2009 Annual Assessment Report

Education Program

January 15, 2010

I. Executive Summary

The Education Program continues to extend and refine its assessment plan.

Susan Talbot and Susan Wansor developed a protocol in Spring 2009 to review student work. This protocol was piloted in June (Attachments 1 and 2). The process and analysis is included within the Annual Report.

Field Experience Evaluations have been revised and are now included within the Education Program Assessment Plan along with the surveys previously developed (Attachment 3). The 22 evaluations from Fall 2009 courses have been collected. The analysis has also been included within this report.

Bryan Duff joined the Education Program faculty in August 2009. Bryan taught EDUC 105, Introduction to Teaching, this past semester. He addressed the outcomes outlined in our Assessment Plan but designed new assessments, rubrics and criteria (Attachment 4).

The Education Program mission statement has been recently revised to more clearly articulate the purpose of the Program and directly align with the Wells College mission. The revised mission is highlighted within the Assessment Plan.

Assessment tools utilized over the year include student teacher evaluations, field experience evaluations, post-graduation completer surveys and student work review. A summary of the data collected and its analysis is noted below along with actions taken as a result.

More rubrics have been added to the Assessment Plan including a curriculum unit rubric utilized in EDUC 405 and 406 (Attachment 5) and The Essential Elements of Teaching Rubric utilized in Susan Talbot’s EDUC 105 course (Attachment 6).

II. Summary of Assessment Review and Planning Meetings

2/4/09 Professors Talbot, Wansor and Glick reviewed outcomes for methods courses (EDUC 301,302, 331,332, 405,406) and discussed modifying prerequisites.

3/11/09 Professors Talbot, Wansor, and Glick discussed possible changes to the student teaching handbook that would more clearly support defined student teaching outcomes. Course assessments for EDUC 275 were discussed along with the need for a mid-term check on how students are meeting the success criteria for courses.

3/25/09 Professors Talbot, Wansor and Glick reviewed the field experience evaluation to develop closer alignment to defined outcome. Modifications to the format were also discussed.

4/15/09 Professors Talbot, Wansor and Glick continued to revise the field experience evaluation and the student teaching handbook. Protocol for review of student work was developed.

6/17/09 Professors Talbot and Wansor met to review student work from EDUC 105 and discuss the validity of designed tasks, alignment to outcomes and the quality of student work produced.

9/11/09 Professors Talbot, Wansor and Duff discussed the inclusion of Smartboard technology in course expectations and optimal placement of the Smartboard.

9/28/09 Professors Talbot, Wansor and Duff continued the discussion on Smartboard application and placement.

10/9/09 Professors Talbot, Wansor and Duff discussed the analysis of course assessment data from Spring 2009 and Program plans for analysis in January. Course project changes need to still align with defined outcomes.

11/2/09 Professors Talbot, Wansor and Duff discussed the recent RATE report and possible modifications to program assessment. The possibility of hiring a consultant to review the assessment plan and the collection of data was discussed. Anne Wahl, who visited Wells as part of the on-site review team last year, was considered as a possible consultant.

11/16/09 Professors Talbot, Wansor and Duff discussed the protocol for the upcoming portfolio defense.

12/15/09 Professors Talbot, Wansor and Duff met to review student teacher portfolios.

III. EXPLORATIONS AND PLANS (pending discussion at the Education Program Meeting, Feb. 3rd):

Ø Education program faculty will continue to discuss program expectations and instruction of writing skills. It will be determined if an additional writing goal should be added to the current list of goals, what outcomes would support the goal and how these outcomes might be measured within courses.

Ø The Education Program will discuss how to incorporate the instruction of value added assessment practices and classroom action research into coursework as ways for pre-service teachers to document student growth.

Ø The Education Program will discuss with the History Department possibilities for providing a more focused study of history for those seeking adolescent certification-- one that directly supports history curriculum in 7-12 programs.

Ø Courses taught by more than one faculty will be reviewed for alignment of course content and outcomes.

Ø Education Program faculty will explore ways to support cooperating teachers hosting field experience students.

Ø The Education Program will investigate possible internships that would provide 7-12 experiences in “high-need” schools.*

Ø Continued exploration into securing space and developing an Education classroom that replicates classrooms at the childhood and adolescent levels.*

*Identified within the RATE review as strategies that would strengthen the Education Program

Time Frames will be developed and specific responsibilities will be assigned at the Feb. 3rd Education Program Meeting.

SEE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON “ACTIONS TAKEN” FOLLOWING SECTION V.—SUMMARY OF RESULTS.

IV. Updated Assessment Plan (revisions have been highlighted)

Wells College

Education Program Assessment Plan

January, 2010

Wells College Mission

The mission of Wells College is to educate students to think critically, reason wisely, and act humanely as they cultivate meaningful lives. Through Wells' academic program, residential atmosphere, and community activities, students learn and practice the ideals of the liberal arts. The Wells experience prepares students to appreciate complexity and difference, to embrace new ways of knowing, to be creative, and to respond ethically to the interdependent worlds to which they belong. Committed to excellence in all areas of its reach, Wells College equips students for lifelong learning and for sharing the privileges of education with others.

Wells College Education Program Mission

The Wells College Teacher Education Program proceeds from the belief that classroom teaching done well is enormously complex. Mastery of subject matter is necessary but hardly sufficient; to help their students understand and embrace important knowledge and skills, teachers must understand learners as diverse, intellectual, emotional, and social beings. To help our students develop this understanding, we take advantage of and build upon the foundation laid by a Wells general education—the ability and inclination to engage with (rather than retreat from) complexity, to examine arguments critically but also to imagine constructively, and to exercise a strong ethical sense. We aim to graduate outstanding pre-service teachers who can model these liberal arts traits for their own students, who can draw upon a rich base of instructional principles and practices, and who collaborate with others in order to fulfill one of the major goals of Wells College: “sharing the privileges of education with others.”

Education Program Goals and Major Objectives:

NOTE: The first two objectives apply across all goals. There is clearly additional overlap but for practical purposes the remaining objectives have been listed under specific goals.

1. Wells’ pre-service teachers will understand that learning is an active process of constructing meaning from information and experience. This process is directly related to language and literacy development.

They will develop the skills necessary to:

· Consistently engage students in varied, rigorous and meaningful learning experiences.

· Create environments in which instruction is infused with language and literacy development.

Specifically they will . . .

a. Engage in collaborative and individual inquiry about the learning, language and the instructional process and effectively communicate their understandings.

Critically analyze current educational theory in order to translate these understandings into responsive, effective practice.
Apply varied technology to enhance instruction.
Develop a variety of active learning experiences and authentic performance tasks for students across content areas.
Develop instructional activities to support the integration of naturally related subject areas with particular focus on integrating the language arts into a range of content areas.
Work to make learning meaningful by connecting to students’ lives and to past/future learning.

2. Wells’ pre-service teachers will understand that although basic principles of learning, motivation, and effective instruction apply to all learners (regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, disability, religion, socioeconomic status etc.) learners differ in their preferences for learning mode and strategies, the pace in which they learn, their cultural backgrounds and unique capabilities in particular areas.

They will develop the skills necessary to:

· Identify and analyze a range of students’ instructional needs.

· Provide effective instruction responsive to the individual and developmental needs of students within an inclusive environment.

Specifically they will . . .

Engage in collaborative and individual inquiry about inclusive practices within the contexts of teaching, learning, and schools, and effectively communicate their understandings.
Critically analyze current educational theory in order to translate these understandings into responsive, effective practice.
Research and analyze concepts and issues underlying classroom diversity in order to develop inclusive classroom practices that support learning, ethnic, gender and cultural differences.
Analyze, explain and apply strategies for differentiating instruction.

3. Wells’ pre-service teachers will understand that effective teaching is a reflective, decision-making process based on what we know about teaching, learning and our students.

They will develop the skills necessary to:

· Research and critically analyze effective teaching practice.

· Create thoughtful instructional and curricular plans.

· Self-assess their instructional and curricular decisions.

· Modify their classroom practice as a result of their reflection.

Specifically they will . . .

Engage in collaborative and individual inquiry regarding “best practices” in the contexts of teaching, learning, and schools, and effectively communicate their understandings.
Critically analyze current educational theory in order to translate these understandings into responsive, effective practice.
Create short and long-range instructional and curricular plans based on students’ prior learning, educational goals, and “best practices.”
Reflect thoughtfully on their work, performance, decision-making process and on the general practice of teaching.
Create plans considering students’ developmental needs, the fact that learning affects development (and vice versa), and that both learning and development are deeply embedded in cultural contexts.

4. Wells’ pre-service teachers will understand that schools function within the broader contexts of society, culture and politics.

They will develop the skills necessary to:

· Work successfully within school communities.

· Implement local, state and national learning standards

· Work to understand current educational issues and reform education across all levels.

Specifically they will . . .

Engage in collaborative and individual inquiry about teaching, learning, and schools within the broader context of society, and effectively communicate their understandings.
Critically analyze current educational theory in order to translate these understandings into responsive, effective practice.
Analyze the New York State and National Learning Standards and apply their understanding of these guidelines when developing instruction, curriculum and assessments.
Collaborate effectively within school communities in order to meet the learning needs of students.
Recognize injustices in the education system and develop strategies for addressing them.
Demonstrate professional attitudes and behavior within school communities.

5. Well’s pre-service teachers will understand that academic and ethical growth is heightened when individuals participate in respectful, caring, well-managed communities that support student autonomy and social interactions.

They will develop the skills necessary to:

· Build a sense of community within classrooms

· Manage a classroom effectively.

Specifically they will . . .

Engage in collaborative and individual inquiry about classroom community and management practices in the contexts of teaching, learning, and schools, and effectively communicate their understandings.
Critically analyze current educational theory in order to translate these understandings into responsive, effective practice.
Analyze, develop and apply cooperative learning, team building and class building activities.
Develop the knowledge and skill base necessary to organize and manage a democratic classroom effectively using the concepts of respect and responsibility as the cornerstones.

6. Well’s pre-service teachers will develop the rich content understandings necessary to support effective instruction.

They will develop the skills necessary to:

· Utilize their rich, subject matter expertise in the context of instruction.

· Critically analyze content materials.

· Extend and refine their subject matter expertise throughout their teaching career.

Specifically they will . . .

Engage in collaborative and individual inquiry about relevant subject matter in the context of teaching, learning, and schools, and effectively communicate their understandings.
Critically analyze current educational theory in order to translate these understandings into responsive, effective practice.
Collaborate with content experts in order to develop “content-rich” learning experiences that have been appropriately prioritized, scaffolded and are supported by a variety of resources.
Analyze, develop and apply effective literacy practices across all content areas.
Communicate content knowledge clearly and effectively
Create learning activities that support/develop higher level and critical thinking skills.

7. Well’s pre-service teachers will have a deep understanding of the assessment process and its close relationship to instructional scaffolding.

They will develop the skills necessary to:

· Create formative and summative assessments using multiple, varied tools.

· Use insights from assessments to plan and revise instruction and to provide feedback that helps students to improve.

Specifically they will . . .

Engage in collaborative and individual inquiry about assessment in the context of teaching, learning, and schools, and effectively communicate their understandings.
Critically analyze current educational theory in order to translate these understandings into responsive, effective practice.
Select/develop instructional and assessment tasks that embody clearly communicated learning goals and align with content standards.
Develop, administer, analyze, and record the results from a variety of informal and formal assessment tasks.
Provide feedback linked explicitly to clear performance standards.
Modify instruction based on data collected from assessments.

Student Assessment Activities

Students will engage in a variety of assessment activities including. . .

· Discussing and evaluating educational theory and pedagogy as they relate to specific course content

· Researching, analyzing, and evaluating current educational topics and trends

· Discussing, analyzing, evaluating and implementing a range of instructional and assessment strategies

· Designing and implementing effective lesson plans and instructional units

· Observing and analyzing teaching experiences

· Applying the skills of a reflective practitioner through dialogue and writings

Students will develop the knowledge, declarative and procedural, and thinking skills that will enable them to be effective, responsive and reflective classroom teachers. Assessment will be on-going and an integral part of classroom instruction. Learning will be demonstrated through multiple validations including:

Products

· Journal entries

Reading response papers
Research papers
Lesson plans
Curriculum units
Assessment plans and analysis
Portfolios

Process

· Reflections

· Classroom discussions and participation

· Student conferences—feedback and planning

· Cooperative learning exercises

Performance

· Individual and team presentations

Classroom teaching

The culminating, summative assessment for certification students will be both a performance and product demonstration. The performance will be in the form of two student teaching experiences (15 weeks). The product will be a portfolio. Both assessments are designed for students to demonstrate competency in the areas designated by the New York State Teaching Standards.

See complete Assessment Plan for course outlines and specific assessment information.

Program Assessment Activities

The Education Program uses a variety of tools to assess its effectiveness. These include:

Course evaluations (collected every semester)
Field Experience Evaluations completed by cooperating teachers (collected every semester)
Student Teaching Evaluations completed by cooperating teachers following completion of student teaching (collected every semester)
Student Exit Interviews following completion of the Program (collected every semester)
Assessment of Wells College Education Program, a survey for Program completers after they have been teaching for at least one year (collected every one-two years)
Assessment of Wells College Education Program, a survey for principals and mentor teachers who have supervised a Program completer for at least one year (collected every one-two years)
Collaborative review of student work (reviewed annually)
New York State test scores for certification (reviewed annually:

Liberal Arts and Sciences Test

Assessment of Teaching Strategies

Content Specialty Test

Please see attachments.

Data from the assessment activities will be analyzed on an annual basis and provided, along with resulting plans and actions, within our Annual Assessment Report (January).

V. Summary of Results: Surveys, Course Assessments, Student Work Review and State Certification Exams—2009

Field Experience Surveys

25 Evaluations Sent—22 Returned

These evaluations are sent out to cooperating teachers who have hosted students in classroom field placements that are a minimum of 20 hours and require student involvement beyond observation.

Notes:

· 65% of the students were rated as “good” or “excellent” across all criteria.

· Students scored highest in the dimension of “Professionalism” with 85% of the students rated as “good” or “excellent.” Criteria within this dimension include attendance, timeliness, initiative and general attitude.

· 77% of the students were ranked “good” or “excellent” in the area of collaboration and reflection.

· 77% of the students were identified as “good” or “excellent” on three criteria within the dimension of Instruction—

Works to actively engage students,

Works to make learning meaningful, and

Stresses critical thinking and intellectual discovery

· The weakest dimension appears to be Assessment with cooperating teachers ranking 62% of all students as “good” or “excellent.”

· Only 11% of students were identified as being “excellent” in utilizing a range of informal assessment techniques when teaching formal lessons.

· 23% of students were noted as “fair” on two criteria within the dimension of Content—

Displays a solid understanding of content, and

Communicates knowledge clearly and effectively.

	Excellent	Good	Fair	Needs Work	NA or Not Seen
Collaboration/ Reflection	47%	30%	2%	3%	18%
Responsive to Student Needs	43%	27%	11%	___	18%
Professionalism	69%	16%	5%	1%	9%
Quality of Instruction	59%	15%	12%	2%	12%
Content	42%	27%	23%	___	8%
Assessment	27%	35%	23%	___	15%

Student Teacher Exit Interviews

Number of Interviews Completed Spring 09: 0

Number of Interviews Completed Fall 09: 0 (3 students completed student teaching in Fall 09. The data from these interviews will be included with the interviews from Spring 10.

Student Teaching Evaluations

3 Students / 6 Evaluations

Notes:

· Cooperating teachers identified all student teachers (100%) as “meeting” or “exceeding expectations” in the dimensions of: classroom management, student assessment and professionalism...

· Cooperating teachers identified all student teachers as “meeting” or “exceeding expectations” on 27 out of 42 criteria (64% of criteria listed) across all 9 teaching dimensions.

· Cooperating teachers identified student teachers as “exceeding expectations” 65% of the time on criteria identified across all 9 dimensions.

· Student teachers were most consistently noted as “exceeding expectations” on the following criteria:

~ “Consistently demonstrates professional ethics and judgment . . .” (100%)

~ “Appearance is professional at all times . . .” (100%)

~ “Breaks content down into understandable concepts . . .” (5/6) (83%)

~ “Situations involving challenging student behavior are handles confidently . . .” (5/6) (83%)

~ “Consistently and sensitively considers differences in culture, background, ethnicity etc. . . .” (5/6) (83%)

~ “Develops effective collaborative relationships with colleagues . . .” (5/6) (83%)

~ “Accepts feedback and constructive criticism in a positive, open manner . . .” (5/6) (83%)

~ “Consistently arrives at school with ample time to prepare . . .” (5/6) (83%)

~ Attitude is mature, positive and professional at all times . . .” (5/6) (83%)

· Student teachers were most consistently noted as “meeting expectations” on the following criteria:

~ “Regularly and independently connects standards to the curriculum . . .” (4/6) (67%)

~ “Establishes and Maintains routines, procedures, and standards of behavior.” (4/6) (67%)

~ “Is clearly conscious of using time effectively . . .” (3/6) (50%)

~ “Monitors student understanding regularly . . .” (3/6) (50%)

~ “Uses assessment results to plan instruction . . .” (3/6) (50%)

· Breakdown of Dimensions:

	Exceeds Expectations	Meets Expectations	Approaches Expectations	Does Not Meet Expectations
Content Knowledge	62%	29%	6%	3%
Preparation	67%	21%	12%	___
Instructional Delivery	54%	37%	9%	___
Classroom Management	67%	33%	___	___
Student Development and Diversity	71%	12%	17%	___
Student Assessment	68%	32%	___	___
Collaboration	71%	24%	5%	___
Reflection	72%	22%	6%	___
Professionalism	86%	14%	___	___

NOTE:

The Student Teaching Evaluation analysis above includes a set of feedback (one student teaching evaluation rubric with comments) from a cooperating teacher whose supervision of the student teacher was problematic. Although the Education Program is eager for honest feedback, both positive and negative, this particular set of feedback was not supported by others who supervised and observed the student in the placement. While the Wells supervisor and the cooperating teacher from the second placement saw this student as extremely knowledgeable, responsible and skilled, the cooperating teacher from the first placement viewed the student as struggling and unprepared. Upon visiting the classroom it was felt that this particular cooperating teacher may not have been effective as an instructional model and mentor.

Post-Program Survey

Program Completers

10 sent- 5 returned

Program Strengths Noted:

· Effective lesson / curriculum design

· Active engagement strategies—a lot of ideas and techniques

· Up-to-date on relevant instructional topics/issues (technology, differentiation, curriculum mapping)

· Ample opportunities for reflection

· Excellent role models

· Strong instruction on management

· “I didn’t know what the Wells Education Program did for me until I ‘dove in without a life jacket’ and was better prepared than I knew.”

Areas in Need of Improvement Noted:

· Developing specific classroom procedures and expectations for “first year survival”

· Job interview preparation

· More information about certification requirements and master degrees

· Set up classrooms at Wells to look like the classrooms we will be teaching in

· Insight on Administration—needs, expectations

· Masters in Special Education

Breakdown of Dimensions:

5- Most Effective 4 3 2 1- Least Effective

Content Knowledge—the extent to which Wells prepared you in terms of developing the breadth and depth of subject matter knowledge to teach effectively

3/5 -- 2/5 -- --

Preparation—the extent to which Wells prepared you to plan effective, standards-base lessons and classroom curriculum

5/5 -- -- -- --

Instructional Delivery—the extent to which Wells prepared you to provide effective, engaging instruction using a variety of strategies

4/5 1/5 -- -- --

Classroom Management—the extent to which Wells prepared you to manage a classroom effectively

5/5 -- -- -- --

Knowledge of Student Development and Diversity—the extent to which Wells prepared you to address individual and diverse needs within the classroom

5/5 -- -- -- --

Student Assessment—the extent to which Wells prepared you to employ a range of assessment techniques based on appropriate learning standards

2/5 3/5 -- -- --

Collaboration—the extent to which Wells prepared you to work with colleagues, administrators, and parents in order to meet the learning needs of students

5/5 -- -- -- --

Professionalism—the extent to which Wells prepared you to fulfill your responsibilities in a professional manner

5/5 -- -- -- --

Reflection—the extent to which Wells prepared you to assess/discuss your instructional decisions and make adjustments as needed

4/5* -- -- -- --

*one survey left blank

86% ranked the Education Program as “most effective” (5) across all dimensions.

95% ranked the Education Program as level 4 or above across all dimensions.

100% ranked the Education Program as level 3 or above across all dimensions.

Analysis of Specific Indicators from Program Completers Survey (see survey for complete list)

Points of Interest:

· 3/5 completer acknowledged frequently using technology in the classroom. 1/5 noted using it sometimes.

· 3/5 completers use Smartboard technology regularly.

· 2 secondary completers use PowerPoint frequently or always.

· 4/5 completers noted that they “rarely” or “never” use virtual fieldtrip. One completer recorded this as NA.

· Only one teacher (secondary) noted sometimes “sometimes” using webquests.

· All students reported using high-engagement instructional strategies, connecting to students’ lives and varying strategies to address individual needs “frequently” or “always” in their teaching.

· 4/5 completers noted that they “always” differentiate instruction. One completer recorded this as NA.

· 4/5 completers identify themselves as “always” responsive to feedback.

· 4/5 completers “frequently” or “always” consider students developmental needs when teaching. One completer recorded this as NA.

· 3/5 completers noted that they only “sometimes” or “rarely” collaborated with parents. One completer noted this as NA adding that “parents are not responsive.”

· 5/5 completers noted that they “always” maintained standards of professional behavior and worked to develop a safe, respectful and caring classroom communities.

· 4/5 completers noted that they “rarely” or “never” used student self-assessment/reflection or found it NA.

· All completers noted that they “frequently” or “always” modified instruction based on data collected from assessments.

· Both elementary completers (substitute teachers) noted that using a variety of literacy assessment tasks were NA.

Completers noted using the following specific models of instruction:

· Direct Instruction

· Responsive Classroom

· Guided Reading

· Six Traits of Writing

Program strengths noted:

· The emphasis on building community in the classroom

· Preparation for collaboration

· Literacy development and assessment

· Teaching how to reflect and receive feedback

· Preparation for working with students who have special needs

· “Experiences specific to being successful in the field”

· The professors modeled all lessons

· “The close knit community . . . helped me to know how to form a bond with my own students.”

· Small class size

· Engaging interactive classes

· Passionate education professors

Areas for program improvement:

· Technology—Smartboard application (2x)

· More training in the development of IEPs

· Gaps in content to teach Global, U.S., Government and Economics

· More focus on Spanish grammar, listening and speaking. Less focus on literature.

· “In the secondary classes it is often difficult to relate to the ways to teach because teaching a foreign language is similar to teaching elementary school. I believe I would have benefitted more from taking some elementary courses that show how to incorporate reading in the classroom.”

Additional comments:

· “I am much more prepared than many of my fellow first year teachers.”

· “My administrators in the past were very impressed that I was so well versed in Madeline Hunter.”

· “I truly enjoyed and value my experiences in the Wells teacher education program and believe it prepared me better for the teaching profession than my other [graduate] education program experience.”

· “I feel very lucky to have had Susan, Susan and Laurie be a part of my Wells experience and thank them for the gift they have given me.”

· “I am very appreciative of my . . . experiences in the Education Program. I have been very well prepared! The personal attention given by all staff and faculty is something I miss as I do my graduate work. If Wells had a graduate program I would definitely do my work there!

Post-Program Survey

Principals and Mentor Teachers

2 sent- 1 returned

Limited information does not support reliable interpretation

Strengths noted:

· Develops students in touch with themselves and their students

Possible Improvements:

· None

100% of specific indicators noted at level 4 and above

43% of specific indicators noted at level 5

57% of specific indicators noted at level 4

For specific indicators see survey

Course Assessments 2009

Data was analyzed for established education courses (Spring and Fall, 2009) taught by full time faculty.

*Indicates a change in the assessment as originally defined in the 2008 Assessment Report.

**Indicates less than 5 students in a class.

Bold print indicates success criterion was met.

EDUC 105—Introduction to Teaching, Spring 09 (27 students)

Participation: 85% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 90%

Reading Responses: 69% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 80%

“In the Trenches” Project: 69% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 70%

Advance Organizer: 92% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 80%

Essential Elements of Teaching: 77% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 70%

EDUC 105—Introduction to Teaching, Fall 09 (23 students)

*Participation 1: 74% of students earned an 80 or higher. Success criterion: 75%.

*Participation 2: 52% of students earned an 85 or higher. Success criterion: 80%

*Advanced Organizer 1: 50% of students earned a 70 or higher. Success criterion: 75%

*Advanced Organizer 2: 26% of students earned an 80 or higher. Success criterion: 75%

*Expeditionary Learning Paper: 35% of students earned an 80 or higher. Success criterion: 75%

*Motivation Paper: 35% of students earned an 80 or higher. Success criterion: 75%

*Final Paper: 40% of students earned an 80 or higher. Success criterion: 80%

EDUC 275 – Using Children’s Literature in the Classroom, Spring 09 (10 Students)

Book Reviews: 60% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 80%

Website Reviews: 80% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 80%

Field Experience: 80% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 80%

Genre Project: 100% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 80%

Banned/Challenged Book Activity: 60% met the performance standard. Success criterion 80%

Participation: 60% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 90%

Magazine Review: 80% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 80%

*Literature Circle Project: 70% met the performance standard. Success criterion 80%

EDUC 301 – Balanced Literacy I, Fall 09 (2 Students) **

Participation: 50% met the performance standard. Success criterion 90%

Journal Articles: 0% met the performance standard. Success criterion 80%

Early Literacy Profile: 0% met the performance standard. Success criterion 80%

Writing Project: 0% met the performance standard. Success criterion 80%

Lesson Plans and Field Experience: 0% met the performance standard. Success criterion 80%

EDUC 302 – Balanced Literacy II, Spring 09 (7 Students)

Qualitative Reading Inventory: 71% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 80%

Field Experience Project: 100% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 80%

Participation: 100% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 80%

Parallel task: 71% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 80%

WebQuest Analysis: 43% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 80%

*Writing Traits Project: 86% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 80%

*Oral Strategies Project: 100% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 80%

EDUC 315—The Inclusive Classroom, Fall 09 (14 students)

Participation: 86% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 90%

Reading Responses: 43% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 80%

Research Paper/In My Shoes Project: 79% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 70%

Child Study Project: 57% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 70%

EDUC 331 – Reading/Writing in the Content Areas, Fall 09 (6 Students)

Professional Journal Responses: 50% met the performance standard. Success criterion 80%

Response Journal/E. resource: 50% met the performance standard. Success criterion 80%

Trade Book Project: 83% met the performance standard. Success criterion 80%

Before/During/After Reading Project: 83% met the performance standard. Success criterion 80%

Participation: 83% met the performance standard. Success criterion 80%

Field Experience: 83% met the performance standard. Success criterion 80%

EDUC 332 – Reading/Writing in the Content Areas II, Spring 09 (7 Students)

Participation: 100% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 90%

Graphic Organizer Project #1: 71% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 80%

*Graphic Organizer Project #2: 100% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 80%

WebQuest Analysis: 71% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 80%

WebQuest: 71% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 80%

Field Experience Project: 43% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 80%

EDUC 405—Elementary Methods in Math and Science, Fall 09 (6 students)

Participation: 100% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 90%

Reading Responses: 50% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 80%

Task Analysis: 100% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 100%

Midterm Project: 83% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 70%

Field Experience Project: 100% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 80%

Curriculum Unit: 50% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 70%

EDUC 406—Instructional Strategies for the Secondary Classroom, Spring 09 (6 students)

Class Participation: 100% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 90%

Reading Responses: 83% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 80%

Task Analysis: 100% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 100%

Midterm Project: 83% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 70%

Field Experience Project: 83% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 80%

Curriculum Unit: 66% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 70%

EDUC 408—Portfolio Development, Fall 09 (4 students) **

EDUC 410—Student Teaching. Fall 09 (4 students) **

Student Teaching: 100% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 90%

Portfolio: 100% met the performance standard. Success criterion: 90%

Discussions regarding the data collected will occur at the Education Program Meetings during the Spring 2010 semester. Questions that surface include:

When more than one faculty teaches a course (Ex. EDUC 105), how can we increase consistency with course expectations?

What is the best way to determine the success criterion for a task?

How do you balance student and faculty responsibility when working to meet success criteria?

When criterion is not even close to being met (Ex. EDUC 315 Reading Response—only 43% met the performance standard when the success criterion was 80%) what should be altered? The task? The expectations? The criterion?

Review of Student Work

In June, 2009 Susan Wansor and Susan Talbot met to review student work from the Spring, 2009 semester. The purpose was to assess the quality of course tasks, specifically the alignment of these tasks to defined outcomes and the students’ skills/understanding that surfaced or were absent as a result of responding to these tasks.

It is the intent of the Education Program to review student work twice a year, in January and in June. These sessions will involve analyzing a range of student work produced in response to designated course tasks. In June, 2009 we read samples of student work written in response to the final task assigned in EDUC 105, Introduction to Teaching. This task is a 7-9 page essay entitled The Essential Elements of Teaching (My Personal Pedagogic Creed). See Course Alignment—EDUC 105 for a more complete description of the task including the scoring rubric.

From this analysis a number of questions and considerations surfaced.

· The assignment appears to clearly measure the outcomes assigned to it but some adjustments would strengthen the task. Outcome 3.b does not appear to be addressed and we should consider eliminating this from the list of assessed outcomes. The topic of “culture and politics” is not directly noted in the task and seems to be only indirectly assessed. The course content and assignment could easily be revised to address this topic directly.

· The rubric for this task, in part, addresses student writing. Although other tasks were not analyzed it was generally acknowledged that student writing was assessed across many tasks, in many education courses. The Education Program goals and outcomes, however, do not directly address writing skills. At best these skills are implied throughout. Is there a need to create another goal and set of outcomes that address our expectations in terms of the development of writing skills? Writing development is currently being looked at across the college. How are we teaching writing? Are we teaching it effectively? What is the role of each major/program in developing student writing skills?

· Citing accurately and analyzing sources effectively seems to be an issue for some students. Where in the program is this being taught? Do we need to increase instruction on citation and analysis? How can we be consistent in our expectations?

· It may be beneficial for students to reflect on class projects after they are completed. What did they do well? What could they improve on? What goals could they set?

Score Analysis-- New York State Certification Exams

See attachments 7 and 8 for test scores, breakdown of subarea scores and descriptions of subareas.

7 students took the Liberal Arts and Sciences Test (LAST).

100% passed.

Average score was 264 (out of 300—220 is passing).

6 students took the Assessment of Teaching Strategies, Written (ATS-W).

100% passed.

Average score was 271.

6 students took a variety of Content Specialty Tests (CST).

100% passed.

Average score was 253.

The lowest average subarea score within the LAST was 237 for Written Analysis and Expression.

The lowest average subarea score for Childhood 1-6 CST was 233 for Foundations of Reading.

The highest average subarea score fro the Childhood 1-6 CST was 288 for Health and Fitness.

Individual CST subarea scores below 200:

Childhood 1-6: C7 Family and Consumer Science (1)

Childhood 1-6: C4 Social Studies (1)

Social Studies 7-12: C3 Economics (1)

Spanish 7-12: C2 Reading Comprehension (1), C3 Language Structures (1)

Action Steps Taken

Ø The Field Experience Surveys were revised, distributed and analyzed in Fall 10.

Ø The assessed outcome 3.b, Reflective Practice – Critically analyze . . . theory, has been eliminated from Susan Talbot’s EDUC 105 Essential Elements of Teaching task.

Ø EDUC 105 (Spring 2010) has been revised to include more direct reference to “culture and politics.”

Ø We continue to infuse technology into the Education Program. Smartboard application is included in EDUC 406 and EDUC 331 for Spring 10.

Ø Bryan Duff joined the Education Program in Fall 2009. He will be teaching a “special topics” course on Action Research in a Local School in Spring 2010.

Ø EDUC 405 (Fall 2010) included increased focus on levels of questioning and student reflection.

Ø EDUC 406 (Spring 2010) has been designed by Bryan Duff to include an increased focus on the content for adolescent certification (U.S. History, Math etc.).

Explorations, Discussions and Plans (as noted above and in section III):

Ø Courses taught by more than one faculty will be reviewed for alignment of course content and outcomes.

Ø Education Program faculty will explore ways to support cooperating teachers hosting field experience students.

Ø Education Program faculty will discuss the development of success criteria and the implications of results. What is the best way to determine the success criterion for a task? How do you balance student and faculty responsibility when working to meet success criteria? When criterion is not even close to being met (Ex. EDUC 315 Reading Response—only 43% met the performance standard when the success criterion was 80%) what should be altered? The task? The expectations? The criterion?

Ø The Education Program will investigate possible internships that would provide 7-12 experiences in “high-need” schools.*

Ø Continued exploration into securing space and developing an Education classroom that replicates classrooms at the childhood and adolescent levels.*

*Identified within the RATE review as strategies that would strengthen the Education Program

Attachment 1 – Student Work Analysis I

Attachment 2 – Student Work Analysis II

Attachment 3 – Field Experience Education revision 406

Attachment 4 – Assessment for EDUCATION 105 Duffy

Attachment 5 – CURRICULUM UNIT RUBRIC

Attachment 6 – Essential Elements of Teaching Rubric

Attachment 7 – TEST SCORES Spring 09

Attachment 8 – NYS TEST DESCRIPTIONS