2008 Annual Assessment Report

Education Program

January 15, 2009

I. Executive Summary

The Education Program has made some significant changes in its assessment plan. In spring and summer of 2008 Susan Talbot and Susan Wansor met to review and revise the evaluation tools to align with the goals, objectives and outcomes outlined in the Education Assessment Plan. This discussion led to revising these program goals, objectives, and outcomes along with the student teacher evaluation form, principal/mentor survey, post-graduation completer survey and the field experience evaluation. Each question in these tools is aligned with a noted outcome identified in the revised assessment plan. In addition, course assessments have been aligned to the revised plan.

Assessment tools utilized over the year included student teacher exit interviews, student teacher evaluations, post-graduation principal/mentor surveys and post-graduation completer surveys. A summary of the data collected and its analysis is noted below along with actions taken as a result.

The Education program continues to work on developing a protocol for collaboratively reviewing student work and aligning these findings to identified goals, objectives and outcomes.

II. Summary of Assessment Review and Planning Meetings

5/27/07 Professors Talbot and Wansor reviewed the program assessment plan and discussed revisions that needed to take place. Plans were made to revise and align assessment tools and share the feedback and revisions electronically.

This collaborative revision process took place from June 7 – July 16.

9/11/08 Professors Talbot, Wansor, and Glick discussed survey feedback on need for increased focus on instructional technology. Technology survey was created and initial discussions took place regarding a possible course on instructional technology. Current versions of the Field Experience Evaluation tool were reviewed and ideas generated for possible changes.

10/22/08 Professors Talbot, Wansor and Glick reviewed data from Exit Interviews and Student Teacher Evaluation Rubrics and discussed possible goals. We reviewed Education Program Assessment Plan addressing the questions, “Are we assessing what we need to assess?” “As new courses are being created, how do we thoughtfully align to goals?” Literacy indicators within the Student Teacher Evaluation form were discussed. Susan W. will look at the possibility of weaving in additional literacy indicators.

11/5/08 Professors Talbot, Wansor and Glick reviewed the Field Experience Evaluation tool and revised to clearly align with program outcomes. Instructional Technology course was planned in light of the feedback being received.

As a result of these meetings the Education Program Assessment Plan was revised and the assessment tools were revised/aligned to the modified plan. An Instructional Technology course was planned for the spring. See addition “actions taken” following analysis of survey results.

III. EXPLORATIONS AND PLANS (pending discussion at the Education Program Meeting, Feb. 4^th):

· Development and application of protocol for review of student work (tabled from 2008) and analysis of course data

· Analysis of course data from all established education courses—spring and fall 09

· Modification of course curriculum to include increased focus on time management/pacing (EDUC 408), Levels of questioning (EDUC 405, 406), student reflection (EDUC 405, 406), assessment record keeping (EDUC 301, 302, 331,332, 405,406).

· Development of Foreign Language Methods course

· Modification of course curriculum to emphasize action research and data collection

· Review of assessment of post-graduate completers—other possibilities beyond surveys?

· Continued exploration into securing space and developing education classrooms that replicate classrooms at the childhood and adolescent levels

· Review of new courses (Fall 2007, Spring 2008) to define assessment strategies and align with program goals, objectives and outcomes

· Review of methods courses-- Should registration in these courses be restricted to those who have junior status or receive permission of instructor?

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

Time Frames will be developed and specific responsibilities will be assigned at the Feb. 4^th Education Program Meeting.

IV. Updated Assessment Plan

Wells College

Education Program Assessment Plan

January, 2009

Our Mission

The Wells College Teacher Education Program is dedicated to the philosophy that teaching is a creative, collaborative, rigorous, and intellectually exciting enterprise. Our purpose is to prepare our students to teach diverse populations of children responsibly and effectively; and create inspired and responsive educators who will engage in the challenging work of reforming education for the 21^st century.

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 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, and/or analyze 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.

Please see attached course outlines for specific assessment information and criteria.

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)
Cooperating Teachers Exit Interview following completion of student teaching (collected every semester)
Student Exit Interview following completion of the Program (collected annually)
Assessment of Wells College Education Program, a survey for Program completers after they have been teaching for at least one year (collected every two years)

V. Summary of Results - 2008

Survey Results

Student Teacher Exit Interviews

Number of Interviews Completed: 9

Program Strengths Noted:

· Ample field experiences connected to specific course learnings provided.

· Small class size allowed for one-to-one support.

· Focus on cooperative learning was helpful.

· Students generally reported that they felt well-prepared in terms of instructional design and delivery, classroom management, and knowledge of student development and diversity.

· In the areas of preparation, instructional delivery, classroom management, knowledge/appreciation of student development and diversity, student assessment, collaboration, professionalism and reflection, all students rated the Education Program at or above level 4 (out of 5).

· All students rated the Education Program’s effectiveness in the areas of instructional preparation, professionalism, and reflection at the highest level (5).

Areas in Need of Improvement Noted:

· Need for better preparation in instructional technology (2/9)

· More specific content guidance and methodology instruction at the adolescent level (3/9)

· More focus on foreign language acquisition and ESL for students seeking certification at the adolescent level (2/9)

· Opportunity for duel certification in Special Education (1/9)

· Although 8/9 students rated their content knowledge preparation at or above level 4, one student rated their preparation at level 3.

Student Teaching Evaluations

11 Students / 20 Evaluations

· Cooperating teachers identified all student teachers (100%) as “meeting” or “exceeding expectations” in the dimensions of: content knowledge, instructional preparation, instructional delivery, knowledge/appreciation of student development and diversity, student assessment, collaboration and reflection.

· Cooperating teachers identified all student teachers as “meeting” or “exceeding expectations” on 41 out of 42 criteria (97% of criteria listed) across all 9 teaching dimensions.

· Cooperating teachers identified student teachers as “exceeding expectations” 78% of the time on criteria identified across all 9 dimensions.

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

~ “Accepts feedback and constructive criticism in a positive, open manner . . .” (100%)

~ “Develops effective collaborative relationships . . .” (95%)

~ “Makes a thoughtful and accurate assessment of lesson’s effectiveness . . .” (90%)

~ “Initiates specific, alternative adjustments as needed.” (90%)

~ ALL of the criteria under the dimension of “Professionalism- The extent to which a teacher demonstrates professional behavior and attitudes in the workplace.” (89%)

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

~ “Is clearly conscious of using time effectively . . .” (55%)

~ “Asks a range of purposeful questions . . .” (40%)

~ “Communicates effectively.” (37%)

~ “Maintains appropriate records of student performance.” (37%)

~ “Regularly requests that students reflect and self-assess.” (37%)

· Breakdown of Dimensions:

Exceeds Meets Approaches

Content Knowledge 78% 22% --

Preparation of Instruction 76% 24% --

Instructional Delivery 68% 32% --

Classroom Management 75% 23% 2%

Knowledge of Student 76% 24% --

Development and Diversity

Student Assessment 72% 28% --

Collaboration 82% 18% --

Reflection 93% 7% --

Professionalism 89% 11%

Post-Program Survey

Program Completers 2005-2007

19 sent- 4 returned

Limited information does not support reliable interpretation

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

2/4 1/4 1/4 -- --

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

3/5 1/4 -- -- --

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

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

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

1/4 3/4 -- -- --

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

2/4 1/4 1/4 -- --

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

2/4 2/4 -- -- --

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

1/4 2/4 1/4 -- --

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

2/4 2/4 -- -- --

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

3/4 1/4 -- -- --

100% of specific indicators noted at level 3 and above

32% of specific indicators noted at level 5

47% of specific indicators noted at level 4

16% of specific indicators noted at level 3

5%of specific indicators noted as NA or left blank

For specific indicators see survey

Post-Program Survey

Principals and Mentor Teachers

5 sent- 2 returned

Limited information does not support reliable interpretation

Strengths noted:

· High standards

· Rigor in subject area instruction

· New teacher shows a high degree of competence

· “If Sarah is typical of your program, you are doing a lot of things right.”

Possible Improvements:

· None

100% of indicators noted at level 4 and above

58% of indicators noted at level 5

38% of indicators noted at level 4

4% of indicators noted as “unsure”

For specific indicators see survey

Course Assessments

Fall, 2008 course data was analyzed for established education courses (not special topics) taught by full-time faculty only. Consider this a pilot. More complete analysis will be done beginning in spring, 2009.

EDUC 301—Balanced Literacy I

Participation: 82% met the performance standard. Success criteria: 90%

Journal Articles: 55% met the performance standard. Success criteria: 80%

Early Literacy Profile: 82% met the performance standard. Success criteria: 80%. Success criteria met.

Writing Project: 64% met the performance standard. Success criteria: 80%

Lessons Plans and Field Experience: 73% met the performance standard. Success criteria: 80%

EDUC 331-- Reading and Writing in the Content Areas

Participation: 75% met the performance standard. Success criteria: 90%

Before/During/After Project: 63% met the performance standard. Success criteria: 80%

Response Journal: 63% met the performance standard. Success criteria: 80%

Trade Book Project: 100% met the performance standard. Success criteria: 80%. Success criteria met.

EDUC 405—Elementary Methods in Math and Science (Less than 5 students)

Success criteria met on all assessment tasks

EDUC 408—Portfolio Development (Less than 5 students)

Success criteria met (90% at or above performance standard) on assessment task (portfolio)

EDUC 410—Student Teaching (Less than 5 students)

Success criteria met (90% at or above performance standard) on assessment tasks (student teacher evaluation)

Notes: Although the success criteria were met in EDUC 406, 408 and 410 the low number of students makes the data unreliable. There was a large number of young students (sophomores) in EDUC 301 and 331. The question surfaced as to when the optimal time was to begin taking the methods courses. These courses (EDUC 301, 302, 331, 332, 405, and 406) ask students to translate theory to practice and apply a unique set of skills. Would students perform better in these courses if they were provided with a foundation of non-methods courses in their first two years? Should registration in these courses be restricted to those who have junior status or receive permission of instructor? This will be explored in spring, 2009. See section III, Explorations and Plans.

ACTIONS TAKEN:

· Additional efforts have been made to include application of instructional technology in course curriculums. See course outcomes/syllabi for EDUC 301, 302, 331,332. Three interactive Smartboards were purchased (summer and fall 2008) and placed in locations accessible to Education Program instructors (Macmillan 300, Art Exhibit Room—Macmillan, and the Education Curriculum Center—Library).

· An Instructional Technology course has been designed and will be offered to students during the spring, 2009 semester. This course will be taught by Beatrix Glick, Education Program faculty.

· Beatriz Glick taught Introduction to Language Acquisition in fall, 2008. Plans are in place for Professor Glick to teach a Foreign Language Methodology course in fall, 2009.

· Bryan Duff (hired in winter, 2008) will join the Education Program in fall, 2009. His strong background in math/science (math teacher—adolescent level) will allow us to explore additional ways to provide content and instructional methodology to students seeking adolescent certification in math and sciences.

· Program goals have been revised to more clearly and fully describe learning expectations.

· Surveys and Evaluation Rubrics have been revised (Principals, Program Completers, Student Teachers) to align directly with program goals as defined and described in the Education Program Assessment Plan. Revision of the Field Placement Evaluation Form is in progress.

· The Education Program Assessment Plan has been updated and revised to reflect changes.

COURSE ALIGNMENT AND ASSESSMENT TOOLS

Wells Courses Goals & Objectives Chart 97-2003

EDUC 105, 315, 325, 405, 406, 408, 410 Assessments January 09

EDUC 275, 301, 302, 331, 332 Assessments January 09

EDUC 275 Banned Book Rubric

EDUC 275 Book Review Rubric

EDUC 275 Genre Project Rubric

EDUC 275 Magazine Rubric

EDUC 275 Video Book Rubric

EDUC 275 Website Review

EDUC 301 10-10-10 Model Rubric