Docstoc

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR ACCREDITATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION

Document Sample
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR ACCREDITATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION Powered By Docstoc
					September 2005


                        Program Report for the
         Initial Preparation of Physical Education Teachers
      American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, &
    Dance/American Association for Health Education (AAHPERD/NASPE)

  NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR ACCREDITATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION

                              COVER SHEET

Institution      Lock Haven University                            State PA

Date submitted       February 1, 2008

Name of Preparer Paul C. Ballat, Ph.D            and    Bridget Roun, M.S.

Phone # (570) 484 – 2660                           Email pballat@lhup.edu
        (570) 484 – 2285                                 vroun@lhup.edu

Program documented in this report:
      Name of institution’s program (s) BS, Health and Physical Education
      Grade levels for which candidates are being prepared K - 12
      Degree or award level BS in Education
      Is this program offered at more than one site? □ Yes       X No
          If yes, list the sites at which the program is offered


       Title of the state license for which candidates are prepared

        K-12 Health and Physical Education, Level I


Program report status:
    X Initial Review
     Response to a Not Recognized Decision
     Response to National Recognition With Conditions
     Response to a Deferred Decision


State licensure requirement for national recognition:
NCATE requires 80% of the program completers who have taken the test to pass the applicable
state licensure test for the content field, if the state has a testing requirement. Test information
and data must be reported in Section III. Does your state require such a test?
      X Yes           □ No



Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                             1
September 2005


GENERAL DIRECTIONS

To complete a program report, institutions must provide evidence of meeting AAHPERD/NASPE standards
based on data from 6-8 assessments. In their entirety, the assessments and data required for submission
in this report will answer the following questions:

   Have candidates mastered the necessary knowledge for the subjects they will teach or the jobs they
    will perform?
   Do candidates meet state licensure requirements?
   Do candidates understand teaching and learning and can they plan their teaching or fulfill other
    professional education responsibilities?
   Can candidates apply their knowledge in classrooms and schools?
   Do candidates focus on student learning?

To that end, the program report form includes the following sections:

Section I. Context (6-page maximum narrative, plus three attachments not to exceed 5 pages each)
Provide general information on the program as specified by the directions for this section.

Section II. List of Assessments (completion of chart)
Using the chart included in this report form, indicate the name, type, and administration point for each of
the 6-8 assessments documented in this report. (Note that Section IV of the report form lists examples of
assessments that may be appropriate for each type of assessment that must be documented in the
program report.)

Section III. Relationship of Assessments to Standards (completion of chart)
Using the chart included in this report form, indicate which of the assessments listed in Section II provide
evidence of meeting specific program standards.

Section IV. Evidence for Meeting Standards (attachments of the assessment, scoring guide/criteria,
and data tables plus a 2-page maximum narrative for each of the 6-8 assessments)
Attach assessment documentation plus a narrative statement for each assessment as specified by the
directions for this section.

Section V. Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance (3-
page maximum narrative)
Describe how faculty are using the data from assessments to improve candidate performance and the
program, as it relates to content knowledge; pedagogical and professional knowledge, skills, and
dispositions; and student learning.

Section VI. For Revised Reports Only
Describe what changes or additions have been made in the report to address the standards that were not
met in the original submission. List the sections of the report you are resubmitting and the changes that
have been made. Specific instructions for preparing a revised report are available on the NCATE web site
at http://www.ncate.org/institutions/process.asp?ch=4.


Format and page limits for narrative sections and attachments:
Narrative: Sections I, IV, and V include narrative sections based on specific directions and page limits.
Page limits are based on single-spaced text using 12-point type.
Attachments: Sections I and IV include attachments. In general, attachments should be no longer than
the equivalent of five text pages.




2                                                         Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005


 NCATE staff may require institutions to revise reports that do not follow directions on format and page
limits. In addition, hyperlinks imbedded in report documentation will not be read by reviewers and cannot
be used as a means of providing additional information.

______________________________________________________
Program report information on the web: http://www.ncate.org/institutions/process.asp?ch=10.
To download report forms: http://www.ncate.org/institutions/programStandards.asp?ch=4.



                     Specific Instructions for NASPE (Initial)
Who Should Submit Program Reports:
     The Initial Standards relate to programs whose candidates will be receiving initial
     licensure in physical education upon graduation.

NASPE National Recognition Decision Rules:
     All standards must be met.

Additional Assessment Types (beyond the first 5 required types) required by
NASPE:
      None

Other specific information required by NASPE only:
      None

Will NASPE accept grades as one of the assessments?
      Yes. However, if grades are used as the assessment or included in the assessment, you
      must provide information on the criteria for those grades and describe how they align
      with the specialty standards




Other resources are available on the NASPE web site at:
http://www.aahperd.org/naspe/template.cfm?template=programs-ncate.html




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                                   3
September 2005


                                        SECTION I—CONTEXT

Provide the following contextual information:
1. Description of any state or institutional policies that may influence the application of
   AAHPERD/NASPE standards.
2. Description of the field and clinical experiences required for the program, including the
   number of hours for early field experiences and the number of hours/weeks for student
   teaching or internships.
3. Description of the criteria for admission, retention, and exit from the program, including
   required GPAs and minimum grade requirements for the content courses accepted by the
   program.
4. Description of the relationship1 of the program to the unit’s conceptual framework.
5. Indication of whether the program has a unique set of program assessments and their
   relationship of the program’s assessments to the unit’s assessment system2.

Attach the following contextual information:
1. A program of study that outlines the courses and experiences required for candidates to
   complete the program. The program of study must include course titles. (This information
   may be provided as an attachment from the college catalog or as a student advisement
   sheet.)
2. Chart with the number of candidates and completers (Attachment A at end of form).
3. Chart on program faculty expertise and experience (Attachment B at end of form).

                                               (response limited to 6 pages, not including attachments)




SECTION I—CONTEXT (6pg max narr. + 3 attachments not to exceed 5
pgs each)

SECTION I—CONTEXT

1. Description of state or institutional policies that may influence the application of
NCATE/NCSS standards.

1870 characters – 2000 limit
Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania (LHUP) serves approximately 5000 students and is a
rural university located in north central Pennsylvania. One policy that influences the application
of NASPE standards is a system-wide policy requiring all degree programs contain a maximum
of 120 credit hours. This policy conflicts with requirements of a strong emphasis in liberal arts
and meeting mutiple accreditation requirements. The Unit requires that candidates show
competency in the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC)

1
  The response should describe the program’s conceptual framework and indicate how it reflects the unit’s conceptual
framework
2
  This response should clarify how the key assessments used in the program are derived from or informed by the
assessment system that the unit will address under NCATE Standard 2.


4                                                             Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005


standards through preparation and presentation of two electronic portfolios and a Teacher Work
Sample (TWS) that is completed during student teaching. These policies influence application of
standards, but assure well-qualified candidates. Difficulties do arise in aligning requirements
with program requirements. Another factor that influences the program is that north central
Pennsylvania is a rural area with limited diversity. Therefore, the institution is constrained from
providing candidates with a variety of embedded experiences with diverse students and
programs. Finally, two additional policies of the Unit and/or of the Pennsylvania State
Department of Education (PDE) influence the application of NASPE standards and place content
knowledge at the forefront of Health & Physical Education certification at Lock Haven
University. PRAXIS II is a requirement for state certification with a qualifying score of 146 and
an overall GPA of 3.0 is required for acceptance for candidacy in the teacher education program
with a 3.0 GPA also required for major coursework.

In addition, we have a duel certification program in both Health Education and Physical
Education. For accreditation purposes, we try to meet requirements for PDE, NASPE, and
AAHE within the guidelines set by the PA State System of Higher Education.


2. Description of the field and clinical experiences required for the program, including the
number of hours for early field experiences and the number of hours/weeks for student
teaching and internships.

3999 characters – 4000 limit
Candidates in the HPE program have ample hands-on experience in the public schools. Table 1
shows the time and activities for each of the required field and clinical experiences.

a. Stage I - Professional Development Activity Hours (PDA’s) School Setting
PDA’s begin in the Foundations of PE and Foundation of Health courses. Candidates complete
8-10 hours per course. Forty hours in school settings and 40 are career related. School PDA’s are
8-10 hours in each area: K-6 Health, K-6 PE, 7-12 Health, 7-12 PE and Other (Adapted PE or
Diversity). Career related PDA’s are 10 hours in each: Coach/Officiate, Supervision, Community
Health and Others (Special Olympics or Second Mile). All PDA’s need prior approval of
academic advisor.

b. Stage II - Career Related (PDA’s)
Students complete another 40 hours in Coaching/Officiating, Supervision, Community Health
and Other.

c. Professional Semester – Block
One strength is the candidates’ early exposure to actual teaching. Candidates are required to
complete a field placement along with a “block” of courses (Teach Health Strategies, Teach PE
Strategies, Organization & Administration of PE, Measurement for Evaluation in HPE, Teach
Adapted PE, Adventure Activities & Outdoor Pursuits and Professional Development). In block,
candidates are assigned to an elementary and secondary public school in a neighboring school
district. Each candidate completes at least 72 hours of observation/participation per placement
under the guidance of a PA Certified HPE Specialist. Candidates are assigned to schools that



Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                             5
September 2005


provide a host of teaching experiences. A Diversity Profile Plan aids in the placing of
candidates. All block candidates are assigned student(s) identified by local schools as having
special need(s). During this lab, students with disabilities come to LHUP’s campus where HPE
candidates provide Individualized Instruction along with local special education’s teachers and
under the direction of our adapted physical education specialist.

Each methods course incorporates theory, content and pedagogy. The course sequence is
designed so that objectives build upon one another. Knowledge, skills and dispositions are linked
to practical application in both theory and activity courses.

d. Student Teaching (ST) The culminating clinical experiences are two 7.5 weeks placements.
One 7.5 week placement is in K-6 and the other is in 7-12. ST placements are assigned using the
block placements to insure diverse experiences. During ST, candidates receive the support and
guidance of both a cooperating teacher and a university supervisor (may include the program
coordinator or the Director of Student Teaching). The cooperating teacher conducts a formative
and summative assessment by completing a ST Competency Form. The University Supervisor
conducts a minimum of four visits during each placement, one early and informal early, at least
two formal observations, and a follow-up conference with the student teacher and cooperating
teacher. In addition, STs meet weekly for an on-site two-hour Practicum session with their
University Supervisor. An additional strength is that all supervision is conducted by a HPE
University Supervisor who has public school teaching experience. The University Supervisors
are also teaching members of the LHUP HPE faculty.

Critical to the success of the field and clinical component of our program is our commitment to
provide structured monitoring and support of candidates learning off-campus. We maintain
regular contact with teacher candidates and our school-based colleagues. The program
coordinator is responsible for the block placements and the Director of Student Teaching
coordinates student teaching.

Candidates may fulfill one of their two 7.5 week placements at one of our partner sites in
Australia, Croatia, England, Ireland, or Spain. In prior semesters, two HPE University
Supervisors traveled to England and Australia.

See Attachment I for Table 1: Field Placements and Clinical Experiences.




6                                                   Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
  September 2005


  Attachment I: Table 1: Field Placements and Clinical Experiences.


             Stage I                              Stage II                Professional Semester -        Student Teaching
                                                                          Block
40 Hours    School Setting PDA’s     40 Hours    Career Related PDA’s

 8 Hours    K-6 Health               10 Hours    Coaching/Officiating     72 Hours in Elementary (K-6)   2 - 7.5 week Placements
 8 Hours    K-6 PE                               at all levels            Placement
 8 Hours    7-12 Health              10 Hours    Supervision in Sport
 8 Hours    7-12 PE                              and Fitness              72 Hours in Secondary (7-12)   1 Elementary (K–6)
 8 Hours    Other – e.g., Adapted    10 Hours    Community Health         Placement                      1 Secondary (7–12)
            PE, Culturally           10 Hours    Other – e.g., Special
            Diverse, or Special                  Olympics or Second
            Education                            Mile

            Assessments:                         Assessments:             Assessments: Lesson Plans,     Assessments: Student
            Verification of hours                Verification of hours    TWS, Reflections               Teaching Competency
            and Supervisor                       and Supervisor                                          Form completed by
            Evaluation                           Evaluation                                              cooperating teacher,
                                                                                                         Teacher Work Sample,
10 Hours    Diversity – based on     10 Hours    Diversity – based on                                    Senior Portfolio, Lesson
            Individual Diversity                 Individual Diversity                                    Plans, Reflections,
            Profile Plan in                      Profile Plan in                                         Disposition Form,
            conjunction with                     conjunction with                                        Supervisor Checklist
            Academic Advisor                     Academic Advisor                                        PDE 430 Form completed
                                                                                                         by University Supervisor in
            Assessments:                         Assessments:                                            both placements
            Diversity Essay and                  Diversity Essay and
            Diversity Verification               Diversity Verification
            Form                                 Form




  Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                       7
September 2005



3. Description of the criteria for admission, retention, and exit from the program, including
required GPAs and minimum grade requirements for the content courses accepted by the
program.

1429 - 2,000 limit
The Unit has specific stages for admission, retention and exit from all programs, as well as
additional stages for certification and post graduation. The Health and Physical Education
program follows the same stages. Each stage has been divided into “requirements” and
“assessments” to distinguish between the actual Unit Assessment System and other requirements
used as benchmarks used to help monitor the candidates’ progress within our program. The
attached chart outlines the criteria used for each stage.

Stage I , Candidacy, is the point at which students make application to be admitted into the
Health and Physical Education program. Candidates must have the major GPA of 3.0 and overall
GPA of 3.0 as well as have passed the Praxis I (Basic Skills) examination. Stage II is the point at
which candidates present their Developing Portfolio before being admitted into the Professional
Semester. Stage III is the point at which candidates are admitted into Student Teaching. Stage IV
is the point at which candidates exit Student Teaching and present their Senior Portfolios. Stage
V is the stage at which candidates apply for PA state certification. Stage VI is a post-graduation
stage.

At all stages, the required GPA is an overall 3.0 with a C or better in all major courses.

See Attachment II for Table 2: Admission, retention and exit criteria for the Health and Physical
Education Program and the Unit Assessment System.




8                                                     Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
         September 2005



Attachment II: Table 2: Admission, Retention and Exit Criteria for the Health and Physical Education Program and the Unit Assessment System.
  Initial Programs           Stage I                Stage II                Stage III                   Stage IV                Stage V          Stage VI          Unit Operations
                            Candidacy         Entrance To Block:       Entrance to Student         Exit from Student          Certification        Post
                                                  Developing                Teaching                Teaching: Senior                            Graduation
                                                   Portfolio                                            Portfolio
 Early Childhood       Requirements          Requirements           Requirements                Requirements               Requirements       Assessments       Assessments
  Education              GPA 3.0              Overall GPA 3.0       Overall GPA 3.0            Overall GPA 3.0            Overall GPA      Post Graduate    Advisor
 Elementary             45 sh completed      Major GPA 3.0         Major GPA 3.0              Major GPA 3.0                     3.0            Assessment     Survey
  Education              C- or better in      Praxis One            C or better in all         SPA artifacts              PDE 430              Survey        Employer
 Health and Physical     English               Tests Passed:          major courses              NETS-T artifacts           Clearances:      Employer          Survey
  Education               Composition,          Reading, Writing,     Completion of              Lesson Plans evaluated            State          Survey        Post Graduate
 Modern Languages        English               Math                   all required major          during professional               and                              Assessment
 Music Education         Literature,          C- or better in        coursework                  semester                          Federal                          Survey
 Secondary               6 credits of          Speech, History,      Proof of professional      Disposition                Praxis II                          Cooperating
  Education               general education     Sciences               membership                  evaluations completed             Series                           Teacher
        English          math                 60 hours field        Clearances: Act 33,         during professional               passed                           Evaluation
        Mathematics     Self-evaluation       experience             Act 34, FBI                 semester                                                       Presidential
        Science          Dispositions- LT     20 additional                                                                                                         Evaluation
        Social          Diversity Profile     hours of diverse                                                                                                  Deans’evaluations
         Studies          Plan                  field experience                                                                                                  SPA reviews
 Special Education      Clearances: Act      SPA artifacts                                                                                                     PDE reviews
                          33, Act 34, FBI      NETS-T artifacts                                                                                                  Exit Survey
                         Negative TB          Proof of liability                                                                                                Faculty
                         Praxis One            insurance                                                                                                             Evaluations
                          Exams: Reading,
                          Writing, Math

                         Assessments          Assessments            Assessments                 Assessments
                         Technology Self-     Diversity Essay        Two Standards based       Student Teaching
                           assessment          Developing                    lesson plans         Competency Forms
                                                Portfolio              Disposition Evaluation     (one from each
                                               Portfolio              Praxis II Specialty        placement)
                                                Presentation                  exam and            Teacher Work Sample
                                               Portfolio                     Fundamental         Disposition evaluation
                                                Alignment of                  Subjects (if        Senior Portfolio
                                                Artifacts                     required by          Presentation
                                               Portfolio                     major) must be      Portfolio Alignment of
                                                Summary and                   taken                Artifacts
                                                Reflections                                       Portfolio Summary and
                                                                                                   Reflections




         Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                                                9
September 2005

4. Description of the relationship of the program to the unit’s conceptual framework.

1944 characters – 2000 limit
The unit’s conceptual framework’s goal is to create compassionate, productive, ethical, and lifelong learners
who contribute interdependently to a global society. The model recognizes that teachers operate in a changing
society and placed the teacher as a reflective decision-maker at its core. Teachers are emphasized as thoughtful,
evaluative professionals who take action within a changing social, economic, technological and professional
environment.

In HPE, the relationship to the conceptual framework is direct and complementary. We produce practioners
who have the necessary skills, knowledge and dispositions to deliver an effective K-12 program. We follow the
targets outlined by NASPE for a beginning teacher. This comprehensive model includes multidisciplinary
content knowledge, instructional design, assessment of learning, theories of learning and motivation, classroom
management, and multiple teaching strategies for diverse learners.

Producing lifelong learners who are aware of what to learn is especially critical in teaching HPE. The tools of
learning in today’s world (e.g., library, the internet and research methods) are a critical part of what students
need to learn and then teach to their students.

Regarding educational theory and practice, our candidates must become familiar with the array of student
learning and develop methods and dispositions to teach students effectively. Candidates practice behaviors that
demonstrate respect for students and show a willingness to take time and energy necessary to enhance learners’
diverse capacities and talents.

Finally, candidates must be prepared to constantly re-evaluate both content and method of delivery to be
responsive to the changing needs in the classroom, gymnasium and society and to benefit from professional
development. All of these goals are reflected in the conceptual framework for the College of Education, “The
Effective Teacher in a Changing Society.”

5. Indication of whether the program has a unique set of program assessments and their relationship of
the program’s assessments to the unit assessment system.

1605 - 2000
All LHUP education programs use the following five common assessments: Praxis II, Senior Portfolio, Lesson
Plans, Teacher Work Sample (TWS) and the Student Teaching Competency Form (STCF). However, the
assessments and rubrics are customized in order to specifically address the needs and concerns of the Health
and Physical Education program and are aligned with the NASPE standards. . The TWS is separated into two
individual assessments to better highlight candidates’ pedagogical knowledge of planning and implementation,
effect on student learning and contextual factors. In fact, the STCF consists of nearly twenty pages with
common elements assessed across all programs. In addition to the common assessments, Health and Physical
Education has three additional assessments aligned to the NASPE standards that are either not addressed
completely in the assessments mentioned above. These assessments include GPA in major courses and the two
completed PDE 430 forms. These assessments provide evidence that our HPE candidates demonstrate
competency in each of the NASPE standards, and are used to evaluate and improve the program. All Health and
Physical Education candidates must successfully complete all seven of these assessments prior to graduation.

The Praxis II exam must be attempted prior to student teaching, but may not completely address the extensive
Content Knowledge required in Health & Physical Education. Therefore, the GPA in the major provides a more
complete picture of candidates’ knowledge, skills and dispositions as required by NASPE.

See Attachment III for HPE Program of Study.

10                                                   Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005

Attachment III: HPE Program of Study
2007-2008
Academic year for all new students
                                                          NAME__________________________________________
                                                          PROJECTED GRADUATION DATE_________________
                                               CHECK SHEET
                            HEALTH AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION MAJOR REQUIREMENTS

Theory Courses - 32.5 Credits                            ____    HPED200 Teaching Aerobics** (.5)        ____
____    HLTH104 Foundations of                           ____    HPED202 Teaching Leisure
         Health (1.5)                      ____                   Sports (1)                             ____
____    HLTH128 Anatomy and                 ____         ____    HPED210 Teaching Folk and Social
         Physiology I (3)                                         Dance (1)                              ____
____    HLTH215 Community Health (1.5) ____              ____    HPED213 Teaching Elementary
____    HLTH130 Anatomy and                 ____                  Physical Education Activities (1)      ____
         Physiology II (3)                               ____    HPED215 Teaching Track* (1)             ____
____    HLTH330 School Health                            ____    HPED218 Teaching Tumbling and
         Programs (2)                       ____                  Gymnastics (.5)                        ____
____    HLTH336 Teaching Drug                            ____    HPED260 Principles and Practices
         Education (3)                     ____                   of Conditioning (1)                    ____
____    HLTH341 Teaching Human
         Sexuality (3)                      ____         Also Select 2 Activities - 1 Credit
____    HLTH353 Physiology of                            ____    HPED107 Teaching Field Hockey ** ____
         Exercise (3)                      ____                     (.5)
____    HLTH402 Evaluation in Health                     ____    HPED109 Teaching Wrestling** (.5) ____
         Education and Promotion                         ____    HPED120 Teaching Baseball and
         Programs (2) (WE)                 ____                     Softball* (.5)                 ____
____    HLTH334 Teaching Nutrition                       ____    HPED206 Teaching Lacrosse*(.5)    ____
         and Consumer Health (3)            ____
____    HPED104 Foundations of Physical
         Education (1.5)                   ____          Professional Semester - 16.5 Credits
____    HPED204 Psychology and Sociological              ____     RECR305 Adventure Activities
         Dimensions of Physical Activity and                        and Outdoor Pursuits (.5)            ____
         Sport (2)                         ____          ____     HPED310 Techniques and
____    HPED302 Motor Learning                                      Strategies for Teaching
         for Physical Education (2)        ____                     Physical Education (3)               ____
____    HPED352 Kinesiology (2)             ____         ____     HPED311 Teaching Health (3)            ____
                                                         ____     HPED312 Adapted Physical
                                                                    Education (3)                        ____
Advanced Techniques Course - 1 Credit                    ____     HPED314 Measurement for
____   __________________________          ____                     Evaluation in Health and Physical
                                                                    Education (3)                        ____
Activity Course Requirements – 10 Credits                ____     HPED400 Professional
*Spring Only    **Fall Only                                         Development (1)                      ____
See reverse page for Additional Requirements.            ____     HPED463 Organization and
                                                                    Administration of Health, Physical
Schedule                                   Grade                    Education and Recreation (3) (IL)
____    HPED103 Teaching Soccer** (.5)      ____                    (WE)                                 ____
____    HPED105 Teaching Basketball*(.5) ____
____    HPED111 Teaching Racquet                         Student Teaching - 12 Credits
         Sports (1)                         ____         ____    HPED425 Elementary Student              ____
____    HPED112 Teaching Fundamental                                Teaching and Professional
         Movements and Rhythms (.5)         ____                    Practicum (6) (IL) (WE)
____    HPED113 Teaching Volleyball**                    ____    HPED427 Secondary Student               ____
         (.5)                               ____                   Teaching and Professional
____    HPED134 Swimming/Emergency                                 Practicum (6) (IL) (WE)
         Water Safety (1) OR                ____
____    HPED225 Swimming/Lifeguard
         Training (1) OR                    ____
____    HPED234 Water Safety Instructor (1) OR ____
____    HPED222 Lifeguarding Instructor (1) ____
Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                             11
September 2005

General Education – 47 Credits
Schedule                                    Grade
        Humanities                        18 Credits
____    Art/Music/Theatre/Dance (3)         ____
____    Art/Music Theatre/Dance (3)         ____
____    Literature (3) (C- or above)        ____
____    Philosophy (3)                      ____
____    Composition (3) (C- or above)       ____
____    Speech (3) (C- or above)            ____

        Natural Sciences/Math             12 Credits
____    Lab Science (3) (C-or above)        ____
____    Lab Science (3) (C-or above)        ____
____    Math (3) (C-or above)               ____
____    Math (3) (C-or above)               ____

        History/Social Sciences            15 Credits
____    World History (3)(MC)(C-or above) ____
____    Government/Economics (3)             ____
____    Child Psychology 102 (3) OR          ____
____    Adolescent Psychology 103 (3)        ____
____    Sociology/Anthropology/Geography
                                   (3) (MC) ____
____    Educational Psychology (3) (C or
          above)                             ____
        Elective (Required)                2 Credits
____    Instructional Media (C or above)     ____
                   REQUIREMENTS FOR ADVANCED STANDING/CANDIDACY
                              Teacher Education Requirements
                                       Entrance Essay
                                       Entrance Recommendations
                                       Freshmen Profile Diversity Plan
                         45 credit hours
                         3.0 GPA
                         2 math classes, 101 level or higher
                         20 hours diversity experience, 40 hours prior to graduation
                         C grades in all major courses, including Educational Psychology
                         C- minimum grades in Composition, (2) lab science courses, (2) math courses
                             Speech, and World History
                         80 hours of completed Professional Development Activities (PDAs)
                         Child abuse clearance/criminal record clearance
                         Memberships in LHUAHPERD, PSAHPERD and AAHPERD

                         ADVANCED TECHNIQUES/COACHING COURSES
                      Fall Semester only                   Spring Semester only
HPED 300 Advanced Techniques/Coaching Soccer               HPED 306 Advanced Techniques/Coaching Track
HPED 301 Advanced Techniques/Coaching Field Hockey         HPED 307 Advanced Techniques/Coaching Basketball
HPED 303 Advanced Techniques/Coaching Football             HPED 308 Advanced Techniques/Coaching Baseball
HPED 304 Advanced Techniques/Coaching Wrestling                     (alternated every other spring with Softball)
HPED 316 Advanced Techniques/Coaching Volleyball           HPED 315 Advanced Techniques/Coaching Softball
HPED 360 Advanced Techniques/Coaching Tennis               HPED 350 Advanced Techniques/Coaching Swimming
                (offered periodically)                                        and Diving (offered alternate springs)

        GENERAL EDUCATION OVERLAYS
        Information Literacy (IL) ______ _____             (2 units required)                  8/07
        Writing Emphasis (WE) ______ ______ ______         (3 units required)
        Multi-Cultural (MC)       ______ ______            (2 units required)         *This is only a guide. Consult with
                                                                                     your advisor for recent modifications.

12                                                         Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005


                                                  SECTION II— LIST OF ASSESSMENTS

In this section, list the 6-8 assessments that are being submitted as evidence for meeting the AAHPERD/NASPE standards. All
programs must provide a minimum of six assessments. If your state does not require a state licensure test in the content area, you
must substitute an assessment that documents candidate attainment of content knowledge in #1 below. For each assessment,
indicate the type or form of the assessment and when it is administered in the program.


             Name of Assessment3                                           Type or                                       When the Assessment
                                                                     Form of Assessment4                                   Is Administered5
1 Praxis II Subject Area Test – Health and               State Certification Tests – content                  Must be attempted prior to student
  Physical Education: CK # 856                           knowledge                                            teaching, qualifying score required for
  Qualifying Score = 146                                                                                      certification
2 Course Grades – Content-based                          Major Course Grades – 3.0 GPA required               On going until student teaching
  assessment (PDE & NASPE standards)                     in major/overall                                     semester
3 Teacher Work Sample Factors 2 & 4 -                    Unit Plan portion of TWS (used for                   During Student Teaching
  Pedagogical & Professional KSD:                        grading)
  planning
4 Cooperating Teacher Evaluation (STCF) -                Summative Evaluation (used for grading)              End of each placement in Student
  Assessment of Teacher Candidate                                                                             Teaching
5 Teacher Work Sample Factors 3, 5, & 6 -                Teacher Work Sample (used for grading)               During Student Teaching
    Effects on Student learning

6 PDE 430 Form- PA Statewide Evaluation                  Scores (minimum of 1 out of 4 for each               End of each placement in Student
  Form for Professional Knowledge and                    section)                                             Teaching (Elementary & Secondary)
  Practice
7 Senior Portfolio                                       Senior Portfolio Presentation in LiveText            During Student Teaching



3
  Identify assessment by title used in the program; refer to Section IV for further information on appropriate assessment to include.
4
  Identify the type of assessment (e.g., essay, case study, project, comprehensive exam, reflection, state licensure test, portfolio).
5
  Indicate the point in the program when the assessment is administered (e.g., admission to the program, admission to student teaching/internship, required
courses [specify course title and numbers], or completion of the program).


Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                                            13
September 2005



                          SECTION III—RELATIONSHIP OF ASSESSMENTS TO STANDARDS
For each AAHPERD/NASPE standard on the chart below, identify the assessment(s) in Section II that address the standard. One
assessment may apply to multiple AAHPERD/NASPE standards.


                                                                                                     APPLICABLE ASSESSMENTS FROM
                               AAHPERD/NASPE STANDARD                                                         SECTION II
1. Content Knowledge. Physical education teachers understand physical education content and
disciplinary concepts related to the development of a physically educated person.
                                                                                                   x#1 x#2 □#3 x#4
                                                                                                   □#5 □#6 □#7 □#8
2. Growth and Development. Physical education teachers understand how individuals learn
and develop and can provide opportunities that support their physical, cognitive, social, and
                                                                                                   □#1 □#2 x#3 x#4
emotional development.                                                                             □#5 x#6 x #7 □#8
3. Diverse Students. Physical education teachers understand how individuals differ in their
approaches to learning, and create appropriate instruction adapted to these differences.
                                                                                                   □#1 □#2 x#3 x#4
                                                                                                   □#5 x#6 x#7 □#8
4. Management and Motivation. Physical education teachers use an understanding of
individual and group motivation and behavior to create a safe learning environment that
                                                                                                   □#1 □#2 x#3 x#4
encourages positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation.        □#5 x#6 □#7 □#8
5. Communication. Physical education teachers use knowledge of effective verbal, nonverbal,
and media communication techniques to enhance learning and engagement in physical activity
                                                                                                   □#1 □#2 x#3 x#4
settings.                                                                                          □#5 x#6 x#7 □#8
6. Planning and Instruction. Physical education teachers plan and implement a variety of
developmentally appropriate instructional strategies to develop physically educated individuals,
                                                                                                   □#1 □#2 x#3 x#4
based on state and national (NASPE K-12) standards.                                                □#5 x#6 □#7 □#8
7. Student Assessment. Physical education teachers understand and use assessment to foster
physical, cognitive, social, and emotional development of students in physical activity.
                                                                                                   □#1 □#2 □#3 x#4
                                                                                                   x#5 □#6 □#7 □#8
8. Reflection. Physical education teachers are reflective practitioners who evaluate the effects
of their actions on others (e.g., students, parents/guardians, fellow professionals), and seek
                                                                                                   □#1 □#2 □#3 x#4

14                                                       Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005


                                                                                                  APPLICABLE ASSESSMENTS FROM
                              AAHPERD/NASPE STANDARD                                                       SECTION II
opportunities to grow professionally.
                                                                                                x#5    □#6   x#7    □#8
9. Technology. Physical education teachers use information technology to enhance learning and
to enhance personal and professional productivity.
                                                                                                □#1    □#2   x#3    □#4
                                                                                                x#5    □#6   x #7    □#8
10. Collaboration. Physical education teachers foster relationships with colleagues,
parents/guardians, and community agencies to support students' growth and well-being.
                                                                                                □#1    □#2   □#3    x#4
                                                                                                □#5    □#6   □#7    □#8




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                             15
September 2005

                SECTION IV—EVIDENCE FOR MEETING STANDARDS

DIRECTIONS: The 6-8 key assessments listed in Section II must be documented and discussed
in Section IV. The assessments must be those that all candidates in the program are required to
complete and should be used by the program to determine candidate proficiencies as expected in
the program standards. In the description of each assessment below, the SPA has identified
potential assessments that would be appropriate. Assessments have been organized into the
following three areas that are addressed in NCATE’s unit standard 1:
        
             Content knowledge6
        
             Pedagogical and professional knowledge, skills and dispositions
        
             Focus on student learning

For each assessment, the evidence for meeting standards should include the following
information:

1. A brief description of the assessment and its use in the program (one sentence may be
sufficient);
2. A description of how this assessment specifically aligns with the standards it is cited for in
Section III.
3. A brief analysis of the data findings;
4. An interpretation of how that data provides evidence for meeting standards; and
5. Attachment of assessment documentation, including7:
        (a) the assessment tool or description of the assignment;
        (b) the scoring guide for the assessment; and
        (c) candidate data derived from the assessment.

The narrative section for each assessment (1-4 above) is limited to two text pages. It is
preferred that each attachment for a specific assessment (5a-c above) be limited to the
equivalent of five text pages, however in some cases assessment instruments or scoring guides
may go beyond 5 pages.


                              ASSESSMENT 1: Praxis II Examination
                            Candidate State Certification Test Score Data

1. Description of the Assessment
Passing the standardized Praxis II subject examination is required in Pennsylvania for
certification to teach Health and Physical Education K-12. Beginning, Fall 2007, it is a
prerequisite required by the Unit that all candidates attempt the Praxis II prior to student
teaching.




6
  In some disciplines, content knowledge may include or be inextricable from professional knowledge. If this is the
case, assessments that combine content and professional knowledge may be considered ―content knowledge‖
assessments for the purpose of this report.
7
  All three components of the assessment – as identified in 5a-c – must be attached, with the following exceptions:
(a) the assessment tool and scoring guide are not required for reporting state licensure data, and (b) for some
assessments, data may not yet be available.
16                                                           Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005

2. Alignment to the Standards
Praxis II Health and Physical Education test CK # 856 aligns with NASPE Standard 1 Content
Knowledge. Physical education teachers understand physical education content and disciplinary
concepts related to the development of a physically educated person. A candidate must achieve a
Qualifying Score of 146 on this exam.

3. Brief Analysis of the Data Findings
The pass rate for program completers taking the Praxis II is 100%. Since the state of
Pennsylvania requires all candidates pass the Praxis II in order to be certified, LHUP requires all
candidates to attempt the exam prior to student-teaching (as of Fall 2007); and pass prior to
recommendation for certification and becoming a program completer. Occasionally those who
student teach abroad for their second placement do not take the Praxis II until after graduation
and are therefore not counted as program completers.

With a median score (167) well above the required passing state score (146), our typical group
performance is well above average on this test. Since the overall score on the exam is recorded
using the students’ actual score report as submitted in a portfolio, this data is accurate with
respect to all program completers from academic years fall 2006- spring 2007 as indicated in the
table below.

4. Interpretation of how the data provides evidence for meeting the standards
The data demonstrated that all candidates in our Health and Physical Education Program who
took the exam over the past year exceeded the national average and are at or above the state
average in each of the Physical Education Testing Categories. In each of the Health Education
Testing Categories, all candidates scored at or above the National Average. Overall, Health and
Physical Education candidates performed well above the required minimum qualifying score for
certification and, as indicated, have a 100% pass rate.

The Praxis II scores for program completers are one indication that our candidates have the depth
and breadth of content knowledge to begin their teaching careers.




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                            17
September 2005



5. Assessment Documentation, including the assessment tool or description of the
assessment; the scoring guide for the assessment; and the candidate data derived from the
assessment.

Attachment 1.5.c Candidate Data Derived from the Assessment – PRAXIS Scores

                         Health and Physical Education (#0856)
             Data Collected from the PRAXIS Institutional Summary Report
                          Testing Period 9/01/2006 to 8/31/2007


              All Examinees                       Examinees Who Received Relevant
                                                         Training at LHUP
Number of Examinees                  2,417     Number of Examinees                   48
Highest Observed Score                189      Highest Observed Score               181
Lowest Observed Score                 107      Lowest Observed Score               151*
Median                                163      Median                               167
Average Performance Range           156-171    Average Performance Range          159-171

* Qualifying Score for Pennsylvania is 146



                               Health and Physical Education
                                 Detailed Score Information
                            Testing Period 9/01/2006 to 8/31/2007


       Testing Category             Points         Institution      State-Wide   National
                                   Available        Average          Average     Average
                                    Range          % Correct        % Correct      %
                                                                                 Correct
I.   Personal Health Care            18-20            74%              76%        74%

II. Family Living and Sex            15-17            73%              74%         72%
Education
III. Community                       13-15            61%              62%         61%
Health/Disease and Disorders
IV. Fundamental Movements,           22-23            73%              73%         69%
Motor Development, and
Motor Learning
V. Movement Forms                    21-23            80%              78%         74%

VI. Fitness and Exercise             24-25            79%              75%         72%
Science

18                                               Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005

                              ASSESSMENT 2: Major Course Grades

1. Description of the Assessment
Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania’s College of Education requires both a 3.0 Overall and a
3.0 Major GPA for candidacy and is one means by which the content knowledge of candidates is
determined. To HPE content knowledge, this is an internal assessment using final course grades.
The attached tables identify the grades tracked and standard met. These courses were chosen for
two reasons, combined they meet all ten major NASPE standards and all courses were taught by
a single faculty member. The grades were deemed to be most reliable since the course was
taught and assessed by a single faculty member who had intimate knowledge of the program’s
goals.

The LHUP catalog and website indicated that: A quality point is the unit of measurement of the
quality of work done by the student. The institution’s defines grades as: A to B+ (4-3.3) is equal
to Excellent, B to C+ (3-2.3) is equal to Good, C to D+ (2-1.3) is equal to Fair, a D (1.0) is
Passing and below a D is Failure. In Health & Physical Education major courses, all students
must earn at least a “C” (or better). All the courses reported in Table 1 are major courses. The
course descriptions are included for further clarification.

                                         Table 1: Grades Tracked

Standard                                 Course/s   Course Titles if Necessary
NASPE Standards:                         HPED       Motor Learning for Physical Education
1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1,       302
3.2, 5.2, 6.1, 6.3, 6.4, 6.6, 9.1, 9.2
NASPE Standards:                         HPED       Techniques and Strategies for Teaching Physical
1.6, 2.2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 5.1,       310
                                                    Education
6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.6, 6.7, 7.1, 8.1, 8.3
NASPE Standards:                         HPED       Measurement for Evaluation in Health and
7.1, 7.2, 7.4, 9.1 ,9.3                  314
                                                    Physical Education
NASPE Standards:                         HPED       Kinesiology
1.4                                      352
NASPE Standard:                          HLTH       Physiology of Exercise
1                                        353
NASPE Standards:                         HPED       Organization and Administration of Health and
4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 6.1, 7.1, 8.3, 9.1,       463
                                                    Physical Education
10.2


The Program Checklist for Health and Physical Education certifies the completion of required
coursework in multiple content areas associated with the NASPE content standards: All
candidates in the program must complete all major course work with a grade of “C” or better.
Candidates not meeting the minimum “C” grade in any of the required coursework areas are
required to repeat the course to earn a grade of “C” or better before applying for block, student
teaching and certification. Candidates’ GPA in their coursework is documented by their advisors,
the program coordinator, the teacher education office, and through ongoing transcript analyses in
the Graduation Audit.


Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                           19
September 2005


2. Alignment of the Assessment with Specific NASPE Standards
The Program Checklist for Health and Physical Education ensures that each candidate in the
program (a) has completed coursework that aligns with NASPE standards 1 through 10, and (b)
has earned at least a “C” grade in each course as well as maintained a major GPA of 3.0.

3. Summary of Data Findings
The HPE program requires a “C” or better and a 3.0 GPA in all major courses. The courses used
to assess the NASPE standards are all major courses. Therefore, there is a 100% pass rate for the
internal course based assessment. As the data show, not all HPE teaching candidates met the
target on their initial attempt. These students were required to repeat the course in question to
eventually meet the target before continuing in the HPE Teacher Education track.

4. How the Data Provides Evidence for Meeting the Standards
The data provided for academic year 2006-07 GPA of major courses and aligned with NASPE
standards for candidates in the Health and Physical Education program indicate that candidates
are well prepared in their content field through required coursework as defined through the
program checklist. The GPAs of our candidates exceeds the required 3.0 major GPA minimum
requirement as evidence of demonstrated competence in the content area. Any students that fall
below the required C needed for these courses must retake the course in question before they are
admitted into the Professional Semester or Student Teaching.

5. Assessment Documentation including the scoring guide for the assessment; and the
candidate data derived from the assessment.




20                                                  Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005




                 Course Descriptions taken from the University Catalog

HPED302 MOTOR LEARNING APPLIED TO PHYSICAL EDUCATION                                                          2 SH
A study of the theories and research concerning the processes involved in learning motor skills is presented.
Emphasis is placed on the application of practice, organization, motivation, and feedback to physical education.
This includes the application of the understanding of how sensory information is integrated into motor control via
the nervous system. The aim of this course is for the participants to acquire a basic understanding of the processes
involved in the development, learning, and performance of motor skills which are used in the general environment,
the workplace, and sport. Prerequisite: HLTH251 Physiology and HLTH152 Kinesiology, or by permission of the
instructor.

HPED310 TECHNIQUES AND STRATEGIES FOR TEACHING PHYSICAL EDUCATION                                              3 SH
Gives special attention to teaching sequences and progressions that will lead to effective learning of motor skills.
Stress is on basic planning techniques and strategies for teaching physical education. Theory and application are
explored in the classroom and in participation in the public schools.

HPED314 HEALTH AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION TESTS                                                                    2 SH
Concepts of the administration and evaluation techniques used in the application of tests in physical fitness, motor
educability, and general motor ability.

HPED352 KINESIOLOGY                                                                                            2 SH
For the health and physical education student and intended to increase understanding of human movement and
provide the foundation for critical analysis of physical activity and exercise. Included are considerations of applied
anatomy and applicable mechanical principles. Prerequisite: HLTH151.

HPED463 ORGANIZATIONAL AND ADMINISTRATION OF HEALTH, PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND
RECREATION                                                                                                      3 SH
Presents philosophy and principles of administration pertinent to policies and procedures in physical education;
program organization for instructional, intramural, and inter-school programs; supplies and equipment, personnel,
budget, legal liability, public relations, facilities, and human relations. Prerequisite: 80 credits earned, or
permission of the instructor.

HLTH353 PHYSIOLOGY OF EXERCISE                                                                                3SH
Lectures, assigned readings, discussions, and laboratory exercises to aid in scientific evaluation and understanding
of the effects of muscular activity upon the human body and its response and adaptation to stress. Applications are
made to personal assessment and human performance under all conditions. Prerequisite: HLTH151 and 251.




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                                                  21
September 2005


Attachment 2.5.b
                                          Scoring Guide

This program assessment is designed for candidates to demonstrate proficiency in all of the
NASPE themes, content, process and pedagogical standards. This assessment is a simple
calculation of the GPA earned in the identified major content and methods courses. The
university course titles for the courses are identified and specific course syllabi are given when to
candidates when they begin each course. The criteria for obtaining a “C” or better are outlined
below.

Lock Haven University Grading System (from the university catalog)
The university grading system simply uses the words excellent, good, fair, passing, and failure to
describe the grades of A, B, C, D, and E, respectively. As well the LHUP catalog and website
indicates that: A quality point is the unit of measurement of the quality of work done by the
student. The institution’s defines grades as: A to B+ (4-3.3) is equal to Excellent, B to C+ (3-2.3)
is equal to Good, C to D+ (2-1.3) is equal to Fair, a D (1.0) is Passing and below a D is Failure.

Lock Haven University Health and Physical Education Program Grading System
Although, the department of Health and Physical Education maintains an approved syllabus for
each course in the program, consistent with the tradition of academic freedom, each instructor
may choose a variety of assessments in each course with which letter grades are associated.
Typically, instructors choose a combination of quizzes, tests, projects, papers or oral
presentations and cumulative final exams. All of the assessments used in HPE content and
methods courses have the common characteristic that the candidate must display and use the
knowledge of the course concepts to satisfactorily complete the assignment. Thus, a candidate’s
final grade in each course has a very strong relationship to the candidate’s depth of
understanding and ability to use the knowledge of the course.

Note that the actual content for assignments in individual courses will be consistent with
the concepts noted in the course descriptions and official syllabi

Minimal Acceptable Level of Performance
The Health and Physical Education program at LHUP considers a “C” grade to be the lowest
acceptable grade in all health and physical education major courses and professional education
courses. Moreover, the health and physical education program considers work at the “C” level to
be the lowest performance level that demonstrates attainment of the NASPE standards.
Therefore, all candidates in the health and physical education program must earn a grade of “C”
or better in all major courses in order to become program completers.




22                                                    Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005

Attachment 2.5.c Candidate Data derived from the Assessment


Course    Course Title                              Grade     Spring, 07    Fall, 06    Class
Number                                                        Semester     Semester    Average
HPED      Motor Learning for Physical Education
302                                                                                       3.085
                                                   A              5            2
                                                   A-            10            7
                                                   B+            10           10       88 out
                                                   B             19           10       of 90
                                                   B-             9            3       students
                                                   C+             4            3       met the
                                                   C              1            1       target
                                                   C-                                  2 out of
                                                   D+                                  90
                                                   D              1                    students
                                                   E                          1        initially
                                                   INC                                 fell
                                                                                       below
                                                                                       the
                                                                                       target
          Total                                                  55           35               90

HPED      Techniques and Strategies for Teaching                                       3.78
310       Physical Education
                                                   A             11           26
                                                   A-             3            1
                                                   B+             1            2
                                                   B              1            4
                                                   B-             1            1
                                                   C+
                                                   C
                                                   C-                                  100% of
                                                   D+                                  the
                                                   D                                   students
                                                   E                                   met the
                                                   INC                                 target
          Total                                                  17           34              51




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                   23
  September 2005


Course   Course Title                                  Grade   Spring, 07   Fall, 06   Class
Number                                                         Semester     Semester   Average
HPED     Measurement for Evaluation in Health and
314      Physical Education                                                                 3.66
                                                       A           10          22
                                                       A-
                                                       B+          4           10      50 out
                                                       B           1                   of 51
                                                       B-          1           2       students
                                                       C+                              met the
                                                       C                               target
                                                       C-                              1 out of
                                                       D+          1                   51
                                                       D                               students
                                                       E                               initially
                                                       INC                             fell
                                                                                       below
                                                                                       the
                                                                                       target
         Total                                                     17          34              51

HPED     Kinesiology
352                                                                                         2.41
                                                       A                        5
                                                       A-           1           4
                                                       B+           1           5      74 out
                                                       B           13          10      of 90
                                                       B-           2           4      students
                                                       C+           3           7      met the
                                                       C            6          13      target
                                                       C-           1           0      16 out
                                                       D+                       1      of 90
                                                       D           3            6      students
                                                       E                        5      initially
                                                       INC                             fell
                                                                                       below
                                                                                       the
                                                                                       target
         Total                                                     30          60              90




  24                                                Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
  September 2005

Course   Course Title                                Grade   Spring, 07   Fall, 06   Class
Number                                                       Semester     Semester   Average
HPED     Organization and Administration of Health
463      and Physical Education                                                             3.69
                                                     A           6           22
                                                     A-          2            5
                                                     B+          5            7
                                                     B           2
                                                     B-          1
                                                     C+
                                                     C           1
                                                     C-                              100% of
                                                     D+                              the
                                                     D                               students
                                                     E                               met the
                                                     INC                             target
         Total                                                   17          34                 51

HLTH     Physiology of Exercise
353                                                                                         2.54
                                                     A            6           1
                                                     A-           6           4
                                                     B+           7           0      141 out of
                                                     B           15          15      150
                                                     B-          13           5      students
                                                     C+          19          11      met the
                                                     C           22          17      target
                                                     C-           0           1      9 out of
                                                     D+           0           1      150
                                                     D            2           3      students
                                                     E            1           1      initially
                                                     INC                             fell
                                                                                     below the
                                                                                     target
         Total                                                   91          59               150




  Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                25
September 2005



                                        ASSESSMENT 3
          Teacher Work Sample Factors 2 & 4, Pedagogical & Professional KSD
       Planning: Unit Plan Portion of Teacher Work Sample from Student Teaching

1. Description of the Assessment and its use in the program
Candidates must demonstrate competency in planning first in creating resource units, then
writing lessons and, later, designing complete unit plans as requirements for HLTH 311
(Teaching Health Education) and during the first student teaching placement. As a culmination
of this scaffolding, during the first student teaching placement, candidates must demonstrate
competency in planning and writing unit learning goals that are aligned with state and national
standards. They must also design and implement instruction for an appropriate unit as a
requirement for completion of a Teacher Work Sample (TWS) that is placed in LiveText, the
electronic portfolio. This assessment is a common one completed by student teachers in all
teacher education programs at Lock Haven and is therefore graded with a common rubric that is
not entirely consistent with the NASPE standards and indicators (although modifications have
been made where possible). This assessment, combined with assessments 3, 5, 6, and 7, are used
to derive a grade for the student-teaching placement.

Factors 2 and 4 of the TWS template employ a range of strategies and builds on each student’s
strengths, needs, and prior experiences. Through factors 2 and 4 of the TWS teacher candidates
provide credible evidence of their ability to facilitate learning by meeting the following TWS
objectives: 1) The teacher sets significant, challenging, varied and appropriate learning goals. 2)
The teacher designs instruction for specific learning goals, student characteristics and needs and
learning contexts. The teacher demonstrates the ability to integrate across and within content
fields to enrich the curriculum, develop thinking skills and facilitate all students’ abilities to
understand relationships between subject areas.

2. Alignment between assessment and NASPE standards
The TWS measures a candidate’s ability to plan and implement a unit of instruction in which all
students can learn, appropriately link a unit of instruction to NASPE standards, analyze student
learning and reflect on the entire process.

3. Analysis of data findings (based on data from Arm)
Based on the data collected, our candidates clearly show proficiency in planning effective
classroom instruction. Both the Fall 06 and the Spring 07 data show that in most instances the
elements of the Teacher Work Sample (TWS) were met. The only area where a number of
students were missing information from the TWS was in the first part of the checklist of Factor 4
(Instruction Design and Implementation). Several students neglected to include any graphic
representation of the pre-assessment data in this section. This shortcoming has been addressed
with the faculty members that teach the students how to prepare the TWS (HPED 311 –
Teaching Health Education) and those faculty members that supervise student teachers. Many of
the same students that are missing this section do include these data in Factor 5 (Analysis of
Learning). One other perceptible limitation in the scoring process is the lack of goals that
address student dispositions. This may be due to the lack of agreement between the faculty and
students regarding what counts as a disposition. The members of the HPE faculty have posted a
huge bulletin board size laminated sheet that includes what are possible dispositions outside the
office of the HPE program coordinators.
26                                                   Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005

4. Interpretation of how data provides evidence for meeting standards
Although this assessment is a fairly new assignment given to our candidates, the data provided
does show their ability to demonstrate pedagogical and professional knowledge, skills and some
dispositions in regard to planning. They are able to write goals to be met during a unit of
instruction and able to create individual lessons that will help meet the goals of the unit.

5. Assessment Documentation, including the assessment tool or description of the
assessment; the scoring guide for the assessment; and the candidate data derived from the
assessment.




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                       27
September 2005


Attachment 3.5.a:
Assessment 3 Factor 2: Unit Learning Goals and Standards Scoring Guide


                                        Checklist
                                                        Missing Incomplete Complete
Clearly Stated                                             0        0.5       1
Developmentally Appropriate Given Classroom Context        0        0.5       1
Aligned with National, State, or District Standards        0        0.5       1
Described in Terms of Pupil performance, not Activities    0        0.5       1



                                            Rubric
                 Element Not Met         Element Partially Met          Element Met (2 pts)
                                                 (1 pt)
Levels of    Neither a balance of goals A balance of goals          Balance of goals, across
Learning     exists nor are they        appropriate for some of     required domains,
             appropriate for the        the population,             appropriate for the
             population, curriculum, or curriculum, or              population, curriculum, and
             context.                   contextual factors          contextual information

                                                   OR
                                        Lack of balance but
                                        goals are appropriate for
                                        the population,
                                        curriculum, and context.
Dispositions No goals address student                               One goal is aimed at the
             dispositions                                           development of student
                                                                    dispositions




28                                                  Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005

              Assessment 3 Factor 4: Instructional Design and Implementation

                                            Checklist
                                                                     Missing Incomplete Complete
Provides graphic representation of pre-assessment data                  0        0.5       1

Is aligned with unit learning goals and objectives that                 0         0.5          1
address state and national mathematics standards
Is progressively sequenced (if appropriate)                             0         0.5          1

Includes evidence of deliberate checking for understanding              0         0.5          1

Is developmentally appropriate                                          0         0.5          1

Provides evidence that context data is used in instructional            0         0.5          1
decision


                                            Rubric
               Element Not Met         Element Partially Met                Element Met (2 pts)
                                                (1 pt)
Concentration All objectives are More than half of the stated         Knowledge objectives
of Objectives knowledge            objectives are knowledge           represent 1/3 or less of the
              objectives           objectives (versus skill and       stated objectives.
                                   reasoning objectives)
Assessment-   No plan stated or Teacher describes general             Teacher describes specific
based         no adaptations       adaptations based on pre-          adaptations for specific
adaptations   made based on        assessment results but does        students and sub-groups (e.g.
(formative & pre-assessment,       not link specific results to       those with special needs such
Pre-          formative            specific adaptations.              as the gifted, challenged and
assessment)   assessment or                                           speakers of other languages)
              results or teacher                                      based on pre-assessment
              does not                                                results or teacher adequately
              adequately defend                                       defends the choice to not
              his/her choice to                                       make adaptations.
              not make
              adaptations (e.g.,
              teacher treats class
              as “one size fits
              all”.
Multiple      Only 1 or 2          A variety of instructional         Multiple instructional
learning      strategies are       strategies are incorporated        strategies utilizing multiple
strategies    incorporated         throughout the unit. The           types/levels of learning are
              throughout the       strategies reflect a variety of    incorporated throughout the
              unit and/or the      types/levels of learning but       unit. Application of multiple
              strategies reflect most are of the more                 intelligences and learning

Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                                29
September 2005

                 only the more    common or traditional type.        styles is evident. Most
                 common or        Some strategies actively           strategies actively involve
                 traditional      involve students in critical       students in critical thinking,
                 types/levels of  thinking, problem solving,         problem solving,
                 learning. (e.g., communication, reasoning           communication, reasoning
                 relies mostly on and proof, making                  and proof, making
                                  connections, using various
                 direct instruction,                                 connections, using various
                 visual, verbal-  representations, using             representations, using
                                  technology, commitment to
                 linguistic, paper-                                  technology, commitment to
                 pencil).         learning with understanding        learning with understanding,
                                  or authentic performance           or authentic performance
                                  tasks.                             tasks.
Active Inquiry Unit design does Unit design includes some            Unit design includes a
               not include        procedures for engaging            majority of procedures that
               procedures for     students in active inquiry but     actively engage students in
               engaging students most procedures rely on             questioning concepts,
               in active inquiry. passive, rote, recall strategies   developing learning
                                  for the learner.                   strategies, seeking resources
                                                                     and conducting independent
                                                                     investigations. Students are
                                                                     using problem solving,
                                                                     reasoning and proof,
                                                                     communication, connections,
                                                                     representations, and
                                                                     technology to learn
                                                                     mathematics with
                                                                     understanding.
Collaborative/   Plans do not        Plans include provisions for Plans include provisions for
Instructional    include provisions varied                           varied
groups           for collaborative collaborative/instructional       collaborative/instructional
                 or instructional    groups as appropriate to the groups as appropriate to the
                 groups and use of different instructional goals. instructional goals. There is
                 group instructional Teacher maintains control of evidence of some student
                 goals.              grouping patterns.              choice in selecting different
                                                                     patterns of grouping.
Demonstration    Evidence of         There is evidence that the      There is evidence that the
of Integration   creation and use of candidate understands the       candidate creates
of Instruction   interdisciplinary importance of integrating         interdisciplinary learning
Across           learning            knowledge across fields but experiences that allow all
Disciplines      experiences or      does not apply the knowledge students to integrate
                 instruction is not in interdisciplinary             knowledge, skill and method
                 present.            instruction.                    of inquiry from other subject
                                                                     areas, and within
                                                                     mathematics itself.
Motivational     All activities,     Students are given some         Procedures for giving
elements         topics, etc. are    responsibility for their own students responsibility for
                 pre-planned by the learning. Teacher maintains their own learning are
                 teacher with no     control of the vast majority of pervasive. The unit is
30                                                   Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005
                 procedures           choices. Most strategies are   challenging and includes
                 included for         based on extrinsic             procedures that promote
                 giving students      motivational procedures.       student self-direction,
                 responsibility for                                  accountability, and
                 the learning                                        collaboration with others
                 success of the unit.                                (e.g., students’ interests are
                 Motivation                                          incorporated, student set
                 strategies are                                      goals, initiate topics, and/or
                 based on external                                   self-assess). Students are
                 rewards ad                                          encouraged to learn
                 punishments only.                                   mathematics with
                                                                     understanding.
Technology       Instructional       Technology is used without      Appropriate technological
                 design does not     due regard to learning          tools, such as but not limited
                 include             outcomes (i.e., it is just an   to spreadsheets, dynamic
                 technology or a     add-on to fulfill the           graphing tools, computer
                 rationale for the   requirement).                   algebra systems, dynamic
                 exclusion of                                        statistical packages, dynamic
                 technology.                                         geometry software, graphing
                                                                     calculators, data-collection
                                                                     devices, and presentation
                                                                     software have been used.
                                                                     Technology is integrated
                                                                     throughout instruction or
                                                                     makes a meaningful
                                                                     contribution to learning (i.e.,
                                                                     it had a purpose or was
                                                                     needed) or an instructionally
                                                                     sound rationale is given for
                                                                     the exclusion of technology.




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                             31
September 2005


Attachment 3.5.c
                                  Teacher Work Sample Factors 2 and 4 Data Fall 2006 & Spring 2007


                                                                            Fall ‘06   Spring‘07      # of              # of             # of
                                                                               N           N       Missing(0)/   Incomplete(0.5)/    Complete(1)/
                                      Criteria                                                     Not Met(0)     Partially Met(1)      Met(2)
                                                                                                           S                   S               S
           Factor 2 (Unit Learning Goals and Standards)                                            F 06    07       F 06       07     F 06     07
                                     Checklist
           Clearly Stated                                                      11         40         0     0         1         2       10     37
           Developmentally Appropriate Given Classroom Context                 11         40         0     0         0         1       11     37
           Aligned with National, State, or District Standards                 11         40         0     1         0         9       11     29
           Described in Terms of Pupil Performance, not Activities             11         40         0     0         1         1       10     38
                                       Rubric
           Levels of Learning                                                  11         40         0     0         2         7        9     33
           Dispositions                                                        11         40         0     8         0         5       11     27

           Factor 4 (Instructional Design and Implementation)
                                       Checklist
           Provides graphic representation of pre-assessment data              11         40         4     9         0         0       7      31
           Is aligned with unit learning goals and objectives and are the
           stated objectives in factor                                         11         40         0     0         0         1       11     39
           Is progressively sequenced (if appropriate)                         11         40         0     0         0         0       11     40
           Includes evidence of deliberate checking for understanding          11         40         2     0         0         9        9     31
           Is developmentally appropriate                                      11         40         0     0         0         1       11     39
           Provides evidence that context data is used in instructional
           decision                                                            11         40         1     0         1        10       9      30
                                        Rubric
           Concentration of Objectives                                         11         40         0     0         1         6       10     34
           Assessment-based adaptations (formative & pre-assessment)           11         40         0     0         0         9       11     31
           Multiple learning strategies                                        11         40         0     0         1         0       10     40
           Active Inquiry                                                      11         40         0     0         1         2       10     38
           Collaborative/Instructional groups                                  11         40         0     0         2         2        9     38
           Demonstration of Integration of Instruction Across Disciplines       1         40         1     0         1         7        9     33
           Motivational elements                                               11         40         0     0         1         6       10     34
           Technology                                                          11         40         2     0         1        11        8     29
32                                                    Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005

                                   ASSESSMENT 4
              Student Teaching Competency Form Comprehensive Evaluation
                                 Summative Evaluation

1. Description of the assessment and its use in the program
All HPE teaching candidates participate in two (7.5 week) placements during their student
teaching semester. Our director of student teaching makes every effort to insure that the
placements are diverse when compared to the professional semester placements and with regard
to the age level of the K-12 students. HPE teaching candidates teach in one elementary and one
secondary placement. During the student teaching placements, the student teachers are evaluated
by at least two different cooperating teachers as well as at least one university supervisor from
the HPE department. Each cooperating teacher completes a formative and summative
assessment using the Student Teaching Competency Form (STCF). The university supervisor
formally evaluates the teaching candidate’s performance at least twice each placement.


2. Alignment between assessment and NASPE standards
The STCF is aligned with both LHUP’s conceptual framework and closely aligned with the
NASPE standards. The STCF is used to evaluate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions
associated with those required by a HPE beginning teacher. The STCF is common to most
teacher education programs; moreover, the NASPE standards have been identified within each
element scored. The STCF is also makes up one portion of the student teaching final grade for
each placement.


3. Analysis of data findings –
 In most aspects, almost all HPE teaching candidates scored very well. On average, more than
96% of the HPE teaching candidates scored in the “proficient” or “distinguished” category on the
35 different sub-sections within the STCF. Keep in mind these statistics are of value, because
the STCF is considered an accurate measure of the student teacher’s ability to teach. Also, it is
assumed that the cooperating teachers are judging the student teacher correctly and completing
the form in a similar manner to other cooperating teachers across disciplines. Under the
aforementioned assumptions, less than two student teachers (1.29 in the first placement and 1.94
in the second placement) of all HPE teaching candidates were scored at a below proficient level.
Upon further investigation, four elements stood out as the primary indicators of areas where the
HPE teaching candidates had the highest total number of student teachers (three or more) that did
not score in the proficient or distinguished level in the first and second placements. These areas
include: formal and informal assessment techniques, visuals, monitoring of student behaviors,
and communication with parents and families. At this time, some possible justifications for the
surfacing of these data will be addressed.

Some student teachers may have scored below proficient in the area of assessment techniques
due to some miscommunication between the student teacher and the cooperating teacher or the
inherent difficulty of developing successful assessment instruments that are valid, reliable,
Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                           33
September 2005

objective, and match those typically used by the cooperating teachers. The instructor for the
teaching candidates’ major class in assessment (Measurement for Evaluation in HPE) has been
notified of these findings and continues to address these issues within the context of that course.
Incorporating visuals in HPE can be challenging for beginning teachers. Our students are now
required to incorporate visuals (e.g., bulletin boards) with in their teaching activity courses and
both placements during student teaching.

Monitoring of student behaviors has been addressed with our majors by moving the APL
workshop offered in the student teaching semester earlier in the placement and having the
university supervisors include a session entitled “Disciplining with Dignity” within the
practicum small group sessions. It is not uncommon for beginning teachers to list this in their
lists of concerns about teaching.

The final area of concern includes “communicating with parents and families”. The data indicate
a large number of cooperating teachers either scored the student teacher low in this area or left
this section without a score. Many students have little interaction with parents; furthermore,
student teachers are asked not to initiate contact parents without prior consent from the
cooperating teacher. These below proficient scores are more than likely attributed to the limit
opportunities for student teachers have for this type of interaction.

4. Interpretation of how the data provide evidence for meeting NASPE standards
Since the STCF aligns closely with the NASPE standards, and on average more than 96% of our
teaching candidates are scored in the proficient or distinguished categories (the minimal level of
acceptance); the results of the STCF indicate that are major are competent beginning teachers.
The excellent performance of our student teachers on the STCF also documents that our majors
are well-prepared by our HPE program when they enter their student teaching semester.




34                                                   Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005

5. The candidate data derived from the assessment.

Attachment 4.5a
      Assessment 4 (Student Teaching Competency Form) Instructions to Candidates

This program assessment has been designed for you to demonstrate your competency in all areas
of teaching. This assessment is a form that will be completed by both of your cooperating
teachers two times during each of your student-teaching placements. The first time the form is
completed by each cooperating teacher is a formative assessment and is completed halfway
through the placement, after which you will have the opportunity to discuss the form with both
your cooperating teacher and your university supervisor. The final time they complete the form
is a summative assessment and is completed at the end of the placement. It is this summative
assessment that is used for grading purposes and for program assessment. The actual form is
combined with the scoring guide and is attached below.




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                       35
September 2005

Attachment 4.5.b
   Assessment 4 (Student Teaching Competency Form) Scoring Guide (and actual form)
                          Health and Physical Education

            Guidelines for Use of Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania
                                       Competency Form
     1) Read the competency form at the beginning of the student teacher’s placement.

     2) The competency form is to be completed two times during the placement. The first
        completion of the competency form is referred to as the Formative (F) Assessment. This
        assessment of the performance of your student teacher takes place after the fourth week
        in your classroom and serves as the mid-term evaluation of your student teacher’s
        progress. At this time each element is read along with the corresponding categories that
        describe various levels of performance. Select the category which best describes the
        consistent level of performance of your student teacher at this mid-term point and mark
        one category per element by putting an X in the box that best identifies the performance
        of your student teacher.
                                    F     S
     3) Near the end of your student teacher’s placement, complete the competency form again to
        provide final or Summative (S) Assessment data that best conveys the performance of
        your student teacher during the final weeks of his/her placement in your classroom. Once
        again, you read the element and the corresponding categories to select the category that
        best describes the performance of your student teacher. Then, put an X in the box marked
        “S” (corresponding to summative).
                                                   F S
     4) Not Applicable – If you feel that any element does not apply at the time of the evaluation
        or in your given teaching situation, print N/A inside the element box.

     5) Comments are recommended if you categorize your student teacher as Unsatisfactory or
        Distinguished. Your careful assessment of your student teacher’s performance will help
        to identify his/her strengths and areas to improve.

     6) On the cover page, please record any days absent by the student teacher.

     7) Note: This competency form is the property of Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania
        (LHUP). It will become part of the student teacher’s file, not the LHUP Career Services
        file. If the student teacher or cooperating teacher wants a copy of this form, s/he will need
        to make a copy for his/her personal file.

                                                                              Thank you.




36                                                    Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005
                                           Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania
                                              Student Teaching Competency Form

      Student Teacher __________________________Dates of Placement _____________________________

      School _______________________________ Address_________________________________________

      Cooperating Teacher(s) ______________________________________and Grade(s) ________________

      University Supervisor _______________________ Content Taught: _____________________________

      Placement      _____1st _____2nd      Absences ______________________________________________

      Student Classroom Population:
      Check all that applies to your student classroom population (if any class taught has this characteristic)

              _____More than 16 percent of the student classroom population is of color.

              _____More than 33 percent of the student classroom population is socioeconomically disadvantaged.

              _____More than 10 percent of the student classroom population are special needs students including ESL students.

      Date Formative Assessment due by _________________
                                                                   Completed by _____________________________
      Date Summative Assessment due by ________________

                                                           Signatures:

Formative
Assessment:   _________________ ____________             ____________________ ____________               ___________________     ____________
              Student Teacher   Date                     Cooperating Teacher  Date                        Supervisor             Date
Summative
Assessment:   _________________ ____________             ___________________ _____________               ___________________     ____________
              Student Teacher   Date                     Cooperating Teacher Date                        Supervisor              Date

Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                          37
September 2005

7/05

                                                      KNOWLEDGE: KNOWLEDGE OF SUBJECT MATTER

                                                                   LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE
       ELEMENT             UNSATISFACTORY (0)                          BASIC (2)                      PROFICIENT (3)                     DISTINGUISHED (4)
                        The ST uses incorrect              The ST displays knowledge of        The ST displays solid content    The ST displays extensive content
                        information or does not            major concepts and basic            knowledge and makes              knowledge and actively pursues further
     KNOWLEDGE          correct content errors students    content central to the discipline   connections between the          learning.
                        make.                              he/she presents but cannot          content and other parts of the
        OF                                                 articulate connections between      discipline and other
      CONTENT                                              other parts of the discipline or    disciplines.
                                                           with other disciplines.
NASPE 1                                     F     S                              F      S                          F     S                                F      S
                        The ST displays little             The ST demonstrates some            The ST creates plans that        The ST effectively uses multiple
                        understanding of prerequisite      awareness of prerequisite           reflect understanding of         representations and explanations of
     LINKING            knowledge important for            learning as evidenced by a few      prerequisite learning by         subject matter concepts that capture
   CONTENT TO           student learning of the content.   references to prior learning, but   creating relationships and       key ideas and links them to students’
                                                           makes incomplete or inaccurate      making complete and accurate     prior understandings.
  PREREQUISITE                                             links to current content.           links to current content.
    LEARNING
                                            F     S                              F      S                          F     S                                F      S
NASPE 1, 6
                        The ST exhibits a minimal          The ST evaluates teaching           The ST develops and uses         The ST creates interdisciplinary
                        understanding of the               resources and curriculum            curricula that encourage         learning experiences that allow
 DEVELOPMENT            relationship between the           materials for their                 students to see, question, and   students to integrate knowledge, skills,
                        curriculum materials and           comprehensiveness, accuracy         interpret ideas from diverse     and methods of inquiry from several
 OF CURRICULAR          content development.               and usefulness for presenting       perspectives.                    areas and make connections to
    CONTENT                                                particular ideas and concepts.                                       everyday life.
                                            F     S                              F      S                          F     S                                 F      S
NASPE 6


Comments:     _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________



38                                                     Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005
                                 PEDAGOGY:        INSTRUCTIONAL PLANNING SKILLS AND TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS

                                                                   LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE
      ELEMENT              UNSATISFACTORY (0)                          BASIC (2)                      PROFICIENT (3)                     DISTINGUISHED (4)
                        The ST displays minimal            The ST displays general             The ST displays competent         The ST displays thorough
    KNOWLEDGE           understanding of child             understanding of child              understanding of child            understanding of child development
       OF               development, different             development, different              development, different            and learning styles, including
    STUDENTS            approaches to learning,            approaches to learning, student     approaches to learning,           exceptionalities.
                        student interests or cultural      interests, and cultural heritage.   student interests, and cultural
                        heritage.                                                              heritage.
NASPE 2, 3
                                            F     S                              F      S                          F     S                               F     S

                        The ST provides materials          The ST provides some materials      The ST provides most              The ST provides materials evidenced in
KNOWLEDGE OF            evidenced in lesson plans and      evidenced in lesson plans and       materials evidenced in lesson     lesson plans and units, etc. and
INSTRUCTIONAL           units, etc. and resources which    units, etc. and resources which     plans and units, etc. and         resources which support instructional
                        offer no variety and do not        support the instructional goals     resources which support the       goals, and engage students in
MATERIALS AND           support the instructional goals.   while engaging students in          instructional goals, and which    meaningful learning.
  RESOURCES                                                meaningful learning.                engage most students in
                                                                                               meaningful learning.
NASPE 2                                     F     S                              F      S                          F     S                               F     S

                        The ST does not plan for and       The ST plans for and affects low    The ST plans for and affects      The ST plans for and affects high level
  IMPLEMENTS            affect learning through the        level learning through the          appropriate learning through      learning through critical thinking and
    PLANS BY            execution of the lesson plan.      execution of the lesson plan.       the execution of the lesson       problem solving, as evidenced by the
                                                                                               plan.                             execution of the lesson plan.
DEMONSTRATING
   TEACHING                                 F     S                              F      S                          F     S                               F     S
 EFFECTIVENESS
NASPE 2,6
                        The ST does not assume an          The ST assumes a partial            The ST successfully assumes       The ST assumes the full teaching load
    TEACHING            appropriate teaching load, as      teaching load with support from     all of the teaching load the      and demonstrates success as a novice
      LOAD              determined by the cooperating      the cooperating teacher.            cooperating teacher assigns.      teacher.
                        teacher.

                                            F     S                              F      S                          F     S                               F     S


Comments:     _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                                  39
September 2005

                                     PEDAGOGY: ADAPTING INSTRUCTION FOR INDIVIDUAL NEEDS
                                                                  LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE
        ELEMENT             UNSATISFACTORY (0)                        BASIC (2)                 PROFICIENT (3)                          DISTINGUISHED (4)
                          The ST conveys a passive        The ST plans for students as    The ST recognizes that all           The ST not only makes students feel
       TEACHER            attitude toward students.       individuals and assists them in students can learn and assists       valued for their potential as people but
       ATTITUDE                                           the learning process.           them in learning at their            also helps them to value each other.
                                                                                          highest levels and persists in
                                                                                          helping all children achieve
NASPE 2                                     F      S                            F     S   success.            F      S                                   F     S

                          The ST displays little          The ST recognizes that students    The ST is fully aware that        The ST demonstrates a clear
                          understanding as to how         do have different needs and        students are different and that   understanding that students’ learning is
     DIVERSITY AND        diversity affects learning.     learn in different ways.           learning can be influenced by     influenced by individual experiences,
       LEARNING                                                                              these differences.                talents, and prior learning, as well as
                                                                                                                               language, culture, family and
                                                                                                                               community values.
NASPE 3, 5
                                            F      S                           F       S                        F      S                                 F

                          The ST displays a minimal       The ST displays different          The ST employs various            The ST uses different approaches to
                          knowledge of the various        approaches to learning and         approaches to learning and        learning (i.e., learning styles, multiple
                          approaches to learning and      makes few attempts to              usually uses appropriate          intelligences, performance modes, etc.)
 APPROACHES TO            makes few attempts to           incorporate appropriate            strategies when designing         and consistently uses this information
   LEARNING               design instruction that         strategies when designing          instruction.                      when designing instruction.
                          focuses on student needs.       instruction.
                                            F      S                           F       S                        F      S                                 F     S
                                                                                                                                                               S
NASPE 3, 5
                          The ST displays little          The ST displays limited            The ST displays solid             The ST displays knowledge in areas of
                          knowledge of the various        knowledge of the various areas     understanding of the various      exceptionality (i.e., learning disabilities,
EXCEPTIONALITIES          areas of exceptionality and     of exceptionality and changes in   areas of exceptionality and       perceptual difficulties, physical, mental
                          makes no accommodations         instructional practices and        shows consistency when            and emotional challenges) and willingly
AND INSTRUCTION           for instruction.                makes few accommodations for       adapting instructional            uses high quality accommodations when
                                                          instruction.                       practices.                        instructing diverse learners.

NASPE 3                                     F      S                           F       S                        F      S                                 F     S



Comments:     _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________



40                                                      Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005
                                                PEDAGOGY:        MULTIPLE INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES

                                                                 LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE
            ELEMENT               UNSATISFACTORY (0)                      BASIC (2)                  PROFICIENT (3)                     DISTINGUISHED (4)
                                 The ST selects material       The ST selects material         The ST selects material         The ST selects material which is
  UNDERSTANDING OF               which is inappropriate        which is inconsistent in        which is appropriate and        appropriate and links well with
PRINCIPLES/TECHNIQUES            and unclear or uses poor      quality. Some are done          links well with students’       students’ knowledge and experience.
                                 examples and analogies.       skillfully, with good           knowledge and experience.       The ST provides opportunities for the
   ASSOCIATED WITH                                             examples; other portions are                                    students to apply their knowledge.
    INSTRUCTIONAL                                              difficult to follow.
      STRATEGIES                                F     S                          F     S                        F      S                                 F      S

NASPE 6
                                 The ST provides activities    The ST provides some            The ST provides most            The ST provides activities which
                                 and assignments which are     activities and assignments      activities and assignments      cognitively engage all students as they
     USE OF MULTIPLE             inappropriate for students    which are appropriate for       which are developmentally       explore content. The ST initiates or
    TEACHING/LEARNING            in terms of their age or      students and engage them        and age appropriate to          adapts activities and projects to
       STRATEGIES                backgrounds. Students are     mentally, but other lessons     students. Almost all students   enhance understanding.
                                 not engaged mentally.         do not.                         are cognitively engaged.
NASPE 2, 6
                                                F     S                          F     S                        F      S                                 F      S


                                 The ST provides               ST’s instructional materials    ST’s instructional materials    The ST provides instructional
                                 instructional materials       and resources are partially     and resources are suitable to   materials and resources which are
    EVALUATING USE OF            and resources which are       suitable to the instructional   the instructional goals and     suitable for instructional goals and
    TEACHING STRATEGY            unsuitable to the             goals. The students’ level of   engage students mentally.       engage students mentally. ST initiates
                                 instructional goals.          mental engagement is                                            the choice, adaptations, or creation of
                                                               moderate.                                                       material to enhance their instructional
NASPE 1, 6                                                                                                                     purposes.
                                                F     S                          F     S                        F      S                                 F      S

                                 The ST adheres rigidly to     The ST attempts to adjust a     The ST makes minor              The ST knows and successfully makes
ADAPTING STRATEGIES BASED        an instructional plan, even   lesson, with mixed results.     adjustments to lessons, and     adjustments to lessons when necessary.
  ON STUDENT FEEDBACK            when a change will clearly                                    the adjustments occur
                                 improve a lesson.                                             smoothly.

NASPE 6                                         F     S                          F     S                        F      S                                 F      S


Comments:     _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________


Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                                41
September 2005

                                                   PEDAGOGY:     ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING

                                                                LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE
            ELEMENT               UNSATISFACTORY (0)                  BASIC (2)                   PROFICIENT (3)                       DISTINGUISHED (4)
                                 The ST uses little or no     The ST uses assessment        The ST uses a variety of          The ST uses a variety of formal and
FORMAL AND INFORMAL              assessment techniques to     techniques to evaluate        assessment techniques to          informal assessment techniques (e.g.,
    ASSESSMENT                   evaluate student             student achievement and       evaluate student achievement      observation, authentic assessment,
                                 achievement, or the          progress throughout the       and progress throughout the       teacher-made tests, and peer
    TECHNIQUES                   proposed assessment          placement, but the criteria   placement, and the criteria       assessments) to evaluate student
                                 contains no clear criteria   developed are unclear.        developed are clear.              achievement and progress throughout
                                 or standards.                                                                                the placement; the criteria are clear,
                                                                                                                              and there is evidence of pre-assessment.
NASPE 7                                                                                                                                                  F     S
                                               F     S                        F     S                          F      S

                                 The ST maintains             The ST maintains records      The ST maintains complete         The ST maintains detailed records of
        MAINTAINING              disorganized and/or few      of student performance        and useful records of student     student performance and consistently
     ACCURATE RECORDS            records concerning           but demonstrates limited      performance and                   communicates student progress to
                                 student performance and      ability to communicate        communicates student              students, colleagues, and parents, if the
            OF                   assignments and is unable    student progress to           progress to students and          opportunity arises.
       STUDENT WORK              to communicate student       students, parents, and        colleagues in conjunction with
                                 progress to students,        colleagues.                   cooperating teachers.
                                 parents and colleagues.
NASPE 7                                         F        S                    F     S                          F      S                                  F     S


                                 The ST lacks congruence      The ST appropriately          The ST appropriately assesses     The ST appropriately selects, constructs
 CONGRUENCE WITH                 between content and          assesses some, but not all,   all instructional outcomes and    and/or uses assessment strategies
   INSTRUCTIONAL                 methods of assessment.       of the instructional          objectives, but the approach is   congruent with instructional outcomes
                                                              outcomes and objectives       more suitable for some than       and objectives necessary for meeting
OUTCOMES/OBJECTIVES                                           through the proposed          others.                           curriculum-based standards.
                                                              approach.                                                                                  F     S
                                                F        S                    F     S                          F     S
NASPE 7


Comments:     _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________


42                                                   Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005
                                              PROFESSIONALISM: COMMUNICATION SKILLS

                                                              LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE
     ELEMENT            UNSATISFACTORY (0)                        BASIC (2)                      PROFICIENT (3)                      DISTINGUISHED (4)
                    The ST’s spoken language is       The ST’s spoken language is          The ST’s spoken and written      The ST’s spoken and written language
     ORAL           inaudible, or written language    audible, and written language is     language is clear and correct.   is correct and expressive, with well-
      AND           is illegible. Spoken or written   legible. Both are used correctly.    Vocabulary is appropriate to     chosen vocabulary that enriches the
                    language contains many            Vocabulary is correct but limited    student’s age and interests.     lesson.
    WRITTEN         grammar and syntax errors.        or is not appropriate to students’
   LANGUAGE         Vocabulary is inappropriate,      ages or backgrounds.
                    vague, or used incorrectly,
                    leaving students confused.
NASPE 5                                 F      S                            F     S                           F      S                                F     S

                    The ST’s questions are            The ST provides a few questions      The ST provides adequate         The ST provides adequate time for
                    virtually all of poor quality     which invite a response.             time for students to respond.    students to respond. Students
  QUESTIONING       (e.g. questions do not invite a                                        ST’s questions are age           formulate questions, too. The ST’s
     SKILLS         response or require single                                             appropriate and divergent.       questions are consistently age
                    word responses).                                                                                        appropriate and divergent.
NASPE 5
                                        F      S                            F     S                           F      S                                F     S

                    The ST mediates all questions     The ST makes some attempt to         Classroom interaction            The ST facilitates students assuming
                    and answers using                 engage students in a true            represents true discussion,      responsibility for success of the
                    predominantly recitation style.   discussion, with uneven results      with the ST stepping, when       discussion, initiating topics and making
  DISCUSSION        The ST does not demonstrate       and is somewhat conscious of         appropriate, to the side. The    unsolicited contributions. The ST
  TECHNIQUES        sensitivity to culture and        gender and cultural differences      ST communicates in ways that     consistently communicates in ways that
                    gender differences.               during discussion.                   demonstrate sensitivity to       demonstrate sensitivity to cultural and
                                                                                           cultural and gender              gender differences, such as appropriate
NASPE 5                                                                                    differences but is not           eye contact and interpretation of body
                                                                                           consistent in doing so all the   language and verbal statements.
                                                                                           time.
                                        F      S                            F     S                           F      S                                F     S
                    The ST does not use visuals       The ST periodically uses a few       The ST frequently uses media     The ST uses a variety of media
                    and media to enhance the          visuals and media to enhance the     and visuals (i.e. overhead       communication tools to enhance the
     VISUALS        lesson.                           lesson.                              projectors, power point          lesson, including audio-visual aids and
                                                                                           presentations, viewscreens) to   computers to enrich learning
                                                                                           enhance the lesson.              opportunities as a regular part of the
NASPE 9                                                                                                                     learning experience.
                                        F      S                            F     S                           F      S                                F     S




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                              43
September 2005



                                      PROFESSIONALISM: PROFESSIONAL COMMITMENT AND RESPONSIBILITY


                                                                   LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE
      ELEMENT              UNSATISFACTORY (0)                         BASIC (2)                        PROFICIENT (3)                       DISTINGUISHED (4)
                        The ST does not follow school      The ST rarely follows school         The ST regularly follows          The ST always follows school policy
 PROFESSIONAL           policy concerning dress,           policy concerning dress, arrival     school policy concerning dress,   concerning dress, arrival and dismissal
  APPEARANCE            arrival and dismissal times,       and dismissal times, and             arrival and dismissal times,      times, and materials completed in a
                        and materials completed in a       materials completed in a timely      and materials completed in a      timely manner and readily adapts to
      AND               timely manner. The ST does         manner. The ST has difficulty        timely manner. The ST             unexpected schedule changes and takes
   CONDUCT              not adapt to unexpected            adapting to unexpected schedule      sometimes adapts to               initiative without direction and
                        schedule changes and displays      changes and displays a poor          unexpected schedule changes       prompting from cooperating teacher.
NASPE 8                 an uncooperative attitude.         attitude.                            and displays cooperative
                                                                                                attitude with prompting from
                                                                                                the cooperating teacher.
                                                                                                                                                            F     S
                                           F      S                               F     S                          F     S

                        The ST’s relationships with        The ST maintains cordial             The ST displays a supportive,     The ST volunteers to participate in
 CONTRIBUTING           faculty and staff are negative     relationships with faculty and       cooperative role with faculty     school events, making a substantial
 TO THE SCHOOL          or self-serving. The ST avoids     staff to fulfill duties the school   and staff, volunteering time      contribution in at least some aspect of
                        becoming involved in school        requires. The ST participates in     and talents if opportunity        school life.
                        projects or events.                school events when specifically      arises.
                                                           asked.
NASPE 10                                   F      S                               F     S                          F     S                                  F     S




Comments:     _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________




44                                                       Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005
                                                           PROFESSIONALISM: REFLECTION


                                                                LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE
     ELEMENT             UNSATISFACTORY (0)                          BASIC (2)                       PROFICIENT (3)                      DISTINGUISHED (4)
                      The ST is unable to assess the    The ST accurately evaluates the       The ST accurately assesses the    The ST accurately assesses the lesson’s
 REFLECTING ON        effectiveness of the lesson and   lesson’s effectiveness and makes      lesson’s effectiveness and        effectiveness and extent to which goals
                      makes no suggestions for          general suggestions for               extent to which it achieved its   were met, citing specific examples from
   TEACHING           improvement.                      improvement of the lesson. The        goals and makes a few specific    the lesson and drawing on an extensive
                                                        ST follows the curriculum             suggestions to improve the        repertoire of skills, cites specific
                                                        directed by manuals and               lesson. The ST uses the           alternative actions for success of the
                                                        materials provided by the school      materials provided by the         lesson. The ST uses materials provided
                                                        system as the teaching and            district and supplements          by the district as a supplement to
                                                        learning base.                        activities with materials,        instruction, which is created by the ST
NASPE 8                                                                                       books, and research to create a   and the student for a more in-depth
                                                                                              more in-depth understanding       knowledge base. The ST uses classroom
                                                                                              for student learning.             observation, information about the
                                                                                                                                students, and research as sources for
                                                                                                                                evaluating the outcome of teaching and
                                                                                                                                learning, and as a basis for
                                                                                                                                experimenting with, reflecting on, and
                                                                                                                                revising practice.

                                          F      S                            F     S                             F     S                                 F      S

                      The ST does not know if lesson    The ST has a general impression       The ST is able to accurately      The ST makes thoughtful judgments
                      was effective or achieved its     of a lesson’s effectiveness and the   assess the effectiveness of the   regarding the effectiveness of the lesson
SELF-ASSESSMENT       goals and misjudges the           extent to which the instructional     lesson and the extent to which    and to whether the goals were met. The
                      success of a lesson.              goals were met.                       the instructional goals were      teacher identifies specific examples
                                                                                              met.                              from the lesson and can articulate the
NASPE 8                                                                                                                         strengths and challenges during the
                                                                                                                                lesson execution.

                                          F      S                            F      S                            F     S                                 F      S


Comments:   _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                                 45
September 2005

                                ENVIRONMENTS: CLASSROOM MOTIVATION AND MANAGEMENT SKILLS

                                                             LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE
     ELEMENT         UNSATISFACTORY (0)                         BASIC (2)                       PROFICIENT (3)                       DISTINGUISHED (4)
                 The ST displays negative           The ST uses understandings of       The ST uses caring                 The ST provides many opportunities
                 interactions with students and     how social groups function and      communications and is              for critical thinking, independent
                 is sarcastic and uncaring. The     influence people, and how people    generally warm, friendly, and      problem solving and performance. The
INTERACTIONS     students exhibit disrespect        influence groups to establish a     collaborative with students        ST uses a range of effective strategies
WITH STUDENTS    towards the ST. A negative         positive learning environment. A    and peers. The ST varies           such as composure, and models mutual
                 learning environment exists.       neutral learning environment        his/her role (instructor,          respect to develop positive
                                                    exists.                             facilitator, coach, audience,      relationships, cooperation, and
NASPE 4                                                                                 team member) to promote            purposeful learning. A constant
                                                                                        optimum learning. A positive       positive learning environment exists.
                                                                                        learning environment exists.
                                    F      S                               F     S                           F     S                                F      S
                 The ST and student                 The ST and student interactions     The ST and students assume         The ST and students maintain
  STUDENT AND    interactions are generally         are positive and little negative    responsibility for their actions   continuous mutual respect and a high
   STAFF (S&S)   negative and nonproductive.        behavior is exhibited toward        and responsibilities. Attitudes    level of trust for each other. Attitudes
                                                    each other.                         and behaviors are positive and     and behaviors are at the highest level to
 INTERACTIONS                                                                           caring.                            effect a positive and productive
                                                                                                                           learning environment.
NASPE 10
                                    F      S                              F      S                           F     S                                F      S

                 The ST cannot utilize the          The ST occasionally plans for a     The ST regularly plans for the     The ST consistently organizes, allocates
  CONNECTING     environmental variables of         few environmental variables to      integration of environmental       and manages resources of time, space,
                 resources, time, space,            extend the daily lessons and        variables ( e.g., local projects   activities, and attention to provide
 LEARNING AND    activities and attention to        promote learning.                   and initiatives) to provide        active and equitable engagement of
 ENVIRONMENT     provide a learning                                                     activities for most students, as   students in productive tasks.
                 environment.                                                           an extension of daily lessons.
NASPE 4, 6
                                     F     S                               F     S                           F      S                               F      S


                 Students not working with the      Tasks for group work are            Tasks for group work are           Groups working independently are
 MANAGEMENT      teacher are not productively       partially organized, resulting in   organized, and groups are          productively engaged with students
                 engaged in learning.               some off-task behavior when         managed so most students are       assuming responsibility for
      OF                                            teacher is involved with one        actively engaged in their          productivity.
INSTRUCTIONAL                                       group.                              learning.
    GROUPS
                                    F      S                              F      S                           F     S                                F      S
NASPE 4

46                                                Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005




ENVIRONMENTS: CLASSROOM MOTIVATION AND MANAGEMENT SKILLS


                                                                LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE
      ELEMENT               UNSATISFACTORY (0)                       BASIC (2)                      PROFICIENT (3)                         DISTINGUISHED (4)
                         Much time is lost during       Transitions are occasionally         Transitions occur smoothly,         Transitions are seamless, with students
  MANAGEMENT             transitions.                   sufficient, resulting in some loss   with little loss of instructional   assuming some responsibility for
          OF                                            of instructional time.               time.                               efficient operation.

    TRANSITIONS
                                           F     S                             F     S                            F      S                                F      S
NASPE 4
                         Student behavior is not        Teacher is generally aware of        Teacher is alert to student         Monitoring by teacher is subtle and
    MONITORING           monitored, and teacher is      student behavior but may miss        behavior the majority of the        preventive. Students monitor their own
                         unaware of what students are   the activities of some students.     time.                               and their peers’ behavior, correcting
         OF              doing.                                                                                                  one another respectfully.
      STUDENT
     BEHAVIORS
                                           F     S                             F     S                            F      S                                F      S

NASPE 4


Comments:      _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                                 47
September 2005

                    ENVIRONMENTS: FOSTERS RELATIONSHIPS WITH SCHOOL COLLEAGUES, PARENTS, AND COMMUNITY AGENCIES

                                                                     LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE
      ELEMENT                UNSATISFACTORY (0)                          BASIC (2)                       PROFICIENT (3)                        DISTINGUISHED (4)
                          The ST does not display            The ST maintains a cordial           The ST maintains a                  The ST actively seeks and shares with
 PROFESSIONAL             evidence of positive               relationship with educators          cooperative relationship with       educators and/or staff ideas for effective
 PARTNERSHIPS             relationships with educators       and/or staff.                        educators and/or staff. There       teaching in relation to specific types of
                          and/or staff. The ST does not      Participates in school related       is an occasional sharing of         behaviors and learning styles.
                          participate in school related      events only when asked.              teaching ideas, topics, and
NASPE 10                  events.                                                                 strategies for effective teaching
                                                                                                  and the ST volunteers to
                                                                                                  participate in school related
                                                                                                  activities.
                                              F     S                                 F       S                       F     S                                   F      S


                          The ST does not respond to         The ST communicates and              The ST communicates and             The ST communicates and provides
COMMUNICATING             and makes no contacts with         provides little information to       provides some information to        frequent and consistent information to
                          parents in conjunction with        parents concerning student           parents concerning student          parents concerning student progress
 WITH PARENTS             the cooperating teacher.           progress and programs and            progress and programs and           and programs and makes numerous
 AND FAMILIES                                                makes one contact with parents       makes few contacts with             contacts with parents in conjunction
                                                             in conjunction with the              parents in conjunction with         with the cooperating teacher.
                                                             cooperating teacher.                 the cooperating teacher.
NASPE 10                                     F     S                              F       S                           F      S                                  F     S
                N    A
                          The ST, in conjunction with        The ST, in conjunction with the      The ST, in conjunction with         The ST, in conjunction with the
     COMMUNITY            the cooperating teacher, does      cooperating teacher, rarely          the cooperating teacher, is able    cooperating teacher, consistently
      AGENCIES            not pursue community               pursues links with community         to identify links with              identifies and uses community
                          outreach or involvement of         agencies in planning for and         professionals from the              resources to foster student learning;
                          other professional agencies in     meeting the needs of individual      learner’s other environments        outreach reflects student interests and
NASPE 10                  planning for and meeting the       students.                            and recognizes the on-going         needs.
                          needs of individual students.                                           influence community factors
                                                                                                  have on student success.
            N       A
                                             F      S                                 F       S                        F        S                               F      S


Comments:        _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This evaluation instrument was developed from the INTASC Standards and the work of Charlotte Danielson.




48                                                         Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005

Professional Partnerships                                               Parent Partnerships

Note: Colleagues could mean other Student Teachers, University          Note: Communications are always approved by coop and may include:
Faculty, Cooperating Teachers and School Personnel as is appropriate.   Letter of introduction the first week of the placement
                                                                        Weekly notes of positive reinforcement concerning a student
                                                                        Initial Unit introduction letter

                                                                        Unit culminating activity letter
                                                                        Classroom events
                                                                        Classroom Newsletter with or without student input
                                                                        Student created letter with digital photo (almost any topic)
                                                                        Goodbye and thank you
                                                                        Participation in parent/teacher conferences

Additional Comments:




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                          49
September 2005


                                        Health and Physical Education Student Teaching Competency Form
                                                                NASPE Aligned

To the Cooperating Teacher: Please evaluate the student-teacher’s proficiency in the following process, pedagogy and content standards set forth by
                            NASPE. NASPE requires that all teacher preparation programs show how their teacher candidates perform in
                            the following areas. Each standard is followed by a description of that standard and a set of indicators that may clarify it
                            and help you determine how well your student-teacher has met it.

                               Please use the following rubric for each standard in order to judge the performance of your student-teacher:

                               Distinguished: The student-teacher extensively and outstandingly demonstrates proficiency in the standard. The
                                              student-teacher has shown a high level of knowledge in the standard and has shown outstanding ability
                                              to use this knowledge in teaching situations. Almost all of the indicators have been met. The
                                              student-teacher has shown independence and confidence in working within the standard and has made
                                              virtually no errors in doing so.

                               Proficient:      The student-teacher consistently and thoroughly demonstrates proficiency in the standard. The student-
                                                teacher has shown an appropriate level of knowledge in the standard and has shown the ability to use
                                                this knowledge in teaching situations. Most of the indicators have been met. The student-teacher has
                                                been able to work within the standards and has made only occasional errors in doing so, having caught
                                                those errors in a timely manner.

                               Basic:           The student-teacher sometimes and adequately demonstrates proficiency in the standard. The student-
                                                teacher has shown a basic level of knowledge in the standard, needing consistent prompting in order to
                                                use this knowledge in teaching situations. Half or less of the indicators have been met. The student-
                                                teacher may make several errors, catching them or not, or seems a little uncomfortable in or unsure
                                                about their ability to work within the standard.

                               Unsatisfactory: The student-teacher rarely or never, inappropriately or superficially, demonstrates proficiency in the
                                               standard. The student-teacher has shown a level of knowledge in the standard that is questionable,
                                               making mistakes without understanding that they are mistakes, and has no confidence that they can
                                               work within the standard. Nearly no indicators have been met.

                               N/A:             The student-teacher did not have an opportunity to demonstrate competence in the standard. Note that it
                                                is expected that this rating will be used sparingly.
50                                                  Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005


Attachment 4.5c
                  Assessment 4 (Student Teaching Competency Form) Results
                                       Excel Spreadsheet

                                    ASSESSMENT 5
                         Teacher Work Sample Factors 3, 5 & 6:
                              Effects on Student Learning:
 Assessment, Analysis & Reflection and Self Evaluation Portion of Teacher Work Sample –
                                    Student Teaching
                                       Description

1. Description of the Assessment and its use in the program
To further demonstrate their competency, candidates must go beyond their abilities to create
resource units, write lessons and, later, full unit plans as requirements for HLTH 311 Teaching
Health Education. Therefore, as part of their culminating TWS produced during their first student
teaching placement, specifically determine their impact on K-12 student learning and their ability
to analyze and reflect upon this impact. Assessment 4 does take into account the cooperating
teacher’s opinion as to the candidate’s effect on K-12 student learning. However, factors 3, 5 and 6
of the TWS require the candidate to carefully develop an assessment plan that includes a pre- and
post-test as well as formative assessments, to complete a detailed analysis of the pre-/post-test
results as well as an analysis of individual learning goals for each student and to reflect on the
entire unit and the impact on their students’ learning. As indicated in assessment 3, the TWS is
placement in LiveText and is common among all student teachers in programs at Lock Haven and
is therefore graded with a common rubric that is not entirely consistent with the NASPE standards
and indicators (although modifications have been made where possible). This assessment,
combined with assessments 3 and 8, are one component used to derive a grade for the student-
teaching placement.

2. Alignment between assessment and NASPE standards
The TWS measures a candidate’s ability to plan and implement a unit of instruction in which all
students can learn, appropriately link a unit of instruction to NASPE standards, analyze student
learning and reflect on the entire process.

3. Analysis of data findings
Again, as indicated in assessment 3, the data shows that our candidates performed well on this
assignment despite there being a fairly generic rubric. This indicates that HPE education
candidates are appropriately considering, evaluating, analyzing and reflecting upon their ability to
impact and have an effect on student learning. In almost all instances HPE candidates performed at
least at the minimal acceptable level of performance in all criteria for factors 3, 5 and 6.

In Factor 3 all candidates met the criterion. However, upon further analysis of the data, it appears
that many of our candidates are including only pencil/paper assessments and that they are not
always specifying the minimal level of acceptable performance for their assessments. This seems
to indicate that our candidates need to be more adequately instructed in creating non-traditional
assessments and that they need to be reminded to state a minimal level of acceptable performance.



Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                           51
September 2005


In Factor 5 it is apparent that some candidates continue to have difficulty with the criteria for this
factor, as it requires quantitative statistical analysis where our HPE candidates are more familiar
and comfortable qualitative analysis. To rectify this, and as indicated on the program checklist,
statistics is now a recommended for HPE majors, however a more streamlined and concentrated
effort to ensure their ability to use this type of data analysis should be provided in HPED 314
Measurement for Evaluation in HPE. Our majors are able to meet the checklist portion of the
analysis of student learning, but fall short in providing evidence of achievement for sub-groups,
and for individuals including adequate evidence of the degree to which individual outcomes /
objectives are being met. We are continuing to address this in our professional semester and
student teaching practicum sessions. Finally, in Factor 6, Reflection and Self-Evaluation, again all
candidates at least partially met the Implications for Future Teaching criterion and all at least
partially met the Implications for Professional Development criterion. However, it will be helpful
to these candidates to continue to improve our instruction on how to better use both statistical and
reflective analyses for future growth rather than simply a mechanism for expressing data, thoughts
and opinions. Our HPE candidates also need to include more specific implications for their own
future teaching or professional development. More specifically, our HPE candidates need to
explain why redesigning instruction would assist with student learning gains. This is now strongly
encouraged in HPED 311 and during the student teaching placement.

4. Interpretation of how data provides evidence for meeting standards
Although this assessment is a fairly new assignment given to our candidates, the data provided
does show their ability to demonstrate their effect on student learning and their ability to analyze
and reflect upon this impact. They are able to design, or select, a variety of pre- and post- tests and
to discuss, coherently, their impact on student learning.


5. Assessment Documentation, including the assessment tool or description of the
assessment; the scoring guide for the assessment; and the candidate data derived from the
assessment.




52                                                    Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005


Attachment 5.5.b

                               Factor 3: Assessment Plan

                                            Checklist
                                                                    Missing Incomplete Complete
Explains and defends choice of assessment                              0        0.5       1

Uses identical pre-post assessment                                     0         0.5         1

Assessment instructions are understandable to all students             0         0.5         1

Employs formative assessments which are congruent with pre             0         0.5         1
and post assessment
Explains the minimal level of acceptable student performance in        0         0.5         1
measurable terms



                                           Rubric
            Element Not Met Element Partially Met                   Element Met (2 pts)
                                          (1 pt)
Assessment The assessment     The assessment plan            The assessment plan includes
Format     plan includes only includes multiple formats      multiple assessment formats
           one assessment     but all formats are either     including listening to and
           format.            pencil/paper (i.e., they are   understanding the ways students
                              not performance                think about mathematics,
                              assessments) and/or do not     performance assessments, or tasks
                              require the integration of     which require integration of
                              knowledge, skills, and         mathematical knowledge, skills, and
                              reasoning ability.             reasoning ability with other
                                                             disciplines.
Assessment No description of    Response includes only       Face validity- The assessment(s)
plan        assessment plan.    one or two of the criteria   specifically addresses each of the
description                     listed to the right.         outcomes.


                                                             Formative plan- The plan
                                                             demonstrates the use of assessment
                                                             throughout the instructional unit.


                                                             Format- Assessment format matches
                                                             the condition specified in the
                                                             outcomes.


Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                       53
September 2005


Assessment The assessment is     The assessment is not        The assessment is challenging. (e.g.,
Challenge overly easy (e.g.,     uniformly challenging.       tasks are not simplistic, test can
           requires only a       That is, some are way too    discriminate between students who
           simple response,      hard and some are way too    attain the outcome and those that
           gives answers         easy.                        cannot. Students should not be able
           away, easy to                                      to answer correctly if they have
           guess, etc.) or is                                 missed class, not paid attention,
           too difficult.                                     guessed, etc.)
Assessment No evidence           Response includes only       Measurable- all criteria for
Criteria                         one or two of the criteria   assessment are described in
                                 listed to the right.         measurable terms (e.g., not
                                                              “performance” “activity”,
                                                              “worksheet” as descriptive criteria.

                                                              Comprehensive- Covers essential
                                                              mathematical content and skills
                                                              from all those covered during
                                                              instruction.

                                                              Criteria Level- Specifies the point at
                                                              which students successfully meet
                                                              the attainment of the learning
                                                              outcome.


                             Factor 5: Analysis of Learning

                                Checklist
                                      Missing Incomplete Complete
Presents Graphics and Data               0        0.5       1
Writes an Effective Narrative            0        0.5       1
Provides a Learning Gains Worksheet      0        0.5       1
Provides a Learning Achievement Table    0        0.5       1



                               Rubric: Instructional implications
           Element Not Met        Element Partially Met (1 pt)            Element Met (2 pts)
Analysis The teacher provides The teacher provides evidence         The teacher provides evidence
of       no data on the ability of the ability to increase          of the ability to increase
Learning to increase students’ students’ knowledge of               students’ knowledge of
         knowledge of           mathematics for sub-groups,         mathematics for sub-groups,
         mathematics for        whole-groups, and for               and for individual students
         individual learning    individual students but does not    including adequate evidence of
         objectives or the      provide evidence on the degree      the degree that individual


54                                                 Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005


          teacher provides        that individual                   outcomes/objectives were met.
          whole-group             outcomes/objectives were met.
          achievement data
          only.

                        Factor 6: Reflection and Self-Evaluation

                                Rubric: Reflection and Self-Evaluation
                        Element Not Met           Element Partially Met        Element Met (2 pts)
                                                            (1 pt)
Interpretation of   No evidence or reasons Provides little evidence but       Provides evidence and
Student             provided to support        no reasons or hypotheses (or   adequate reasons or
Learning            conclusions drawn in       they are simplistic,           hypotheses to support
                    “Analysis of Student       superficial), to support       conclusions drawn in
                    Learning” section.         conclusions drawn in           “Analysis of Student
                                               “Analysis of Student           Learning” section.
                                               Learning” section.
Insights on Best    Does not identify          Identifies successful and      Identifies successful
Practices           successful or              unsuccessful activities or     and unsuccessful
                    unsuccessful activities or assessments. Provides no       activities or
                    assessments. Provides no rationale for why some           assessments and
                    rationale for why some activities or assessments          explores reasons for
                    activities or assessments were more successful than       their success or lack
                    were more successful       others.                        thereof.
                    than others.
Alignment           Discussion shows no        Discussion displays some  Discussion adequately
Among Goals,        alignment among goals, sense of alignment, but       connects learning
Instruction and     instruction, and           misunderstanding or       goals, instruction and
Assessment          assessment results.                                  assessment results.
                                               conceptual gaps are present.
Implications for    Provides no ideas or       Provides ideas for        Provides ideas for
Future Teaching     inappropriate ideas for redesigning                  redesigning instruction
                    redesigning instruction. instruction but offers no   and adequately
                                               rationale for why these   explains why these
                                               changes would improve     modifications would
                                               student learning.         improve student
                                                                         learning.
Implications for Provides no professional Presents professional          Presents professional
Professional     learning goals or        learning                       learning goals related
Development      inappropriate learning   goals, which are either vague to the insights and
                 goals.                   or not strongly related to the experiences described
                                          insights and experiences       in this section. Includes
                                          described in this section.     plans for meeting these
                                                                         goals.




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                             55
        September 2005


        Attachment 5.5.c
                                         Assessment 5: Factors 3, 5 & 6 TWS Results Spring 2006 & Fall 2007
                                                               Fall ‘06   Spring ‘07   # of Missing(0)/   # of Incomplete(0.5)/   # of Complete(1)/
                                                                  N           N           Not Met(0)         Partially Met(1)           Met(2)
                           Criteria
Factor 3 (Assessment Plan)                                                             F 06      S 07      F 06         S 07       F 06      S 07
                          Checklist
Explains and defends choice of assessment                        11          40          0        0          0           3          11        36
Uses identical pre-post assessment                               11          40          0        0          0           2          11        37
Assessment instructions are understandable to all students       11          40          0        0          1           4          10        35
Employs formative assessments which are congruent with
pre and post assessment                                          11          40          0        0          1           3          10        36
Explains the minimal level of acceptable student performance
in measurable terms                                              11          40          0        0          1           2          10        37
                           Rubric
Assessment Format                                                11          40          0        0          0           1          11        39
Assessment plan description                                      11          40          0        0          1           6          10        34
Assessment Challenge                                             11          40          0        0          0           6          11        34
Assessment Criteria                                              11          40          0        0          2           4           9        36

Factor 5 (Analysis of Learning)
                           Checklist
Presents Graphics and Data                                       11          40          1        1          1           2           9        30
Writes an Effective Narrative                                    11          40          1        0          0           1          10        32
Provides a Learning Gains Worksheet                              11          40          1        1          0           1          10        31
Provides a Learning Achievement Table                            11          40          1        1          0           0          10        32
                            Rubric
Analysis of Learning                                             11          40          0        6          1           5          10        22
Factor 6 (Reflection and Self-Evaluation)
                            Rubric
Interpretation of Student Learning                               11          40          0        0          0           2          11        31
Insights on Best Practices                                       11          40          0        0          0           5          11        28
Alignment Among Goals, Instruction, and Assessment               11          40          1        0          0           6          10        27
Implications for Future Teaching                                 11          40          1        0          0           3          10        30
Implications for Professional Development                        11          40          1        0          0           3          10        30


        Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                              56
September 2005



                                          Assessment 6
                                         PDE 430 Forms

1. Description of the Assessment and its use in the program
All teaching candidates at LHUP are required to have at least two PDE 430 Forms (Pennsylvania
Statewide Evaluation Form for Student Professional Knowledge and Practice) completed
during their student teaching experience. The PDE 430 Forms are required in Pennsylvania for
certification to teach Health & Physical Education, grades K-12 and completed by the university
supervisor for both the elementary and secondary placements.

2. Alignment between assessment and NASPE standards
The university supervisor utilizes a multitude of sources including, but not limited to lesson plans,
unit plans, resources/materials/ technology, assessment materials, information about students,
student teacher interviews, classroom observations, visuals, and other resource documents
provided by the teaching candidate to assign evaluate the teaching candidate in each of four
categories and an overall evaluation of performance. The four categories include: Planning and
Preparation, Classroom Environment, Instructional Delivery, and Professionalism. These four
categories are closely aligned with the NASPE standards. Although the PA Department of
Education PDE 430 Form is divided into four major areas, all the NASPE standards can be found
(in some aspect) within the PDE 430 form.

3. Analysis of data findings
Over the time frame for which the data was collected (fall 2006 and spring 2006) all Health &
Physical Education teaching candidates earned an overall rating of Satisfactory, or better. The
satisfactory level is the minimal level of acceptance for certification by the state of Pennsylvania
and therefore the target for our HPE program.

4. Interpretation of how data provides evidence for meeting standards
Since the PDE 430 form aligns closely to the NASPE standards for a beginning teacher and our
pass rate is 100%, we believe our HPE majors possess the skills, knowledge, and dispositions
assumed to be documented using the PA Statewide Evaluation Form for Student Professional
Knowledge and Practice (PDE 430).

5. Attachment of Assessment Documentation
For a full detailed summary of the statistics for PDE 430 refer to HPE Senior Portfolio
Assessment 7 of this report.




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                             57
September 2005


 Attachment 6.5a

 Pennsylvania Statewide Evaluation Form for Student Professional Knowledge
                                and Practice

                                                                                                                  123-45-6789
Student/Candidate’s Last Name                       First                          Middle                         Social Security
Number

Subject(s) Taught                                                                             Grade Level
This form is to serve as a permanent record of a student teacher/candidate’s professional performance
evaluation during a specific time period, based on specific criteria. This form must be used at least twice during
the 12-week (minimum) student teaching experience.

                                               PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Directions: Examine all sources of evidence provided by the student teacher/candidate and bear in
mind the aspects of teaching for each of the four categories used in this form. Check the
appropriate aspects of student teaching, and indicate the sources of evidence used to determine the
evaluation of the results in each category. Assign an evaluation for each of the four categories and
then assign an overall evaluation of performance. Sign the form and gain the signature of the
student teacher.

Category I: Planning and Preparation           – Student teacher/candidate demonstrates thorough knowledge of content and pedagogical
skills in planning and preparation. Student teacher makes plans and sets goals based on the content to be taught/learned, knowledge of
assigned students, and the instructional context.
Alignment: 354.33. (1)(i)(A), (B), (C), (G), (H)
Student Teacher/Candidate’s performance appropriately demonstrates:
             Knowledge of content
             Knowledge of pedagogy
             Knowledge of Pennsylvania’s K-12 Academic Standards
             Knowledge of students and how to use this knowledge to impart instruction
             Use of resources, materials, or technology available through the school or district
             Instructional goals that show a recognizable sequence with adaptations for individual student needs
             Assessments of student learning aligned to the instructional goals and adapted as required for student needs
             Use of educational psychological principles/theories in the construction of lesson plans and setting instructional
              goals


Sources of Evidence (Check all that apply and include dates, types/titles and number)
   Lesson/Unit Plans                                See Attached           Student Teacher Interviews           See Attached 430-A
430-A                                                                      Classroom Observations               See Attached 430-A
   Resources/Materials/Technology                   See Attached           Resource Documents                   See Attached 430-A
430-A
   Assessment Materials                             See Attached           Other                                See Attached 430-A
430-A
   Information About Students                       See Attached
430-A (Including IEP’s)




58                                                                      Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005


Category                 Exemplary 3 Points          Superior 2 Points               Satisfactory 1 Point        Unsatisfactory 0 Points
Criteria for Rating      The candidate               The candidate usually and       The candidate               The candidate rarely or
                         consistently and            extensively demonstrates        sometimes and               never and inappropriately or
                         thoroughly                  indicators of performance.      adequately demonstrates     superficially demonstrates
                         demonstrates indicators                                     indicators of               indicators of performance.
                         of performance.                                             performance.
        Rating
     (Indicate √)
Justification for Evaluation



                                                                                                                       123-45-6789
Student/Candidate’s Last Name                         First                           Middle                           Social Security
Number

Category II: Classroom Environment            – Student teacher/candidate establishes and maintains a purposeful and equitable environment
                                                 for learning, in
which students feel safe, valued, and respected, by instituting routines and setting clear expectations for student behavior.
Alignment: 354.33. (1)(i)(E), (B)
Student Teacher/Candidate’s performance appropriately demonstrates:

                      Expectations for student achievement with value placed on the quality of student work
                      Attention to equitable learning opportunities for students
                      Appropriate interactions between teacher and students and among students
                      Effective classroom routines and procedures resulting in little or no loss of instructional time
                      Clear standards of conduct and effective management of student behavior
                      Appropriate attention given to safety in the classroom to the extent that it is under the control of the student
                       teacher
                      Ability to establish and maintain rapport with students


Sources of Evidence (Check all that apply and include dates, types/titles, and number)
        Classroom Observations                   See Attached
     430-A                                                                  Visual Technology                    See Attached
        Informal Observations/Visits             See Attached            430-A
     430-A                                                                  Resources/Materials/Technology/Space See Attached
        Student Teacher/Candidate                See Attached            430-A
     430-A                                                                  Other                                See Attached
        Interviews                               See Attached            430-A
     430-A

Category                Exemplary 3 Points         Superior 2 Points               Satisfactory 1 Point          Unsatisfactory 0 Points
Criteria for Rating     The candidate              The candidate usually and       The candidate sometimes       The candidate rarely or never
                        consistently and           extensively demonstrates        and adequately                and inappropriately or
                        thoroughly                 indicators of performance.      demonstrates indicators       superficially demonstrates
                        demonstrates                                               of performance.               indicators of performance.
                        indicators of
                        performance.
       Rating
    (Indicate √)
Justification for Evaluation




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                                                                      59
September 2005



                                                                                                                   123-45-6789
Student/Candidate’s Last Name                          First                         Middle                        Social Security
Number

Category III   – Instructional Delivery - Student teacher/candidate, through knowledge of content, pedagogy and skill in delivering
instruction, engages students in learning by using a variety of instructional strategies.
Alignment: 354.33. (1)(i)(D),(F),(G)
Student Teacher/candidate’s performance appropriately demonstrates:

                   Use of knowledge of content and pedagogical theory through his/her instructional delivery
                   Instructional goals reflecting Pennsylvania K-12 standards
                   Communication of procedures and clear explanations of content
                   Use of instructional goals that show a recognizable sequence, clear student expectations, and adaptations for
                    individual student needs
                   Use of questioning and discussion strategies that encourage many students to participate
                   Engagement of students in learning and adequate pacing of instruction
                   Feedback to students on their learning
                   Use of informal and formal assessments to meet learning goals and to monitor student learning
                   Flexibility and responsiveness in meeting the learning needs of students
                   Integration of disciplines within the educational curriculum


Sources of Evidence (Check all that apply and include dates, types/titles, or number)
        Classroom Observations                  See Attached             Student Assignment Sheets              See Attached 430-A
     430-A                                                               Student Work                           See Attached 430-A
        Informal Observations/Visits            See Attached             Instructional Resources/               See Attached 430-A
     430-A                                                               Materials/Technology
        Assessment Materials                    See Attached             Other                                  See Attached 430-A
     430-A
        Student Teacher/Candidate               See Attached
     430-A
        Interviews

Category                   Exemplary 3 Points        Superior 2 Points              Satisfactory 1 Point      Unsatisfactory 0 Points
Criteria for Rating        The candidate             The candidate usually and      The candidate sometimes   The candidate rarely or
                           consistently and          extensively demonstrates       and adequately            never and inappropriately or
                           thoroughly                indicators of performance.     demonstrates indicators   superficially demonstrates
                           demonstrates                                             of performance.           indicators of performance.
                           indicators of
                           performance.
        Rating
     (Indicate √)
Justification for Evaluation




60                                                                          Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005



                                                                                                                   123-45-6789
Student/Candidate’s Last Name                       First                           Middle                         Social Security
Number


Category IV – Professionalism      - Student teacher/candidate demonstrates qualities that characterize a professional person in aspects
that occur in and beyond the classroom/building.
Alignment: 354.33. (1)(i)(I),(J)
Student Teacher/Candidate’s performance appropriately demonstrates:

                Knowledge of school and district procedures and regulations related to attendance, punctuality and the like
                Knowledge of school or district requirements for maintaining accurate records and communicating with families
                Knowledge of school and/or district events
                Knowledge of district or college’s professional growth and development opportunities
                Integrity and ethical behavior, professional conduct as stated in Pennsylvania Code of Professional Practice and
                 Conduct for Educators; and local, state, and federal, laws and regulations
                Effective communication, both oral and written with students, colleagues, paraprofessionals, related service
                 personnel, and administrators
                Ability to cultivate professional relationships with school colleagues
                Knowledge of Commonwealth requirements for continuing professional development and licensure


Sources of Evidence (Check all that apply and include dates, types/titles, or number)
   Classroom Observations                  See Attached          Student Assignment Sheets                        See Attached 430-A
430-A                                                            Student Work                                     See Attached 430-A
   Informal Observations/Visits            See Attached          Instructional Resources/Materials/               See Attached 430-A
430-A                                                            Technology
   Assessment Materials                    See Attached          Other                                            See Attached 430-A
430-A
   Student Teacher Interviews              See Attached
430-A
   Written Documentation                   See Attached
430-A

Category                Exemplary 3 Points        Superior 2 Points               Satisfactory 1 Point        Unsatisfactory 0 Points
Criteria for Rating     The candidate             The candidate usually and       The candidate sometimes     The candidate rarely or
                        consistently and          extensively demonstrates        and adequately              never and inappropriately or
                        thoroughly                indicators of performance.      demonstrates indicators     superficially demonstrates
                        demonstrates                                              of performance.             indicators of performance.
                        indicators of
                        performance.
       Rating
    (Indicate √ )
Justification for Evaluation




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                                                                   61
September 2005



                                                            Overall Rating
Category               Exemplary (Minimum         Superior (Minimum of 8       Satisfactory (Minimum of    Unsatisfactory (0 Points)
                       of                         Points)                                    4 Points)
                                     12 Points)
Criteria for Rating    The candidate              The candidate usually and    The candidate sometimes     The candidate rarely or
                       consistently and           extensively demonstrates     and adequately              never and inappropriately or
                       thoroughly                 indicators of performance.   demonstrates indicators     superficially demonstrates
                       demonstrates                                            of performance.             indicators of performance.
                       indicators of
                       performance.
        Rating
     (Indicate √ )

Note: This assessment instrument must be used a minimum of two times. A satisfactory rating (1) in each of the 4
categories, resulting in a minimum total of at least (4) points, must be achieved on the final summative rating to
favorably complete this assessment.

Justification for Overall Rating:




                                                                                                               123-45-6789
Student Teacher/Candidate’s Last Name               First                       Middle                         Social Security
Number

                                                                                                                1/1/2000
District/IU                                         School
          Interview/Conference Date

School Year:          2003-2004                               Term:     Fall


Required Signatures:
Supervisor/Evaluator:                                                                                     Date: 1/1/2000

Student/Teacher
Candidate:                                                                                                Date: 1/1/2000




                                                  (Confidential Document)




62                                                                      Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005




Attachment 6.5.b Directions for completing the PDE 430 form




                                    Using the
 Pennsylvania Statewide Evaluation Form for Student Professional Knowledge
                                 and Practice–
                 Pennsylvania Department of Education—PDE-430


HEADING AND SIGNATURE PAGE

   1. The heading of the evaluation form contains biographical information regarding the student
      teacher/candidate being evaluated and the evaluation period.

   2. The subjects being taught and the grade level should be clearly listed.

   3. Write the date on which the conference was held between the student teacher/candidate and
      the evaluator on the signature page of the PDE-430 form.

   4. Clearly state the school year and the term in the appropriate place on the signature page.


CATEGORIES OF EVALUATION

   1. PDE 430 has 4 major categories addressing evaluation of student teacher/candidate:
                 i. Category I- Planning and Preparation
                ii. Category II- Classroom Environment
               iii. Category III-Instructional Delivery
               iv. Category IV-Professionalism

       Each category has student teacher/candidate performance indicators that support the
       category’s evaluation on a continuum from Exemplary through Unsatisfactory. The
       “Student Teacher/Candidate’s Performance Appropriately Demonstrates” indicators are the
       criteria for the evaluation. Both the evaluator and the student teacher/candidate must be
       aware of the performance indicators being used in the evaluation before the evaluation
       takes place.

   2. Each PDE 430 Category, I through IV, includes an explanation of the various aspects of
      teaching that aid in the further definition of the category.



Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                          63
September 2005


LEVELS OF PROFICIENCY IN THE CATEGORIES

     1. The categories presented on the PDE 430 provide knowledge, to the evaluator and the
        student teacher/candidate, of performance expectations and the required levels of
        proficiency for each category. The category’s results, are evaluated through the review of
        the defined “Student Teacher/Candidate’s Performance Demonstrates” indicators in each of
        the four categories.

     2. The student teacher/candidate’s demonstrated performance indicators in each category
        should be checked or highlighted in a manner to assist the evaluator in determining the
        appropriate level of
        proficiency. The judgment of the performance for the rating of any category is based on:

                the rater’s overall evaluation of performance in each category and
               is not dependent on seeing each single performance indicator demonstrated
                successfully in order to receive a high level evaluation.


SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

     1. The sources of evidence, gathered by the student teacher/candidate and the evaluator,
        should be considered by the evaluator to make a judgment about the student
        teacher/candidate’s performance/level of proficiency.

     2. It is also the responsibility of the student teacher/candidate to ensure the availability of
        evidence required for each of the categories evaluated. The evaluator and the student
        teacher/candidate will share the sources at the conference date. The evaluator will mark,
        on the form next to the source of evidence, pertinent pieces of evidence that were reviewed
        during the evaluation of a student teacher/candidate’s performance/level of proficiency.

     3. Since the evaluation form serves as a recordkeeping device in support of the
        recommendation for a successful performance assessment, it is important that the evaluator
        specify, next to the source of evidence, any evidence considered so that the student teacher,
        and other administrators reviewing the form, may have a sense of what was used to arrive
        at a judgment on the level of proficiency.

     4. Sources of evidence should have, where appropriate, written dates that the source of
        evidence occurred: for example, the date of the planning document or dates of classroom
        observations/visits. Types of evidence reviewed can be listed as well as titles, for example,
        Back-to-School Night presentation. It should include the number of sources; for example if
        seven pieces of student work were collected for a particular source of evidence, that
        number should be included.

     5. The space following each source of evidence allows an evaluator to document the
        important source(s) that were considered and captures the essential information about the
        source. If further space is required, an additional sheet may be attached.


64                                                   Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005



   JUSTIFICATION FOR EVALUTION

   1. After reviewing the results of the student teacher/candidate’s performance indicators in
      each category, and the pertinent sources of evidence, the assessor will make a judgment for
      each category on the PDE 430. The appropriate box is then checked.

   2. This is a key section as it provides the student teacher with a clear understanding of the
      evaluator’s decision based on observations and other specific sources of evidence. This
      section also provides further explanation of why the student teacher is receiving a particular
      rating for the category. The evaluator’s comments help to focus the student teacher on
      his/her specific strengths and areas for improvement. It is important to write statements
      that are clear, consistent, and specify key areas for improvement, if required.


      The justification section may be expanded to whatever length the rater feels necessary to
      help the student teacher/candidate understand the rating, the reasons for it and steps that
      can be taken to improve performance, whenever required.


   EVALUATION

   1. The evaluation/signature page of the PDE 430 includes the school year and term during
      which the observation occurred. An appropriate overall judgment of the student
      teacher/candidate’s demonstrated performance will be made and checked, resulting in
      either a particular level of proficiency.

   2. The signature of the evaluator, usually the student teacher/candidate’s supervisor, must be
      included. In addition, the signature of the student teacher/candidate and the appropriate
      signature dates must also be included. The student teacher/candidate does not have to
      agree with the judgments or statements of the evaluator in order to sign the form. The
      student teacher/candidate is obligated to sign the form once the evaluator has shared the
      contents of the form with the student teacher/candidate. Student teacher/candidate may
      annotate the form with “I disagree with this rating.”

   3. The Overall Justification for Evaluation section should specify any key areas for
      improvement, when used for the first assessment, and provide the student teacher with a
      clear understanding of the evaluator’s overall judgment of the their performance. All
      written sections may be expanded in size in order to fully express the observations and
      recommendations to the student teacher/candidate. Additional pages may be added if
      necessary.

      The level of proficiency indicated in each of the 4 categories will added to determine an
      overall rating/level of proficiency for the entire PDE 430 form and the single rating period.
      At least a satisfactory rating must have been be achieved in each of the 4 categories.


Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                          65
September 2005




     The certifying officer must now verify that the candidate has achieved at least a satisfactory
     rating on the PDE 430 by so indicating on the PDE 338C, College/University Verification
     Form, which is used to recommend a candidate to the Commonwealth for certification.


     GENERAL REQUIREMENTS


     1. Each student teacher/candidate must be observed and evaluated using the PDE 430 a
        minimum of two times during their student teaching experience--once at the midpoint, and
        once at the end.
        Note that this is a minimum number of times and further evaluations may be
        completed, as the college/university desires. For example, if a candidate has two separate
        student teaching assignments, they may be observed at the midpoint and end of each
        assignment.

     2. All evaluations with the PDE 430 are considered to be formative with the exception of the
        final one, which is considered to be the summative evaluation. All others are used in order
        to give the student teacher/candidate an opportunity to correct or improve any deficiencies.

        The PDE 430 assessment instrument must be used a minimum of two times. A satisfactory
        rating (1) in each of the 4 categories, resulting in a minimum total of at least (4) points,
        must be achieved on the final summative rating to favorably complete the overall
        assessment. Note that all categories must have achieved at least a satisfactory rating in all
        cases.

     3. A copy of the PDE 430 is kept in the student teacher/candidate’s college file. Student
        teacher/candidate’s should have a copy of their completed PDE-430. However, copies of
        the PDE 430 should not be provided by the college to outside agencies, prospective
        employers, or other individuals, in any situation, as this in an internal document. The PDE
        430 is a confidential document. Copies of the PDE 430 will be reviewed during state major
        program reviews.



                                              Division of Teacher Education
                                              717-787-3470
                                              Bureau of Teacher Certification
                                              and Preparation
                                              Pennsylvania Department of Education
                                                                             (8/1/03




66                                                   Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005


Attachment 6.5.c Candidate Data Derived from the PDE 430 Form Assessment
Semester                                                                Fall, 06
                                   0 Points             1 Point        2 Points           3 Points          Mean

Rating                          Unsatisfactory     Satisfactory        Superior          Exemplary
Placement                         1st     2nd      1st        2nd     1st     2nd        1st    2nd   1st          2nd
Category I: Planning and
Preparation                       0        0        0             0   6        10        7       6    2.54     2.38
Category II: Classroom
Environment                       0        0        0             0   10       5         3       11   2.23     2.69
Category III: Instructional
Delivery                          0        0        2             0   9        7         2       9     2       2.56
Category IV: Professionalism
                                  0        0        1             0   1        3         11      13   2.77     2.81


Semester                                                              Spring, 07
                                   0 Points             1 Point        2 Points           3 Points          Mean

Rating                          Unsatisfactory     Satisfactory        Superior          Exemplary
Placement
                                  1st     2nd      1st        2nd     1st     2nd        1st    2nd   1st      2nd
Category I: Planning and
Preparation                       0        0        0             0   12       9         22      22   2.65     2.71
Category II: Classroom
Environment                       0        0        0             0   10       11        24      20   2.71     2.65
Category III: Instructional
Delivery                          0        0        0             0   14       13        20      18   2.59     2.58
Category IV: Professionalism
                                  0        0        0             0   1        5         33      26   2.97     2.84


Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                               67
September 2005


                                       Assessment 7
                        Senior Portfolio Presented Using LiveText
1. Description of the Assessment and its use in the program -
The Senior Portfolio assessment is evidence collected by candidates that showcases the best of our
HPE work completed at Lock Haven University. The Senior Portfolio helps to demonstrate that
students have met both Unit and NASPE standards. Some of the components of the portfolio are
required documents and credentials (e.g., clearances and copies of PRAXIS I and II scores) that
have been collected throughout the students time at LHUP. Other elements of the Senior Portfolio
provide documentation that our students are meeting the INTASC standards and our NASPE
standards. The portfolio is created electronically in LiveText and there are ten sections that align
directly with our NASPE standards.

The portfolio must be completed by the end of the student teaching semester and is accompanied
by an oral portfolio presentation made to the HPE Program Coordinator, the student’s University
Supervisor, and one faculty member from the HPE department. Our department also requires all
professional semester students to attend two senior portfolio presentations.

2. A description of how this assessment specifically aligns with the standards it is cited for in
Section III
The Senior Portfolio is aligned with each and every NASPE Standard. Candidates are asked to
address each standard in the portfolio with at least two artifacts and a reflection as to how the
artifacts selected help to meet the standard being addressed. The candidates are also required to
provide a detailed reflection that includes an analysis of their teaching effectiveness and ability to
assess both learners and themselves. The Senior Portfolio includes three communication and
disposition competency forms completed during their student teaching placements by either a
university supervisor or cooperating teacher. This form evaluates our candidates written
communication mechanics, written communication content, oral communication, dispositions and
interpersonal skills, as well as professionalism. The final component of the Senior Portfolio used
in Assessment eight is the Lesson Plan Evaluation Form. The teaching candidate must have at
least two lessons evaluated by a professional semester professor or university supervisor during
their professional semester term or student teaching. The criteria have been revised after the
fall 2006 semester to now include Standards, Content, and Adaptations for Diverse Learners.

3. A brief analysis of the data findings
We have had an electronic portfolio requirement at Lock Haven University for some time. The
current version of the Senior Portfolio assessment however was first pilot tested in the fall of 2006
with the 16 program completers who were student teaching that semester. Some modifications to
the assessment were made prior to the spring 2007 semester (34 program completers).

The performance on each criterion was examined individually while noting which candidates met
the minimal target of “proficient” level. The range of scores for each criterion included
“unsatisfactory” with a score of one, “basic” with a score of 2, “proficient” with a score of 3, and
“distinguished” with a score of 4. The section devoted to the evaluation of lesson plans was
revised to include “standards” and “adaptations for diverse learners”. Even with the addition of



Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                             68
September 2005


the adaptations, only nine total students scored below the target level. In all other instances, our
candidates scored at the “proficient” (target) or “distinguished” level.

The data for Assessment 7 (Senior Portfolio) can be found for fall 2006 and spring 2007 in the
attachments entitled: Senior Portfolio 2006 and Senior Portfolio 2007.

The performance of all program completers during the semesters in question provided
documentation that our students understand the NASPE standards and can align artifacts from their
academic training to support their ability to meet the standards.

4. An interpretation of how that data provides evidence for meeting standards
The senior portfolio provides evidence for meeting the NASPE standards because of two major
premises. The senior portfolio aligns directly with the NASPE standards, and each member of the
data in question (after some modifications were made between the fall 2006 and spring 2007
semesters) was rated as proficient or better on each criterion associated with each standard.
These data also suggest lesson planning (particularly diversity) will need to be examined closely in
subsequent semesters and addressed during our pre-professional semester courses. Although
several sections of the lesson plan were below our target in the fall, these areas were not present in
any spring data. Only one candidate scored below the target level in the areas of reflection, self-
evaluation, and the Professional section of the communication and disposition form. The areas of
self-evaluation and reflection have been addressed (and continue to be addressed) within the
requirements for professional semester and student teaching utilizing both lesson plans and weekly
reflective logs related to the candidates’ teaching experiences.

5. Attachment of Assessment Documentation
The description of the assignment, scoring rubric for the assessment, and candidate data derived
from the assessment can be found in the following attachments.




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                             69
September 2005


Attachment 7.5.a Senior Portfolio Directions

LHUP Senior Portfolio
by LHUP Undergrad Admin

Senior Portfolio Directions
Conceptual Framework




LHUP Conceptual Framework
The Senior Portfolio in teacher education at Lock Haven University is required of all students
and is an evaluation measure designed to assess the progress of candidates in teacher
education. Since all students and faculty in teacher education at LHUP use the reflective
decision maker model as a focal point for instruction and learning, the artifacts that are to be
included in this portfolio reflect the four elements of that model: Knowledge, Pedagogy,
Environments, and Professionalism. Additionally, each candidate should select artifacts to
include in the Senior Portfolio that demonstrate competencies outlined by Interstate New
Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) Standards or the Professional
Standards (SPA) from the candidate's discipline.

Directions
Directions for preparing the portfolio:

     1. Before you begin preparing your portfolio, read over ALL the rubrics for the Senior
          Portfolio found in Livetext so that you will know what is being expected of you.
     2.   In the “Introduction” provide information about yourself and if you wish a picture of
          yourself (optional). Include a Letter of Interest, Resume, Philosophy of Education and
          your Philosophy of Classroom Management. You also must include clearances (Act
          151, 34, and a negative TB test), Praxis I and II scores and a copy of your academic




70                                                  Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005


        record which serves as your transcript until you graduate and receive a formal
        university transcript.
   3.   You must include artifacts produced during your field experiences (professional
        semester/student teaching) for each INTASC/SPA Standard. You are to match the
        required artifacts and the program specific artifacts to the appropriate INTASC/SPA
        Standard. For each of the required INTASC/SPA Standards you must have at
        least two artifacts. We encourage the use of artifacts that meet multiple standards.
   4.   Be sure to include the required artifacts common to all education majors:
             Two Lesson Plans (one from each student teaching placement)
             Work Sample/Unit Plan
             Diversity Essay- from the second 20 hour placement
             Communication & Disposition Form
             Student Teaching Competency Form (CT/ST)
             PDE430 forms
             National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T) Completion
               Form.
   5.   Optional artifacts
             University Supervisor’s Observation- 2 from each placement
             Classroom Observations- 3 from each placement
             Journal Reflections/daily/weekly logs
             Bulletin Board/learning center/websites
             Assessment examples
             Multiple Instructional Strategies
             Classroom Management and Motivational Strategies
             APL Certificate
             Proof of Membership in Professional Organization
             Reflection of video-taped lesson (at least one)
             Letters to Parents
             Community Involvement
             Field Trips
             Unit Plan from second student teaching placement
             Include a rationale for why you chose your artifacts to demonstrate competence
               in meeting the INTASC/SPA Standards. Why did you select a particular
               artifact in relation to a particular standard? How does that artifact
               address a particular INTASC/SPA Standard?
             Include an analysis of your meeting the INTASC/SPA Standards. What did
               you learn? What would you change if you had the opportunity?
             In the Conclusion section, comment on your strengths specifically in
               Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions. Include your plan for achieving further
               competence in a given standard and well as a plan of action for your future
               growth in both Knowledge and Skills in relation to your specific professional
               area.
   6.   In the Conclusion section, reflect and comment on your strengths and areas in need of
        improvement, specifically in Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions, in meeting the
        INTASC/SPA Standards. Include your plan for achieving further competencies in a
        given standard as well as a plan of action for your future growth in Knowledge, Skills,
        and Dispositions in relation to your specific professional area.




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                     71
September 2005



Directions for entering the NETS-T artifacts:

Choose 5 artifacts that show competence in meeting the Student Teaching / Internship
Performance Profile that were not met by taking EDTF2xx and preparing this portfolio. This
document will help you. (Guidelines for Inclusion of Technology in the Senior Portfolio). When
you have identified the 5(five) artifacts, complete the table found in the NETS T Standards &
Artifact page. The NETS standards must be aligned with the INTASC Standards. (This table
will help you properly align the standards.)

Portfolio Score:

You must score at the proficient level for each element of each rubric of the senior portfolio in
order for the senior portfolio to be complete. If you score below the proficient level you must
re-submit the portfolio with the revisions for that particular element before you will be
permitted to graduate.

Portfolio Presentation:

Each student teacher is required to present the electronic portfolio once it is completed. The
presentation can be given in a variety of settings (i.e., student teaching school site, on
campus, etc.). The presentation of approximately 20-25 minutes must have one professional
reviewer, whenever possible two professional reviewers are preferred. One reviewer must be
the university student teacher supervisor. The remaining reviewer(s) can be any of the
following: cooperating teacher, building principal, other building teachers, or program faculty
members. If you select the option of presenting the portfolio on campus, you may also invite
an underclassman to serve as a peer reviewer. You are encouraged to have at least one
underclassman attend your portfolio presentation regardless of the setting (on
campus or in-school site). Each reviewer must use the Senior Portfolio Presentation Rubric
during the presentation. All original completed rubrics must be submitted to your program
coordinator. Each student teacher is responsible for setting up the actual presentation
(contacting and confirming each reviewer, notifying everyone of location/time of presentation,
making sure the room has the necessary technology available, having rubrics available, etc.)




72                                                 Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005



Introduction
INTASC 1 - Knowledge of Subject Matter


Standards
         STANDARD: The teacher understands the central concepts, tools
         of inquiry, and structures of the discipline(s) he or she teaches
INTASC.1
         and can create learning experiences that make these aspects of
         subject matter meaningful for students.

Artifacts

INTASC 2 - Human Development & Learning
Standards
         STANDARD: The teacher understands how children learn and
INTASC.2 develop, and can provide learning opportunities that support their
         intellectual, social and personal development.

Artifacts

INTASC 3 - Adapting Instruction
Standards
         STANDARD: The teacher understands how students differ in their
INTASC.3 approaches to learning and creates instructional opportunities that
         are adapted to diverse learners.

Artifacts


INTASC 4 - Multiple Strategies

Standards
         STANDARD: The teacher understands and uses a variety of
INTASC.4 instructional strategies to encourage students' development of
         critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills.




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                     73
September 2005


Artifacts

INTASC 5 - Motivation & Management
Standards
         STANDARD: The teacher uses an understanding of individual and
         group motivation and behavior to create a learning environment
INTASC.5
         that encourages positive social interaction, active engagement in
         learning, and self-motivation.


Artifacts

INTASC 6 - Communication Skills
Standards
         STANDARD: The teacher uses knowledge of effective verbal,
INTASC.6 nonverbal, and media communication techniques to foster active
         inquiry, collaboration, and supportive interaction in the classroom.


Artifacts

INTASC 7 - Instructional Planning Skills
Standards
            STANDARD: The teacher plans instruction based upon knowledge
INTASC.7
            of subject matter, students, the community, and curriculum goals.


Artifacts

INTASC 8 - Assessment

Standards
         STANDARD: The teacher understands and uses formal and
         informal assessment strategies to evaluate and ensure the
INTASC.8
         continuous intellectual, social and physical development of the
         learner.




74                                       Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005


Artifacts

INTASC 9 - Commitment
Standards
         STANDARD: The teacher is a reflective practitioner who continually
         evaluates the effects of his/her choices and actions on others
INTASC.9 (students, parents, and other professionals in the learning
         community) and who actively seeks out opportunities to grow
         professionally.


Artifacts

INTASC 10 - Partnerships

Standards
          STANDARD: The teacher fosters relationships with school
INTASC.10 colleagues, parents, and agencies in the larger community to
          support students' learning and well-being.


Artifacts

NETS-T Standards & Artifacts

NETS-T Standards & Artifacts



                    NETS-T Student Teaching / Internship    INTASC
        Artifacts
                            Performance Profile            Standards

        1.

        2.

        3.

        4.

        5.




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                    75
September 2005


Conclusion



Assessment
Portfolio Rubric

Please click the following link to see the Senior Portfolio Rubric


Portfolio Presentation Rubric
Please click the following link to see the Senior Presentation Portfolio
Rubric




76                                       Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005


Attachment 7.5.b Senior Portfolio Rubric

Senior Portfolio Rubric Updated SP07
by LHUP Undergrad Admin


Assessment
Portfolio Artifacts Rubric
                         Portfolio Artifacts Rubric
                 Level 1 Level 2 (2 pts) Level 3 (3 pts)              Level 4
                  (1 pt)                                              (4 pts)
   Portfolio    Some     All required        All required        All required
  Artifacts --  required artifacts are       artifacts are       artifacts are
  (Evaluation artifacts included; some included; most            included;
Goal: Selection are      selected artifacts selected artifacts   artifacts are
& Alignment of missing. are properly         are properly        properly
  Artifacts to           aligned with        aligned with        aligned with
 INTASC/SPA              INTASC/SPA          INTASC/SPA          INTASC/SPA
Standards) (1,           standards; some standards; some         standards;
    100%)                rationales and      rationales and      rationales and
                         analyses are        analyses are        analyses are
                         either missing or either missing or     logical.
                         illogical.          illogical.

Rationale Rubric
                            Rationale Rubric
           Unsatisfactory Basic (2 pts) Proficient              Distinguished
                (1 pt)                        (3 pts)              (4 pts)
Rationale Rationale is    Rationale      Rationale           Rationale provides
   (1,    basically a     provides some provides             insight, is well
 100%) summary of the insight but        justification for   developed, and
          artifacts.      does not       artifact            includes specific
                          include        selection and       links between
                          adequate links includes            artifacts and the
                          between        specific links      standard.
                          artifacts and between
                          the knowledge artifacts and
                          base.          the standard.




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                        77
September 2005


Artifacts Reflection Rubric
                           Artifacts Reflection Rubric
            Unsatisfactory Basic (2 pts) Proficient             Distinguished
                  (1 pt)                            (3 pts)         (4 pts)
Reflection Reflection does      Reflection     Reflection     Reflection
   (1,     not include          includes       includes       includes
 100%) application of           modest         application of thoughtful
           artifacts and        attempts to    artifacts and  application of
           experiences to       tie artifacts  experiences to artifacts and
           one’s professional and              one’s          experiences to
           growth. Few          experiences to professional   one’s professional
           strengths in each one’s             growth.        growth.
           standard and         professional   Identification Strengths in each
           Knowledge, Skills, growth. Few and analysis of standard and
           and Dispositions strengths in       strengths and Knowledge,
           are noted. The       each standard weaknesses of Skills, and
           plan of action is    and            components in Dispositions are
           missing or not       Knowledge,     artifact. The  noted. The plan
           well developed.      Skills, and    plan of action of action is tied
                                Dispositions   is tied to the to the standards
                                are noted. The Standards and and shows insight
                                plan of action discusses the into the possible
                                is tied to the possible       application of
                                standards      application of knowledge and
                                attempts are knowledge and skills to the
                                made to        skills to the  profession.
                                discuss the    profession.
                                possible
                                application of
                                knowledge
                                and skills to
                                profession.


Self-Evaluation Reflection Rubric
                        Self-Evaluation Reflection Rubric
            Unsatisfactory Basic (2 pts)          Proficient       Distinguished
                  (1 pt)                            (3 pts)            (4 pts)
   Self-   Reflections have Reflections        Reflections        Reflections most
Evaluation little or no       sometimes        regularly          always include an
Reflection impact on          include an       include an         analysis of self as
(1, 100%) teacher             analysis of self analysis of self   teacher, an
           performance or as teacher and as teacher, an           analysis of


78                                         Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005


             student          an analysis of   analysis of      student as
             achievement.     student as       student as       learner, and
                              learner and      learner, and     insights into the
                              have value in    insights into    complexity of
                              improving        the complexity education
                              teacher          of education     including current
                              performance      including        issues, and a
                              and student      current issues. plan for action for
                              achievement.     The reflective future growth.
                                               process          The reflective
                                               includes         process includes
                                               consideration of consideration of
                                               teacher          teacher
                                               performance      performance and
                                               and student      student
                                               achievement. achievement.

Communication / Disposition Competency Form
              Communication / Disposition Competency Form
                           Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished
  Total of 3 C/D forms -
 element 1 -- (Evaluation
      Goal: Written
     Communication           4 or below    5-7    8 - 10       11 - 12
   Mechanics) (1, 20%)
  Total of 3 C/D forms -
 element 2 -- (Evaluation
      Goal: Written
 Communication Content)      4 or below    5-7    8 - 10       11 - 12
         (1, 20%)
  Total of 3 C/D forms -
 element 3 -- (Evaluation
        Goal: Oral           4 or below    5-7    8 - 10       11 - 12
Communication) (1, 20%)
  Total of 3 C/D forms -
 element 4 -- (Evaluation
   Goal: Dispositions /
 Interpersonal Skills) (1,   4 or below    5-7    8 - 10       11 - 12
           20%)
  Total of 3 C/D forms -
 element 5 -- (Evaluation
   Goal: Dispositions /
   Professionalism) (1,      4 or below    5-7    8 - 10       11 - 12


Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                         79
September 2005


             20%)


Contextual Information
                          Contextual Information
              Element Not Element Partially              Element Met
                   Met                Met
   Prior    Evidence of      Evidence of using Evidence that the teacher
Knowledge using prior        prior knowledge     recognizes the variance of
 and Skills knowledge and and skills is          beginning knowledge/skill
 (1, 50%) skills is not      present, but        levels in the class and
            present.         decisions exhibit a engages in compensatory
                             monocular           activities (e.g. does more
                             perspective (i.e., to define words in a
                             teaching one way vocabulary unit for
                             to all).            students with deficits in
                                                 comprehension).
Specificity Teacher does     Teacher addresses Teacher addresses
 (1, 50%) not address        implications of     implications of context for
            implications of context for          instruction and assessment
            contextual       instruction and     and links them to specific
            information in   assessment, but     student individual
            planning         does not link to    differences and community,
            instruction and specific student     school, and classroom
            assessment.      individual          characteristics.
                             differences and
                             community.

PDE 430 Rubric (1st Placement)
                      PDE 430 Rubric (1st Placement)
                Unsatisfactory: Satisfactory: Superior: Exemplary:
                (Minimum of 0 (Minimum of (Minimum (Minimum
                     points)        4 points)    of 4 points)      of 12
                                      (1 pt)        (2 pts)      points)
                                                                  (3 pts)
  Category I:     The candidate The candidate         The       Candidate
 Planning and    rarely or never    sometimes      candidate   consistently
Preparation (1,         and             and       usually and       and
    25%)         inappropriately    adequately    extensively   thoroughly
                 or superficially demonstrates demonstrates demonstrates
                  demonstrates     indicators of indicators of indicators of
                   indicators of  performance. performance. performance.
                  performance.


80                                     Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005


 Category II:    The candidate The candidate           The          Candidate
  Classroom     sometimes and     sometimes         candidate      consistently
 Environment       adequately         and          usually and          and
  (1, 25%)       demonstrates     adequately       extensively      thoroughly
                  indicators of demonstrates     demonstrates     demonstrates
                 performance.    indicators of    indicators of    indicators of
                                performance.     performance.     performance.
 Category III:   The candidate The candidate           The          Candidate
 Instructional  sometimes and     sometimes         candidate      consistently
  Delivery (1,     adequately         and          usually and          and
     25%)        demonstrates     adequately       extensively      thoroughly
                  indicators of demonstrates     demonstrates     demonstrates
                 performance.    indicators of    indicators of    indicators of
                                performance.     performance.     performance.
 Category IV:    The candidate The candidate           The          Candidate
Professionalism sometimes and     sometimes         candidate      consistently
   (1, 25%)        adequately         and          usually and          and
                 demonstrates     adequately       extensively      thoroughly
                  indicators of demonstrates     demonstrates     demonstrates
                 performance.    indicators of    indicators of    indicators of
                                performance.     performance.     performance.

PDE 430 Rubric (2nd Placement)
                     PDE 430 Rubric (2nd Placement)
                Unsatisfactory: Satisfactory: Superior: Exemplary:
                (Minimum of 0 (Minimum of (Minimum (Minimum
                     points)        4 points)    of 4 points)      of 12
                                      (1 pt)        (2 pts)      points)
                                                                  (3 pts)
  Category I:     The candidate The candidate         The       Candidate
 Planning and    rarely or never    sometimes      candidate   consistently
Preparation (1,         and             and       usually and       and
     25%)        inappropriately    adequately    extensively   thoroughly
                 or superficially demonstrates demonstrates demonstrates
                  demonstrates     indicators of indicators of indicators of
                   indicators of  performance. performance. performance.
                  performance.
 Category II:     The candidate The candidate         The       Candidate
  Classroom      sometimes and      sometimes      candidate   consistently
 Environment        adequately          and       usually and       and
   (1, 25%)       demonstrates      adequately    extensively   thoroughly
                   indicators of  demonstrates demonstrates demonstrates
                  performance.     indicators of indicators of indicators of


Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                       81
September 2005


                                performance.     performance.     performance.
 Category III:   The candidate The candidate           The          Candidate
 Instructional  sometimes and     sometimes         candidate      consistently
  Delivery (1,     adequately         and          usually and          and
     25%)        demonstrates     adequately       extensively      thoroughly
                  indicators of demonstrates     demonstrates     demonstrates
                 performance.    indicators of    indicators of    indicators of
                                performance.     performance.     performance.
 Category IV:    The candidate The candidate           The          Candidate
Professionalism sometimes and     sometimes         candidate      consistently
   (1, 25%)        adequately         and          usually and          and
                 demonstrates     adequately       extensively      thoroughly
                  indicators of demonstrates     demonstrates     demonstrates
                 performance.    indicators of    indicators of    indicators of
                                performance.     performance.     performance.

Lesson Plan Evaluation Form
                       Lesson Plan Evaluation Form
                           Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished
    Standards (1, 14%)        3 or below    4-5    6-7           8
 Objectives Components:
   audience, conditions,
   observable behavior,
    and/or measurable         3 or below    4-5    6-7           8
    criterion. (1, 14%)
     Content (1, 14%)         3 or below    4-5    6-7           8
     Methods (1, 14%)         3 or below    4-5    6-7           8
  Adaptations (1, 14%)        3 or below    4-5    6-7           8
  Assessments (1, 14%)        3 or below    4-5    6-7           8
 Self-Evaluation (1, 14%)     3 or below    4-5    6-7           8

Teacher Work Sample Rubric
                      Teacher Work Sample Rubric
                                   Level 1 Level 2       Level 3      Level 4
                                    (1 pt) (2 pts)       (3 pts)      (4 pts)
 Factor 1 - Contextual Factors (1,
               16%)                  5 or   6-7            8-9         10 - 11
                                    below
   Factor 2 - Learning Goals (1,
               16%)                  2 or   3-4            5-6          7-8
                                    below
  Factor 3 - Assessment Plan (1,


82                                    Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005


                 16%)                    5 or    6-8      9 - 11    12 - 13
                                        below
  Factor 4 - Instructional Design
  and Implementation (1, 16%)
                                        10 or   11 - 14   15 - 18   19 - 22
                                        below
   Factor 5 - Analysis of Learing
         Results (1, 16%)                3 or     4         5         6
                                        below
   Factor 6 - Reflection, Self-
 evaluation, and Implications for
    Future Teaching (1, 16%)             5 or    6-7       8-9        10
                                        below




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                      83
September 2005


Attachment 7.5.c.a Data Arrived for the Assessment Senior Portfolio, Fall ‘06

Report Title: FA06 - Senior Portfolio HPE
Milestone: All Scoring: All
Rubric: Portfolio Artifacts Rubric
                             Level Level Level Level
                               1     2     3     4   Mean Mode Stdev
                                         (1 pts)       (2 pts)     (3 pts)       (4 pts)

Portfolio Artifacts -- (Evaluation          1            0           4             12        3.59       4         0.77
Goal: Selection & Alignment of
Artifacts to INTASC/SPA Standards)


Portfolio Artifacts --        1 (5%) 4 (23%)              12 (70%)
(Evaluation Goal: Selection
& Alignment of Artifacts to
INTASC/SPA Standards)
                                 Level 1                 Level 2                   Level 3              Level 4
Rubric: Rationale Rubric
        Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished Mean Mode Stdev
             (1 pts)   (2 pts) (3 pts)       (4 pts)

Rationale          0              0                8                     8                   3.50       3         0.50


Rationale                     8 (50%)                                            8 (50%)

                                Unsatisfactory                   Basic       Proficient             Distinguished
Rubric: Artifacts Reflection Rubric
        Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished Mean Mode Stdev
              (1 pts)    (2 pts) (3 pts)     (4 pts)

Reflection         0               1              13                     3                   3.12        3        0.47


Reflection                    1 (5%)
                                       13 (76%)                                                              3 (17%)


                                Unsatisfactory                   Basic       Proficient             Distinguished
Rubric: Self-Evaluation Reflection Rubric
        Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished Mean Mode Stdev
              (1 pts)   (2 pts)  (3 pts)     (4 pts)

Self-               0              1               13                        3               3.12        3        0.47
Evaluation
Reflection


Self-Evaluation Reflection    1 (5%) 13 (76%)                                                                3 (17%)


                                Unsatisfactory                   Basic       Proficient             Distinguished




84                                                        Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005


Rubric: Communication / Disposition Competency Form
           Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished Mean Mode Stdev
                (0 pts)    (0 pts) (0 pts)      (0 pts)

Total of 3 C/D             0              0   10             5          0.00   0        0.00
forms - element
1 -- (Evaluation
Goal: Written
Communication
Mechanics)
Total of 3 C/D             0              0   10             5          0.00   0        0.00
forms - element
2 -- (Evaluation
Goal: Written
Communication
Content)
Total of 3 C/D             0              0   8              7          0.00   0        0.00
forms - element
3 -- (Evaluation
Goal: Oral
Communication)
Total of 3 C/D             0              0   7              8          0.00   0        0.00
forms - element
4 -- (Evaluation
Goal:
Dispositions /
Interpersonal
Skills)
Total of 3 C/D             0              1   5              9          0.00   0        0.00
forms - element
5 -- (Evaluation
Goal:
Dispositions /
Professionalism)


Total of 3 C/D forms -         10 (66%)                           5 (33%)
element 1 -- (Evaluation
Goal: Written
Communication Mechanics)
Total of 3 C/D forms -         10 (66%)                           5 (33%)
element 2 -- (Evaluation
Goal: Written
Communication Content)
Total of 3 C/D forms -         8 (53%)                  7 (46%)
element 3 -- (Evaluation
Goal: Oral Communication)
Total of 3 C/D forms -         7 (46%)             8 (53%)
element 4 -- (Evaluation
Goal: Dispositions /
Interpersonal Skills)



Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                              85
      September 2005


      Total of 3 C/D forms -            1 (6%) 5 (33%)                     9 (60%)
      element 5 -- (Evaluation
      Goal: Dispositions /
      Professionalism)
                                          Unsatisfactory             Basic      Proficient            Distinguished


      Rubric: Contextual Information
                      Element      Element                                   Element
                      Not Met    Partially Met                                 Met   Mean Mode Stdev
                               (0 pts)                   (0 pts)               (0 pts)

      Prior Knowledge               0                      2                    15             0.00       0       0.00
      and Skills
      Specificity                   0                      5                    12             0.00       0       0.00


      Prior Knowledge and Skills        2 (11%) 15 (88%)

      Specificity                       5 (29%)                12 (70%)

                                          Element Not Met            Element Partially Met              Element Met


      Rubric: PDE 430 Rubric (1st Placement)
                                           Superior: Exemplary:
             Unsatisfactory: Satisfactory:
                                           (Minimum (Minimum
              (Minimum of 0 (Minimum                            Mean Mode Stdev
                                              of 4      of 12
                 points)     of 4 points)
                   (0 pts)       (1 pts)    points)    points)
                                                                     (2 pts)             (3 pts)

Category I:              0                         0                   6                   7            2.54        3    0.50
Planning and
Preparation
Category II:             0                         0                  10                   3            2.23        2    0.42
Classroom
Environment
Category III:            0                         2                   9                   2            2.00        2    0.55
Instructional
Delivery
Category IV:             0                         1                   1                  11            2.77        3    0.58
Professionalism


      Category I: Planning and          6 (46%)                                7 (53%)
      Preparation
      Category II: Classroom            10 (76%)                                                        3 (23%)
      Environment
      Category III: Instructional       2 (15%)    9 (69%)                                                     2 (15%)
      Delivery
      Category IV:                      1 (7%) 1 (7%) 11 (84%)
      Professionalism



      86                                                           Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
      September 2005


                                      Unsatisfactory:         Satisfactory:        Superior:     Exemplary:
                                      (Minimum of 0           (Minimum of          (Minimum      (Minimum of
                                      points)                 4 points)            of 4          12 points)
                                                                                   points)


      Rubric: PDE 430 Rubric (2nd Placement)
                                           Superior: Exemplary:
             Unsatisfactory: Satisfactory:
                                           (Minimum (Minimum
              (Minimum of 0 (Minimum                            Mean Mode Stdev
                                              of 4      of 12
                 points)     of 4 points)
                   (0 pts)       (1 pts)    points)    points)
                                                                (2 pts)            (3 pts)

Category I:              0                     0                  10                 6           2.38   2      0.48
Planning and
Preparation
Category II:             0                     0                   5                11           2.69   3      0.46
Classroom
Environment
Category III:            0                     0                   7                 9           2.56   3      0.50
Instructional
Delivery
Category IV:             0                     0                   3                13           2.81   3      0.39
Professionalism


      Category I: Planning and      10 (62%)                                           6 (37%)
      Preparation
      Category II: Classroom        5 (31%)                   11 (68%)
      Environment
      Category III: Instructional   7 (43%)                              9 (56%)
      Delivery
      Category IV:                  3 (18%)        13 (81%)
      Professionalism
                                      Unsatisfactory:         Satisfactory:        Superior:     Exemplary:
                                      (Minimum of 0           (Minimum of          (Minimum      (Minimum of
                                      points)                 4 points)            of 4          12 points)
                                                                                   points)




      Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                              87
September 2005


Rubric: Lesson Plan Evaluation Form
          Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished Mean Mode Stdev
              (0 pts)    (0 pts) (0 pts)       (0 pts)

Total of 2           0               0              12              4            0.00      0       0.00
Lesson Plan
- Element 1
--
(Evaluation
Goal:
Objectives)
Total of 2           0               2              9               5            0.00      0       0.00
Lesson Plan
- Element 2
--
(Evaluation
Goal:
Procedures)
Total of 2           0               2              10              4            0.00      0       0.00
Lesson Plan
- Element 3
--
(Evaluation
Goal:
Evaluation
of the
Objectives)
Total of 2           0               2              9               5            0.00      0       0.00
Lesson Plan
- Element 4
--
(Evaluation
Goal: Self-
Evaluation)


Total of 2 Lesson Plan -   12 (75%)                                                   4 (25%)
Element 1 -- (Evaluation
Goal: Objectives)
Total of 2 Lesson Plan -   2 (12%)       9 (56%)                                 5 (31%)
Element 2 -- (Evaluation
Goal: Procedures)
Total of 2 Lesson Plan -   2 (12%)       10 (62%)                                    4 (25%)
Element 3 -- (Evaluation
Goal: Evaluation of the
Objectives)
Total of 2 Lesson Plan -   2 (12%)       9 (56%)                                 5 (31%)
Element 4 -- (Evaluation
Goal: Self-Evaluation)
                             Unsatisfactory                Basic    Proficient     Distinguished




88                                                       Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005



Rubric: Teacher Work Sample Rubric
                         Level Level Level Level
                           1     2     3     4   Mean Mode Stdev
                                            (1 pts)    (2 pts)   (3 pts)   (4 pts)

Factor 1 - Contextual Factors                 0           0         3          14        3.82     4        0.38
Factor 2 - Learning Goals                     0           0         4          13        3.76     4        0.42
Factor 3 - Assessment Plan                    0           0         13         4         3.24     3        0.42
Factor 4 - Instructional Design and           0           0         3          14        3.82     4        0.38
Implementation
Factor 5 - Analysis of Learing                0           0         7          10        3.59     4        0.49
Results
Factor 6 - Reflection, Self-                  0           0         7          10        3.59     4        0.49
evaluation, and Implications for
Future Teaching


Factor 1 - Contextual            3 (17%)       14 (82%)
Factors
Factor 2 - Learning Goals        4 (23%)              13 (76%)

Factor 3 - Assessment Plan       13 (76%)                                                       4 (23%)

Factor 4 - Instructional         3 (17%)          14 (82%)
Design and Implementation
Factor 5 - Analysis of           7 (41%)                            10 (58%)
Learning Results
Factor 6 - Reflection, Self-     7 (41%)                            10 (58%)
evaluation, and
Implications for Future
Teaching
                                    Level 1               Level 2              Level 3           Level 4




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                                       89
September 2005


Attachment 7.5.c.b Data Arrived for the Assessment Senior Portfolio Spring ‘07

Report Title: SP07 - Senior HPE
Milestone: All Scoring: All
Rubric: Portfolio Artifacts Rubric
                             Level Level Level Level
                               1     2     3     4   Mean Mode Stdev
                                         (1 pts)       (2 pts)     (3 pts)    (4 pts)

Portfolio Artifacts -- (Evaluation         0             0           6           28        3.82       4         0.38
Goal: Selection & Alignment of
Artifacts to INTASC/SPA Standards)


Portfolio Artifacts --        6 (17%)       28 (82%)
(Evaluation Goal: Selection
& Alignment of Artifacts to
INTASC/SPA Standards)
                                 Level 1                 Level 2                 Level 3              Level 4
Rubric: Rationale Rubric
        Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished Mean Mode Stdev
             (1 pts)   (2 pts) (3 pts)       (4 pts)

Rationale          0              0                9                     25                3.74       4         0.44


Rationale                     9 (26%)                  25 (73%)

                                Unsatisfactory                   Basic       Proficient           Distinguished
Rubric: Artifacts Reflection Rubric
        Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished Mean Mode Stdev
              (1 pts)    (2 pts) (3 pts)     (4 pts)

Reflection         0              0            14                        20                3.59        4        0.49


Reflection                    14 (41%)                               20 (58%)

                                Unsatisfactory                   Basic       Proficient           Distinguished
Rubric: Self-Evaluation Reflection Rubric
        Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished Mean Mode Stdev
              (1 pts)   (2 pts)  (3 pts)     (4 pts)

Self-               0              0               18                    16                3.47        3        0.50
Evaluation
Reflection


Self-Evaluation Reflection    18 (52%)                                          16 (47%)

                                Unsatisfactory                   Basic       Proficient           Distinguished




90                                                        Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005


Rubric: Communication / Disposition Competency Form
           Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished Mean Mode Stdev
                (0 pts)    (0 pts) (0 pts)      (0 pts)

Total of 3 C/D             0             0          9      25   0.00   0        0.00
forms - element
1 -- (Evaluation
Goal: Written
Communication
Mechanics)
Total of 3 C/D             0             0          8      26   0.00   0        0.00
forms - element
2 -- (Evaluation
Goal: Written
Communication
Content)
Total of 3 C/D             0             0          6      28   0.00   0        0.00
forms - element
3 -- (Evaluation
Goal: Oral
Communication)
Total of 3 C/D             0             0          6      28   0.00   0        0.00
forms - element
4 -- (Evaluation
Goal:
Dispositions /
Interpersonal
Skills)
Total of 3 C/D             0             0          5      29   0.00   0        0.00
forms - element
5 -- (Evaluation
Goal:
Dispositions /
Professionalism)


Total of 3 C/D forms -         9 (26%)          25 (73%)
element 1 -- (Evaluation
Goal: Written
Communication Mechanics)
Total of 3 C/D forms -         8 (23%)       26 (76%)
element 2 -- (Evaluation
Goal: Written
Communication Content)
Total of 3 C/D forms -         6 (17%)   28 (82%)
element 3 -- (Evaluation
Goal: Oral Communication)
Total of 3 C/D forms -         6 (17%)   28 (82%)
element 4 -- (Evaluation
Goal: Dispositions /
Interpersonal Skills)



Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                      91
      September 2005


      Total of 3 C/D forms -            5 (14%)     29 (85%)
      element 5 -- (Evaluation
      Goal: Dispositions /
      Professionalism)
                                          Unsatisfactory              Basic        Proficient            Distinguished


      Rubric: Contextual Information
                      Element      Element                                    Element
                      Not Met    Partially Met                                  Met   Mean Mode Stdev
                               (0 pts)                    (0 pts)                 (0 pts)

      Prior Knowledge               0                        2                     32             0.00       0      0.00
      and Skills
      Specificity                   0                        5                     28             0.00       0      0.00


      Prior Knowledge and Skills        2 (5%)    32 (94%)

      Specificity                       5 (15%)      28 (84%)

                                          Element Not Met             Element Partially Met                Element Met


      Rubric: PDE 430 Rubric (1st Placement)
                                           Superior: Exemplary:
             Unsatisfactory: Satisfactory:
                                           (Minimum (Minimum
              (Minimum of 0 (Minimum                            Mean Mode Stdev
                                              of 4      of 12
                 points)     of 4 points)
                   (0 pts)       (1 pts)    points)    points)
                                                                      (2 pts)               (3 pts)

Category I:              0                          0                   12                   22            2.65      3     0.48
Planning and
Preparation
Category II:             0                          0                   10                   24            2.71      3     0.46
Classroom
Environment
Category III:            0                          0                   14                   20            2.59      3     0.49
Instructional
Delivery
Category IV:             0                          0                   1                    33            2.97      3     0.17
Professionalism


      Category I: Planning and          12 (35%)                       22 (64%)
      Preparation
      Category II: Classroom            10 (29%)                 24 (70%)
      Environment
      Category III: Instructional       14 (41%)                            20 (58%)
      Delivery
      Category IV:                      1 (2%) 33 (97%)




      92                                                            Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
      September 2005


      Professionalism
                                      Unsatisfactory:                  Satisfactory:        Superior:        Exemplary:
                                      (Minimum of 0                    (Minimum of          (Minimum         (Minimum of
                                      points)                          4 points)            of 4             12 points)
                                                                                            points)


      Rubric: PDE 430 Rubric (2nd Placement)
                                           Superior: Exemplary:
             Unsatisfactory: Satisfactory:
                                           (Minimum (Minimum
              (Minimum of 0 (Minimum                            Mean Mode Stdev
                                              of 4      of 12
                 points)     of 4 points)
                   (0 pts)       (1 pts)    points)    points)
                                                                         (2 pts)            (3 pts)

Category I:              0                         0                       9                 22          2.71        3      0.45
Planning and
Preparation
Category II:             0                         0                      11                 20          2.65        3      0.48
Classroom
Environment
Category III:            0                         0                      13                 18          2.58        3      0.49
Instructional
Delivery
Category IV:             0                         0                       5                 26          2.84        3      0.37
Professionalism


      Category I: Planning and      9 (29%)                        22 (70%)
      Preparation
      Category II: Classroom        11 (35%)                             20 (64%)
      Environment
      Category III: Instructional   13 (41%)                                   18 (58%)
      Delivery
      Category IV:                  5 (16%)            26 (83%)
      Professionalism
                                      Unsatisfactory:                  Satisfactory:        Superior:        Exemplary:
                                      (Minimum of 0                    (Minimum of          (Minimum         (Minimum of
                                      points)                          4 points)            of 4             12 points)
                                                                                            points)


      Rubric: Lesson Plan Evaluation Form
                Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished Mean Mode Stdev
                     (0 pts)   (0 pts)  (0 pts)      (0 pts)

      Standards              0                 0                  10                   21             0.00       0       0.00
      Objectives             0                 0                  13                   18             0.00       0       0.00
      Components:
      audience,
      conditions,



      Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                                          93
September 2005


observable
behavior,
and/or
measurable
criterion.
Content                0                    0          16                      15               0.00        0       0.00
Methods                0                    0          16                      15               0.00        0       0.00
Adaptations            2                    7           7                      15               0.00        0       0.00
Assessments            0                    0          19                      12               0.00        0       0.00
Self-                  0                    0          13                      15               0.00        0       0.00
Evaluation


Standards                        10 (32%)                    21 (67%)

Objectives Components:           13 (41%)                             18 (58%)
audience, conditions,
observable behavior,
and/or measurable
criterion.
Content                          16 (51%)                                     15 (48%)

Methods                          16 (51%)                                     15 (48%)

Adaptations                     2 (6%) 7 (22%)              7 (22%)              15 (48%)

Assessments                      19 (61%)                                                12 (38%)

Self-Evaluation                  13 (46%)                                  15 (53%)

                                   Unsatisfactory               Basic        Proficient             Distinguished


Rubric: Teacher Work Sample Rubric
                         Level Level Level Level
                           1     2     3     4   Mean Mode Stdev
                                            (1 pts)   (2 pts)     (3 pts)      (4 pts)

Factor 1 - Contextual Factors                   0       1             4          28         3.82        4       0.46
Factor 2 - Learning Goals                       0       3             16         14         3.33        3       0.64
Factor 3 - Assessment Plan                      0       1             18         13         3.38        3       0.54
Factor 4 - Instructional Design and             0       4             3          26         3.67        4       0.68
Implementation
Factor 5 - Analysis of Learing                  2       2             13         15         3.28        4       0.84
Results
Factor 6 - Reflection, Self-                    0       0             5          28         3.85        4       0.36
evaluation, and Implications for
Future Teaching




94                                                          Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005


Factor 1 - Contextual          1 (3%) 4 (12%) 28 (84%)
Factors
Factor 2 - Learning Goals      3 (9%) 16 (48%)                     14 (42%)

Factor 3 - Assessment Plan     1 (3%) 18 (56%)                         13 (40%)

Factor 4 - Instructional       4 (12%)   3 (9%) 26 (78%)
Design and Implementation
Factor 5 - Analysis of         2 (6%) 2 (6%) 13 (40%)             15 (46%)
Learning Results
Factor 6 - Reflection, Self-   5 (15%)      28 (84%)
evaluation, and
Implications for Future
Teaching
                                  Level 1              Level 2   Level 3          Level 4




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                       95
September 2005



Attachment 7.5.c.c Summary of Data Derived for the Assessment Senior Portfolio Fall ’06 and Spring ‘07

                                          Total    Total
                                                            Unsatisfactory            Basic          Proficient     Distinguished
                                          Fall,   Spring,                                                                                  Mean
                                                               1 Point               2 Points         3 Points         4 Points
                                           '06      '07
                                                            Fall                Fall      Spring   Fall    Spring   Fall   Spring   Fall     Spring
                                                                   Spring '07
                                                            '06                 '06        '07     '06      '07     '06     '07     '06       '07
Portfolio Artifacts: Selection and
Alignment to INTASC / NASPE                16       34       1         0         0          0       4        6      12      28      3.59      3.82
Standards
Rationale for Artifacts Linked to
Standards                                  16       34       0         0         0          0       8        9       8      25      3.5       3.74

Reflection: Application of Artifact and    16       34       0         0         1          0      13       14       3      20      3.12      3.59
Experiences to Professional Growth
Self-Evaluation: Analysis of Self as       16       34       0         0         1          0      13       18       3      16      3.12      3.47
Teacher
Communication Disposition
Competency Form 3 Per Candidate
Written Communication Mechanics
                                           16       34       0         0         0          0      10        9       5      25
Written Communication Content
                                           16       34       0         0         0          0      10        8       5      26
Oral Communication
                                           16       34       0         0         0          0       8        6       7      28
Dispositions / Interpersonal Skills
                                           16       34       0         0         0          0       7        6       8      28
Dispositions / Professionalism
                                           16       34       0         0         1          0       5        5       9      29
Lesson Plan Evaluation


Objective Components                       16       34       0         0         0          0      12       13       4      18
Fall '06 & Spring '07
Procedures / Methods                       16       34       0         0         2          0       9       16       5      15
Fall'06 / Spring '07


Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                                96
September 2005


Evaluation of the Objectives /       16   34   0   0   2   0   10    19   4   12
Assessments Fall '06 / Spring '07
Self Evaluation                      16   34   0   0   2   0   9     13   5   15
Fall '06 & Spring '07

Content – Spring '07 Only
                                                   0       0         16       15

Adaptations for Diverse Learners -                 2       7         7        15
Spring '07 Only
Standards - Spring '07 Only
                                                   0       0         10       21




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                           97
September 2005



#1 (Required)-CONTENT KNOWLEDGE: Data from licensure tests or professional
examinations of content knowledge. AAHPERD/NASPE standards addressed in this entry
could include but are not limited to Standard 1. If your state does not require licensure tests or
professional examinations in the content area, data from another assessment must be presented
to document candidate attainment of content knowledge.

Provide assessment information (items 1-5) as outlined in the directions for Section IV

#2 (Required)-CONTENT KNOWLEDGE: Assessment of content knowledge in the field
of physical education. AAHPERD/NASPE standards addressed in this assessment could include
but are not limited to Standard 1. Examples of assessments include comprehensive examinations,
GPAs or grades,8 and portfolio tasks.9

Provide assessment information (items 1-5) as outlined in the directions for Section IV

#3 (Required)-PEDAGOGICAL AND PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND
DISPOSITIONS: Assessment that demonstrates candidates can effectively plan
classroom instruction. AAHPERD/NASPE standards that could be addressed in this assessment
include but are not limited to Standard 6. Examples of assessments include the evaluation of
candidates’ abilities to develop lesson or unit plans, individualized educational plans, needs
assessments, or intervention plans.

Provide assessment information (items 1-5) as outlined in the directions for Section IV

#4 (Required)-PEDAGOGICAL AND PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND
DISPOSITIONS: Assessment that demonstrates candidates' knowledge, skills, and
dispositions are applied effectively in practice.10 This assessment would be applicable to all
AAHPERD/NASPE standards. The assessment instrument used in the internship or other clinical
experiences should be submitted.

Provide assessment information (items 1-5) as outlined in the directions for Section IV

#5 (Required)-EFFECTS ON STUDENT LEARNING: Assessment that demonstrates
candidate effects on student learning and the creation of supportive learning
environments for student learning. AAHPERD/NASPE standards that could be addressed in
this assessment include but are not limited to Standards 7 and 8. Examples of assessments
include those based on student work samples, portfolio tasks, case studies, follow-up studies, and
employer surveys.


8
  If grades are used as the assessment or included in the assessment, provide information on the criteria for those
grades and describe how they align with the specialty standards
9
  For program review purposes, there are two ways to list a portfolio as an assessment. In some programs a portfolio is
considered a single assessment and scoring criteria (usually rubrics) have been developed for the contents of the
portfolio as a whole. In this instance, the portfolio would be considered a single assessment. However, in many
programs a portfolio is a collection of candidate work—and the artifacts included are discrete items. In this case, some
of the artifacts included in the portfolio may be considered individual assessments.
10
   NCATE will provide a link to a sample response for this requirement.


Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                                              98
September 2005


Provide assessment information (items 1-5) as outlined in the directions for Section IV

#6 (Required): Additional assessment that addresses AAHPERD/NASPE standards.
Examples of assessments include evaluations of field experiences, case studies, portfolio tasks,
licensure tests not reported in #1, and follow-up studies.

Provide assessment information (items 1-5) as outlined in the directions for Section IV

#7 (Optional): Additional assessment that addresses AAHPERD/NASPE standards.
Examples of assessments include evaluations of field experiences, case studies, portfolio tasks,
licensure tests not reported in #1, and follow-up studies.

Provide assessment information (items 1-5) as outlined in the directions for Section IV

#8 (Optional): Additional assessment that addresses AAHPERD/NASPE standards.
Examples of assessments include evaluations of field experiences, case studies, portfolio tasks,
licensure tests not reported in #1, and follow-up studies.

Provide assessment information (items 1-5) as outlined in the directions for Section IV




           SECTION V—USE OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS TO IMPROVE
                CANDIDATE AND PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

Evidence must be presented in this section that assessment results have been analyzed and have
been or will be used to improve candidate performance and strengthen the program. This
description should not link improvements to individual assessments but, rather, it should
summarize principal findings from the evidence, the faculty’s interpretation of those findings, and
changes made in (or planned for) the program as a result. Describe the steps program faculty has
taken to use information from assessments for improvement of both candidate performance and
the program. This information should be organized around (1) content knowledge, (2)
professional and pedagogical knowledge, skill, and dispositions, and (3) student
learning.

                                                                     (response limited to 3 pages)




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                         99
September 2005


Content Knowledge:

Principal Findings:

Assessments that specifically address content knowledge in the Health and Physical Education
program are Assessments 1, 2, 6, and 7. The analyses of these data indicate that our candidates
performed exceptionally well on state exams, their major course work, and in statewide Evaluation
for Student Professional Knowledge and Practice. Subsequently, our teaching candidates
effectively plan and implement instruction appropriate for all ten NASPE standards, Finally, the
3.0 GPA requirement for all candidates by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania provides further
evidence that candidates exceed the minimum for demonstrated competence. Overall, faculty
believe that these data indicate that the HPE program is preparing candidates with a solid base of
content knowledge that will help prepare them as successful teaching candidates.

Interpretation of Findings:

Although our HPE candidates are performing well in content area assessments, our analysis of this
particular group of candidates suggests that there are still minor areas in which we could improve.
Taking further action to ensure that our candidates excel in Personal Health Care, Family Living,
and Community Health courses and as well as perform better in those content exam sub areas
continues to an area that needs to be addressed within our Health and Physical Education content
courses.

Program Changes based on the Findings:

As a result of our analysis of content-specific assessment problems mentioned above, we have
already worked to ensure Health Education faculty are examining alternative strategies to improve
these areas. Now that PRAXIS I and the 3.0 GPA are required of HPE majors prior to Candidacy,
we believe we will have better prepared and stronger candidates as they progress through our
program. A closer scrutiny of specific troublesome major courses and their corresponding grades
will be used to compare to the various sub scores on the PRAXIS II exams. In doing so, faculty
will identify content areas in need of improvement. These changes, coupled with the
implementation of a newly developed Disposition Alert Form, will help to indentify areas of
concern in a more streamlined and efficient manner.

Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions:

Principal Findings:

The assessments which specifically address Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge, Skills, and
Dispositions in the HPE program are Assessments 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Each of these assessments is
used to ensure that candidates have the professional and pedagogical knowledge, skill, and
dispositions necessary to excel as teachers. The findings of these assessments demonstrated that
our program is particularly strong in the areas of teacher planning and pedagogy, and
implementation, but lack some dispositions related to teaching. Although these areas of concern




100                                                 Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005


for candidates appeared to be minor, and somewhat attributable to lack of experience, we still
strive to make improvements.

Based on these data we collected from the lesson plans, teacher work sample factors, cooperating
teacher evaluation form, and senior portfolio, candidates appeared to be strong in the areas of
planning, instruction and assessing their teaching. In addition, candidates appear to be able to plan
and implement lesson that are academically sound and engaged students who have different
interests and ability levels.

Interpretation of the Findings:

Although these data for the Pedagogical Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions are generally good,
there are a few cases in which we still see areas in need of improvement. For instance,
assessments are relatively new and continued refinement will benefit our candidates. We need to
continue to educate our candidates relative to teaching dispositions (particularly reflective skills).

Program Changes based on Findings:

The above interpretation of the findings has already led to significant changes to the program and
continued evaluation to identify future recommendations. For example, the TWS (and related
rubric) is in the process of being updated to mirror that of the Unit Plan which was developed first.
The requirements of passing PRAXIS I and securing a 3.0 GPA prior to candidacy will strengthen
the program. Changes, coupled with the implementation of a new procedure of identifying
dispositions that need to be strengthened should help us provide earlier help as needed.

Effects on Student Learning and Creating Environments that Support Learning

Principal Findings:

We believe that Assessments 4, 5, 6, and 7 successfully evaluated our candidates’ ability to create
environments that led to improvements in learning. Furthermore, faculty believed that candidates
do see themselves as positive change agents in the instructional process and they do affect student
learning in positive ways.

Interpretation of Findings:

Even though candidates’ performances on these assessments were generally high, faculty still see
areas in need of change. There continues to be areas of concern such as HPE candidates’
difficulties with quantitative data analysis and their tendency to fall back on what they know when
they are directly involved in planning and delivering teaching content. In addition, candidates
often resist trying new teaching approaches and utilize limited ways to measure how their teaching
may impact student learning.




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                             101
September 2005


Program Changes based on Findings:

Methods courses are an area where changes are occurring and they continue to strengthen the
program. More work still needs to be done in both courses to improve candidates’ ability to use
quantitative measures and to utilize a variety of assessment techniques. A section will be added to
practice the development of learning gains sheets into our HPE Measurement for Evaluation
course. As well, the area of assessment will be expanded and more thoroughly integrated into
topics already taught within all Professional Semester courses to ensure more in depth coverage
and application of multiple types of assessment. To date, professional semester students are
involved in more readings, discussions, and activities designed to prepare them to work with a
variety of students in diverse classroom environments. Since Fall ’07, we require all professional
semester students to complete detailed units, a TWS, and multiple lesson plans prior to their
student teacher placements. Areas of emphasis include planning lessons for diverse learners,
utilizing a variety of assessment techniques, and documenting student achievement through
successful completion of objectives (as they relate to what students are expected to learn and
perform).


                        SECTION VI—For Revised Reports Only

Describe what changes or additions have been made in the report to address the standards that
were not met in the original submission. List the sections of the report you are resubmitting and
the changes that have been made. Specific instructions for preparing a revised report are
available on the NCATE web site at http://www.ncate.org/institutions/process.asp?ch=4




102                                                 Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005




                                           ATTACHMENT A
                                        Candidate Information

Directions: Provide three years of data on candidates enrolled in the program and completing
the program, beginning with the most recent academic year for which numbers have been
tabulated. Report the data separately for the levels/tracks (e.g., baccalaureate, post-
baccalaureate, alternate routes, master’s, doctorate) being addressed in this report. Data must
also be reported separately for programs offered at multiple sites. Update academic years
(column 1) as appropriate for your data span. Create additional tables as necessary.


                   Program:


                      Academic               # of Candidates                # of Program
                        Year                 Enrolled in the                Completers11
                                                Program
                       2004-05                        81                           56
                       2005-06                        63                           44
                       2006-07                        70                           53




11
  NCATE uses the Title II definition for program completers. Program completers are persons who have met all the
requirements of a state-approved teacher preparation program. Program completers include all those who are
documented as having met such requirements. Documentation may take the form of a degree, institutional certificate,
program credential, transcript, or other written proof of having met the program’s requirements.


Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                                       103
September 2005


                                                     ATTACHMENT B
                                                     Faculty Information
                                          Health and Physical Education Department

Directions: Complete the following information for each faculty member responsible for professional coursework, clinical
supervision, or administration in this program.
Faculty            Highest Degree, Assignment:             Faculty Rank    Tenure Track Scholarship, 15            Teaching or
Member Name Field, &                     Indicate the role 14              (Yes/ No)           Leadership in       other
                   University 12         of the faculty                                        Professional        professional
                                         member 13                                             Associations,       experience in P-
                                                                                               and Service: 16     12 schools 18
                                                                                               List up to 3
                                                                                               major
                                                                                               contributions in
                                                                                               the past 3 years
                                                                                             17
Dr. Cindy L.      PhD in Health       Faculty and        Full Professor    Yes               Vice President (three     2 years teaching Health
                                                                                             separate terms) Health    and Physical Education
Allen             Education from      Clinical                                               Division- Pennsylvania    at Jersey Shore High
                  Pennsylvania        Supervision:                                           State Association for     School
                  State University                                                           Health, Physical
                                                                                             Education, Recreation     12 years Elementary
                                      Director of                                            and Dance                 Health and Physical
                                      Student Teaching                                                                 Education Teacher
                                      and Field                                              State Project             Keystone Central SD
                                                                                             Coordinator for Health
                                      Placements                                             Education Assessment      1 year Curriculum
                                                                                             Project (HEAP)            Director K-12 for
                                      Teaching Health                                                                  Keystone Central SD
                                                                                             Lead faculty member
                                      Methods                                                for past five years at    Family Life
                                                                                             Pennsylvania’s            Coordinator and
                                      Supervising                                            Governors Institute for   Teacher grades 3-6
                                                                                             Health Physical           Keystone Central
                                      Health and                                             Education and Safety      School. Solely
                                      Physical                                               (approximate              provided instruction in
                                      Education                                              attendance 100 per        Family Life (Human
                                                                                             year)                     Sexuality) to all
                                      Student                                                                          students in grade 3-6
                                      Teachers.                                                                        across the district.



Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                      104
September 2005


Peter Auringer   Ed.D            Activity courses   Asst. Prof        Yes     None                20 years.
                 Syracuse        Coaching                                                         PE Teacher
                 Education       courses                                                          Athletic Director
                                 Sport Admin.                                                     Coach
                                 Courses


Paul C. Ballat   Ph.D. in        Faculty,           Full Professor    Yes     Presentation at     10 years teaching
                 Pedagogy        University         as of Fall 2007           NASPE PETE in       HPE in Public
                 (Curriculum &   Supervisor                                   October 2006,       School in PA
                 Instruction),                                                Faculty Athletics   grade 7-12,
                 Temple                                                       Representative, &   Clinical
                 University                                                   HPE Program         Supervision since
                                                                              Coordinator         1995. Level II
                                                                                                  PA Teaching
                                                                                                  Certificate in
                                                                                                  HPE for grades
                                                                                                  K-12




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                       105
September 2005



Jeannette L.     MS-Instructional     Faculty        Instructor      No                                 K-12 – Health
Brelsford        Technology-                                                                            and PE Educator
                 Bloomsburg
                 University
                                                                                                        Driver Education
                                                                                                        Teacher
                 MEd-Curriculum and                                                                     Substitute
                 Instruction-Lock                                                                       Teacher/Long
                 Haven University                                                                       Term Substitute -
                                                                                                        K-12 –
                                                                                                        20 years -
                                                                                                        Montoursville
                                                                                                        School District.
                                                                                                        PSU World
                                                                                                        Campus Educator
Charles          PhD, Sport           Faculty        Assistant       Yes             none               none
Crowley          Administration &                    Professor
                 Florida State
                 University




Michelle M.      M. Ed. In Health     Faculty        Assistant       Yes             Day of             In-Service training
Eaton            Education, Penn                     Professor                       Scholarship        Health Ed
                 State University                                                    Presentation       Standards in PE-
                                                                                     April 2006         Central Bucks S.D.
                                                                                     PSAHPERD           2007
                                                                                     Presentation Nov
                                                                                                        Manheim Twship
                                                                                     2005, 2006         High School HPE
                                                                                     PSAHPERD           teacher- 1989-90
                                                                                     presentation Nov
                                                                                     2004               Williamsport Area
                                                                                                        High School HPE
                                                                                                        teacher -1990-91


106                                             Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005



Brett Everhart   Ed.D., West       Physical      Associate   Yes   E         Everhart, B., & Rabe, T.   Houghton
                 Virginia          Education     Professor                    (in press). A             Elementary, 89-
                                                                              curricular
                 University (1994) Teacher                                    intervention’s impact     91 (Georgia);
                                   Education /                                on selected fitness       Abrams
                                   Adapted                                    levels and activity       Elementary, 07
                                                                              patterns of junior high
                                   Physical                                   students in physical      (both Title 1
                                   Education /                                education classes for     schools)
                                   Student                                    non-athletes and
                                                                              athletes. International
                                   Teaching                                   Journal of Physical
                                   Supervision                                Education. Fall 08 pub
                                                                              date.

                                                                             Everhart, B., &
                                                                              Vaughn, M. (2005). A
                                                                              comparison of
                                                                              teaching patterns of
                                                                              student teachers and
                                                                              experienced teachers
                                                                              in three distinct
                                                                              settings: Implications
                                                                              for preparing teachers
                                                                              for all settings.
                                                                              Education, 126 (2),
                                                                              221-239

                                                                       E    Everhart, B., Kernodle,
                                                                              M.W., Ballard, K.,
                                                                              McKey, C., Eason, B.,
                                                                              & Weeks, M. (2005).
                                                                              Physical activity
                                                                              patterns of college
                                                                              students with and
                                                                              without high school
                                                                              physical education.
                                                                              Perceptual and Motor
                                                                              Skills, 100, 1114-1120.

                                                                   V




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                      107
September 2005


Kim Everhart     Masters-          Full-time          Instructor      No                                         4 years in the
                 Pedagogy          instructor                                                                    public schools
                 West Virginia
                 University


Patricia Lally   PhD in Exercise   Faculty            Associate       Yes – tenured      Lally, P. S. & Kerr,
                 Science (Sport                       Professor                          G. (In press). The
                                                                                         effects of athlete
                 and Exercise                                                            retirement on
                 Psychology),                                                            parents. Journal of
                 University of                                                           Applied Sport
                 Toronto                                                                 Psychology.
                                                                                         Lally, P. S. (2007).
                                                                                         Sport in Canadian
                                                                                         educational
                                                                                         institutions. In J.
                                                                                         Crossman (Ed.),
                                                                                         Canadian sport
                                                                                         sociology (2nd ed).
                                                                                         Toronto: Nelson
                                                                                         Thomson Learning.
                                                                                         Lally, P. S. (2007).
                                                                                         Identity and athletic
                                                                                         retirement: A
                                                                                         prospective study.
                                                                                         Psychology of Sport
                                                                                         and Exercise, 8, 85-
                                                                                         99.

Richard Lally    PhD in            Faculty            Associate       Yes                Committee
                 Kinesiolgy,                          Professor                          Chair,
                 Penn State                                                              Research
                 University                                                              PSAHPERD

                                                                                         Various
                                                                                         Pubications



108                                             Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005


Carl Poff




Barbara Pribble   Masters of Ed.   Student Teacher   Professor   No         Grades 1-6
                  from the         Supervisor                               Fulton
                  University of                                             County SD in
                  Georgia - HPE                                             Atlanta, GA
                                                                            Grades K-6 Lock
                                                                            Haven Catholic
                                                                            School, Grades
                                                                            9-12 for
                                                                            Keystone Central
                                                                            SD, Lock
                                                                            Haven – all HPE




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                 109
September 2005



Bridget Roun       M.S. in Exercise   Faculty member     Associate         Yes             Program
                   Science with a     – Teaching and     Professor                         Coordinator for
                   Concentration in   Program                                              the HPE
                   Sport              Coordinator                                          Department
                   Psychology,
                   Ithaca College                                                          Completed a 36
                   M.S. in Physical                                                        credit Master’s
                   Education, West                                                         program at Ithaca
                   Chester                                                                 College
                   University
Martha             M.A. PE            Faculty            Assistant Prof.   Yes             AAHPERD               none
Rowedder                                                                                   PSAHPERD
                                                                                           Former chair of
                                                                                           PSAquatic
                                                                                           Council
Dr. Catherine A.   D.Ed.              Chair              Full Professor    tenured         *NASPE National       Taught ½ year at
Traister           Curriculum and                                                          Convention            Warrior Run High
                                                                                           Presentation: The     School in Health and
                   Instruction        Teach physical                                       Perceptions of        Physical Ed.
                   Emphasis:          education                                            Student Teachers,     Taught ½ year at
                   Supervision and    methods and                                          Cooperating           South Williamsport
                   Instruction        activity methods                                     Teachers and          Elementary School
                   Penn State Univ.   courses                                              University            in physical
                                                                                           Supervisors           education.
                                                                                           Regarding             14 years I organized
                                                                                           Assessment during     a practical day of
                                                                                           the Student           teaching for an
                                                                                           Teaching Practicum.   elementary physical
                                                                                           *Presented at the     education methods
                                                                                           PSAHPERD              class twice a year.
                                                                                           Convention.           For the past 4 years I
                                                                                           *Advisor for the      volunteered to teach
                                                                                           Health and Physical   K through 5 grade
                                                                                           Education majors’     physical education
                                                                                           club                  classes for one day,
                                                                                                                 3 times per year.


110                                               Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005



Cengiz Yakut     Ph.D. in            Faculty   Assistant   Yes         Yakut, C. (2007). The
                                                                       roles of motor control
                 Kinesiology,                  Professor               deficiencies in adapting
                 Motor learning                                        multi-component
                 and Control                                           visual-motor tasks in
                                                                       children with attention
                                                                       deficit/hyperactivity
                 The University of                                     disorder. Abstract
                 Michigan                                              accepted for
                                                                       presentation at the
                                                                       annual meeting of The
                                                                       Society for
                                                                       Neuroscience,
                                                                       November 3-5, San
                                                                       Diego, CA.

                                                                       The National Institutes
                                                                       of Health (NIH) Grant
                                                                       ($64,191.27). The Role
                                                                       of Motor Control
                                                                       Deficiencies In
                                                                       Adapting a Multi-
                                                                       Component Visual-
                                                                       Motor Task
                                                                       (1R03MH083146-01).
                                                                       Submitted on June 15,
                                                                       2007. Application ID: 1
                                                                       R03 MH083146-01.

                                                                       Elected as a legislative
                                                                       delegate to Executive
                                                                       Committee of
                                                                       Association of
                                                                       Pennsylvania State
                                                                       College and University
                                                                       Faculty, 2006- present.




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                            111
September 2005


                                                      ATTACHMENT B
                                                      Faculty Information
                                                   Health Science Department

Directions: Complete the following information for each faculty member responsible for professional coursework, clinical
supervision, or administration in this program.


Faculty            Highest Degree,    Assignment:         Faculty Rank      Tenure Track       Scholarship, 15           Teaching or
Member Name        Field, &           Indicate the role   14                (Yes/ No)          Leadership in             other
                   University 12      of the faculty                                           Professional              professional
                                      member 13                                                Associations,             experience in P-
                                                                                               and Service: 16           12 schools 18
                                                                                               List up to 3
                                                                                               major
                                                                                               contributions in
                                                                                               the past 3 years
                                                                                               17


Kathleen Allison   PhD, Health        Faculty             Asst. Professor   Yes                Recent research:          Bishop Kelley H.S.,
                   Studies, Texas                                                              Comparability of          Tulsa, OK 1998 -
                   Woman’s                                                                     Health Literacy Skills    1990
                   University                                                                  of Students (2007)
                                                                                               SOPHE – Awards
                                                                                               committee chair(2007,
                                                                                               2008)
                                                                                               AAHE – Position
                                                                                               Statement Committee
                                                                                               (2007 – 2009)
                                                                                               PA SOPHE – Secretary
                                                                                               (2007 – 2008)
                                                                                               Peer- reviewed
                                                                                               scholarly presentations
                                                                                               @ SOPHE (2006) and
                                                                                               ASHA (2007)




112                                                Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005


Fay Cook, RN     DEd, Health        Faculty   Professor             Yes     Recent Research:
                 Education, Penn                                            Evaluation of Health
                 State University                                           Studies
                                                                            Seminar(2007)
                                                                            ASHA Local
                                                                            Planning
                                                                            Chair(2004)
                                                                            Association of
                                                                            Women’s Health,
                                                                            Obstetrics,
                                                                            Gynecological and
                                                                            Neonatal Nursing
Dave Bower       PhD, Health        Faculty   Professor             Yes     Recent Research:       Williamsport Area
                 Education, Penn                                            DUI Recidivism         School District 1978
                 State University                                           &Victim Impact         - 1982
                                                                            Panels




Curt Dixon       PhD, Exercise      Faculty   Associate Professor   Yes     Recent research:
                 Physiology,                                                Bioimpedance
                 University of                                              analysis, exercise
                 Pittsburgh                                                 and children
                                                                            Multiple peer
                                                                            reviewed
                                                                            presentations at
                                                                            ACSM (2005, 2006,
                                                                            2007)
                                                                            Journal review board
                                                                            for The Journal of
                                                                            Physiological
                                                                            Sciences, Medicine
                                                                            and Science,
                                                                            European Journal of
                                                                            Clinical Nutrition




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                     113
September 2005


Frederick Schulze   DEd, Health        Faculty        Associate Professor   Yes       Recent Research:
                    Education, Penn                                                   Social Climate &
                    State University                                                  Homosexual Men
                                                                                      Fulbright Lecturer
                                                                                      Award, Lugansk,
                                                                                      Ukraine
                                                                                      NCHEC Board of
                                                                                      Directors
                                                                                      APHA – Chair,
                                                                                      Public Health
                                                                                      Education and
                                                                                      Promotion section
                                                                                      2004
                                                                                      PA SOPHE –
                                                                                      President (2007)
                                                                                      Scholarly
                                                                                      presentations United
                                                                                      States Conference on
                                                                                      AIDS (2004) World
                                                                                      Conference on
                                                                                      Health Promotion
                                                                                      and Health Education
                                                                                      (Australia, 2004)
Beth McMahon        PhD, Health        Faculty        Professor             Yes       Research: First Year    East Orange High
                    Education, Penn                                                   Seminar(2003 –          School, Orange, NJ
                    State University                                                  present)                (1980 – 82)
                                                                                      American College of
                                                                                      Sports Medicine
                                                                                      Lycoming County
                                                                                      Health Improvement
                                                                                      Coalition Advisory
                                                                                      Board Member,
                                                                                      Institute for Healthy
                                                                                      Communities State
                                                                                      Advisory Board
                                                                                      More than 50
                                                                                      community
                                                                                      presentations within
                                                                                      past 3 years




114                                              Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE
September 2005


Jody Preische      PhD, Kinesiology,   Faculty               Asst. Professor   Yes     Peer reviewed           Wicomico High
                   Penn State                                                          presentations:          School, Salisbury,
                   University                                                          National Athletic       Maryland - August
                                                                                       Trainers’ Association   (1997-1998)
                                                                                       meeting (2007),
                                                                                       PATS Conference
                                                                                       and Clinical
                                                                                       Symposium, (2007)

Mary Rose-Colley   DEd, Health         Dept Chair; Faculty   Professor         Yes     Recent Research:        Bishop Neumann
                   Education, Penn                                                     Coordinated School      High School (1971 –
                   State University                                                    Health Programs         1982)
                                                                                        (2002 – present)
                                                                                       Peer reviewed
                                                                                       scholarly
                                                                                       presentations:
                                                                                       American School
                                                                                       Health Association
                                                                                       (2004), Puerto Rican
                                                                                       Conference on Public
                                                                                       Health (2004)
                                                                                       Consultant for
                                                                                       American Cancer
                                                                                       Society PA Division
                                                                                       Pennsylvania School
                                                                                       Health Leadership
                                                                                       Institute (2002 –
                                                                                       2008)
                                                                                       Member of American
                                                                                       Cancer Society PA
                                                                                       Advisory Team for
                                                                                       Comprehensive
                                                                                       School Health
                                                                                       Education




Program Report Template—AAHPERD/NASPE                                                115
September 2005


Lou Widmann      Pharm.D.,          Faculty        Professor       Yes
                 Pharmacy, Temple
                 University




116                                           Program Report Template--AAHPERD/NASPE

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:13
posted:8/8/2011
language:English
pages:116