Evaluation. The unit is investigating approaches to
improve the reliability of faculty scoring, especially given the programs with faculty and
candidates at multiple sites.



                                                                                                    50
Avoidance of Bias

There is a continual review of the assignments, assessments, and rubrics by the Professional
Education Faculty involved with the unit assessments. For example, candidates were submitting
artifacts for the Learning to Teach Teaching to Learn Portfolio that were inappropriate to
demonstrate their proficiency for a given standard. As a result, the Unit Assessment Committee
determined that there was a need for more clarity and consistency with respect to the
expectations for the portfolio. Different programs have now moved to require specific artifacts
in the Learning to Teach and Teaching to Learn Portfolio.

The unit’s practices to ensure fairness also support avoidance of bias.

 2a.5. What assessments and evaluation measures are used to manage and improve the
operations and programs of the unit?

As the designated Head of the Unit, the Dean of the College of Education has ultimate
responsibility and authority over the assessment, operations, and programs of the unit within the
context of the University’s shared governance system.
The Council on Professional Education and its various subcommittees have some responsibilities
with regard to operations of the unit. For example, the Faculty Affairs Committee reviews and
makes recommendations as to who serves as Professional Education Faculty within the unit. The
Program Evaluation Committee, whose responsibilities have been recently refocused, is
responsible for the general oversight of SPA/State program evaluations. The Unit Planning and
Resources Committee proposed the revision of COPE by adding the forum chairs to the Council
in order to provide better representation of programs and broaden stakeholder involvement. This
recommendation derived from the Professional Education Governance Evaluation survey of
Professional Education Faculty on the effectiveness of the governance system; this survey is
conducted biennially.
At the initial level, a more focused and cohesive set of assessments are used to manage and
improve the programs of the unit because the initial program operates under the same conceptual
framework. At the advanced level, due to the different conceptual frameworks in place, a more
eclectic set of assessments provide these data for decision making purposes. Some of the
assessments included in the unit as a whole are specific to the programs themselves (for example,
assessments focusing on professional standards). Data from a variety of sources are used to
determine the need for changing unit operations and/or programs. For example, enrollment and
graduation trends, intern evaluations, the unit’s diversity survey, all the unit assessments as well
as reports from the University including financial reports are all utilized.
Ultimately, all assessments in place are focused on improving the individual programs within the
unit and the unit itself. Some decision making occurs at the program and department level, using
primarily department and program-specific assessments and data such as enrollment data, SPA
assessments, and the unit assessment data. Formal external data from stakeholders such as
program graduates and Praxis scores are used. On a more informal level, the Head of the Unit
meets regularly with area superintendants and principals and teachers (see Employer Input
Report`). Several departments have developed Advisory Councils representing stakeholders to
provide input. Interactions, both formal and informal, between faculty and administrators with


                                                                                                 51
such state agencies as the Department of Education and the Division for Child Care and Early
Childhood Education also provide opportunities for collecting feedback and information relevant
to program improvement.


2b. Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation

2b.1. What are the processes and timelines used by the unit to collect, compile, aggregate,
summarize, and analyze data on candidate performance, unit operations, and program
quality?

The ASU Professional Education Unit has worked diligently since our last NCATE evaluation
(fall 2002) on our data collection, analysis, and program and unit assessment. The past three
years have witnessed a marked improvement in our unit assessment system. In 2007 a standing
COPE Unit Assessment Committee was established. The establishment of this committee with,
specific responsibilities has provided the unit with the ability to close the loop in our assessment
process in a more consistent and systematic manner (Unit Assessment Flow Chart). We have a
good system in place to collect data with the unit assessment data collected primarily in three
places, i.e. unit assessments embedded in Professional Education course assignments (data
collected using College LiveText) the Professional Education Office and the Office of
Institutional Research, Planning, and Assessment. The Associate Dean/NCATE Coordinator in
the College of Education and the Professional Educational Programs office coordinate the flow
of data to the Unit Assessment Committee, department chairs, and program
coordinators/directors. Currently, we do not have a director of assessment; the Associate
Dean/NCATE Coordinator has assumed these responsibilities with assistance from the
Professional Education Programs office and two faculty members, who provide the leadership
for the electronic portfolio and assessments (College Live Text) training for candidates and
faculty members and an additional faculty member providing NCATE support.

 The ASU Teacher Education Assessment Management System (TEAMS) provides the
foundation for our assessment system. At this point, we do not have a sophisticated assessment
system; however, we are maturing and have a system in place that is ―closing the loop‖ for the
unit and academic programs. There is strong evidence that we have pockets of excellence within
our assessment system as indicated by the number of programs being nationally recognized by
their respective SPAs. In addition, we have areas that need continued development, such as
supporting faculty in the reliable and accurate use of the unit assessment rubrics, specifically
training on the rubrics. The unit is aware that assessment is challenging, complex and takes years
to plan, implement and refine for candidates, programs, and unit assessments. ASU is meeting
the assessment needs of the unit and the ―culture of assessment‖ has improved in recent years.

The required unit assessments are identified in the Teacher Education Assessment Management
System (TEAMS) handbook). These assessments include formative and summative evaluations
of our candidates. All of the required unit assessments for the initial programs are connected to
the conceptual framework: Learning to Teach, Teaching to Learn. Most data are collected on a
semester by semester basis and reported to the program coordinators and the unit on an annual
basis. The data are provided in table format for better understanding and evaluation. The Praxis


                                                                                                  52
II and Praxis III/Pathwise reports are disseminated to the departments, forums, and program
coordinators on an annual basis.

Data used in the unit assessment system are collected, at some point, from all stakeholders in the
system, through either formal or informal means. Candidates provide the greatest amount of
data, through the course-related unit assessments of their proficiencies (such as the Field
Experience Summative Assessment and Intern Summative Evaluations) and the external
assessments (Praxis tests) or through their own review of the programs they have completed
(Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Exiting Teacher Interns, Teacher
Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Alumni as well as the individual advanced
program assessments of exiting candidates). Faculty provides data formally through the biennial
survey concerning the effectiveness of the governance system. Less formally documented by the
unit assessment system, but ongoing, is the faculty review of syllabi, assessments and rubrics
that form the basis of the Professional Education Programs. Stakeholder input from public
schools and community agencies is gathered more informally through advisory councils and
other interactions with these groups. An initial program’s employer survey was developed and
mailed out in July 2009. Results are unavailable at this time, but will be available in the
electronic exhibit room by October 2009.

Two of our professional educational programs are delivered at multiple sites (degree centers),
early childhood (P-4) and the mid-level (4-8). The disaggregated scores for the Praxis II content
and Principles of Learning and Teaching (PLT) indicate that the candidates at the degree centers
are performing as well in the content area and slightly better than the main campus on the
respective Principles of Learning and Teaching examinations.

2b.2 How does the unit disaggregate candidate assessment data for candidates on the main
campus, at off-campus sites, in distance learning programs, and in alternate route
programs?

Data is disaggregated for off campus sites and by department chairs, faculty members and the
Unit Assessment Committee to make unit and program changes.

The growth of programs at the degree centers, along with a new conceptual framework (fall
2008) and turnover in faculty at those centers has alerted the unit to the need to better induct new
faculty into the unit assessment system processes, including clarification of the Conceptual
Framework, the rubrics for the unit assessments and for the SPA assessments. Due to the
challenges stated above, the quality of the data at one center was very limited and the unit chose
not to disaggregate data for the 2008-2009 academic year. Efforts have already been undertaken
with the Department of Teacher Education to focus specifically on the needs of temporary
faculty and to provide them a more in depth understanding of the assessment system.

In the future, the unit plans to be more effective in disaggregating the data. The mechanism for
disaggregation has been built into College Live Text. College LiveText training has been and
continues to be available for all faculty; there is a recognized need to provide more formalized
training on the use of the unit assessment rubrics.




                                                                                                  53
2b.3. How does the unit maintain records of formal candidate complaints and their
resolutions?

The Professional Education Unit uses the ASU Student Rights Grievance Procedure as our
formal student compliant policy and process. This process is outlined in the 2008-09 ASU
Student Handbook (pages 26-28). When student complaints move from the informal to the
formal, students are advised of the formal process noted in the Student Handbook. Records of
candidate grievances would be maintained in the respective department and college offices.

As part of the review process for this NCATE report, consideration has been given to create a
policy and procedure process that would provide the Head of the Unit with information about
grievances related to Professional Education Faculty and professional education courses outside
the College of Education (and therefore outside the purview of the current Head of the Unit).
There is precedence for such a policy given that the hiring and tenure process for Professional
Education Faculty hired outside of the College of Education has an additional layer which
provides for input from the Professional Education Unit in the hiring process (see Professional
Education Governance Handbook p.11).

2c. Use of Data for Program Improvement

2c.1. In what ways does the unit regularly and systematically use data to evaluate the
efficacy of and initiate changes to its courses, programs, and clinical experiences?

       There are several different mechanisms in place to provide opportunities for review of
       data related to program and unit changes. The Annual Reports: Action Plan submitted to
       the Council on Professional Education Program Evaluation (COPE) by all Professional
       Education Programs (2005 – 2008) required programs to consider data-driven changes.
       Many programs took the opportunity to connect their program evaluation report with
       needs related to the Specialty Professional Association (SPA) reports, for example
       creating or improving assessments based on professional standards in order to have useful
       data to consider.

Those programs required to submit SPA reports have reported using data for decision making
within their reports. The process of programs going through the SPA review process encouraged
such discussion in programs. The Council for Exceptional Children PreK – Grade 4 program
SPA report provides an example of how the SPA process encouraged such discussions (see CEC-
P-4 SPA Report, Section V).

The process of reviewing data for potential change is a primary role of the Unit Assessment
Committee. The committee creates an annual report that reviews unit assessment data,
determines which data indicate need for consideration of program practices, and recommends
charges to create change in those programs. The report is provided to the Head of the Unit for
consideration (Unit Assessment Flow Chart and Unit Assessment Committee minutes).

The creation of the Unit Assessment Committee provided the closure on the assessment loop
necessary to assure that unit data were being consistently and systematically reviewed and used


                                                                                                 54
for driving unit decisions. This committee has the responsibility to suggest the need for
program action, via the Head of the Unit, and track progression based on the actions taken. All
of the Professional Education Unit – faculty, program area coordinators, SPA coordinators,
department chairs, members of the Council on Professional Education, the Professional
Education Programs Office, and ultimately the Head of the Unit are responsible for evaluating
and initiating change in the Professional Education Programs. The unit assessment system and
the Unit Assessment Committee assure the unit assessment data gathering protocols are
completed annually and systematically.

2c.2. What data-driven changes have occurred over the past three years?

The unit has required programs to submit data driven Annual Reports: Action Plans from 2005 to
2008 in an effort to encourage programs to use data for program evaluation and improvement.
The plans were reviewed by the Program Evaluation Committee in an effort to assure that the
Professional Education Programs were making data-driven decisions relative to program
improvement.

The following are a few examples of data-driven changes within the unit. Some of the examples
are based upon unit data and was implemented as a directive of the Unit Assessment Committee
and Head of the Unit, while others are examples of decisions made within programs based on the
unit assessment process.
    1. The Unit Assessment Committee, reviewing Praxis II scores, requested that COPE
        request the Health. Physical Education and Sports Sciences Department to report on their
        Praxis II scores. The departments have developed remediation plans and have begun
        implementing these changes. (February 13, 2009 Unit Assessment Committee minutes)
    2. Based on data from Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Exiting
        Teacher Interns in which candidates stated they did not have enough knowledge for
        working with children with special needs, assignments in several courses in the early
        childhood initial licensure program now incorporate aspects where students must identify
        how they could adapt activities/materials/curriculum to meet the needs of children with
        identified special needs. (October 31, 2008 Unit Assessment Committee minutes)
    3. The BSE in social studies reviewed data and determined that candidate performance was
        not as expected on standards related to culture/cultural diversity and global connections.
        Changes were made in how world history courses were taught. These changes occurred
        as result of considering the program’s professional standards (see NCSS SPA report,
        Section V).
    4. Due to a decline in student performance on comprehensive examinations, the MSE
        program in school counseling revised program policies, including implementing an
        orientation for students and working to assure greater consistency in how specialty area
        courses are taught by limiting the number of faculty members teaching the courses.
        (2006-2007 Annual Report: Action Plans).
    5. Constituent Feedback indicated a desire for more Special Education Program classes to
        be offered on-line. In response to this feedback the number of classes offered on-line is
        now at 83% (2006-2007 Annual Report: Action Plans).
    6. Graduate ratings on items 3.1 – 3.3 on the 2005-2006 MSE Curriculum and Instruction
        Graduate Follow-up Survey were lower than most other items. Coursework was
        modified to include assignments where candidates practiced facilitating and managing


                                                                                                55
       school resources in authentic settings. As a result graduate ratings have improved on
       these three items (2007-2008 Annual Report: Action Plans).

2c.3. What access do faculty members have to candidate assessment data and/or data
systems?

In an effort to assure the quality and integrity of the data, a limited number of faculty and staff
have administrative rights for the data systems, such as the administrative side of the College
LiveText or the Professional Education Programs office data. A series of data reports are
provided to program administrators/leaders on an annual basis, including Praxis II and Praxis
III/Pathwise scores, and candidate performance on unit assessments; these reports are shared
with faculty by program administrators/leaders. Much data are released to faculty in aggregated
form via email reports and Professional Education Faculty meetings.

With the completion of the Teacher Education Assessment Management System website, data is
more readily available to all faculty and other stakeholders.

Faculty members have responsibility for grading unit assessments in the Live Text system and
have direct access to the data they collect on the particular candidates they are instructing. The
university’s BANNER data management system allows faculty access to candidate data such as
grades, transcripts and GPA’s.

2c.4. How are assessment data shared with candidates, faculty, and other stakeholders to
help them reflect on and improve their performance and programs?

For the most part, candidates receive feedback from instructors or field supervisors (clinical and
university) on their performance. Most of the unit assessments of candidate proficiency are also
course assessments, so candidates receive grades and feedback on their performance.
Assessments are recorded on College LiveText which also allows candidates feedback on their
performance. All Praxis scores are sent directly to candidates. Earlier sections have described
efforts to provide support for candidates on the Praxis examinations when improvement is
necessary.

Beginning in fall 2008, the Head of the Unit has created a Unit Assessment Annual Report that is
disseminated to faculty. Annually this report is also posted on the web so that it is readily
available to all stakeholders, including candidates and clinical supervisors. As this report
becomes part of our institutional data, it will also be used during the formative discussions with
area stakeholders held by both the Head of the Unit and other unit representatives, to provide
opportunities for stakeholders to reflect and provide feedback on the data.

Title II data and program completers have been publicly reported since 2002. These data, as
required, have been posted on the College of Education website.

Optional


                                                                                                 56
1. What does your unit do particularly well related to Standard 2?

A major strength that the Arkansas State University Professional Education Unit has with respect
to Standard 2 is our consistent pursuit of improving the unit’s assessment system. Throughout
this report we have consistently identified our efforts to recognize when procedures and systems
work well and do not work well. The need for the COPE Unit Assessment Committee became
clear to various stakeholders (Program Evaluation Committee, COPE, NCATE Support Team
and Head of the Unit) that no one entity was responsible for unit assessment.

Our unit assessment system is no longer in its infancy, yet is fully not mature. As ASU
implement the system we continually find ways to improve the system. There are consistent
efforts to improve the rubrics themselves, to support faculty in the utilization of rubrics, and
create authentic expectations for candidate participation in the assessments. As the unit
recognizes the usefulness of data-driven decision making, and reaps success from earlier
attempts to improve programs based on this approach, we find faculty and programs more
responsive to collecting and analyzing data to make improvements. Professional Education
Faculty members are much more aware today of our unit assessment system, and will continue to
learn and implement the data gathering protocols to improve our programs.




                                                                                              57
STANDARD 3: FIELD EXPERIENCES AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

The unit and its school partners design, implement, and evaluate field experiences and clinical
practice so that teacher candidates and other school professionals develop and demonstrate the
knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions necessary to help all students learn.

3a. Collaboration between Unit and School Partners

Preface

Field experiences and clinical practice are integral to the Professional Education Unit. These
experiences provide the opportunity for candidates to apply their knowledge, skills, and
dispositions in a variety of settings appropriate to content and program level. At the initial level,
candidates have at least three well-sequenced public school field experiences consisting of an
early field experience during the sophomore year, a mid-level during the junior or first semester
senior year, and a capstone experience during the senior year (2008-2009 Teacher Education
Handbook, page 12). At the advanced level, candidates have clinical practice ranging from one
to four semesters.

Through collaboration with school partners, the unit has designed, implemented, and evaluated
field experiences and clinical practice. Candidates experience a variety of school settings that
include diverse populations, students with exceptionalities, and students of different ages (2008-
2009 Teacher Education Handbook, pages 45-54). Field experiences also provide an opportunity
for candidates to use technology for supporting teaching, learning, and other professional tasks.
Through assessments during field experiences and clinical practice, candidates develop
proficiencies necessary to ensure all students learn. Performance outcomes completed in field
and clinical experiences promote reflective thinking about their roles in schools as reflective
decision-makers.

3a.1. Who are the unit's partners in the design, delivery, and evaluation of the unit's field and
clinical experiences?

The unit is committed to collaboration with diverse schools and communities. The unit has
collaborated with our P-12 school partners in the design, delivery, and evaluation of candidates
in initial and advanced programs. The unit has seven partner schools in three school districts
(Partnership Governance Document). There is consistent collaboration between the unit and
school partners. Formative and summative assessments are addressed; expectations for student
performance are clarified; and documentation for candidate performances is an integral part of
the design, delivery, and evaluation of the unit’s field and clinical experiences. Evidence of such
collaboration can be seen as school practitioners are members of multiple university committees
(Partnership Governance Document). The structuring of the committees to include school
partners provides appropriate involvement of all primary stakeholders designing, delivering, and
evaluating clinical experience for candidates. These committees work closely to fulfill the
mission of providing candidates with the most effective clinical experiences so they can become
proficient teachers upon graduating from the teacher education program. Specifically, the unit’s
partners can be found on hiring committees, NCATE standard writing committees as well as


                                                                                                    58
other standing committees within the unit that is geared at the design, delivery and evaluation of
the unit’s field and clinical experiences.

3a.2. In what ways have the unit's partners contributed to the design, delivery, and evaluation of
the unit's field and clinical experiences?

Unit partners have contributed in the following ways: strong liaison with practitioners to
collaborate on training and mentoring of candidates; the formative and summative evaluation
forms (Teaching Internship Handbook, pages 22-26) were pilot tested by both practitioners and
university supervisors. The feedback from clinical partners was used to inform the final
evaluation forms that are currently used to assess the performance of interns (student teachers).
In addition, both university and clinical supervisors conduct a post conference with the
candidates to point out the glow and grow areas of the candidate’s effectiveness. This post-
conference is a significant aspect of each candidate’s experience. Unit partners have always had
the opportunity to impact the quality of the clinical experience of the pre-service teachers.
Throughout all placements, unit partners have a strong voice on the forefront of designing,
delivering and evaluating the clinical experience of teacher education candidates.

3a.3. What are the roles of the unit and its school partners in determining how and where
candidates are placed for field experiences, student teaching, and internships?

As part of the preparation of candidates, field experiences and internships are all integral aspects
of the process. As a team, the unit and school partners work seamlessly to identify the
appropriate placement for candidates at the three levels early childhood (ECH), middle-level
(MLED) and secondary (SCED) (Placement forms). The process for field experiences in all three
areas start with the unit identifying three levels of schools where candidates need to have a field
placement as part of their preparation (2008-2009 Teacher Education Handbook, page 45-54).
This is followed by each candidate attending a preparatory meeting for field placement. The
purpose of the meeting is to prepare them for the field experience. The Professional Education
Program (PEP) or placement office works closely with schools to make placements. In this
regard, an assurance is given whereby clinical supervisors are identified based on willingness
and having at least three years of teaching experience to qualify as clinical supervisors. For ECH
and MLED majors, students are placed in field blocks in partner schools. Conversely, SCED
majors write their autobiography which is then sent out to schools. School principals decide,
based on the availability of clinical supervisors to accept SCED students in the specific area.

The process for placing interns has its genesis with a request from the unit and/or school district.
Key stakeholders including personnel from the Professional Education Program office;
department chair; coordinator of field experiences and/or other representatives meet with school
principals to carry out a school assessment for initial eligibility. These stake holders discuss the
requirements for the internship experience; examine the facilities; and review the resources
available. Over the years, these requirements have been established in some schools and new
alliances are formed with non partner schools as the need arises (School Contracts). Interns are
placed in schools for the duration of a full semester.




                                                                                                     59
3a.4. How do the unit and its school partners share expertise and resources to support candidates'
learning in field experiences and clinical practice?

Faculty members are generally invited by the principals and or recruited by the education service
cooperatives to help with or conduct professional development activities in the schools. For
example, expertise has been shared in the following ways:

      selected clinical supervisors teaching science course at ASU
      conducting of intern seminars having DIBELS and DRA training
      research activities
      grant opportunities working with in-service teachers
      current preview center at ASU for the Orchard Technology Lab
      faculty members from the teacher education department conducting seminars and
       workshops in schools addressing a wide range of topics including classroom
       management, motivating students to learn and diversity issues among other topics

The education cooperatives serve to provide support to the school districts in their region, as well
as provide professional development opportunities and act as a consortium for purchasing certain
services and supplies. The cooperatives also provide technical computer support services to the
schools in their area. These are some of the key strategies used to share expertise and resources
that support clinical practice directly and indirectly.

Advanced Programs

Advanced program faculty members within the advanced programs approve candidate
applications for field experiences. For example, the capstone internship in educational
leadership is developed by the candidate and the site supervisor who is a fully licensed practicing
school administrator. The site supervisor is involved with the candidate beginning with the
candidate’s entry into the program. The site supervisors serve as a resource for the candidates as
they apply their knowledge in real-world situations, and the site supervisors participate in the
final evaluation (SPA Reports, Assessment #4, internship) of the candidates’ application of their
acquired skills and knowledge. Site supervisors must have a Master’s or Specialist’s degree with
a minimum of number of years experience as specified by the SPA.

3b. Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Field Experiences and Clinical Practice

3b.1. What are the entry and exit requirements for clinical practice?

Candidates in both initial and advanced programs have ample opportunities to apply and reflect
on their knowledge, dispositions, and skills with P-12 students or clientele in appropriate
settings. The unit’s conceptual frameworks serve as the foundation for experiential practice with
emphasis on integrating candidate learning into practices within the school setting. Table 7, Field
Experiences and Clinical Practice by Program, summarizes the field and clinical practice
experiences for initial and advanced programs.

3b.2. What field experiences are required for each program or categories of programs (e.g.,
secondary) at both the initial teacher preparation and advanced preparation levels, including


                                                                                                 60
graduate programs for licensed teachers and other school professionals? What clinical practice is
required for each program or categories of programs in initial teacher preparation programs and
programs for the preparation of other school professionals?

Link to Table 7: Field Experiences and Clinical Practice by Program

3b.3. How does the unit systematically ensure that candidates develop proficiencies outlined in the
unit's conceptual framework, state standards, and professional standards through field and clinical
experiences in initial and advanced preparation programs?

The unit’s conceptual frameworks for best practices are modeled by clinical supervisors and are
integrated into the foundation of field experiences. Course syllabi (Internship Syllabi) provide a
detailed description of expected outcomes related to Arkansas State University’s unit conceptual
frameworks, state standards, and professional standards. The initial field experiences support the
unit’s conceptual framework, Learning to Teach, Teaching to Learn, (2008-2009 Teacher
Education Handbook and Teacher Intern Handbook for 2007-2009 & 2009-2010). The
conceptual frameworks are communicated to clinical supervisors by handbooks and evaluation
forms. Candidates’ learning is integrated into educational practice during Field II/III and
proficiencies are measured by field experience assessments as evidenced by Field Experience
Summative Assessment reports (2007-2008 and 2008-2009). The candidates’ proficiencies for
the internship are measured using the internship formative and summative evaluation forms
(Formative Evaluation and Summative Evaluation forms). The nine standards from the
summative internship evaluation form (the standards reflect the nine outcomes of the initial
conceptual framework) show evidence of candidate proficiencies during the internship. From the
Report on Internship Summative Evaluations, the clinical supervisor and university supervisor
collaboratively assessed candidates’ proficiency as 77.56 out of 80 points during the 2006-2007
year, 77.57 during the 2007-2008 year and 77.54 during the 2008-2009 year.

3b.4. How does the unit systematically ensure that candidates use technology as an instructional
tool during field experiences and clinical practice?

Unit faculty members are expected to model the effective use of technology in all professional
education courses. Throughout the professional education courses, candidates use College
LiveText to document artifacts. Documenting practice through the electronic portfolio supports
the use of technology as an instructional tool. All candidates are encouraged to take advantage of
available technology during their field and clinical sites. During field and clinical experiences
candidates use College LiveText and web sites to integrate content into their lessons. At some
sites, P-12 students have access to individual computers to conduct research, and candidates have
the students to present their work via smartboards or projection systems. In many classrooms
candidates have the opportunity to use clickers (computerized system for gathering student
responses) during instructional practices. As a part of the internship assessment, candidates are
evaluated on their ability to ―utilize technology as a tool for communication in alignment with
the ISTE Standards‖ (Formative Evaluation of Teaching Performance for Teacher Intern Form,
I.h.).

3b.5. What criteria are used in the selection of school-based clinical faculty? How are the criteria
implemented? What evidence suggests that school-based clinical faculty members are accomplished
school professionals?


                                                                                                   61
Clinical faculty members are accomplished school professionals who are jointly selected by the
unit and the participating schools based on a shared view of their expertise for roles as mentors
and supervisors. The criteria used for the selection of school-based clinical faculty are as
follows: must hold a degree (preferably a master’s degree), be certified in the teaching area, and
have a minimum of three years teaching experience. The criteria are implemented and monitored
using the Level II/III Field Experience Form and the Teacher Intern Request for Assignment
Form. The school-based clinical faculty members for Field II/III placements in partner schools
are collaboratively chosen by a university liaison and a school-based clinical adjunct. The
principal indicates the teacher’s years of experience and degree. The signature by the principal,
clinical adjunct, and university liaison designates agreement about the clinical supervisor being
an accomplished school professional. For other placements, the principal and superintendent
signatures indicate the status of the clinical faculty as being an accomplished school professional.
The school-based clinical faculty qualifications are further verified by Section II, The Clinical
Supervisor of the Teacher Intern Evaluation of School Experience Form collected systematically
by the Professional Education Programs office. Candidate evaluations of clinical supervisors
conducted each semester provide detailed information regarding the quality of supervision being
completed by clinical supervisors. Furthermore, this information is used for subsequent selection
of school-based clinical faculty. Of the 850 Arkansas teachers who are National Board certified,
397 (47%) are teachers in the ASU service area available to supervise candidates. Seventy-eight
(20%) of the National Board certified teachers in the ASU service area has served as clinical
supervisors during the past three years (Listing of National Board Certified Teachers).

3b.6. What preparation do school-based faculty members receive for their roles as clinical
supervisors?

The unit offers professional development opportunities for clinical supervisors through a course
entitled Supervision for Clinical Supervisors (List of Clinical Supervisors Completing the
Supervision Course). To date, 267 teachers have successfully completed the class. In addition to
the class, all supervisors receive a 2008-2009 Teacher Intern Handbook,( pages 1-11) detailing
roles/responsibilities, recommended schedules, and policies and procedures. Also, university
supervisors work closely with clinical supervisors to develop supervisory knowledge,
dispositions, and skills for working with field and clinical students during the supervisory
process. The university supervisors guide the clinical supervisors in the understanding and use
of the internship evaluation forms. Furthermore, at the initial level ASU has offered Praxis
III/Pathwise mentoring training for teachers in public schools.

3b.7. What evidence demonstrates that clinical faculty members provide regular and continuous
support for student teachers, licensed teachers completing graduate programs, and other school
professionals?

In the initial program, surveys evaluating clinical supervisors and university supervisors are
completed by the candidates and analyzed to provide data for supervisory improvement. These
reports show data relevant to clinical faculty’s support during the teaching experiences.
Additional evidence of regular and continuous support can be found in policies regarding
internship experiences. The 2007-2009 Teacher Intern Handbook (Pages 9-10) specifies that
candidates will be evaluated four times periodically during the semester. Furthermore, the


                                                                                                 62
handbook states that early childhood and middle level candidates be evaluated once during the
first four-weeks of an eight week placement and once during the second four weeks of an eight-
week placement. For each secondary candidate, the first required formative evaluation should be
completed during the first four weeks and the second required evaluation during weeks 5-8, and
the last two required evaluations during the last four weeks.

Advanced Programs

All advanced programs include a capstone experience and field experiences embedded in
coursework (SPA Reports, Section 1 Context). The capstone experience course is completed in
the final year of the candidate’s program of study. For example, evaluations of the internship
experience in educational leadership are completed by the site supervisor and the university
supervisor using standardized rubrics based on the ELCC standards (SPA Report for ELCC,
evaluation and rubrics). Candidates maintain regular communication with the university
supervisor. Field experiences are embedded in specified courses required in the program of
study (Course syllabi and SPA Reports, Section 1 Context). For example in Special Education P-
4, the field experiences are evaluated by university faculty using rubrics that are linked to the
CEC standards (CEC P-4 SPA Report). The candidates’ grades for the courses reflect the quality
of the candidates’ field experiences along with other course requirements. Candidates complete a
minimum of hours of field experiences in advanced programs (Table 7) as designated by their
SPA/Program. The field experiences are monitored and evaluated by university faculty.

3b.8. What structured activities involving the analysis of data and current research are required in
programs for other school professionals?

All candidates for other school professionals participate in field based internship projects (Table
7) based on an actual school curriculum/program need as determined by the analysis of actual
data related to the school site. Subsequently, candidates review current literature; research the
policies, laws, and regulations related to the project; the economic factors within the school
community; and diversity issues within the community that are related to the identified school
curriculum/program problem.

For example, in coursework completed prior to the internship in educational leadership,
candidates are required to identify problems in their classrooms that can be tested in the class.
The candidates propose solutions (hypotheses) and design methods to test these hypotheses in
their own classrooms. The candidates apply the proposed solution of teaching methods to the
class for an extended period of time. They collect data to define the changes in students’
achievement, behaviors, etc. They explain the results and their implications for teachers and
students and examine the results and evaluate their hypotheses in light of the latest research
findings (SPA Reports).

3c. Candidates’ Development and Demonstration of Knowledge, Skills, and Professional
Dispositions to Help All Students Learn

3c.1. On average, how many candidates are eligible for clinical practice each semester or year?
What percent, on average, complete clinical practice successfully?




                                                                                                    63
The table below shows the numbers of eligible candidates and completers by year for the initial
and advanced programs.
                             Initial and Advanced Programs
                                Admitted and Completers

Year              Total           Total          Percentage       Advanced        Advanced         Percentage
                Admitted       Successfully           of           Program         Program              of
               and Placed      Completed         Completers       Candidates      Completers       Completers
                for Initial     the Initial       for Initial                                          for
                Program          Program          Program                                          Advanced
                                                                                                   Programs
2006-2007          318              312            98.11%             381              137          35.96%
2007-2008          246              245            99.59%             399              126          31.58%
2008-2009          256              253            98.83%             432              146          33.80%
Initial Program Source: Professional Education Programs Statistical Summary Report #25, #26, and #27
Advanced Program Source: Office of Institutional Research and Planning, Fact Book 2006-2007, 2007-2008,
2008-2009

Each semester, we do have candidates who either withdraw or are withdrawn from the
internship. Candidates at the initial level withdraw or are withdrawn for a variety of reasons;
however, ninety-eight to ninety-nine percent of candidates who enter the internship successfully
complete the internship.

The lower percent of completers at the advanced level is largely a result of a longer time for
graduate students to progress from admission into the program to completion of the capstone
clinical experience.


3c.2. What are the roles of candidates, university supervisors, and school-based faculty in assessing
candidate performance and reviewing the results during clinical practice?

Multiple assessment strategies are used to evaluate candidate’s performance and effect on
student learning in both the initial and advanced preparation programs. Assessment rubrics and
instruments are linked to both SPA requirements and standards as well as to Praxis III/Pathwise
criteria (Course syllabi, Internship Formative, Internship Summative, Field Experience
Summative forms). Assessments are used by candidates and clinical faculty to determine areas
that need improvement and to develop a plan for improvement (Formative Forms and
Professional Improvement Plan Forms).

Candidate assessment begins with the admission process (Application form) and continues
through multiple measures at specific checkpoints outlined by each program, which are built on
professional standards and include performance indicators and rubrics. These assessments serve
as a structure for monitoring and guiding candidates’ growth in knowledge, skills, and
dispositions to help all students learn over time. They also serve as a basis for providing
formative and summative feedback during clinical experiences. Candidates must perform
successfully on assessments that include portfolios, formative and summative evaluations, and
reflections.


                                                                                                          64
Clinical Supervisors (school-based faculty members) provide on-going feedback to the
candidates in a variety of ways that may include: observations with written critiques, informal
discussions, and lesson planning. University supervisors use a variety of strategies for providing
feedback, evaluating, and reviewing information with candidates.

3c.3. How is time for reflection and feedback from peers and clinical faculty incorporated into field
experiences and clinical practice?

Initial Programs

Candidates have numerous opportunities to observe and be observed, to interact with clinical
faculty, and to reflect on their own practices. Field II/III early childhood, middle level and
secondary candidates are evaluated periodically by university and clinical faculty during field
experiences. Clinical and university supervisors observe and evaluate interns a minimum of two
times per 8-week placement and four times per 16-week placement. The initial and final weeks
of teaching internship provide candidates opportunities for observing various teachers in their
assigned schools. Post conference forms and conferences, Field II/III and intern reflective
assessments, and peer assessments provide opportunities for candidates to interact with school-
based faculty, university supervisors, and other candidates. (Intern Reflective Assessment and
Questions to Guide Reflective Practice). Furthermore, the university supervisors conduct
interactive seminars in which the candidates have opportunities to share growth, progress,
challenges, and concerns with their peers and their supervisor. In addition, written reflections
from candidates with feedback from faculty are part of the candidates’ electronic portfolios. In
beginning and intermediate field experiences, candidates complete assignments that require them
to engage in critical reflection on the events and field experiences prior to posting the assignment
to College LiveText.

Advanced Programs

Discussion boards (on-line courses) and classroom discussions are utilized in courses to facilitate
feedback from peers and clinical faculty. This also gives students an opportunity for reflection.
Formative reflection logs, formative and summative evaluation/observation instruments all
provide opportunities for clinical faculty to provide feedback to candidates and also provide
candidates the opportunity to reflect upon their professional practice.

3c.4. What data from multiple assessments provide evidence that candidates demonstrate the
knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions for helping all students learn in field experiences
and clinical practice?

Initial Programs

In the initial programs, data from key program assessments provide evidence that candidates
demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions for helping all students learn.
The assessments include: Lesson Plans; Internship Formative and Summative evaluation forms;
Teacher Education Retention Procedures; Verification and Evaluation of Career Decision
Awareness; Learning to Teach, Teaching to Learn Portfolio; Praxis assessments, and SPA


                                                                                                       65
Reports: Effect on Student Learning (SPA Reports Assessment Five). A table reporting the
mean of means on the effect on student learning from initial programs’ SPA reports has also
been provided (Initial Programs Effect on Student Learning).

Advanced Programs

In the advanced programs, data from key program assessments provide evidence that candidates
demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions for helping all students learn
(SPA Reports Assessment Five). These program assessments are reported in programs’
respective SPA reports. A table reporting the mean of means on the effect on student learning
from advanced programs’ SPA reports has also been generated (Advance Programs Effect on
Student Learning).

3c.5. What process is used to ensure that candidates collect and analyze data on student learning,
reflect on those data, and improve student learning during clinical practice?

Initial Programs

As part of the evaluation process, candidates complete a wide range of assignments, such as
evaluating curriculum material, early childhood advocacy plans, evaluating educational software,
analyzing school assessment data, and reflecting about observations of other professionals. They
also develop lesson and unit plans and conduct action research. Assignments are reviewed by
faculty and assessed using performance indicators and rubrics (SPA Reports).

Advanced Programs

Advanced programs assess candidate field/clinical experiences through various projects and
assignments related to the practicum/internship coursework. Candidates at the advanced level
have assessments (SPA Reports) that are developed collaboratively between the candidate and
the supervisor(s). Candidates at both initial and advanced levels must demonstrate proficiency at
each level of clinical practice before proceeding to the next level.

3c.6. How does the unit ensure that all candidates have field experiences or clinical practice that
includes students with exceptionalities and students from diverse ethnic/racial, linguistic, gender,
and socioeconomic groups?

Candidates at the initial level are required to participate in a variety of field experiences,
including clinical practice, with students from diverse groups. School placement settings are
classified into three categories of diversity based on ethnic/racial, linguistic, gender and
socioeconomic groups. These classifications are used with placement matrices to assign
candidates to settings that include one placement from each category for each of three field
experiences (2008-2009 Teacher Education Handbook, pages 45-54 and placement matrices).

Seven intern candidates have participated in clinical placements abroad since fall 2007— one in
Australia, one in China, two in Costa Rica, one in Czech Republic, one in Sweden, and one in
Thailand (Student Abroad Applications). All candidates interact in their placements with some
students who need adaptations and/or modifications to enhance their learning. Candidates at the


                                                                                                       66
advanced level engage in clinical practice with students/clients who are representative of the
ethnic, lifestyle, and demographic diversity of their communities.

1. What does your unit do particularly well related to Standard 3?

The unit and school partners work in harmony to design, implement, and evaluate
field experiences and clinical practice to ensure that candidates are able to develop the
knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions as defined by professional, state, and
institutional standards to help all students learn. The unit is particularly proud of our Diversity
Matrices (2008-2009 Teacher Education Handbook, pages 45-54). Field experiences at the
initial level occur at a minimum of three different sites for each candidate based on diverse
student populations and size of school. Field experiences and clinical practice are designed to
ensure that candidates have opportunities to work with students in culturally diverse classrooms.




                                                                                                 67
STANDARD 4: DIVERSITY

The unit designs, implements, and evaluates curriculum and provides experiences for candidates
to acquire and demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions necessary to help
all students learn. Assessments indicate that candidates can demonstrate and apply proficiencies
related to diversity. Experiences provided for candidates include working with diverse
populations, including higher education and P-12 school faculty; candidates; and students in P-
12 schools.

Arkansas State University is located within the Delta Region of the United States. Low socio-
economic levels in both white and minority populations and a lack of quality educational
opportunities exist within the Delta. Arkansas State University has made a concerted effort to
ensure that all candidates in the initial and advanced programs are provided with opportunities to
acquire and demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students
learn.

4a.1. What proficiencies related to diversity are candidates expected to develop and demonstrate?

Initial Programs

At the initial level, diversity is listed among the nine components of the Learning to Teach,
Teaching to Learn conceptual framework designed to guide all initial programs. In particular,
the conceptual framework describes in detail the proficiencies related to diversity that candidates
are expected to develop and demonstrate. The Diversity Standard of the Learning to Teach,
Teaching to Learn conceptual framework is as follows:

       Diversity: The teacher candidate utilizes a variety of teaching strategies to develop
       a positive teaching-learning environment where all students are encouraged to
       achieve their highest potential.

               The teacher candidate will help all students learn by:
                   Demonstrating respect for differences among groups of people and
                      individuals from varied backgrounds and geographical regions
                   Communicating with students and families in ways that demonstrate
                      understanding of and compassion for all family structures
                   Addressing student diversity through, planning, selecting materials, and
                      selecting/creating appropriate activities which include and enrich students’
                      experiences and cultures
                   Demonstrating an awareness of different learning styles and adapting
                      instruction appropriate for all students
                   Inviting all students to extend their thinking to achieve their highest
                      potential




                                                                                                 68
Diversity is integrated throughout the curricula at the initial and advanced levels. For example,
diversity is embedded in all professional education course syllabi (Diversity Alignment in Course
Syllabi). Proficiencies related to diversity also are embedded in the Teacher Education
Preparation Programs Assessment by Exiting Teacher Interns surveys conducted by for program
as well as in the Praxis III examinations. The next time that the Teacher Education Preparation
Programs Assessment by Alumni (Follow-up Survey) will be administered, it will also include the
diversity component.

Advanced Programs

At the advanced level, each advanced program outlines their diversity proficiencies in their
conceptual frameworks (See conceptual framework for school counseling as an example) and in
their course syllabi (Diversity Alignment in Course Syllabi).

4a.2. What required coursework and experiences enable teacher candidates and candidates for
other school professional roles to develop:
     awareness of the importance of diversity in teaching and learning; and
     the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions to adapt instruction and/or services for
        diverse populations, including linguistically and culturally diverse students and students
        with exceptionalities?

Candidates at both the initial and advanced levels are required to complete coursework in
practicum and/or internship. At the initial level, field placements are varied for each student to
insure placement at different levels of diversity. The awareness of the importance of diversity in
teaching and learning is outlined in the course syllabi for all practicum and internship courses.
Specific courses (e.g. ELSE 3643 Exceptional Child in the Regular Classroom; ELSE 4703/5703
Identification, Nature and Needs of the Gifted, Talented, and Creative; and ELFN 8763 Socio-
Cultural Foundations of Education) have been designed to make sure that candidates understand
the importance and relevance of diversity in P-12 settings.

As mentioned above, proficiencies related to diversity are integrated throughout the curriculum
at the initial and advanced level and are embedded in all professional education course syllabi.
For example, evidences for proficiencies in courses such as EDLA 4633 Methods and Materials
of Teaching Second Languages and others in the initial program can be found in the table
Diversity Alignment in Course Syllabi.

At the initial level, candidates are also required to complete Praxis III/Pathwise training which
provides students with the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions to adapt instruction
for diverse populations. The courses in practicum, internship, and a variety of other courses
provide students with the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions to adapt instruction
and/or services for diverse populations.

At the advanced level, the courses in practicum, internship, and a variety of other courses (e.g.
ELFN 8763 Socio-Cultural Foundations of Education; and ELSE 6023 Characteristics of
Individuals with Disabilities) provide candidates with the knowledge, skills, and professional
dispositions to adapt instruction and/or services for diverse populations, including linguistically
and culturally diverse candidates and candidates with exceptionalities. Evidence supporting this


                                                                                                    69
proficiency may be found in any selected course syllabi for advanced level students. Evidence
for candidates enrolled in advanced programs can be found in the table Diversity Alignment in
Course Syllabi.

4a.3. What key assessments provide evidence about candidates' proficiencies related to diversity?
How are candidates performing on these assessments?

Arkansas State University also assesses the initial candidates’ knowledge of diversity prior to
admittance to the Teacher Education Program. Candidates are required to complete the Career
Guideline Rationale and Outline for Teacher Education Interpretive Session administered by the
ASU Counseling Center. The purpose of the Career Guideline Rationale and Outline for
Teacher Education Interpretive Session is to help ensure that students have an opportunity to
think about their career planning as a teacher and to assist them in making the correct career
decision prior to making a commitment ―to a career that may not suite‖ the candidate. In
particular, the interpretive sessions helps the student assess for diversity by asking the question,
―How does the student define diversity and how does it apply to education?‖ (Does the student
have an understanding of differences beyond race or social economic status? Can the student
articulate some knowledge about different learning styles, different personalities, working with
student who may have learning disabilities, etc?).

The Praxis III/Pathwise examination provides one external measure of how proficient our
graduates are in the area of diversity. The data from Domain B: Creating an Environment for
Student Learning of the 2004-2008 Praxis III/Pathwise examinations demonstrates that our
graduates have had a mean of 2.4 to 2.5 on a 3 scale on fairness and a 2.5 to a 2.6 on a 3 scale on
challenging learning expectations.

In addition to the data provided from the Praxis III/Pathwise examination, evidence regarding
candidates’ proficiencies in diversity may also be found in the Student Diversity Survey Results.
Each year, candidates in the initial program using a strongly agree (5 points) to a strongly
disagree (1 point) Likert Scale complete a self-assessment regarding their proficiencies in the
area of diversity. The data from the last three years, (2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009)
have shown an improvement in mean scores.

                        Number of Items with a Mean of Less than 3.5
          2006-2007                          2007-2008                         2008-2009
              4                                  4                                 1

This increase in perceived proficiencies may be a result of increased emphasis on diversity
during the last few years in our professional education classes.

All of our key assessments (Philosophy of Education Paper Artifact, Field Experience
Summative Assessment Artifact, Internship Summative Evaluation Artifact, Learning to Teach,
Teaching to Learn Portfolio Artifact, Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by
Alumni (Follow-up Survey, and Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by
Exiting Teacher Interns) in our programs are directly connected to our conceptual framework
Learning to Teach, Teaching to Learn. Our conceptual framework was revised in May 2008.
The revision incorporated a standard which specifically addressed diversity. As a result all of the


                                                                                                    70
assessments listed above help gauge our candidates’ proficiencies in this area. Due to the late
revision of the conceptual framework, data with the diversity standard is only available on
Philosophy of Education Paper Artifact, Field Experience Summative Assessment Artifact,
Learning to Teach, Teaching to Learn Portfolio Artifact, and Teacher Education Preparation
Programs Assessment by Exiting Teacher Interns. For 2008-2009 candidates rated themselves
on the exit survey with means between 2.57 and 2.81 on a 3.0 scale on items relating to diversity.
The remaining 2008-2009 assessment data for the diversity standard is presented in the table
below.

      2008-2009            Exemplary/Target               Acceptable               Unacceptable
                                N/%                         N/%                       N/%
Philosophy of
                                  68/81%                    14/17%                     2/2%
Education Paper
Field Experience
Summative                        379/88%                    50/12%                     3/1%
Assessment
Learning to Teach,
Teaching to Learn                143/79%                    28/15%                     8/4%
Portfolio

The results of our assessments indicate that our candidates are proficient as it relates to diversity.

4b. Experiences Working with Diverse Faculty

4b.1. What opportunities do candidates (including candidates at off-campus sites and/or in distance
learning or alternate route programs) have to interact with higher education and/or school-based
faculty from diverse groups?

Initial and advanced program candidates interface and interact with faculty from diverse groups
on campus and also at off-campus sites and in distance learning programs through general
education, professional education, and professional licensure area coursework, as well as in field
experiences, and during student teaching and internship. All initial program candidates have to
take a structured general education curriculum which exposes them to such diverse areas as
humanities, sciences, arts, etc. Table 8: Faculty Demographics shows the ethnic diversity among
the Professional Education Unit that candidates have an opportunity to experience and that
includes faculty with African American, Asian and Native American backgrounds.

Additionally, a few candidates have taken the opportunity to study abroad and to complete their
internship in another country and experience diversity by immersion into cultures that are very
different from their native country. Thus, candidates have an opportunity to interact with and
study the curriculum from various perspectives and to better understand and appreciate diversity,
which they will experience as they become teachers. According to our conceptual framework,
which includes preparing educational leaders committed to serving diverse populations, we
create such an educational environment at our college that will provide numerous opportunities
for meaningful interactions of the future teachers with our diverse professional and school-based
faculty.



                                                                                                    71
4b.2. What knowledge and experiences do faculty have related to preparing candidates to work
with students from diverse groups?

The diversity of educational and teaching experiences of ASU faculty is evidenced from Table
11: Faculty Qualifications Summary. It shows that our faculty completed their advanced degrees
in various institutions of higher education representing a variety of states from California to
Virginia. In addition, there is language and ethnic diversity among our faculty (represented by
professors who are originally from Egypt, Sweden, China, Korea, Jamaica, or Russia).
Furthermore, a number of our faculty are bilingual and also include some faculty members who
have had extensive time working and living cross-culturally. In response to the need for greater
cultural sensitivity and the need for a broader world-view in our programs, our faculty members
conduct collaborative research with colleagues from other countries; they attend and make
presentations at international conferences in this country and abroad. For example, the College
of Education at ASU participates in European Teacher Education Network (ETEN). ETEN seeks
and cooperates with partners from inside and outside Europe which provides several universities
from the United States the opportunity to network with a group of international educators. To
date, Professional Education Faculty have attended ETEN conferences in Sweden (4 faculty),
England (10), Portugal (12), Macedonia (4), and Turkey (3). They participated in a range of
Thematic-interest groups such as: Arts Education, Democracy, Educational Technology,
Reflective Practice, Technology Teaching and Learning, and Urban Education. Several of our
faculty toured in England visiting at British public schools in the summer of 2006 (8 faculty) and
in 2007 (4).

4b.3. How diverse are the faculty members who work with education candidates? [Diversity
characteristics in addition to those in Table 8 can also be presented and/or discussed, if data are
available, in response to other prompts for this element.] Please complete Table 8 or upload your
own table at Prompt 4b.5 below.

Table 8: Faculty Demographics shows the ethnic diversity among our faculty in initial and
advanced programs. Although the number of minority faculty decreased to 12.9% in 2007-2008,
strides were made in 2008-2009 with 18% of the Professional Education Faculty identified as a
member of a minority group (Professional Education Faculty Diversity).

4b.4. What efforts does the unit make to recruit and retain a diverse faculty?

The unit and the university are committed to hiring qualified diverse faculty members. This is
evident by the unit’s 2007-2008 Minority Report and the 2008-2009 Minority Report created by
the College of Education, which lists such initiatives as ―Grow-Your-Own‖ program, which
provides financial support to promising minorities pursuing terminal degrees. The unit supports
the university’s Diversity Strategic Plan. This plan monitors the search and selection processes
of diverse faculty candidates as well as retention initiatives within the university at large. The
university’s Diversity Office is committed to recruitment and retention of individuals who will
diversify our academic environment by helping departmental search committees to identify
qualified minority candidates for available positions. As outlined in the university’s Diversity
Strategic Plan, the initiatives of this office include training workshops for search committees,
diversity education workshops, Diversity Awareness Day, Strategic Hiring Fund for recruitment
of minority candidates, Middle East Program, and Diversity Excellence Award. In addition, ASU


                                                                                                      72
International Students and Scholars committee assists in retention of international faculty and
staff by identifying the diverse needs of these individuals and providing assistance with these
needs.

4c. Experiences Working with Diverse Candidates

4c.1. What opportunities do candidates (including candidates at off-campus sites and/or in
distance learning or alternate route programs) have to interact with candidates from diverse
groups?

Candidates have a number of opportunities to interact with other candidates from diverse groups.
Diversity proficiencies are required to be addressed in all courses. Henceforth, the classroom
setting provides not only instructional materials and activities that expose candidates to diversity
(Diversity Alignment in Course Syllabi), but it also provides candidates with an opportunity to
interact with peers from diverse groups. Due to a lack of racial diversity in the public schools in
and around Mountain Home, the Department of Teacher Education has implemented the
Mountain Home Diversity Plan, which specifically seeks to enhance candidate learning
regarding diverse populations. Furthermore, field experiences offer candidates direct contact
with students, teachers, and administrators of diverse backgrounds.

Candidates involved in professional student organization groups have an opportunity to work
with other diverse group members. Organizations such as the Minority Teachers Scholars
Program give candidates the opportunity to make contact with one another during Praxis I
examination workshops. These workshops are sponsored by grant funds to aid the students with
strategies for successfully passing this essential landmark for admittance to the Teacher
Education Program.

At an institutional level, the university hosts a website dedicated to providing information about
diversity (http://diversity.astate.edu). This website details the university's diversity initiatives,
which consist of events, meetings, awards ceremonies, etc. geared towards making diversity very
visible on campus. The university also has in place an Office of Diversity which is set up to
address the diversity needs of all students, faculty, and staff.

At an international level, the Center for Excellence in Education supported an international trip
to the Netherlands for some of its doctoral students for ―internationalization of the program" in
2005-2006.

4c.2. How diverse are the candidates in initial teacher preparation and advanced preparation
programs?

Link to Table 9: Candidate Demographics

4c.3. What efforts does the unit make to recruit and retain candidates from diverse groups?

Annually, the College of Education completes a Minority Report detailing recruitment and
development efforts as well as retention figures for both students and faculty in comparison to
previous years. In initial programs, teacher education partners with the Arkansas Delta Training


                                                                                                    73
Education Consortium (ADTEC) and Title III to increase diverse enrollment at off-campus sites
and regional community college sites such as Arkansas Northeastern College, East Arkansas
Community College, Mid South Community College and Arkansas State University-Newport.
The Center for Excellence in Education targets public schools and community colleges within a
150 mile radius through annual mail-outs and recruitment at graduate fairs for advanced program
candidates. Visits to graduate fairs include trips to historically black colleges and universities
within a three state area. The Department of Health Physical Education and Sports Sciences
seeks candidates statewide through the Arkansas Alliance for Health, Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance State Convention and makes visits annually to nearby community colleges
in search of potential candidates.

The university aids in the retention of diverse candidates. In 2004 ASU began offering First-Year
Experience Seminars through a course titled, ―Making Connections.‖ During this course,
candidates in the College of Education have their first encounter and connection with
departmental faculty and some introductory content related to their major. It is believed that this
course heightens accountability and serves as preparation for the major coursework that lies
ahead. University-wide, one of the goals for the freshmen who take this course is ―Understanding
Global Issues‖ which takes into account cultural dimensions of a diverse national and world
community. Another university initiative that is an asset to candidates is the Early Alert Program.
It serves as an avenue for faculty to refer first-year candidates to Advisement Services based on
class performance, attendance, or any general concern based on their discretion.

Within the unit, there are transition points or assessments for both initial and advanced program
candidates throughout their program (Table 6: Transition Point Assessments). Each checkpoint
consists of specific grade point average (GPA) guidelines. In initial programs, the first
checkpoint consists of a series of requirements including GPA, minimal semester hours, advising
appointments (every semester), a Career Decision Awareness Inventory, and others requirements
specific to the programs themselves. Advanced programs contain more rigorous GPA
requirements, advising appointments and documentation specific to each program. In order to
increase the number of candidates who successfully complete the first checkpoint, the
Department of Teacher Education offers Praxis I examination preparatory works annually
through the Minority Teachers Scholars Program. It is believed that providing strategies to the
candidates in preparation for the examination will increase the likelihood that they will pass the
examination and continue their coursework within the initial program.

4d.1. How does the unit ensure that candidates develop and practice knowledge, skills, and
professional dispositions related to diversity during their field experiences and clinical practice?

At the initial level, candidates participate in three field experiences in schools that vary in
demographics and size, ensuring that the candidates are involved with diverse racial and ethnic
groups. The first experience is in conjunction with an introductory-level professional-education
course. The second experience is linked with an upper-level professional-education course. The
third experience is a full-semester clinical practice that our program calls the ―internship.‖ For a
more-detailed explanation of field experiences, see Institutional Report item 4.d.2 below.

All Arkansas public institutions are required to adhere to the Individuals With Disabilities
Education Improvement Act (IDEIA 2004) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.


                                                                                                       74
Through classrooms open to inclusion, the initial and advanced candidates gain knowledge by
observing and gain skills and dispositions as they participate in lessons taught by clinical
supervisors/mentors/site supervisors who modify their instruction to accommodate
exceptionalities in the regular classroom.

For initial and advanced candidates alike, their internship advances their knowledge, skills, and
dispositions regarding diversity through the following: guided reflection, formative assessments,
and assistance as needed. The feedback procedures are discussed in detail under 4d.3, below.

The Student Diversity Survey Results from 2006-2009 affirms that the interns have acquired the
knowledge, skills, and dispositions to work well with diverse populations. This survey is
completed by all interns exiting our BSE program; it is taken during the last week of the
internship. On a scale ranging from 5 (Strongly Agree) to 1 (Strongly Disagree), interns
consistently rated their diversity training in a range from 3.13 to 4.21.

4d.2. How diverse are the P-12 students in the settings in which candidates participate in field
experiences and clinical practice? Please complete

Link to Table 10A: Demographics on Sites for Clinical Practice in Initial Programs
Link to Table 10B: Demographics on Sites for Clinical Practice in Initial Programs
Link to Table 10C: Demographics on Sites for Clinical Practice in Initial Programs
Link to Table 10D: Demographics on Sites for Clinical Practice in Initial Programs
Link to Table 10E: Demographics on Sites for Clinical Practice in Initial Programs

Tables 10 A-E: Demographics on Sites for Clinical Practice in Initial Programs document the
English language learners and ethnic diversity offered in the candidates experience in the
placement schools.

Off-campus field experiences with diverse populations of students are an integral part of the
Professional Education Programs. The Coordinators of Teaching Internship and Field
Experiences place candidates in schools at specific intervals and durations over a period of the
two-to-three year program of study leading to the BSE and licensure to teach.

Candidates participate in three field experiences as part of their education degree. In order to
ensure that candidates gain experience in diverse educational settings, the field sites selected for
these experiences must include schools which vary by size and diversity of student population.
For a list of schools and more information, see the Teacher Education Handbook, Appendix F,
pages 46-56. Below is information about Diversity of Student Population, Size of School, and
Student’s Home District.

       Diversity of Student Population: Candidates will experience one school site from each
       category (I, II, and III).
           o Category I Schools: Diverse student population over 35%
           o Category II Schools: Diverse student population between 5-35%
           o Category III Schools: Diverse student population between 0-4%
       Size of School: The candidate will have some experience in both large (1500+ students)
       and average-to-small schools. This means that one of the three field experiences will be


                                                                                                   75
       at a large school and one experience must be completed within an average-to-small
       school. The third field experience site can be either size.
       Student’s Home District: The candidate may not complete a field experience in the
       public school district from which he or she graduated.

4d.3. How does the unit ensure that candidates use feedback from peers and supervisors to reflect
on their skills in working with students from diverse groups?

Initial Programs

Initial candidates are provided with a list of Questions to Guide Reflective Practice (page 31,
Appendix E, Teacher Intern Handbook), that includes ―How did you respond to different
students’ needs?‖ The candidate refers regularly to the reflective guide and at scheduled intervals
will self-assess by using the Intern Reflective Assessment (pages 28-29, Appendix F, Teacher
Intern Handbook), that includes descriptors such as 1.d, ―Treats all people, regardless of position
and personal characteristics, with dignity and respect,‖ and 4.j, ―Uses class activities that are
sensitive to gender and cultural diversity.‖ The intern shares reflections with the clinical
supervisor regularly and with the university supervisor when he/she visits the school. The self-
assessments become part of a portfolio that is assessed in the intern’s summative evaluation.

Initial candidates’ practices are monitored by both the clinical supervisor and the university
supervisor formally, at least four times by each, through the Formative Evaluation of Teaching
Performance for Teacher Interns assessment rubric (pages 22-24, Appendix D, Teacher Intern
Handbook).

As mentioned earlier, all of our key assessments [Field Experience Summative Assessment
Artifact, Internship Summative Evaluation Artifact, Learning to Teach, Teaching to Learn
Portfolio Artifact, Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Alumni (Follow-up)
Survey, and Teacher Education Preparation Programs Assessment by Exiting Teacher Interns]
in our initial programs are directly connected to our conceptual framework Learning to Teach,
Teaching to Learn. One standard of our conceptual framework, Reflective Teaching addresses
this area. For 2008-2009 candidates rated themselves on the exit survey with means between
2.51 and 2.70 on a 3.0 scale on items relating to reflective teaching. On the 2008-2009
Internship Summative Assessment university supervisors and clinical supervisors rated
candidates between a 9.52 and 10.00 on a 10 point scale on items relating to reflective teaching.
The remaining 2008-2009 assessment data for the reflective teaching standard is presented in the
table below.

                            Learning to Teach, Teaching to Learn
                               Reflective Teaching Standard

  Key Assessment          Exemplary/Target              Acceptable              Unacceptable
      2008-2009                N/%                        N/%                      N/%
Field Experience
Summative                       209/48%                    36/8%                     0/0%
Assessment



                                                                                                    76
Learning to Teach,
Teaching to Learn                150/83%                    22/12%                      7/4%
Portfolio

The results of our assessments indicate that our candidates reflect on their skills in working with
students from diverse groups.

Advanced Programs

    Faculty use observations and candidate reflections in internship/practicum, formative
    assessments completed by site supervisor, feedback from graduates and/or constituents and
    the review of lesson plans (IEP, IFSP and ITP in Special Education) to ensure that candidates
    use feedback from peers and supervisors to reflect on their skills in working with students
    from diverse groups




                                                                                                      77
STANDARD 5. FACULTY QUALIFICATIONS, PERFORMANCE, AND
DEVELOPMENT

Faculty are qualified and model best professional practices in scholarship, service, and
teaching, including the assessment of their own effectiveness as related to candidate
performance; they also collaborate with colleagues in the disciplines and schools. The unit
systematically evaluates faculty performance and facilitates professional development.

5a. Qualified Faculty

5a.1. What are the qualifications of the full- and part-time professional education faculty
(e.g., earned degrees, experience, and expertise)?

Link to Table 11: Faculty Qualification Summary

Data from Table 11: Faculty Qualification Summary indicate that our faculty members are well
qualified to fulfill their professional responsibilities. The Professional Education Faculty
members possess good academic credentials and K-12 and higher education experiences.

5a.2. What expertise qualifies professional education faculty members who do not hold
terminal degrees for their assignments?

Faculty members who do not hold terminal degrees for their assignments are qualified by their
extensive teaching experiences and professional expertise acquired through years of teaching at
the elementary, secondary, and/or university levels. For the nineteen full-time faculty members
who do not hold terminal degrees the group averages 10 years of K-12 teaching experience and
7.7 years higher education teaching experience. They also have a significant wide-range of
contributions at the school and university sites. The Professional Education Unit Qualified
Faculty table has been prepared to better communicate individual faculty members’ exceptional
expertise.

5a.3. How many of the school-based faculty members are licensed in the areas they teach or
are supervising? How does the unit ensure that school-based faculty members are
adequately licensed?

Initial Programs

All of the initial licensure clinical supervisors (school-based faculty) are licensed in the areas
they teach or are supervising. The Professional Education Programs Office uses the following
criteria for the selection of clinical supervisors: a.) hold a degree, preferably a master’s degree in
the teaching area, b.) licensed in the teaching field, and c.) have a minimum of three years
teaching experience (2008-2009 Teacher Education Handbook, page 13). Furthermore, the
school principal must confirm the degree/licensure area and years of experience on the school
placement request forms.




                                                                                                   78
Advanced Programs

School psychology faculty members are licensed by the Arkansas Department of Education as
School Psychology Specialists. Additionally, the coordinator of the school psychology track is a
licensed psychologist with the Arkansas Psychology Board and is a Nationally Certified School
Psychologist (NCSP). Licensure is required to allow faculty members to supervise school
psychology graduate students in practicum and internships. Licensure is an expectation
associated with these faculty lines.

For all ELCC, CEC and NAGC/CEC programs, admission criterion includes a letter from the P-
12 school indicating that the mentor is licensed in their respective area and that they are
employed in that capacity.

IRA requires that reading candidates engage in two practicum. Both practicum at the advanced
level are conducted by Reading Professional Education faculty in public school settings.

NAEYC requires an action research project, which is implemented in TE 6283 Practicum. This
practicum requires licensed candidates to conduct the research in their own classrooms. The
intent of the action research is to make changes leading to improvement in one’s own class.
Therefore, there are no on-site supervisors. Licensed university supervisor monitor the progress
of the candidates throughout the practicum.

5a.4. What contemporary professional experiences do higher education clinical faculty
members have in school settings?

Ninety-two percent of clinical faculty members have contemporary experiences in school
settings. These experiences include, but are not limited to, supervision of candidates in both field
experiences and internships, presentations, research projects, advisory boards, grant–writing
assistance, professional development workshops, and consultations. These experiences span all
grade levels.

5b. Modeling Best Professional Practices in Teaching

5b.1. How does instruction by professional education faculty reflect the conceptual
framework as well as current research and developments in the fields?

Modeling good teaching is embodied in the Professional Education Unit conceptual frameworks,
Learning to Teach, Teaching to Learn. Our framework, Learning to Teaching, Teaching to
Learn, emphasizes professionalism, diversity, communication skills, curriculum, subject matter,
teaching models, classroom management, assessment, and reflective teaching. Faculty must
model professionalism through lifelong learning, scholarship, and professional development.
Faculty participates in on-going professional development on diversity and infuses diversity into
course syllabi. Education students receive rigorous subject area and related pedagogy training in
materials, methods, and pedagogy. Faculty use and require students to develop lessons based on
a variety of teaching models including direct teaching, discovery learning, simulations, and
cooperative learning. Faculty members teach and monitor students’ utilization of assertive



                                                                                                  79
discipline models and other models of classroom management. Faculty model and monitor
students’ use of formative and summative assessment in lesson design. Faculty members model
and monitor reflective teaching, requiring on-going student development of reflection both in
classes and out in the field.

This professional practice also holds true within each of our advanced programs which have their
own conceptual frameworks. The graduate faculty in each program attends to the primary goal
of producing other school professionals who are aware of and utilize current research in their
classrooms. Also of vital importance in the graduate programs is current knowledge in each
respective field of study.

5b.2. How do unit faculty members encourage the development of reflection, critical
thinking, problem solving, and professional dispositions?

Professional Education Faculty members encourage the development of reflection, critical
thinking, problem solving, and professional dispositions in on-going ways. Reflection, critical
thinking, problem solving, and professional dispositions represent key components of the unit’s
Learning to Teach, Teaching to Learn conceptual framework. These four components are also
integrated into the advanced program’s conceptual frameworks. Additionally, reflection, critical
thinking, problem solving, and professional dispositions represent key areas in Praxis
III/Pathwise frameworks adopted by the state of Arkansas. These four components, which
correspond with existing conceptual frameworks throughout the College of Education and at the
state level, are integrated in every professional education course (course syllabi).

Faculty members encourage the development of reflection, critical thinking, and problem solving
by requiring candidates to research different educational topics in professional education courses
and through case studies. In addition, reflection is a critical component in our pre-intern field
and internship placements.

Faculty members encourage professional dispositions by modeling professional dispositions and
by discussions about our Professional Behavior Plan and by holding candidates accountable to
the standards of the plan.

5b.3. What types of instructional strategies and assessments do unit faculty members
model?

Faculty members in the Professional Education Unit model a variety of instructional strategies
and utilize a wide-range of assessments. Faculty members model instructional strategies that
include direct instruction, indirect instruction, experiential learning, independent study,
discussion model, cooperative learning and interactive instruction. By modeling these methods
in their classes, candidates are provided with effective models that can be practiced and used
during their own teaching experiences in the schools. Faculty members model those strategies
that are most appropriate for the subject and grade level that candidates will be instructing. For
example, in a secondary social studies methods class, the instructor utilizes clicker technology in
the class along with an engaging questioning strategy to create an interactive learning
environment that can be used in a secondary social studies class. Candidates then assume the



                                                                                                 80
role of instructor and create this same type of learning environment with their own lessons that
they have developed. Next, candidates take this same instructional method and utilize it in a
secondary school setting. In this way the model demonstrated by the faculty members becomes a
valuable instructional strategy for all candidates in the secondary social studies program. All
Professional Education Faculty members in both initial and advanced programs use similar
techniques of modeling appropriate instructional strategies to prepare candidates for effective
teaching in the schools. Faculty members also use a wide-range of assessments to expose
candidates to many effective forms of performance based assessments. These include, among
other forms of assessments, traditional written examinations, class presentations, research papers,
individual and group projects, and most importantly, portfolio assessments. Candidates learn to
develop effective scoring rubrics to assess many forms of authentic assessment through the
development of their own teaching portfolio in College LiveText. Even though elementary and
secondary schools are not utilizing electronic portfolios for school students at this time,
candidates can see the potential value of this type of comprehensive assessment of student
learning through their own experiences at ASU.

5b.4. How do unit faculty members incorporate the use of technology into instruction?

Faculty members in the Professional Education Unit incorporate the use of technology into their
courses in a variety of methods. Faculty members feel that modeling the integration of
technology in the university classroom is imperative since it is essential for effective teaching in
the schools. Technology is utilized in many ways that range from basic word processing and
spreadsheet applications to on-line discussions in Blackboard.

The types of instructional technology and computer applications used by faculty members vary
based on the courses. For example, faculty in a traditional on-campus course may use
PowerPoint presentations and other digital media to convey important information while the
online version of the course would include PowerPoint presentations, podcasts, digital media,
discussion boards, electronic quizzes, and other class activities delivered through Blackboard.

In the teaching methods classes, faculty use and model instructional technologies that candidates
will use when they engage in field experiences or the teaching internship. For example,
instructors may demonstrate the use of a digital camera to record a class activity that is then
posted on a web page for viewing. Through this strategy, candidates experience the use of a
particular instructional technology that can be easily transferred to their teaching strategies.
Other methods classes may use the personal response systems (clickers) and wireless pad to
create an interactive learning environment. Faculty members also instruct candidates on the use
and proper evaluation of Internet sites for educational purposes.

In educational technology courses, faculty members use a wide-range of instructional
technologies including Microsoft applications and equipment such as digital camera along with
numerous web-based applications. In one methods class, faculty use Macintosh computers that
allow candidates to easily create their own unique multimedia presentations. An increased
number of students are creating a variety of digital media presentations as an authentic
representation of their knowledge and understanding. ASU is preparing teachers for this new
learning environment and paradigm shift.



                                                                                                  81
Professional Education Faculty use College LiveText to collect and assess candidates’ work.
Faculty members instruct candidates on the development of electronic portfolios in College
LiveText. Even though elementary and secondary schools in ASU’s service area are not
utilizing electronic portfolios for school students at this time, candidates can see the potential
value of this type of technology for displaying and assessing P-12 student work.

5b.5. How do unit faculty members systematically engage in self-assessment of their own
teaching?

The Professional Education Unit faculty members systemically engage in self-assessment of
their own teaching. Feedback provided to faculty which is used to monitor and make
adjustments in their teaching comes from many sources: (1) Student evaluations of faculty
teaching and course effectiveness is one such mechanism. Faculty use student evaluations to
make adjustments in content, assignments, and instructional techniques. Written comments by
students help faculty determine their strengths and weaknesses in regard to teaching ability and
effectiveness. (2) Tenured faculty evaluation conferences held annually with the department
chairs is another self-assessment used. At this time goals regarding teaching are set after faculty
have had time to reflect upon student and course evaluations. Pre-tenured faculty members have
assessment meetings with the chair of the department during the fall and spring. Teaching
evaluations are discussed, analyzed, and faculty set goals for the improvement of their teaching
at that time. (3) Licensing tests results are also used to modify course content. Course content is
examined in light of test results. (4) SPA requirements are an essential part of self-assessment.
Faculty members check course content to make sure all SPA requirements are covered
adequately. (5) Exit surveys are used in some departments to make changes in programs and
courses. Surveys are shared with faculty and self-assessment occurs. (6) Individual evaluations
are conducted. Some faculty members give their own evaluations at the end of the semester.
These evaluations help the faculty member determine which assignments and content were
deemed the most vital by students. Changes in assignments, content, and teaching techniques
ensue due to these evaluations. (7) Some faculty members’ self-assessment is more personal.
Some faculty keep journals which help them reflect on their teaching on a daily or weekly basis.
Other faculty members reflect on their teaching after each class and make needed changes at that
time in regard to content, presentation, or delivery. (8) Faculty members also periodically meet
to review syllabi and programs and make necessary changes. Faculty members who teach the
same courses work together to identify and initiate changes. (9) Other faculty members reflect
on their teaching through self-initiated research in their classes. (10) Faculty members also use
item analysis to revise test content, course materials, and course content. Professional Education
Faculty members continually strive to improve their teaching through the aforementioned self-
assessments.

5c. Modeling Best Professional Practices in Scholarship

5c.1. What types of scholarly work are expected of faculty as part of the institution's and
unit's mission?




                                                                                                     82
Faculty in the Professional Education Unit must be productive scholars in their fields to fulfill a
part of the institution’s and unit’s mission and to be eligible for tenure and promotion at
Arkansas State University. Faculty are expected to conduct scholarly research and to publish
articles and/or books in peer-reviewed publications that are in their respective fields of study, to
present their research at local, state, and national scholarly forums, and to participate actively in
state and national professional organizations. Faculty members submit annual reports of their
scholarly activities to their respective department chairs. The reports are used for department
merit rankings as well as pre-tenure critiques. The departments’ Promotion Retention and
Tenure (PRT) committees and department chairs meet with pre-tenure faculty annually to review
their progress in scholarly research to ensure that faculty members are fully informed of the
scholarly requirements for tenure and promotion.

5c.2. In what types of scholarship activities are faculty members engaged? How is their
scholarship related to teaching and learning? What percentage of the unit's faculty is
engaged in scholarship?

Professional Education Faculty are involved in a wide variety of scholarly activities ranging
from publishing books, chapters in books, articles in peer-reviewed publications, serving in
leadership positions in state and national professional organizations, and making presentations of
their scholarly research in local, state, national, and international forums. Most faculty scholarly
research activities are focused on either analyzing the current state of a particular teaching and
learning environment to gain an understanding of a contemporary educational setting that will
lead to improvements in that setting or they are involved in developing innovative strategies for
creating more effective teaching and learning environments. Others are involved in their
Specialized Professional Associations with the goal of maintaining high standards for all teacher
education candidates. Faculty presentations at local, state, national, and international forums
inform others either of their ongoing effective practices in teacher education or of their current
research on teaching and learning. Table 11: Faculty Qualifications Summary shows that 97%
of the Professional Education Faculty at ASU have been involved in scholarly activities in recent
years. Of the two faculty members who provided no evidence of scholarly research, both were
first year instructors in 2008-2009 who were not expected to engage in continuing efforts to
publish or present at conferences. The linked Faculty Scholarship table demonstrates the
extensive scholarly productivity of faculty at ASU. Many of them are leaders in state and
national organizations, bringing recognition to the Arkansas State University and the
Professional Education Unit.

5d. Modeling Best Professional Practices in Service

5d.1. What types of service are expected of faculty as part of the institution's and the unit's
mission?

Professional Education Faculty members serve in many capacities to fulfill a part of the
institution’s and unit’s mission and to be eligible for tenure and promotion at Arkansas State
University. Faculty members are expected to serve on department, college, professional
education unit, and university committees so that the work of the unit may be sustained. They
are expected to be willing to serve as academic advisors, if designated by the chair of the



                                                                                                   83
department. They are expected to be willing to serve in leadership positions within their
respective professional organizations and to serve on state boards and agencies when appointed
or invited. Most importantly, Professional Education Faculty members are expected to serve the
schools by being actively engaged in a variety of school experiences related to their educational
expertise.

5d.2. In what types of service activities are faculty members engaged? Provide examples of
faculty service related to practice in P-12 schools and service to the profession at the local,
state, national, and international levels (e.g., through professional associations). What
percentage of the faculty is actively involved in these various types of service activities?

Professional Education Faculty are engaged in many different types of service activities that
include service related to practice in P-12 schools and service to the profession at the local, state,
national, and international levels through professional associations. All Professional Education
Faculty actively serve the department, college, university, and the unit, which contributes to the
growth and development of curriculum and programs within the unit. Through service to the
schools and to the profession, Professional Education Faculty are constantly in contact with the
current practices in the schools and with the most recent research presented through professional
associations that allows them to adjust programs to meet the educational opportunities in the
schools based on the most current educational research.

Professional Education Faculty members participate in professional organizations through active
membership, attending conferences, and by holding leadership positions within professional
organizations. All (100%) of the faculty are members of professional organizations. While 33%
of the faculty have held actual leadership roles in their respective associations during the last
four years, many more have served in unofficial leadership capacities such as reviewing
proposals for a national conference, serving as a SPA reviewer, or assisting with organizing an
event.

The table below highlights a few areas of faculty involvement in service to P-12 schools. While
45% of the Professional Education Faculty documented providing professional development
seminars, judging a student competition or activity, serving as a consultant or member of an
advisory board, or serving in special service projects in the schools, almost all of the faculty
provide unofficial service to teachers and students while they are in the schools serving as
university supervisors for interns. Undocumented but frequent examples include, a university
supervisor meeting with a student to discuss a research project, a faculty member assisting
students with contacting university faculty concerning individual music lessons, or a faculty
member assisting a teacher with a technology problem in their room between class sessions.

                              Service to Professional Organizations

Type of Service Activity:            Number of       Number of       Number of        Number of
Professional Organizations           Faculty         Faculty         Faculty          Faculty
                                     Involved in     Involved in     Involved in      Involved in
                                     Activity        Activity        Activity         Activity
                                     2004-05         2005-06          2006-07         2007-2008



                                                                                                    84
Held leadership positions in
Professional Organizations, State
Boards, and Agencies
     Local                               4               2               3              5
     State                              13               9              13             19
     Regional                            3               3               1              3
     National/International              3               5               5             10
    Total                                23              19              22             37
Participated in Professional
Organizations
     Local                               19             20              21              22
     State                               73             75              76              77
     Regional                            19             19              20              21
     National/International              74             76              77              78
    Total                                185            195             194             198

Served as NCATE SPA Program
                                          3               3              4               4
Reviewer

The numbers on the chart represent a significant commitment on behalf of the Professional
Education Faculty in service to our teacher candidates and the teachers and students in the
schools through official activities. What is not shown on the chart are the countless hours that
Professional Education Faculty are engaged with public schools in seeking to improve the
opportunities not only for candidates, but also for P-12 students in the schools.

5e. Unit Evaluation of Professional Education Faculty Performance

5e.1. How are faculty evaluated? How regular, systematic, and comprehensive are the unit
evaluations of adjunct/part-time, tenured, and non-tenured faculty, as well as graduate
teaching assistants?

A comprehensive and systematic evaluation system that includes annual review of faculty
performance is required of each member for self-reflection and continuous improvement. In this
systematic evaluation system, each faculty member provides a productivity report for the Head
of the Unit; a PRT report for the Promotion, Retention, and Tenure (PRT) Committee; and, a
merit report for the head of the department. The productivity report, PRT report, and merit report
from an overlapping set of criteria assess all faculty members on teaching, scholarship, and
service.

Teaching, scholarship, and service provide the main focus for each of these documents included
in the unit’s systematic evaluations. Candidates rate professors’ teaching on a one to five Likert
scale. Tenure track faculty members are required to earn a 4.25 average in quality in teaching to
qualify for tenure. Regarding scholarship, scholarly publications and presentations in
international forums figure with much importance. Faculty members are expected to publish
books, research articles, and scholarly peer-reviewed international and national forums. Faculty



                                                                                                   85
members are also expected to present in international and national scholarly forums. Regarding
service, faculty members are expected to engage in community projects, participate in committee
work and create new department academic programs that serve the state and community.

5e.2. How well do faculty perform on the unit's evaluations?

Data from the spring 2009 Course/Faculty Evaluation Table indicate that faculty scored a mean
of 4.27 or greater on a 5 point scale where 5 was a grade of A, 4 a grade of B, 3 a grade of C, 2 a
grade of D and 1 a grade of F. The results of course/faculty evaluations indicate that our faculty
members are performing at a high level.

5e.3. How are faculty evaluations used to improve teaching, scholarship, and service?

Regarding the PRT and the merit reports mentioned above, each faculty member receives written
feedback. Each recipient of a report —PRT Committee, head of the department, Head of the
Unit, and Vice Chancellor— provide written feedback based on the evidence provided in the
reports. The written feedback, with a special focus on the department head’s written evaluation
and summative conference, make for a systematic evaluation system in which faculty reflect on
their professional practices in order to continuously improve how and what they teach. A system
of informal and formal mentoring and collaboration occur in the respective departments to foster
a continuous emphasis on improvement of professional practice. Faculty members who are
advancing at satisfactory or better rate in teaching, scholarship, and service toward tenure use
informal networks of mentoring and collaboration to reflect on and improve in the three areas.
Faculty members who are not advancing at a satisfactory rate in teaching, service, and/or
scholarship are required to engage in formal mentoring and collaborative relationships. Utilizing
the evaluation system that includes productivity, PRT, and merit reports; written feedback at all
levels and summative evaluations from the head of the department; and, systems of informal and
formal mentoring and collaboration, the unit provides for a system in which each faculty member
participates in on-going evaluation and self-reflection for continuous improvement.

5f. Unit Facilitation of Professional Development

5f.1. How is professional development related to needs identified in unit evaluations of
faculty? How does this occur?

Professional development for faculty is often related to needs identified in unit evaluations. This
occurs in a number of ways including direct input from faculty through suggestions for speakers
and workshops and sensitive readings of needs by the unit administration. Faculty members are
also provided with financial assistance to conference travel and scholarly activities. Sabbaticals
or compensated leave time is also recognized and supported as an excellent means of
professional development. After six academic years, a full academic year may be granted at half
salary or one semester of leave at full salary may be substituted. Since 2002, four faculty
members have applied for paid leave of absence (sabbatical) and all have been granted the
sabbatical in order to pursue their professional development.




                                                                                                 86
5f.2. What professional development activities are offered to faculty related to performance
assessment, diversity, technology, emerging practices, and/or the unit's conceptual
framework?

A commitment to professional development is evident through the numerous and varied
offerings and activities. Professional development is offered by the university, unit, college, and
departments throughout the year (Professional Development Opportunities table). This table
contains selected offerings by the College of Education as well as by other university entities.
Working with non-traditional students, addressing needs of the disadvantaged, and locating
venues for publication are just a few of the topics addressed by these activities. Faculty
members also receive financial assistance to attend conferences in their area of expertise which
provides personal professional development in faculty areas of expertise.

5f.3. How often does faculty participate in professional development activities both on and
off campus?

The Professional Development Opportunities table shows professional development activities
available to faculty. Professional development activities include workshops, lectures and other
development endeavors which are provided on a regular basis. The unit also supports activities
offered outside the university setting. Many of the aforementioned activities are optional but
encouraged while others are required

1. What does your unit do particularly well related to Standard 5?

The faculty members within the unit are highly qualified and model best practices in their
teaching, scholarship, and service. The Professional Education Faculty members at ASU are
particularly strong in the areas of service to professional organizations and presentations to
scholarly forums at the state/regional/national/international level.

Of significant importance is the high student evaluations received by faculty members. This is a
strong indication of faculty meeting the needs of the students,




                                                                                                 87
STANDARD 6. UNIT GOVERNANCE AND RESOURCES

The unit has the leadership, authority, budget, personnel, facilities, and resources, including
information technology resources, for the preparation of candidates to meet professional, state,
and institutional standards.

6a. Unit Leadership and Authority

6a.1. How does the unit manage or coordinate the planning, delivery, and operation of all
programs at the institution for the preparation of educators?

The Arkansas State University System is composed of four campuses: Arkansas State University
at Jonesboro, ASU Beebe, ASU Mountain Home and ASU Newport. The College of Education
is housed at the ASU Jonesboro campus and is headed by the dean who oversees the college. The
Dean of the College of Education dean is also the Head of Unit with decision-making authority
for the unit. In 2008-2009 the Professional Education Unit was comprised of 75 full-time faculty
in the unit and 13 part-time faculty in the unit and 25 adjunct faculty offering courses at ASU
Jonesboro and six degree centers. In the ASU Jonesboro organizational structure the College of
Education Dean is responsible to the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost who reports to the
Chancellor.

Multiple degree programs and licensure programs are available through the different departments
of the Professional Education Unit. The Department of Teacher Education offers three
undergraduate degrees and four graduate programs listed below. The department also teaches
the introduction to education course for secondary education majors as well as two pedagogy
classes for secondary education majors. Secondary majors include agriculture, art, business,
English, foreign languages, mathematics, music, sciences, and history.
     BSE in Early Childhood Education (PK-4)
     BSE in Early Childhood with Special Education Emphasis (PK-4)
     BSE in Middle Level Education (4-8)
     MSE Early Childhood Education (PK-4)
     MSE in Middle Level Education (4-8) (new program)
     MSE in Reading Education
     MS in Early Childhood Services (non-licensure)

The Department of Educational Leadership, Curriculum and Special Education offers six masters
degree programs and three specialists programs:
    MSE in Educational Leadership Principal Licensure
    MSE in Curriculum and Instruction: Director of Curriculum Licensure
    MSE in Curriculum and Instruction: Director of Special Education Licensure
    MSE in Curriculum and Instruction: Director of Gifted and Talented Licensure Program
    MSE in Curriculum and Instruction: Content Area Specialist
    MSE in Curriculum and Instruction: Career and Technical Education
    MSE in Special Education: P-4 Instructional Specialist Licensure
    MSE in Special Education: 4-12 Instructional Specialist Licensure


                                                                                               88
      MSE in Special Education: Gifted, Talented, and Creative Teacher Licensure
      MSE in Masters of Theory and Practice (no longer offered)
      MS in Masters of Theory and Practice (non-licensure) (new program)
      EdS in Educational Leadership
      EdS in Community College Teaching

The Department of Health, Physical Education, and Sport Sciences offers two degrees:
    BSE in Physical Education (K-12)
    MSE in Physical Education (K-12)

The Department of Psychology and Counseling offers one masters degree and one specialist
degree leading to licensure:
    MSE in the Counselor Education (P-12)
    EdS in School Psychology (P-12)

The Professional Education Unit committee structure is well established and works in concert
with university shared governance committees to facilitate the work of the Professional
Education Unit and to provide Professional Education Faculty input into the unit and university.
As the College of Education administrative organizational chart illustrates, College of Education
chairs and directors report to the Dean of the College and Head of the Unit. The Professional
Education Unit Organizational Flow Chart (p.18) outlines input from Professional Education
Faculty to the Head of the Unit. All Professional Education Faculty, constituent groups such as
degree center representatives, students, and public school professionals are expected to take an
active role in the governance of the unit.

The Council of Professional Education (COPE), which is composed of eight standing committee
chairs, five forum chairs, and elected college representatives, is central to the Professional
Education Unit committee structure and function. Issues from forums, committees, the Head of
the Unit, Administrative Council or Professional Education Faculty are directed to COPE which
will then be reviewed and any recommended action will then be forwarded on to the Head of the
Unit. The Head of the Unit may make a decision, or he may refer the issue to the Executive Vice
Chancellor and Provost or appropriate undergraduate or graduate committee. From these
committees, shared governance concerns will be sent to the Shared Governance Oversight
Committee who will forward items to the appropriate Shared Governance Committee for review
and feedback from constituencies. Feedback will return to the Shared Governance Oversight
Committee which will make recommendations to the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost. It
is the responsibility of the Head of the Unit to convene COPE in September of each academic
year for COPE elections.

There are six forums (p.3) that reflect program and degree paths from which Professional
Education Faculty can forward an issue directly to the Head of the Unit who will then pass it to
the COPE. Professional education faculty may also forward an issue through the forum
chairperson who are members of COPE. Professional Education Unit committees, (p.5) whose
eight members (p.4) represent the composition of the unit are responsible for the business of the
unit, such as unit planning, accumulating documents and ongoing NCATE activities. The chair
of each standing committee is also a member of COPE. Forum minutes and COPE minutes chart


                                                                                               89
the history of each committee. Also reporting to COPE is the Unit Assessment Committee (p.
17), a recently constituted oversight committee whose role is to oversee unit assessment
activities of the Professional Education Unit and to make recommendations to COPE concerning
the Professional Education Unit assessments.

The College of Education Dean consistently works with department chairs in the Administrative
Council (p.16), as indicated by the Administrative Council minutes and with other deans in the
Academic Dean’s Council and with the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost. The
commitment to shared governance is evident at ASU Jonesboro and is reflected in the ASU
Faculty Handbook.

The Office of Professional Education Programs is responsible for coordinating Professional
Education Programs. Among the duties of Professional Education Programs are managing
admissions, field experiences, internships, and relations with Partnership Schools. Partnership
schools have input into the Partnership Executive Board whose committee members include the
Dean of the College of Education, the Associate Dean and the Director of Professional Education
Programs.


6a.2. What are the unit's recruiting and admissions policies? How does the unit ensure that
they are clearly and consistently described in publications and catalogues?

In the ASU Jonesboro Strategic Plan one can find an expressed commitment to excellence and
diversity. Similarly, the College of Education policy (p.37) is to foster recruitment of quality
undergraduate and graduate students that reflect racial, ethnic and cultural diversity.
Commitment to recruitment is further expressed in the Professional Education Programs’
Director’s Welcome and as an outcome for new teachers (p.2).

Unit recruitment is active and starts early in student’s academic life at preadmission.
Opportunities to explore education as a major occur for qualified freshmen begin at New Student
Orientation (NSO) and continue at university Education Career Fairs. Nontraditional students
may explore the ASU program at the annual Arkansas Educator Career Fair. ASU Beebe houses
the Future Educator Club as a means for students to explore education. The Professional
Education Unit Diversity Committee (p.37) is responsible to oversee qualifications for admission
and recruitment of diverse students.

Among requirements for admission to the Teacher Education Program are passing scores on the
Praxis I Examination (Pre-Professional Skills Tests) and minimum GPA. During admission
students meet with the department screening committee which makes recommendations to the
Professional Education Programs Director. Admission to graduate programs requires students to
meet both Graduate School standards and the specific requirements of each department.

Procedures for ensuring the accuracy of policies are a function of unit committees working in
conjunction with ASU Jonesboro committees and procedures. Changes begin with department
curriculum committees (Professional Education Governance Handbook, (p.8). Approved
curriculum committee recommendations go to the department chairperson. Approved



                                                                                                   90
recommendations then go to the Head of the Unit who sends recommendations to the appropriate
COPE committee for review. Recruitment and admissions policies will be reviewed by the
Student Affairs Committee (p.5) who will recommend action back to COPE from which
recommendations will be made to the Head of the Unit. Potential undergraduate changes will be
sent to and reviewed by the Undergraduate Curriculum Council to changes in the undergraduate
student catalogue/bulletin. Potential graduate policy changes will be sent to and reviewed by the
Graduate Council leading to changes in the graduate catalogue/bulletin.

6a.3. How does the unit ensure that its academic calendars, catalogues, publications,
grading policies, and advertising are accurate and current?

Academic calendars are expected to be aligned with the ASU system calendar which is
developed up to three years in advance. Individual departments are expected to organize their
calendars in relation to the system calendar. Overseeing calendar development is the university
Academic Calendar Committee. Members of the committee represent the various ASU campuses
as well as representatives of various ASU Jonesboro committees and department chairpersons.
The Academic Calendar Committee reports to the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost. The
Department of Professional Education Programs coordinates the ASU calendar with public
schools and the Professional Education Unit to minimize disruptions.

Catalogue/bulletin changes require various levels of committees to function together. Changes
begin at one of two locations, at the department or through the COPE structure. In COPE,
bulletin changes would be reviewed by the Basic Curriculum or Advance Curriculum
Committee. In either situation the final disposition is determined by the Head of the Unit and
routed to the appropriate university committee. Undergraduate catalogue/bulletin changes are
sent to the Undergraduate Curriculum Council for review and on to the Executive Vice
Chancellor and Provost. Graduate catalogue/bulletin changes are sent to the Graduate Council
for review then to the Dean of the Graduate School.

ASU uses an A to F grading system for graduate and undergraduate courses. While students are
expected to maintain minimum grades while in various programs, standards for course grades are
developed by individual faculty members. Grade requirements are expected to be on all course
syllabi and readily available to students.

6a.4. How does the unit ensure that candidates have access to student services such as
advising and counseling?

ASU students are supported by an excellent advising and counseling system. First year students
at ASU Jonesboro begin with the Wilson Center for Academic Advising and Learning
Assistance during New Student Orientation and are able to access this center for support during
their tenure as a student. Upon committing to a field of study, the respective department assigns
candidates an advisor in their major. The Department of Teacher Education provides a link to
advising resources that directs students to general information including tips for working with
their advisor. Updates related to program issues are available through regular announcements.




                                                                                                 91
Advising is also provided for candidates at degree centers through on-site faculty, or advisors
specifically assigned to a degree center where there is no on-site faculty. ASU advisors have
opportunities for professional development to strengthen advising skills and the Advisor
Handbook provides a ready general reference for advisors. Within the Professional Education
Unit advisors who are faculty members kept current in their advising knowledge through
department and Professional Education Unit meetings.

Housed within Student Affairs the Department of Counseling Services at ASU Jonesboro
provides career counseling, personal counseling, academic counseling as well as outreach
services for students and candidates. Degree center counseling services are also provided by
ASU-Mountain Home Student Services, ASU-Beebe in the Guidance Services Office. Students
may self-refer to counseling or can be referred by faculty members.

6a.5. Which members of the professional community participate in program design,
implementation, and evaluation? In what ways do they participate?

The success of individual programs is primarily the responsibility of the respective area groups
housed within different departments. The area groups are responsible for the design,
modification and implementation of programs. Program assessment is primarily the
responsibility of departments and the Program Evaluation Committee. The Unit Assessment
Committee’s responsible is for evaluating unit data to determine the academic health of the unit.
Program concerns that may arise outside the context of an area group or department may be
introduced through the COPE/forum structure and presented to the Head of the Unit. COPE has
oversight of Professional Education Unit program changes which require catalogue/bulletin
changes. Data are provided by the Professional Education Programs office and the NCATE
Coordinator to the area groups to assist in the evaluation of their programs.

Stakeholders from public schools are involved more specifically in the pre-intern field placement
and the internship courses. They have input concerning the program through the Professional
Education Unit or through the Executive Board which contains members representing the
schools and the Head of the Unit.

6a.6. How does the unit facilitate collaboration with other academic units involved in the
preparation of professional educators?

Collaboration with other academic units is not by default, but rather by design. The Professional
Education Governance Handbook establishes a framework whereby collaboration is facilitated.
This governance document requires that each college which has a Professional Education
program have a representative on the Council on Professional Education, which is responsible
for insuring the quality of the Professional Education programs.

6b. Unit Budget

6b.1. What is the budget available to support programs preparing candidates to meet
standards? How does the unit's budget compare to the budgets of other units with clinical
components on campus or similar units at other institutions?



                                                                                                  92
Prior to the beginning of the next fiscal year, the university prepares a budget for the Board of
Trustees to review. Once approved by the Board, the university begins the year with budgeted
dollars. When the fiscal year ends, the expended dollars are accounted for by the budgetary unit.
For purposes of this report, budgeted dollars are used which reflect the planning and allocation of
funds.

An analysis of financial allocations and expenditures was provided by the Office of Institutional
Research, Planning and Assessment. FTE undergraduate student numbers were derived by
totaling the undergraduate semester credit hours generated by the college during the fiscal year
and dividing by 30. FTE graduate student numbers were derived by totaling the graduate
semester credit hours and dividing by 24. FTE faculty members were derived by totaling the
number of credit hours taught by an individual during an academic year and dividing by 24.
Credit hours taught by adjuncts, graduate assistants, and others have been included in the FTE
numbers.

Some limitations exist. For example, Banner Finance was implemented in January 2006. Its
accounting system is very different from the previous FRS system so precise comparisons before
and after the implementation date are difficult to make. Also, restructuring of some colleges has
occurred since 2002 which impacted the budget allocations. However, even with the limitations
relatively accurate comparisons can be made.

The following funds Academic Capital Support, Technology Fee Allocations, Student
Infrastructure Fund, Faculty Development Fund , Indirect Allocations, Library Allocations ,
Scholarly Development , and Supplies and Services all directly or indirectly support programs
preparing candidates to meet standards. The tables indicate the College of Education funding
allocations are comparable and proportional to the other ASU colleges. The College of
Education is provided support for effective teaching, scholarship, service, and clinical and field
experiences from a variety of sources.

6b.2. How adequately does the budget support all programs for the preparation of
educators? What changes to the budget over the past few years have affected the quality of
the programs offered?

The unit budget adequately supports the programs for the preparation of K-12 teachers and other
school professionals. ASU has consistently increased the unit budgets for instruction. From
2005-2006 to 2009-2010 the instructional budget increased from $6,020,872 to $6,362,882 for a
total increase of $342,010 (5.6%) (Budgeted Instruction Support). Additional ways instruction is
supported is supplies and services allocations. This fund has been reduced across the university
in an attempt to meet recent revenue declines (Supplies and Services by Colleges). The
following funds Academic Capital Support, Technology Fee Allocations, Student Infrastructure
Fund, Faculty Development Fund all directly or indirectly impact instruction. The College of
Education allocations are adequate and proportional to the other colleges. In addition, faculty
members receive institutional research funds through the Office of Research and Technology.
Over the past four years, the faculty members of the College of Education have received the




                                                                                                 93
most support for faculty development and grant activities from the Office of Research and
Technology.

6c. Personnel

6c.1. What are the institution's and unit's workload policies? What is included in the
workloads of faculty (e.g., hours of teaching, advising of candidates, supervising student
teachers, work in P-12 schools, independent study, research, administrative duties, and
dissertation advisement)?

The College of Education applies the faculty workload formula found in the Faculty Handbook.
Teaching load of the faculty is normally twelve hours per semester for undergraduate courses
and nine hours per semester for graduate courses. Teaching load for chairs is normally six credit
hours each regular semester and three credit hours each summer term. Teaching load for deans
is normally three credit hours per academic year, but may vary according to other duties of the
deanship.

Faculty work load also includes research, creative activity, and service. An overload teaching
assignment occurs only when a faculty member is assigned a teaching load of more than fifteen
credit hours per semester, or when a chair is assigned a teaching load of more than nine hours per
semester, or when a dean is assigned a teaching load of more than six credit hours per semester.
When an overload teaching assignment occurs, arrangements are made by the department chair
or dean to provide for extra compensation (p.47) according to policy, future reassignment time or
other compensation as appropriate.


6c.2. What are the faculty workloads for teaching and the supervision of clinical practice?

The workload in the supervision of clinical practice does not exceed 18 candidates for each full-
time equivalence faculty. The Professional Education Faculty Workload table provides specific
workloads of faculty members who provide clinical supervision.

6c.3. To what extent do workloads and class size allow faculty to be engaged effectively in
teaching, scholarship, and service (including time for such responsibilities as advisement,
developing assessments, and online courses)?

The workload policies are designed to allow faculty to provide excellence in teaching,
scholarship, and service. As previously stated, a typical workload for faculty is twelve hours
undergraduate courses per semester and nine hours for graduate courses. However, department
chairs attempt to provide faculty members with a limited number of preparations and/or release
time for administration or other projects when possible in order to improve faculty effectiveness.
Class size is ultimately determined by class type and room considerations with the type of class
ultimately being the most important consideration. Student and faculty success weigh heavily
into decisions about class size. Evidence of the quality of teaching is reflected on the Spring
2009 Course/Faculty Evaluations. On the question, ―My overall rating of this instructor is…‖




                                                                                                94
candidates’ responses resulted in a mean of 4.39 where 5 = A, 4 = B, 3 = C, 2 = D and 0 = F.
Evidence of scholarship is reflected in the table Faculty Scholarship 2004-2009.

6c.4. How does the unit ensure that the use of part-time faculty contributes to the integrity,
coherence, and quality of the unit and its programs?

The hiring of adjunct faculty (part-time or full-time faculty who are hired for a one year contract
to fill an immediate need) is generally initiated at the department level. Potential faculty
members may be known to department chairs or may have submitted a request for employment.
For undergraduate courses the department chair will review applicant vitae for qualifications. A
recommendation will be made to the Dean and if accepted, hired by the department.

The Center for Regional Programs assists in the hiring of adjunct faculty at the degree centers for
instructors of courses that are required by the program, but not taught out of the Department of
Teacher Education, e.g. GSP 3203 Science for Teachers. The Dean of Regional Programs
recommends an adjunct faculty, the department chair and college dean review the potential
faculty credentials, if deemed qualified the individual is put into a faculty pool for a three year or
five year approval cycle.

Overall the integration of adjunct faculty members into the unit tends to be informal and subject
to individual department practice. The Department of Psychology and Counseling and the
Department of Health, Physical Education and Sport Sciences work to hire faculty with prior
experience with courses. The Department of Teacher Education has the most formalized process
with the use of Course Groups; groups of three to six members, including adjuncts, who teach a
course and who work together to plan the course experience. The Department of Educational
Leadership, Curriculum and Special Education occasionally requires adjunct faculty to team-
teach a course prior to teaching it alone; this is most frequent with compressed video classes
where the course is televised to off ASU Jonesboro sites.

Adjunct faculty members are expected to follow course curricula. A course syllabus is provided
as is the text and related materials. Department chairs work with part-time faculty members to
assist them in meeting university, college and departmental expectations. Course/faculty
evaluations by students are required for each class an adjunct faculty member teaches. The
evaluations are reviewed by department chairs to ensure the performance of faculty meets
program needs.

6c.5. What personnel provide support for the unit? How does the unit ensure that it has an
adequate number of support personnel?

There are fourteen full-time and one part-time professional support personnel providing
assistance to these divisions. There is no ratio or formula for the number of support personnel
per faculty member, however, the dean and chairs meet with the support personnel on a regular
basis to communicate programs needs as well as to provide feedback based on employee
evaluations. Graduate assistants and student employees assist the professional support personnel
in caring out their responsibilities.




                                                                                                   95
Overall, the support staff is adequate to meet the needs of the respective divisions within the
College of Education. In addition, the Professional Education programs outside the College of
Education are provided support from their respective colleges/departments.

6c.6. What financial support is available for professional development activities for
faculty?

Faculty members receive professional development support from various sources. Faculty
Development Allocations from the Academic Affairs and Research Office, Departmental
Supplies and Services Allocations, the Diversity Office, grants, and Indirect Cost Funds which is
allocated to the Deans. The College of Education Dean uses a large portion of the Indirect Cost
Funds to support professional development. Finally, the Office of Research and Technology
Transfer provides support for professional development and grant activities (Scholarly
Development Funds). Furthermore, there are outstanding opportunities sponsored and held on
the ASU campus (ASU Professional Development Opportunities).

Although funds have been limited in recent years, the College of Education Dean, Department
chairs and central administration have attempted to maximize funding and professional
development opportunities.

6d. Unit facilities

6d.1. How adequate are unit--classrooms, faculty offices, library/media center, the
technology infrastructure, and school facilities--to support teaching and learning?

Faculty private office space and instructional environments at ASU Jonesboro are housed in
three buildings. In all buildings office space is currently adequate and meets the needs of full
time Professional Education Faculty. All full-time faculty members have individual private
offices with work space available for most graduate assistants. The College of Education
building houses the Department of Psychology and Counseling, Teacher Education, the
Professional Education Program, and the Dean of Education. The Department of Health,
Physical Education and Sport Sciences is housed in a separate building. Likewise, the
Department of Educational Leadership, Curriculum, and Special Education and the Center for
Excellence in Education are housed in a separate building (newly renovated, 2008-09).
Classroom facilities in all buildings are adequate for teacher preparation programs

The College of Education Clinic is available to all programs in the College of Education, by
reservation. A variety of small group rooms are available in the clinic, many with one-way
mirrors. Additionally, many of the rooms have video and audio-recording capabilities.

6e. Unit resources including technology

6e.1. How does the unit allocate resources across programs to ensure candidates meet
standards in their field of study?




                                                                                                   96
Annually, each academic department within the College of Education receives a supplies and
services allocation from the Academic Affairs Research Office. The department chairs have the
responsibility to insure that the candidates meet the program and university graduation
requirements. The supplies and services funding has been reduced over the past three years.
However, we have been able to meet the needs of our faculty and candidates with the Dean’s
office providing additional support to supplement the departments.

6e.2. What information technology resources support faculty and candidates? What
evidence shows that candidates and faculty use these resources?

Student technology fees are earmarked for the Infrastructure Fund budget. Infrastructure funds
are designated for the development of technology used in the classrooms and in the computer
labs. Over the last six years, $540,066 has been spent out of this fund to support candidates’
information technology needs. College LiveText training has also been available to candidates.
This has insured that candidates are familiar with College LiveText and are proficient in
submitting Professional Education course assignments in this format.

Each faculty member is provided with a computer and teaching stations are also provided in each
classroom. One of the primary supports for faculty in the use of technology is the Interactive
Teaching and Technology Center, which provides relevant informational technology and training
and support. College LiveText training has also been available to faculty. This has insured that
faculty members are familiar with College LiveText and are proficient in assessing candidates’
assignments which have been submitted in this format.

The College of Education also has on staff a full-time Computer Support Specialist, which
installs new computers in labs, classrooms and faculty offices and keeps them maintained. In
addition, the University Educational Technology Committee exists to address issues concerning
technology assisted education, e.g., IPTV, CVN and web-based, including the implementation of
courses and/or degrees at distant sites. Finally, the Information Technology Services Help Desk
also provides support to any information technology problem a candidate or faculty may have.

Technology requirements are imbedded in each Professional Education course. Many
assignments and projects are expected to be completed using technology.

6e.3. What resources are available for the development and implementation of the unit's
assessment system?

Both financial and human resources have been committed to the development and
implementation to the unit’s assessment system. Approximately one fourth of the Associate
Dean of the College of Education’s workload is committed to assessment. A half-time faculty
member, who has been assisting the assessment process for the last two years, has taken over the
role of the NCATE Coordinator to oversee the logistics of the assessment system while the
College of Education is without an Associate Dean. The Professional Education office has a
staff of five full-time personnel. One of the Professional Education office’s responsibilities is to
gather data and generate reports. A half-time faculty position is committed to providing support
for faculty and students in the use of College LiveText. The Institutional Research, Planning and



                                                                                                 97
Assessment office also provides support by reporting internally consistent and accurate
information and by conducting analysis which facilitates strategic planning, accreditation, and
enrollment management initiatives while assisting in the assessment and continuous
improvement of institutional effectiveness, academic programs, and student learning.

Furthermore, all members of the NCATE Steering Committee have been to at least one NCATE
conference in the last two years. Four faculty members, including the College LiveText support
person have been to the annual College Livetext Conference on six occasions. Representative
from College LiveText have also been on our campus on four occasions to conduct training and
assist with implementation. These resources have been adequate for the Professional Education
Unit to develop and implement the assessment system.

6e.4. What library and curricular resources exist at the institution? How does the unit
ensure they are sufficient and current?

The Dean B. Ellis Library is centrally located on the ASU campus in a 215,792 square foot
eight-story building and functions as an educational center for the community. A staff of 14
professional librarians and 20 support personnel acquires, organizes, and services the collection.
The reference staff also offers an active library instruction program which reaches numerous
university classes. Library access to hundreds of online databases and search services is provided
via the internet through the library’s web site. Materials not contained in the library’s collection
are obtainable by interlibrary loan through the Online Computer Library Catalog network. Data
reveals the library holdings to consist of 612,835 books, 1,738 subscriptions to current
periodicals, and 586,607 units of microfilm. The Kraus Curriculum Development Library has
historically been available in the library to education students; a current form of the Kraus library
is accessible to students as a database.

The building also houses computer labs managed by Information and Technology Services that
are available to all students. The Interactive Teaching and Technology Center focuses on
working with learning and teaching technologies of all kinds. Services are available to all faculty
members, and include training and support for various teaching and learning tools, such as:
Blackboard, Tegrity, Respondus, Dream Weaver, Digitizing Media, MS Office Suite, Pod
Casting, Video Casting, Screen and Audio Capture, Web Site Creation and many others.

All departments receive a yearly allocation for purchasing audio, video and text resources for the
library. (ASU Library Allocations) Faculty members are expected to send materials requests to
the library reflecting professional needs and current professional literature. Students are allowed
to order three books per semester to be placed in the library. Reports of new acquisitions ordered
by departments are periodically sent to the department.

6e.5. How does the unit ensure the accessibility of resources to candidates, including
candidates in off-campus, distance learning, and alternate route programs, through
electronic means?

ASU-Jonesboro has one internet trunk line connection available resulting in multiple means to
make resources available electronically to candidates. All satellite campuses in the ASU system



                                                                                                  98
have technology support personnel, and should further assistance be required, ASU Information
and Technology Services (ITS) can be contacted. A pool of ASU supported software such as
Microsoft Office and Symantec AntiVirus is made available to students through downloads to
keep students current with necessary requisite software. A list of unsupported software is also
suggested to facilitate students’ likely success with electronic coursework requirements.


Distance learning at ASU is especially strong and supportive of students. The library currently
houses four compressed video classrooms from which classes can be broadcast to satellite
classrooms allowing for two way conversation and an enriched learning environment. Besides
the technical and library resources at satellite campuses, high-speed connections to the ASU
Jonesboro library make accessing professional databases easy and practical to students. National
and international databases are open to candidates and the on-line interlibrary loan abilities make
accessing digital literature possible and timely.

 More online and web-assist classes and programs are becoming available. Eighty-three percent
of the Masters in Special Education is available on-line. The new Masters in Educational Theory
and Practice non-licensure program has recently become available to a multistate region through
a third-party vendor and other programs are expected to come online soon. Recent innovations
such as virtual classrooms are being explored . All faculty members are accessible to students by
office email and telephone.

Optional

1. What does your unit do particularly well related to Standard 6?

The recent changes in the Professional Education Unit’s governance has resulted in a more
comprehensive level of input from all professional education programs, including those
programs housed outside the College of Education. All unit program stakeholders are
represented in the governance structure.




                                                                                                 99
                                  Glossary of Acronyms


AACSB – Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
ACTFL – American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages
ADTEC - Arkansas Delta Training Education Consortium
ASU – Arkansas State University
BSE – Bachelor’s of Science in Education
CACREP – Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs
CEC – Council for Exceptional Children
COPE - Council of Professional Education
CVN – Compressed Video Network
DIBELS – Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills
DRA – Developmental Reading Assessment
ECH – Early Childhood Education
EdD – Doctorate of Education
EdS – Specialist of Education
ERZ – Educational Renewal Zone
ELCC – Educational Leadership Constituent Council
ETEN – European Teacher Education Network
FTE – Full-time Equivalent
GPA – Grade Point Average
IEP – Individual Education Plan
IFSP - Individualized Family Service Plan
IPTV – Internet Protocol Television
IRA - International Reading Association
ISTE - International Society for Technology in Education
ITP – Individual Training Plan
MS – Master’s of Science
MSE – Master’s of Science in Education
MLED - Middle Level Education
NAEYC – National Association for Education for Young Children
NAGC – National Association of Gifted Children
NASAD – National Association of Schools of Art and Design
NASM – National Association of Schools of Music
NASP – National Association of School Psychologists
NCSS – National Council for Social Studies
NCTM – National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
NMSA – National Middle School Association
NSTA – National Science Teachers Association
PRT – Promotion, Retention, Tenure
SCED – Secondary Education
SPA – Special Area Groups, e.g. International Reading Association
STEM - Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics
TEP – Teacher Education Program



                                                                                    100