central state university college of education
TRANSCRIPT
Central State University
College of Education Institutional Report
Initial and Advanced Programs
January 2007
2
Introduction
The Institution The institutional culture of Central State University, Ohio’s only public Historically Black University, is unique in the state and contributes significantly to the training of minority teachers for urban and other educational settings. Central State University was established by the Ohio General Assembly in an act that created a Combined Normal and Industrial Department at Wilberforce University on March 19, 1887. The older institution was founded by the African Methodist Episcopal Church in 1856 and named in honor of the great abolitionist William Wilberforce. The new Department was seen as a separate school, and had its own Board of Trustees. In 1941, the General Assembly expanded the Department, which offered two-year courses, into a College of Education and Industrial Arts, which provided four-year college programs. In 1947, the College began operating independently from Wilberforce, continuing its programs in teacher education, industrial arts and business, and adding a four-year liberal arts program under the name Wilberforce State College. In 1951, the Ohio General Assembly changed the name to Central State College, and in November 1965, Central State was granted university status. Central State University is located in a rural setting. Although CSU is Ohio’s only predominantly African-American public institution of higher education, the enacting legislation of 1887 stipulated that the institution be “open to all persons of good moral character.” This remains true today as Central State actively promotes ethnic diversity in its student body, faculty and staff. We believe that this diversity enriches the university experience, even as the institution maintains its core historical responsibility to educate African American young people for success, leadership and service in state, national and global arenas. The Unit Academic Programs. The College of Education (COE) offers 14 academic programs at the initial licensure level that lead to teacher licensure from the Ohio Department of Education, and a graduate non-licensure program that is focused upon educational leadership. Currently we have a total of 311 students enrolled in the University who have identified themselves as education majors. Because we have specified requirements that must be met (see Standard 2) to be admitted officially into the College of Education, the number is more limited. There are now officially 50 Teacher candidates formally admitted to the College. Tables 1.1 and 1.2 in Standard 1 provide a breakdown on the number of pre-candidates and candidates in each of our licensure areas during recent terms. All of the programs (Table I.1) in teacher education, with the exception of multiage art and multiage music, were submitted to their respective national
3
Table I.1 Program Review Status
professional organizations on September 15, 2006. The art and music programs were submitted to the Ohio Department of Education. All programs are currently approved by the Ohio Department of Education. Location of Programs: The unit consists of programs that are located in the College of Education and two programs that are administratively housed in the College of Arts and Sciences. The Advanced Program, Department of Professional Education and the Department of Health and Physical Education and Recreation are located in the College of Education and are administratively supported by the Dean of the College of Education. The Department of Fine and Performing Arts houses the art and music education programs and is administratively supported by the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. Both Colleges are located on the main campus of Central State University. Central State University at West campus is a satellite location and does not have its own dedicated faculty or course scheduling authority. This campus provides additional classroom space for those candidates, primarily adults, living in the Dayton area. An appointed executive director administers this campus. Distant Learning: Currently we have no formal distance learning programs, but several faculty blend on-line strategies with formally-scheduled classes to provide flexibility for candidates. Our newly-opened Center for Education and Natural Sciences features a distance learning facility that affords us the opportunity to expand this dimension of our program within the next year.
Programs No. of pre-candidates
No. of candidates
Early childhood 73 12 Intervention Specialist 25 10 Middle School 25 6 AYA Math 3 1 AYA Social Studies 15 5 AYA Language Arts 19 5 AYA Life Science 1 1 AYA Physical Sciences 1 0 Health Education 5 2 Physical education 52 6 Art Education 3 1 Music Education 23 1
4
Table I.2: Program Review Status
Program Name
Award Level
(e.g., B S or
Masters Degree)
Program Level
(Initial or Advan-
ced)
Candi-dates
Enrolled or
Admit-ted
Agency or Association Reviewing
Programs (e.g., State or SPA)
Program Report
Submitted for Review (Yes/No)
State Approval
Status
National Recognition
Status by NCATE (SPA)
Early Child-hood
Bachelor ITP 22 NAEYC Yes Yes Pending
Interven-tion Special-ist
Bachelor ITP 13 CEC YES YES Pending
AYA Math
Bachelor ITP 1 NCTM YES YES Pending
AYA Social Studies
Bachelor ITP 8 NCSS YES YES Pending
AYA Lang-uage Arts
Bachelor ITP 6 NCTE YES YES Pending
AYA Life Science
Bachelor ITP 1 NSTE YES YES Pending
AYA Physical Science
Bachelor ITP 0 NSTE YES YES Pending
MCE (LA, Math, Science, Social Studies
Bachelor ITP NCTE, NCTM, NSTA, NCSS,
NMCA
YES YES Pending
Health Educa-tion
Bachelor ITP 2 AAHPRD YES Yes Pending
P E Bachelor ITP 4 AAHPRD YES YES Pending Art Educa-tion
Bachelor ITP 1 ODE/ NAEA
YES YES N/A
Music Educa-tion
Bachelor ITP 1 ODE/ NASM
YES YES N/A
5
Faculty: There are 31 faculty members serving the unit. Thirteen of these are full time (11 on tenure track) and 18 are serving as part-time. See Table I.3
Table I.3: Academic Rank of Professional Education and Health, Physical Education and Recreation Faculty for Academic Year: Fall 2006-2007
Non-tenured Faculty
Academic Rank
# of Faculty with
Tenure # on Tenure
Track # Not on Tenure
Track Professors 1 0 0 Associate Professors
1 1 0
Assistant Professors
2 6 1
Graduate Teaching Assistants
0 0 0
Other (Part-time) 0 0 11 Column Totals: 4 7 12
Information about the faculty, its assignments and qualifications can be found in Standards five and six as well as in the evidence room.
6
Central State University College of Education Synopsis of Conceptual Framework
Our Unit vision is that we—administrators, faculty members, candidates, alumni, members of the professional community (clinical faculty, mentors, members of our advisory panels) and community members—are working together to become a community of learners committed to making the world a better place. Our shared vision is one of action, collegiality, and collaboration. We strive for social justice and an improvement in the quality of life for those with whom we work. This vision is made real through our efforts to prepare urban educators to be outstanding teachers for all learners. This theme is directed by core patterns and understandings that form the knowledge base for the conceptual framework.
This conceptual framework, adopted by the Central State University educator preparation community, provides the foundation for preparing urban educators who are able to help all children become successful learners. In order to accomplish this mission, Central State University College of Education has adopted high expectations for candidate performance through proficiencies that
Our ways
of Doing
Our Ways of
Being
Our Ways of Knowing
CSU College of Education: A Community of Learners Committed to Making the
World a Better Place
7
exemplify our institutional commitments and dispositions—our ways of knowing, doing and being
Central State University, Ohio’s only public historically black university academically prepares students with diverse backgrounds and educational needs for leadership and service in an increasingly complex and rapidly changing world. As an open access institution, the university fosters academic excellence through a strong liberal arts foundation and majors in selected professional fields. We recognize that every year, significant numbers of urban children arrive at school already behind, and that, instead of organizing our educational system to ameliorate the problem; we organize it to exacerbate the problem. At Central State University, we are committed to engaging in practices that focus on successful learning outcomes for all students—practices that are research-based and empirically supported.
As outstanding teachers for all learners, our candidates go beyond technical skills and engage in inquiry and reflection. They are able to work in diverse educational environments, recognize the role of setting events, and strive to enhance the development of resilience. Finally, they themselves are resilient, communicate and work with families and community members, use technology and aim to engage in those professional practices that are most likely to have positive outcomes for learning.
This synopsis of the Conceptual Framework is supplemented throughout the Institutional Report with references and citations. Putting these in context is intended to make these relationships more meaningful. The complete Conceptual Framework is provided on the CD that accompanies this Institutional Report as well as in the evidence room.
8
STANDARD 1 Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions
Initial and Advanced Programs
Introduction
Candidates in the teacher education program at Central State University are prepared to meet the professional knowledge, disposition and performance requirements of specialized professional associations (SPA), Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) standards and Ohio Academic Content Standards. The unit’s Conceptual Framework (CD and evidence room), of which these standards are a part, provides the foundation and the structure that defines the content, pedagogical and professional knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary to help all students learn. The Conceptual Framework also supports continuous assessment of candidate performance using multiple measures to ensure that the appropriate standards are met. Data from these multiple measures are used by the College of Education (COE) for program improvement.
Table 1.1 Spring 2006 Gate Distribution In the College of Education
Tables 1.1 and 1.2 provide an overview of pre-candidate and candidate progress, by term, through our gate structure. These numbers represent those pre- candidates and candidates enrolled during each term at each gate. Those identified at the various gates, particularly Gate 1, in Table 1.2 are not necessarily identical to those identified in Table 1.1, as some became inactive and others changed their majors.
Major Gate 1 Gate 2 Gate 3 Gate 4 Gate 5 Totals: AYA ILA 19 5 0 0 2 26 AYA INM 3 1 0 0 0 4 AYA ISH 15 4 0 1 0 20 AYA LIS 1 1 0 0 0 2 AYA PSI 1 0 0 0 0 1
MCE LA/SS 20 5 0 0 0 25 MCE
MTH/SCI 5 0 1 0 0 6
MUA HEE 5 2 0 0 0 7 MUA MUE 22 0 1 1 0 24 MUA PED 52 2 0 4 2 60 MUA VAE 3 1 0 0 1 5
ECE 73 10 0 2 2 87 INS 25 6 2 2 2 37
GEDU 4 NA NA NA NA 4 Totals: 248 37 4 10 9 308
9
Table1.2 Fall 2007 Gate Distribution In the College of Education
Element 1: Content Knowledge for teacher candidates Candidates must pass the PRAXIS II Content exam before completing the program. A majority of candidates pass PRAXIS II on their first or second attempt (evidence room). Those who do not experience success on their first attempt have often benefited from a multitude of opportunities to receive assistance, materials and other forms of support. To ensure that all candidates’ learning needs are addressed, the unit offers progressive and prescriptive interventions, including a Proficiency Strengthening Plan (PSP), PRAXIS II Seminar course (EDU 3510), workshops, computer-based tutorials and individualized instruction and consultations. Academic departments create assessments (frequently comprehensive exit examinations) that undergraduate teacher candidates must pass before graduation. The examinations evaluate the “knowledge and skills” acquired in the respective major courses of study. Examinations used by the various academic departments include multiple-choice, essay and performance demonstrations. All teacher education programs have been submitted to the respective specialized professional associations for review on September 15, 2006. We have received confirmation of their receipt by both, but as yet we have no response/data on the quality of or national recognition for any of these programs. These program reports are available in the evidence room. Our Music Education Program has received national recognition by the National Association of
Major Gate 1 Gate 2 Gate 3 Gate 4 Gate 5 Totals: AYA ILA 21 3 1 0 0 25 AYA INM 7 0 1 1 0 9 AYA ISH 12 1 0 0 1 14 AYA LIS 4 0 0 0 0 4 AYA PSI 3 0 0 0 0 3
MCE LA/SS 7 0 0 0 0 7 MCE Mth/Sci 2 0 0 0 0 2
MUA HEE 5 1 0 0 0 6 MUA MUE 31 0 0 1 1 33 MUA PED 44 3 0 0 0 47 MUA VAE 5 0 0 0 0 5
ECE 80 18 8 2 1 109 INS 16 3 3 2 0 24
Undeclared 4 0 0 0 0 4 GEDU 19 NA NA NA NA 19
Totals: 260 29 13 6 3 311
10
Schools of Music, and our Art Education Program is in the process of becoming nationally recognized by the National Association of Schools of the Arts (see evidence room). A summary of assessments used to measure content know-ledge at various gates for all candidates in all programs is provided in Table 1.3.
Table 1.3 Assessment of Content Knowledge at Various Gates (All Candidates in all Programs)
The results of the Gate 1 GPA assessment/requirements by program area are provided in Table 1.4. A minimum 2.5 GPA is required to be maintained at each gate.
Table 1.4 Gate 1 Content Knowledge Evaluation Data Summary (2.5 GPA Required)
The failure of MCE and MUA pre-candidates to meet the GPA requirement is the result of a single individual in each case impacting the average GPA of the respective cohorts. Additional data examined by faculty in the COE called for a significant increase in the number and acceleration of pre-candidates admitted to the College of Education was needed. The plan of action adopted to achieve this goal is provided in Standard 2, and includes the shifting of some historical requirements for entering Gate 2 to other areas. Some early results indicate that this effort is beginning to pay dividends.
Gate 1: Pre- Candidacy
Gate: 2 Admission to the College of Education
Gate: 3 Admission to Student Teaching
Gate : 4 Student Teaching
Gate: 5 Program Completion
2.5 GPA Maintain 2.5 GPA Maintain 2.5 GPA
Maintain 2.5 GPA
Employer Evaluation of the Program (content knowledge)
Pass PRAXIS II Content Exam (after 2003)
Pass PRAXIS II Content (prior to 2003)
Graduate Evaluation of the Program (content knowledge)
Gate 1 Assessments Spring 2006 Fall 2007 Early Childhood Education (N = 73) 2.93 (N = 80) evidence room Intervention Specialists (N = 25) 2.79 (N = 16) evidence room Middle Childhood Education (N = 25) 2.34 (N = 9) evidence room Adult and Young Adolescent (N = 39) 2.52 (N = 47) evidence room Multi-Age (N = 82) 2.48 (N = 85) evidence room
Total Number and Mean: (N=244) 2.66 (N=237) evidence room
11
In addition to maintaining a 2.5 GPA to evidence command of content knowledge required to complete Gate 2 (Table 1.5), candidates must complete their reading core courses, their methods/field courses with at least a 2.0 in each course and complete at least 75% of their major/concentration courses with a 2.0 or better in each course.
Table 1.5 Gate 2 Content Knowledge Evaluation Data Summary (Maintaining 2.5 GPA Required)
The performance of a single individual caused the MCE cohort to fall short of the 2.5 GPA. The assessment of content knowledge required in Gate 2 (Table 1.5) reflects some of the changes in the program. We have just begun to advise students of the importance of completing a significant portion of their major/content courses prior to enrolling in methods courses thus increasing the earlier completion of these requirements. This has also increased the confidence in our candidates taking PRAXIS II Content examinations earlier than has been customary. All methods courses have been redesigned to include a field component and the four discrete courses formerly required of ECE and INS candidates and the two required of MCE candidates have been reconfigured into two integrated courses, combining language arts and social studies in EDU 3665 and mathematics and science in EDU 3775. The rationale for this reconfiguration is provided in the Standards 2 and 3 reports and adds an additional dimension to our assessment of content knowledge. Because candidates have been advised for several months that they would benefit from delaying enrolling in the older versions of these courses, the numbers enrolled in the fall semester of 2007 are extremely low.
Table 1.6 Gate 3 Content Knowledge Evaluation Data Summary (Maintain
Minimum 2.5 GPA and Pass PRAXIS II Content Examination
Assessments Spring 2006 Fall 2007 Early Childhood Education (GPA mean) (N = 0) N/A (N = 8) evidence room Intervention Specialists (GPA mean) (N = 2) 3.5 (N = 3) evidence room
Assessments Spring 2006 Fall 2007 Early Childhood Education (N = 10) 3.25 (N =18) evidence room Intervention Specialists (N = 6) 2.86 (N = 3) evidence room Middle Childhood Education (N = 5) 2.45 (N = 0) N/A Adult and Young Adolescent (N = 11) 2.98 N = 4) evidence room Multi-Age (N = 5) 2.85 (N = 4) evidence room
Total Number and Mean: (N=37) 2.96 (N=29) evidence room
12
Middle Childhood Education (GPA mean) (N = 1) 3.0 (N = 0) N/A Adult and Young Adolescent (GPA mean) (N = 0) N/A (N = 2) evidence room Multi-Age (GPA mean) (N = 1) 3.0 (N = 0) N/A
Total Number and Mean: (N = 4) 3.2 (N = 13) 3.3 evidence room Number and Percent who have passed
PRAXIS II Content Examinations: (N = 3) 75% (N = 7) 53.8%
The acceleration of candidates from Gate 2 to Gate 3 increased significantly from the spring 2006 semester to the fall 2007 semester as advising improved and the total redesign of the College of Education began to have an impact on candidate success. Preliminary registration data indicate that this increase will be even greater in the spring 2007 term (evidence room). All of the candidates in Gate 3 and 4 for both semesters (Tables 1.6 and 1.7) entered Central State University prior to the 2002-2003 academic year and are not required to pass the PRAXIS II examinations prior to student teaching. The data, therefore, should not be understood to represent our final PRAXIS II pass rates which are provided in the evidence room by program.
Table 1.7 Gate 4 Content Knowledge Evaluation Data Summary (Maintain Minimum 2.5 GPA and Pass PRAXIS II Content Examination
Assessments Spring 2006 Fall 2007
Early Childhood Education (GPA mean) (N = 2) 3.75 (N = 2) evidence room Intervention Specialists (GPA mean) (N = 2) 3.50 (N = 2) evidence room Middle Childhood Education (GPA mean) (N = 0) N/A (N = 0) N/A Adult and Young Adolescent (GPA mean) (N = 1) 3.50 (N = 1) evidence room Multi-Age (GPA mean) (N = 5) 3.35 (N = 1) evidence room
Total Number and Mean: (N =10) 3.5 (N = 6) evidence room Number and Percent who have passed
PRAXIS II Content: (N = 3) 30% (N = 1) 16.6%
Between the fall and spring semesters of the 2005-2006 academic year, the first after the transition from quarters to semesters, six of our 10 candidates who were student teaching decided for themselves or were advised to change their majors as it was very evident that they would not become successful teachers. The one candidate who discontinued student teaching during the fall 2007 semester did so for financial reasons and expects to re-enroll during the spring 2007 semester.
Table 1.8 Gate 5 Content Knowledge Evaluation Data Summary
Assessment 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 Completed PRAXIS II Content Examination
(N = 4) 100% (N = 9 ) 100% N/A
13
Completed State Entry Year Requirement (PRAXIS III)
N/A (N = 16) 93.8% Pass rate
N/A
Graduate Evaluation of Content Knowledge (Number and Mean)
(Performance Range = 3-5) N = 4/Mean = 3.75
(Performance Range = 3-5) N = 14/ Mean =4.13
(Performance Range) evidence room
Employer Evaluation of Content Knowledge (Number and Mean)
(Performance Range = 3-5) N = 3/Mean = 4
(Performance Range = 2-5) N = 7/Mean = 3.74
(Performance Range) evidence room
In spite of the low numbers of completers in the last two years, (Table 1.8) these data represent an increase over previous years. Conditions in the College of Education were such that many pre-candidates and candidates were enrolled in the program for more than five years. Many of these never formally sought formal admission to the College of Education and were therefore, unable to enroll in junior or senior level courses. As unit and state licensure requirements changed over time, significant numbers of them continued to complete courses to meet earlier requirements, thus increasing the credits necessary to complete their programs. This also resulted in some pre-candidates and candidates earning more credit hours than the university required, but continued to need additional courses to complete their respective programs in the College of Education. Other pre-candidates and candidates reported that they were financially unable to continue, had changed their career plans, and/or were simply not capable of completing their programs successfully. A number of these individuals changed their majors and successfully completed alternative programs offered by the university. Until this past summer (2006), the evaluation of content knowledge for AYA and MCE pre-candidates and candidates was limited to their GPA’s in the respective content areas and performance evaluations by clinical faculty and university supervisors during field and clinical experiences. During the summer of 2006, faculty from the departments of Humanities (language arts and history) and Mathematics and Science worked with faculty from the College of Education to address how we might improve our assessment of content knowledge. The assessments for AYA and MCE candidates (English Proficiency Exam and MTH 3000 Portfolio) are the only ones identified in Table 1.9 that predate this summer collaboration effort. The assessment range on the English Proficiency Exam is 0 – 6 and the necessary performance standard is 4. None of the AYA or MCE language arts candidates scored below a 4 and collectively performed above expectations (4.9 – 5.7).
14
Table 1.9 Assessment of Content Knowledge in Specific Programs
The assessments of content knowledge for individual programs identified in Table 1.10 resulted from this collaborative effort and are being administered for the first time during finals week of the fall 2007 semester. Summaries of the data generated by these assessments will be located in the evidence room as soon as they become available.
Table 1.10 First Time Assessments of Content Knowledge in Specific Program Areas
Program Content Knowledge Assessments
Assessment Data (Number and Mean or %)
AYA Integrated Language Arts And MCE Language Arts
English Proficiency Exam (Performance Range = 3 – 6)
04-05: AYA (N = 24, 4.9) 05-06: AYA (N = 12, 5.5) 04-05 MCE (N = 3, 5.7) 05-06 MCE (N = 8, 5.0)
AYA Integrated Mathematics And MCE Mathematics
MTH 3000 Geometry for Teachers Portfolio Assessment (Performance Range = 101 - 120)
04-05: AYA (N = 0, N/A) 05-06: AYA (N = 4, 111.5.5) 04-05 MCE (N = 3, 116.3) 05-06 MCE (N = 2, 107.0)
Early Childhood Education ECE Child Study Project (Performance Range = 0 – 4)
04-05: (N=6, 2.75) 05-06: (N=7, 2.45)
Early Childhood Education ECE Literacy Investigation: (Action Research Project) Unsatisfactory-US Satisfactory-S Target-T
04-05: (N = 9) US = 22,3% S = 33.3% T = 44.4% 05-06: (N = 7) US = 0% S = 0% T = 100%
Program Content Knowledge Assessments
Assessment Data (Number and Mean)
AYA and MCE Language Arts
Canon Formation Paper See Evidence Room
AYA and MCE Social Studies
History 4995 Final Examination History 4371 Final Examination
See Evidence Room
AYA and MCE Life Science
Biology 1801 Final Examination Assessment of BIO 2400 Lab Reports
See Evidence Room
AYA Physical Science Chemistry 1201 Final Examination PHY 4431 (Modern Physics) Final Examination CHM 4797 – Undergraduate Research
See Evidence Room
AYA Physical Science Chemistry 1201 Final Examination PHY 4431 (Modern Physics) Final Examination CHM 4797 – Undergraduate Research
See Evidence Room
Intervention Specialist IEP/Transitions Assessment instrument
See Evidence Room
15
All of the key assessments/measures being used by the College of Education and other academic departments to demonstrate that candidates know the subject matter that they plan to teach are included in the College of Education Assessment System (CD, evidence room and Standard 2). We have a system in place to help us identify the employers of our graduates in order to solicit their evaluation of teacher (graduates) command of content knowledge. We do the same with graduates themselves. We have electronically prepared these surveys so as to increase the rates of response. See the form and the data summary tables in the evidence room. Advanced Program The advanced program is designed for teachers who already hold a teaching license, or who are eligible for a license. The knowledge bases are the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) propositions and the research on teacher-leaders for the overall program. The element of experience is added to the knowledge of student development and the knowledge of content to inform the professional teacher’s practice. The advanced program is delivered through a set of core courses in addition to three cognate areas: The teacher leader cognate, the technology leader cognate, and the literacy leader cognate. The knowledge areas for the cognate areas are informed by the research on teacher-leadership, the International Standards for Technology Education (ISTE) for Technology Facilitation and the International Reading Association (IRA) Standards for Reading Professionals – Reading Specialist/Literacy Coach Standards. The knowledge base of the content areas includes factual information as well as central organizing concepts – and the ways in which new knowledge is created, including the forms of creative investigation that characterize the work of scholars and artists. Currently, the advanced program is not a licensure program. However the goals for the courses offered in the cognate areas correspond to the standards of the IRA and the ISTE. Presently, there are only three courses required in each of the cognate areas. The program is currently under revision and we are seeking university approval for adding the courses needed to meet all of the ISTE standards for technology facilitation and the IRA Standards for the Reading Specialist/Literacy Coach. Table A1.1 represents current program goals and assessments. The alignment of core and cognate areas with program standards, National Board of Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), some of the International Reading Association (IRA) Standards and some of the International Society for Technology Education (ISTE, TF) Standards is available in the evidence room.
Table A1.1 Advanced Program Goals and Assessments
GOALS ASSESSMENTS
16
1. Utilize Effective Communication Clinical Task Group Work; Written Paper Oral Report
2. Develop Scholarship GPA; Portfolio; Leadership Project 3. Develop as a Teacher Leader Action Research Project; GPA;
Curriculum Plan Project; Portfolio; Action Research Project; Clinical Task Group Project; Leadership Project
4. Develop Cultural Competence GPA; Clinical Task Group Project; Leadership Project; Clinical Task Group Project; Post Assessment: Cultural Competence; Portfolio
5. Develop Collaboration GPA; Clinical task Group Project; Tables A1.1.2 and A1.1.3 summarize the performance of candidates on the oral communication and written communication assignments completed in the summer 2006 in the GEDU 6620 class. Rubrics were used to determine elements to be evaluated on each project. These rubrics may be found in the evidence room. Products are scored from 1 (unacceptable) to 4 (proficient). Candidates are expected to reach the acceptable level of proficiency (3).
Table A1.1.2: GEDU 6620 Current Issues Presentation Data Table Candidate A B C D Rubric Element
1. Speaks Clearly
4 4 4 4 4.0
2. Content Understanding
4 4 4 3 3.75
3. Stays on Topic
4 4 3 3 3.50
4. Preparedness
4 4 4 3 3.75
Mean 4.0 4.0 3.75 3.25 Although the lowest mean is 3.50, which is somewhat above the “acceptable level, it is noted that one-half the class scored a 3 and the other half scored a 4 on “Stays on the Topic” in a presentation. The difference between a 3 and a 4 is that 3 “stays on topic 90-99% of the time; whereas, 4” stays on the topic 100% of the time. Good planning helps one to stay on the topic. This assignment addresses verbal communication, which is goal 1.S.3 in the program goals. All students did well on element 1, “Speaks Clearly.” Element 2, “Content Understanding” relates to the content knowledge required in Standard 1. Note that on this element, three out of the four students received a 4 and the fourth
17
student received a three rating. This element will have to be followed over time to determine if the lower score on this element becomes a trend.
Table A1.1.3: GEDU 6620 Paper on Notable Educators Student A B C D Mean Rubric Element
1st 4 4 4 4 4.0 Support for Topic (Content) 2nd 4 4 4 4 4.0 1st 4 4 4 4 4.0 Commitment (Voice) 2nd 3 4 4 4 3.75 1st 3 3 4 4 3.50 Word Choice 2nd 3 3 4 4 3.50 1st 4 3 4 4 3.75 Recognition of Reader
(Voice) 2nd 4 4 4 4 4.0 1st 3 4 4 4 3.75 Focus on Topic (Content) 2nd 4 3 4 4 3.75
Mean 3.6 3.6 4.0 4.0 All scores were between the acceptable and proficient range; however, since this rubric assesses written communication – one of the major goals of the program - the analysis will focus on growth or lack thereof between the first and second assignment on the same element. The class mean decreased from 4.0 to 3.75 on the “Commitment” (voice) element and increased at the same rate on the “Recognition of Reader” (Voice) element. Note that both of these elements relate to “Voice” – voice of the writer and how the writer anticipates the voice of the reader. This dimension of communication is important and relates to goal 1.S1; 1.D1 in the program goals. Although the scores indicate candidates are doing fairly well on this element, there is room for improvement if we desire that candidates develop effective communication skills as they progress through the program. The advanced program has not had any graduates since the program revisions began in spring 2006. At that time, there were six people in the program. Thirteen candidates entered the program in fall 2006. Therefore, we do not have matriculates. We will collect follow up data related to candidate content knowledge from the matriculates three years after graduation. Element 2: Content Knowledge of Other School Personnel—N/A . Element 3: Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teacher Our teacher candidates have a broad knowledge of instructional strategies that draw upon content and pedagogical knowledge and skills delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards to help all students learn. They
18
facilitate student learning of the subject matter through presentation of the content in clear and meaningful ways and through the integration of technology.
Program review reports were submitted to the respective special professional associations on September 15, 2006 and as yet we have not received any feedback. Assessments of pedagogical knowledge are administered in gates 2, 3 and 4 as identified in Table 1.11.
Table 1.11 Assessments of Pedagogical Content Knowledge at Various Gates (All Candidates in all Programs)
The development and evaluation of pedagogical competence begins in pre-candidacy (Gate 1) with a schedule of foundations courses, including EDU 2262 where pre-candidates are required to write a reflection paper on their philosophy of education to be included in their beginning portfolio, which is also initiated in this course. In EDU 2264, candidates write a reflection paper on multicultural education to be included in their portfolio. In EDU 2266, pre-candidates examine the phenomenon of exceptionalities as a dimension of their foundations development. Successfully completing these three courses is a part of the requirement for transitioning from Gate 1 to Gate 2. Three additional foundations courses are required of all candidates, but not as a part of transitioning to Gate 2. In EDU 2263 pre-candidates and/or candidates examine both the importance of and strategies for maintaining classroom management. In EDU 2265, the role of technology in teaching and learning is examined and in EDU 2300, the role of child development as a critical factor in learning is addressed. These courses must be successfully completed before candidates exit Gate 2. Additionally, (see Table 1.12) while in Gate 2, candidates must successfully complete their Reading Core courses during which they have the opportunity to practice plan and teach under the observation of faculty in a safe environment. Table 1.12 Assessment of Pedagogy Content Knowledge Summary Data
(All Candidates in all Programs)
Lesson Plan Assessments
Pathwise Assessments Other Assessments
Microteaching (Gate 2) Domains A2-4; B5; & C1-4 (Gates 3 and 4)
Teacher Work Sample (Gate 4)
Methods/Field (Gate 3) Technology (Gate 4) Student Teaching (Gate 4)
Assessments Spring 2006 Fall 2007
Reading Core Courses (Aggregate Mean GPA)
(N = 24) 3.45 (N = 14) evidence room
19
In Gate 3, all candidates must complete their methods courses, during which they have the opportunity to plan and teach under the observation of university and clinical faculty. For those candidates entering the program after the 2002-2003 academic year, the respective PRAXIS II Principles of Learning and Teaching examination must be successfully completed. For those candidates who entered the program prior to that year, passing PRAXIS II PLT may be deferred until Gate 4.
Table 1.13 Pathwise Domains Assessing Pedagogy Content Knowledge Data Summary (Performance Expectation = 2)
Pathwise Domains A2-4, B 5 and C 1-4 Evaluation of Student Teachers Spring 2006 (N = 10)
Mean Aggregate Score (0 – 3)
A2: Articulating clear learning goals for the lesson that are appropriate for the students
3
A3: Demonstrating an understanding of the connections between the content that was learned previously, the current content and the content that remains to be learned in the future
2.5
A4: Creating or selecting teaching methods, learning activities, and instructional materials or other resources that are appropriate for the students and that are aligned with the goals of the lesson.
2.5
B5: Making the physical environment as safe and conducive to learning as possible.
2.2
C1: Making learning goals and instructional procedures clear to students
2
C2: Making content comprehensible to students 2.2 C3: Encouraging students to extend their thinking 2.1 C4: Monitoring students understanding of content through a variety
of means, providing feedback to students to assist learning and adjusting learning activities as they situation demands.
2.0
Additional efforts to assess candidates’ pedagogical content knowledge in Gate 4 include Pathwise Domains A2-4, B5 and C1-4, evaluations by the university supervisor and clinical faculty; and lesson plan evaluations by the university supervisor (Table 1.13). Because we have not been satisfied that we were assessing as broadly or as deeply the pedagogical knowledge of our student teachers, we introduced the Teacher Work Sample during the fall 2007 semester
Percent who have passed PRAXIS II PLT (Aggregate)
(N = 4) 100% (N = 9 ) 100%
Lesson Planning Assessment in Field III and Student Teaching (Aggregate Mean Score)
(Performance Range 0 – 100) N = 25; Mean = 85.5
(Range 0 – 100) N = 22 evidence room
Pathwise Evaluation of Pedagogical Knowledge: Field III and Student Teaching (Aggregate Mean Score)
(Performance Range 38 – 50) N = 25; Mean = 45.5
(Range 0 – 50) N = 22 evidence room
20
to address these concerns. Data from this assessment were collected at the end of the fall 2006 term and are available in the evidence room. Pathwise Domains A 2-4, B 5 and C1-4 provide the criteria used by university supervisors and clinical faculty to observe and assess candidates’ ability to plan, select and use learning materials and activities and assessment strategies that are appropriate for their students and that are aligned with the goals of the lesson. We have noted from the data that additional work is required to increase candidates’ abilities to communicate challenging expectations, make learning goals more clear, encourage students to extend their thinking and monitor students understanding. Each of these areas is being addressed in our pedagogy courses. The unit developed a separate question on technology that was incorporated into the program evaluation survey that is completed by candidates for self awareness, the clinical faculty, the employer and the university supervisor. See (Table 1.14). A new instrument to evaluate the quality of technology used by candidates was developed based on the paucity of information on technology received last semester (evidence room).
Table 1.14 Assessment of Technology Dimension of Program Evaluation (Spring 2006)
Question Assessed By Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
The program pre-pares candidates in the knowledge of technologies to be used in the classroom to enhance instruction?
Candidates (N = 43) Clinical Faculty (N = 12) Employers (N = 3) University Supervisor
62.8%
8.35%
0%
0%
38.2%
83.3%
100%
100%
0%
8.35%
0%
0%
Without question, this data as well as the data in Table 1.15 suggests that a concerted effort needs to be made to increase the use of technology by both instructors and candidates in pedagogy courses. Just as importantly, we need to use more sophisticated technologies to help prepare candidates to help students learn more successfully. The effective use of technology is summarized in Table 1.16. When the percentages do not equal 100%, this indicates that the specific technology was not used instructionally. Efforts are being made to address each
Table 1.15 Use of Selected Technologies in Pedagogy Courses 2005-2006 (1 = Used by Instructor; 2 = Used by Candidates; 3 = Used by Both)
INTER-NET
E-MAIL WORD PRO-
SPREAD SHEETS
DATA BASES
POWER POINT
CALCU-LATOR
VCR/ DVD
21
COURSES
CESSING
EDU 2200 1 3 1 1 EDU 2262 3 3 1 1 EDU 2263 3 1 EDU 2264 3 3 1 EDU 2265 3 3 3 3 3 3 EDU 2266 3 1 EDU 2300 1 2 EDU 3310 2 1 EDU 3315 2 1 EDU 3320 2 EDU 3330 2 EDU 3361 1 3 2 EDU 3362 1 3 2 3 3 2 EDU 3371 1 3 2 EDU 3372 1 3 2 EDU 4491 3 3 3 1 2 EDU 4895 3 3 3 1
of these concerns in our pedagogy courses. The survey will be administered later in the fall 2007 term and during the spring 2007 semester. These data will be available for review and comparison in the evidence room. We have carefully noted that, as revealed in Tables 1.14 and 1.16, candidates’ perception of their ability to use a wide variety of technology effectively is lower than that of both clinical faculty and university supervisors. This is especially interesting in view of the data Table 1.15 indicating use of technology in pedagogy courses. Table 1.16 Assessment of Effectiveness by University Supervisor/Clinical Faculty of Selected Technologies Used by Candidates in Student Teaching
Fall 2006 (N = 5)
Spring 2006
(N = 10)
Technology Ineffective Acceptable Effective Ineffective Acceptable Effective Word processing
0/0% 40/20% 60/80% 0/0% 0/70% 100/30%
22
Advanced Program The pedagogical content knowledge is gained in the cognate areas. The first term for teaching multiple cognate courses will be spring 2007: GEDU 6538 – Policy and Issues of Access and Equity; and GEDU 5544 – Role of School Boards. These courses will be taught in the teacher-leader cognate area. We will have no data from these courses until the end of the spring 2007 term. One course was taught fall 2006, GEDU 5516 – Computers & Media Techniques in Education. This course focused on learning how to use different media techniques and development of a website demonstrating the use of these techniques. It did not lend itself well to pedagogy. It will take more than one course in the content for candidates to demonstrate application of their content knowledge in their pedagogy. The knowledge gained in this class can be applied in the candidates’ pedagogy after they have taken GEDU 6661 – Computing Methods & Curriculum development. Candidates’ pedagogy in this area can by assessed at that time. Beginning spring 2007, all candidates are assessed on their basic knowledge and use of technology in the classroom – a requirement of all undergraduate programs in Ohio. However, many of our candidates do not complete their teacher education at an Ohio college or university or they completed their preparation before the current state technology requirement was in force, and their knowledge and use of technology is limited. The results of this assessment help the candidate to set goals for increasing their knowledge, skills and pedagogy in the use of technology in support of effective student learning. Evidence of candidate growth in the knowledge and use of technology is kept in their portfolios, which are evaluated at the end of the core courses and the end of the clinical practice project. The candidates are tested on Technology
Spreadsheets 0/0%% 0/0% 0/0% 0/0% 0/0% 0/0% Databases 0/0%% 0/0% 0/0% 0/0% 0/0% 0/0% OH Projector 0/0% 20/0% 80/100% 0/0% 0/0% 100/100% Internet 0/0% 0/0% 0/0% 0/0% 60/80% 40/20%
VCR/DVD 20/20% 80/80% 0/0% 0/0% 0/20% 100//80% Course-Specific Software
0/0%
0/0%
0/0%
0/0%
0/0%
0/0%
Electronic Grade Book
0/0%
0/0%
0/0%
0/0%
0/0%
0/0%
PDA 0/0% 0/0% 0/0% 0/0% 0/0% 0/0% Calculator 0/0% 20/0% 0/0% 0/0% 0/0% 10/10% PowerPoint, Hyper-Studio, Corel Presentations
0/0%
0/0%
80%
0/0%
30%
70%
23
Operations and Concepts; Planning and Designing Learning Environments and Experiences; Teaching, Learning and the Curriculum; Assessment and Evaluation; Productivity and Professional practice; and Social, Ethical, Legal, and Human Issues. Since most of the candidates in the program have just completed their first semester, we have no data that indicates growth in knowledge and use of technology in support of student learning. The first data collection in this area will take place the end of fall 2007 from the cohort of candidates who enter the program spring 2007. As noted above under element 1, “content knowledge,” we have had no matriculates from the current program; therefore, we have not collected data from graduates and their employers. Element 4: Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates Teacher candidates can apply their professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards to facilitate learning. They consider the school, family, and community contexts in which they work and the prior experience of students to develop meaningful learning experiences. Assessment data used to demonstrate that candidates have broad professional knowledge and skills are generated from a variety of courses and experiences throughout the various gates, as identified in Table 1.17. EDU 2262develops historical, philosophical and sociological perspectives for successful teaching and learning in urban schools; EDU 2264 develops pre-candidates’ understanding of diversity in student populations, families and Table 1.17 Assessments of Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge by Gate Course Grades 2.0
or Higher PRAXIS/Pathwise Other
EDU 2262 (Gate 1) PRAXIS II PLT (Gates 3 or 4) Interview with faculty (Gate 1) EDU 2264 Pathwise Domains B & D
(Gate 4) Complete Methods Courses (Gate 2)
EDU 2266 PRAXIS III (Gate 5) communities focusing upon interrelationships of social forces and education in contemporary society; and EDU 2266 provides an overview of the characteristics of children for whom modifications are necessary constitute our foundations courses. Pre-candidates design a beginning portfolio and write educational philosophy and multicultural reflection papers that are used to assess their foundations knowledge. Table 1.18 provides assessment results for PRAXIS II and III assessments.
Table 1.18 PRAXIS II PLT and PRAXIS III Data Summary
24
The assessment of candidates’ understanding and practice of professional ethics, laws, and policies are included in EDU 2263 (includes consideration of in-appropriate behavior and applying appropriate techniques for modifying that behavior), ECE 4420 (focusing on professional ethics and responsibilities), and EDU 4491 (practical teaching experiences that require the demonstration of legal, ethical and responsible behavior). Assessing candidates’ use of research in teaching is infused in every course and Field experience, but is especially important in the reading core (EDU 3310, EDU 3315, EDU 3320 and EDU 3330);
methods courses (EDU 3361, EDU 3362, EDU 3371, EDU 3372, EDU 3665 and EDU 3775); and student teaching (EDU 4491)
Table 1.19 Pathwise Domains Assessing Professional and Pedagogy
Knowledge and Skills Data Summary Pathwise Domains A (1), B and D Evaluation of Student
Teachers Spring 2006 (N = 10) Mean Aggregate
Score (0 – 3) A1: Becoming familiar with relevant aspects of students background
knowledge and experiences 2.7
B1: Creating climate that promotes fairness 2.5 B2: Establishing and maintaining rapport with students 3 B3: Communicating challenging learning expectations to each
student 2.1
B4: Establishing and maintaining consistent standards of classroom behavior
2.7
D1: Reflecting on the extent to which the learning goals were met 3 D2: Demonstrating a sense of efficacy 2.5 D3: Building professional relationships with colleagues to share
insights and to coordinate learning activities for students 2.5
D4: Communicating with parents or guardians about student learning 2.1 Pathwise Domains A1, B1-4 and D are used as an assessment of student teachers’ command of professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills (Table 1.19). Performance on these indicators suggests that our student teachers do possess the knowledge and skills necessary to teach and model professional behavior adequately. We do, however, note that communication skills with respect to both students and parents need to improve.
Advanced Program The program’s leadership goal and proficiencies are articulated in Table A1.3
Assessment 2004-2005 2005-2006 PRAXIS II PLT (N = 4) 100% (N = 9) 100%
PRAXIS III (N/A (N =16) Pass Rate = 93.8%
25
Table A1.3 – Alignment of Program Leadership Goals and National Board for Professional teaching Standards
Note that these knowledge, skills, and dispositions can more adequately be assessed within the classroom setting. These standards and propositions require teachers to make difficult choices, demonstrate their command of specialized knowledge to convey a subject to students, use multiple methods to meet their goals, orchestrate learning in group settings, regularly assess students, among other things. Since there are no candidates ready for the clinical teacher leader experience, which takes place in the classroom setting, there has been no data collected in this area. We will have candidates ready for the teacher leadership project by fall 2008. Element 5: Professional Knowledge and Skills for Other School Personnel- NA Element 6: Dispositions for All Candidates Faculty in the unit has been very dissatisfied with the results of the evaluation of candidate performance on the identified dispositions. A review of the data from the spring 2006 semester (Table 1.20) suggested to us the need to 1) review the dispositions themselves to be sure that they are clearly stated and that they are asking clinical faculty to assess what we want them to assess; and 2) determine what is causing the unacceptably low assessment of candidates on dispositions 7, 8 and 9 all dealing in some fashion with professionalism. Table 1.20 Student Teacher Disposition Summary Data Spring 2006
Goal Proficiency 1 Proficiency 2 Proficiency 3 Develop as a
Teacher Leader Candidates think systematically about teaching practice and learn from academic and practical experience.
Candidates problem-pose and problem-solve in a teaching-learning situation
Candidates ensure accountability and responsibility for managing and monitoring student learning.
26
With respect to our first concern, we determined that the dispositions were not clearly stated and were difficult for evaluators to clearly understand what we had in mind. The result has been that in our revision of our Conceptual Framework, we redefined our dispositions (see Standard 2. With respect to our second concern, we decided that a unit-wide focus on professionalism was needed. Beginning in September 2006, we began to hold student forums to discuss the role of professional behavior in our programs. Additionally, both full- and part-time faculty, many of them new to the unit, were becoming increasingly frustrated with such issues as attendance, tardiness, poor-quality work, etc., in their courses. At the same time, it became obvious that the behavior expectations articulated in university policy were not being consistently addressed by faculty in the unit. A special meeting to address these issues was held by faculty on November 22, 2006 and a consensus reached on what behaviors would not be tolerated and what interventions would be used to deal with those who engaged in them. Assessment data on the new dispositions was collected late in the fall 2006 term and is available in the evidence room. Advanced Program
Performance Range = 0 - 5 AYA ECE INS MUA All Student Teachers
Dispositions N = 1 N = 2 N = 3 N = 4 N = 10 1. Attendance 4 2.875 3 3.1 3.2 2. Punctual 4 2.75 2.75 3.3 3.2 3. Demonstrates initiative 4 2.875 3.125 3.6 3.4 4. Responsible 4 2.875 3.375 3.5 3.5 5. Accepts constructive feedback 4 3 3.875 3.8 3.7 6. Rapport with students 4 3 3.375 3.9 3.6 7. High professional/ethical standards 1 1 0.75 1 0.95 8. Professional practice 1 0.5 0.75 .93 0.82 9. Professional appearance 1 1 1 .93 0.97 10. Commitment to reflection/assessment 5 3.5 4.25 4.6 4.4 11. Willingness to work with others 5 3.625 4.75 4.9 4.6 12. knowledge includes multiple perspectives 4 3.375 3.75 3.7 3.7 13. Dedicated to teaching/keeping informed 4 3 3 3.5 3.5 14. Address both content and student needs 5 3.5 4.25 4.3 4.5 15. Democratic values 5 4 4.25 4.5 4.6 16. Makes classroom a safe harbor 5 4.375 4.5 4.7 4.7 17. Promotes self-worth/protects self-esteem 5 4.375 4.25 4.7 4.9 18. Believes that all children can learn 5 4.875 4.5 4.9 4.9 19. Values all students for their potential 5 4.875 4.625 4.9 4.9
27
Table A1.4 lists the dispositions candidates are expected to have upon completion of the advanced program. These dispositions have been translated into observable behaviors, which can be assessed on a Likert scale. Note that these dispositions require long-term observation for feedback.
Table A1.4 Alignment of Advanced Program Goals and Dispositions
Since the program has no completers there is no follow-up survey data to date. The first opportunity for evaluation of candidate dispositions, data collection and analysis is spring 2007. Element 7 Student learning for teacher candidates Clinical faculty and the university supervisor use a Goal Attainment Scaling Protocol to document whether or not students are learning from the teacher candidate (form in evidence room; see Table 1.21). The clinical faculty or university supervisor in consultation with the candidate identifies three students
GOALS DISPOSITIONS 1: Utilize
Effective Communication
Candidates acquire sensitivity to the requirements of diverse communication situations; Candidates maintain an awareness of the relationship between communication and technology through the inclusion of technological aids in the classroom, and the critical discussion of the impact technology has on society.
2: Develop Scholarship
Candidates value research with colleagues on the curricular and instructional program; Candidates are committed to generate, critically analyze, and utilize data to inform practice through problem posing and problem-solving of issues in their practice and use data to inform decisions.
3: Develop as a Teacher Leader
Candidates ensure accountability and responsibility for managing and monitoring student learning; Candidates value empowering peers; Candidates value the social-cultural systems in the community supporting the educational system
4: Develop Cultural Compet-ence
Candidates are committed to caring for all students and their learning; Candidates are disposed to exhibiting positive attitudes and humane behaviors that are cognizant of and sensitive to cultural pluralism, ethnic diversity, gender differences, learner exceptionalities, and global interdependence; Candidates are aware of their own cultures and aware and accepting of differences in others.
5: Develop Collabora-tion
Candidates are disposed to engaging in collaborative partnerships with colleagues, parents and other community members in promoting the academic, emotional and social growth of all students; Candidates are disposed to being a member of a learning community.
28
(by an alias) whose performance will be documented. The clinical faculty writes the outcome for each student. After instruction is complete, the clinical faculty/university supervisor reviews with the candidate the results of the 3 students’ performances as they relate to attainment of goals or value-added instruction. The candidate identifies outcomes for each student, beginning with the most likely outcome. This is the outcome one would reasonably expect to occur at the end of the instructional period. The candidate then describes two higher levels of success, that would indicate more than expected (+1), and much more than expected (+2). The candidate does the same for lower levels of progress, including less than the expected outcome (-1) and much less than the expected outcome (-2). Reflectively, candidates are then required to:
1. Identify the key ways used to evaluate the outcomes for each of their three students. Stating specifically, what methods were used in evaluating these students (observation, test, rubric, classroom questions, participation in lesson, task completion, etc) and what was the decision-making process used when evaluating these outcomes.
2. Estimate the degree to which the plan was carried out as intended 3. Rate each student’s outcome on the review date and report the goal
attainment scale rating and the rater:
Table 1.21 Student Teacher Assessment of Student Learning Spring 2006
Candidates Mean Goal Attainment Rating AYA (N = 1) .75 ECE (N = 2) 1.33 INS (N = 2) 1.67 MUA (N = 5) -1.5 All Student Teachers (N = 10) .31
The quantitative evaluation of teachers based on an analysis of the test score gains of their students is an exciting prospect that is gaining many proponents. Such evaluations employ a class of procedures called “value-added models.” These models require data that track individual students’ academic growth over several years and different subjects in order to estimate the contributions that teachers make to that growth. This interest has helped to move the conversation about teacher quality to where it belongs—on increasing student learning as the primary goal of teaching. It also introduces the promise of a much-needed quantitative component in teacher evaluation, while prompting a re-examination of issues of fairness and proper test use. By relying on measures of student growth, value-added models may ultimately offer a more defensible foundation
29
for teacher evaluation than, say, methods based on absolute levels of student attainment or the proportion of students meeting a fixed standard of performance. This is one of the reasons that we in the College of Education at Central State University are excited about our participation in the Teacher Quality Partnership, a comprehensive, longitudinal study of how the preparation and development of new teachers affect their success in the classroom as measured by the academic performance of their students. A research partnership of Ohio’s 50 colleges and universities providing teacher preparation programs, this P-16 collaboration is designed to inform future public policy decisions and to suggest new directions for teacher preparation and professional development programs in Ohio and across the nation. In addition to multiple professional observations throughout the year, surveys, interviews and student work samples will be used to generate data. This is an excellent approach to focus our data collection on proven lesson elements. Within the very complex task of teaching, it is imperative that we be able to hone in on these critical pieces. We join this effort with our sister institutions in Ohio at a time when our continuum for evaluating the effectiveness of our graduates with respect to their contribution to learning has evolved from a pre-post test approach, to the use of a Goal Attainment Scaling Protocol which is now being fully implemented, to this much more significantly relevant approach. This provides us with the assessment needed to evidence SPA standards requiring a response to candidate teaching effectiveness. Since the 2004-05 academic year, Central State University has participated, with every other teacher preparation institution in Ohio, in the Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP). The TQP is a comprehensive, longitudinal study of how the preparation and development of teachers affect their success in the classroom as measured by the academic performance of their students. This research partnership is designed to inform future public policy decisions and to suggest new directions for teacher preparation and professional development programs in Ohio and across the nation. At Central State, all 2005-06 potential or actual completers (N = 24) were asked to fill out a pre-service survey. Data from the state report generated from the survey has provided us with yet another indicator in our quest for continuous improvement. The items in the survey investigated twenty separate dimensions of teacher quality. A description of these dimensions is provided in Standard 2 and the entire survey in the evidence room. The mean response (5 = the highest possible score on each dimension unless otherwise noted) of the Central State University cohort in comparison with the entire State of Ohio is provided in Table 1.22.
Table 1.22: Teacher Quality Partnership Data Summary
30
TQP Dimensions CSU Mean Ohio Mean 1. Coherence within program 4.07 4.30 2. Program quality 4.0 3.96 3. Field experiences 4.02 4.08 4. Faculty characteristics 3.65 3.91 5. Clinical faculty characteristics 4.26 4.04 6. Motivation preparation 4.03 3.86 7. Curriculum preparation 4.23 4.14 8. Special education preparation 3.54 3.39 9. Diversity preparation 3.89 3.45 10. Preparation to teach reading and writing 4.0 3.81 11. Preparation to teach mathematics 3.57 3.24 12. Assessment preparation 4.08 3.95 13. Efficacy for classroom management (9 point scale) 8.01 7.71 14. Efficacy for student engagement (9 point scale) 7.91 7.39 15. Efficacy for instructional strategies (9 point scale) 8.03 7.79 16. General teacher efficacy (6 point scale) 4.17 3.98 17. Personal teacher efficacy (6 point scale) 4.65 4.70 18. Concerns – Self 2.51 2.62 19. Concerns – Task 2.49 2.32 20. Concerns – Impact 2.79 3.00
The data in Table 1.22 indicate that CSU candidates near the end of their teacher preparation program at Central State University measure up very well against those in other teacher preparation programs in Ohio. In fourteen of the twenty dimensions measured, CSU students were more positive than their counterparts in other universities about the quality of their program. The data also suggested the need for dimensions 18 (self-efficacy), 19 (being able to do the work), and 20 (making a difference) to become priority areas for improvement. Significant improvement has been made in each of these areas. The fact that our candidates have not had a strong feeling of being cared for by unit faculty resulted in a major change in faculty (three new full-time, 8 new part-time) and three additional tenure track positions posted. A new advising system has resulted in the development and enhancement of professional relationships and a major increase in pre-candidate and candidate morale. One of the new faculty positions in the special education (Intervention Specialist) program. This program was sorely in need of revision and has been, as evidenced by the major changes in the program of study as well as with individual courses.
The interactive nature of the other two dimensions, e.g., teacher efficacy and individual efficacy are quite obvious. The overrepresentation of under-prepared pre-candidates together with the failure to nurture and support both academic and emotional success that has characterized the recent history of this unit has
31
been devastating. A concerted and successful effort has been made in the last year to reverse this condition. We eagerly await a much anticipated improvement in these four dimensions in the results of the next TQP survey which our current student teachers will complete later in the term. Finally, we have (fall 2007) just added a Teacher Work Sample (replaces the Group Attainment Scaling Protocol) to our repertoire of tools to assess the impact of candidate teaching on student learning. A detailed description of the instrumentation and process is provided in Standard 3 and in the evidence room. Advanced Program At the present time, we have no candidates at the point in the program where they can demonstrate student learning as a result of the candidate’s teaching or leadership project Data will be collected from the portfolio at the end of the fall 2007 semester. There are specific instructions for the portfolio development that address the candidate’s responsibility to provide objective data on how to assess their impact on student learning. As noted above under element 1, “content knowledge,” we have had no matriculates from the current program; therefore, we have not collected data from graduates and their employers.
32
Standard 2 Initial and Advanced Assessment System and Unit Evaluation
Introduction
The College of Education (COE) recognizes the importance of assessment and evaluation as a major component of our continuous improvement efforts. Our assessment system monitors pre-candidate and candidate performance from declaration of intent to become an education major through formal admission to the COE, at regular transition points in the program, at program completion and following graduation. Consistent with the Conceptual Framework, (CD and evidence room) the unit is committed to the preparation of urban educators who demonstrate the knowledge skills and professional dispositions necessary to help all students become successful learners. The Conceptual Framework provides the foundation for the assessment system by providing a measure against which a continuous stream of assessment data informs our program improvement efforts. Element 1: Assessment System The College of Education Assessment System is comprehensive and the data generated by the various instruments are administered in accordance with an established institutional timeline. Data generated by these assessments are used to inform decision-making in the College. Responsibility for assuring that the College of Education Assessment System is being implemented is delegated to department chairs in the college. Compliance is a dimension of performance evaluations of faculty and staff. Additional evidence is provided by using the data generated via the various assessments to produce analytical reports to inform decisions about individual candidate success and program improvement. Implementation of the College of Education Assessment System is monitored by the Dean of the College of Education and included in the performance evaluations of department chairs. The unit’s assessment system includes a comprehensive and integrated set of evaluation measures that are used to monitor candidate performance and manage and improve operations and programs. The unit assessment system for the initial program was developed by faculty and staff in the College of Education over several years and refined to its current status during the last year. The assessment system, including a Proficiency Improvement Plan (see evidence room), has been established and reviewed by faculty in the College of Education as well as by faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences, clinical faculty and administrators. The entire process has also been reviewed by the Standard 2 Committee. The developmental process involved a comprehensive review of both state and professional standards and decisions about where in the preparation continuum
33
various assessments could be used most effectively and how data generated by these assessments could be best used to predict candidate success and program improvement. Faculty members and candidates are familiar with the system and can articulate the required assessments at each decision point in the teacher preparation programs. The unit has developed an assessment system with its professional community that reflects our conceptual framework (CD and evidence room) and professional and state standards. We are committed to engaging in practices that focus on successful learning outcomes for all students—practices that are research-based and empirically supported.
In accordance with these practices, we have identified candidate proficiencies that exemplify our institutional commitments and dispositions. The Central State University College of Education prepares urban educators who are able to help all students become successful learners by assuring that the following goals are addressed and assessed:
Goal 1: Candidates will achieve command of relevant content and pedagogical knowledge
Goal 2: Candidates will become competent in the knowledge and
use of appropriate pedagogical practices Goal 3: Candidates will become competent in designing and
using a variety of assessment strategies and instruments
Goal 4: Candidates will communicate effectively with a variety of
audiences Goal 5: Candidates will become competent in the knowledge and
use of technology as appropriate for teaching and learning
Goal 6: Candidates will exhibit the dispositions identified as
essential to professional teaching practice
These dispositions reflect our Ways of Being. Intrinsic to our dispositions is the notion of community and belonging. As members of a professional learning community our candidates are committed to the following dispositions:
1. Demonstrating the habits of mind associated with the subject(s) they plan to teach.
2. Demonstrating a belief that all students can learn and a commitment to doing whatever is necessary to assure learning success.
34
3. Exhibiting a commitment to their on-going professional growth and development.
4. Exhibiting the habits of mind associated with the teaching profession. 5. Exhibiting the core values of the university: excellence in caring, hard
work, honesty and work ethic 6. Demonstrating a commitment to high professional standards and
behavior. 7. Committing to the expression and use of democratic values in the
classroom 8. Treating all students with dignity and helping them learn to value each
other
We believe that our dispositions incorporate the values, commitments, and professional ethics that influence appropriate professional behaviors toward students, families, colleagues, and communities, and that they have a huge effect upon student learning, motivation, and development. We further believe that our dispositions impact each of our candidate’s individual professional growth. These dispositions represent the collective beliefs and attitudes of our learning community; and reflect the core values of caring, fairness, honesty, responsibility, and social justice.
All course syllabi (evidence room) in the College of Education and content courses required by our candidates in other colleges (e.g., Arts and Sciences) have been revised to include assessment of all relevant proficiencies and to be in compliance with state and professional standards. In fall 2006, the COE had 311 candidates in 14 different initial and advanced programs. The teaching mission of the unit is to prepare urban educators who are committed to helping all students become successful learners. The assessment system for all programs is aligned with this conceptual framework as our vehicle for achieving national standards. Central State actively promotes ethnic, racial, gender and exceptionality diversity in its student body, faculty and staff. We believe that this diversity enriches the university experience, even as the institution maintains its core historical responsibility to educate African American young people for success, leadership and service in state, national and global arenas. In order to assure that each individual who is interested in earning a baccalaureate degree in education with licensure for the State of Ohio knows exactly what is required, when it is required, the form in which it is required and what constitutes successful completion of each requirement, the COE has created and is implementing a gate structure through which all prospective teachers must navigate. Each Gate represents a developmental phase of the teacher preparation process and must be successfully navigated before entering the next Gate. This is accomplished by meeting the benchmark standards established for entering and exiting each Gate (Table 2.0).
35
Table 2.0 Gate Progression Requirements
Gate 1: Pre- Candidacy
Gate 2: Admission to the College of Education
Gate 3: Admission to Student Teaching
Gate 4: Student Teaching
Gate 5: Program Completion
2.5 GPA Maintain 2.5 GPA Maintain 2.5 GPA
Maintain 2.5 GPA
Complete Application for Licensure
Successful Completion of 27 Semester Hours
Complete Reading Core Requirement
Successful Completion of all Courses except EDU 4491 and 4895
Complete EDU 4491
Provide Contact Information
Pass EDU 2262
Complete Methods Course Requirements
Pass PRAXIS II Content and PLT (after 2003)
Complete EDU 4895
Complete State Entry Year Requirements (PRAXIS III).
Pass EDU 2264
Substantial Completion of Major/Concentration (75%-80% of Coursework)
Submit Application for Student Teaching
Pass PRAXIS II Content and PLT (prior to 2003)
Complete Teacher Quality Partnership Survey
Pass EDU 2266
Submit Graduation Application to COE
Complete all Licensure Requirements
Graduate Evaluation of the Program
Pass PRAXIS I Mathematics
Complete Evaluation of University Supervisor
Employer Evaluation of the Program
Pass PRAXIS I Reading
Complete Evaluation of Cooperating Teacher
Pass PRAXIS I Writing
Complete TQP Survey
Complete Application for Admission to COE
Interview: Ad- mission to COE
36
Final decisions about where, when and how all gate requirements are monitored and documented were made through a series of faculty meetings over two years. A draft document entitled College of Education Assessments at a Glance: What, Where/Who, When and Why was adopted in late 2005 and was piloted during the spring semester (2006). An intensive review of the assessment process as well as close scrutiny of the data generated resulted in a revision of that document and the formal adoption of The College of Education Assessment System: 2006-07, which is currently being utilized, is summarized below (Tables 2.1, 2.2, 2.3) and is available in its entirety on CD and in the evidence room. In order to move to the next gate, candidates must successfully complete all assessments/requirements identified in Table 2.1 in their current gate. Beginning with the spring 2006 semester, we shifted several of the historical requirements for Gate 1 to course assessments. This was the result of our consensus concern that pre-candidates were not receiving the counsel necessary to move expeditiously from Gate 1 to Gate 2. The following goals were established:
1. Every pre-candidate and candidate must have a faculty program advisor 2. Every pre-candidate will have both a professional advisor (Dr. Edwards)
and a faculty program advisor. 3. Pre-candidates and candidates will be advised in a manner that will allow
them to graduate in the shortest time possible. 4. Accelerate the transition from Gate 1 to Gate 2.
Candidate performance is monitored in three distinct and complementary ways. The first is attention to candidates’ ability to successfully complete key institutional course assessments that have been identified by the unit and which are used to inform decisions about formal admission to the COE. The second is focused attention on candidates’ ability to successfully demonstrate command of the various dimensions (content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, planning and impact on student learning) of their relevant Special Professional Association (SPA) standards. The third is attention to candidates’ ability to successfully meet the respective Gate entrance and exit requirements (Unit Assessments) designed to help them navigate the system and contribute to the vision and mission of the Central State University College of Education.
Table 2.1 College of Education Course and Unit Assessments/Requirements for all Pre-Candidates (Gate 1)
Pre-Candidate Assessments/Requirements
When Assessment is Required
Philosophy Paper (course requirement) By conclusion of EDU 2262 and prior to interview for formal admission to the College of Education.
Multicultural Reflection Paper (course requirement)
By conclusion of EDU 2264 and prior to interview for formal admission to the College Education.
Multicultural Reflection Paper (course requirement)
By conclusion of EDU 2264 and prior to interview for formal admission to the College Education.
Assessment of Beginning Portfolio (course requirement)
During 2262 and prior to interview for formal admission to the College of Education.
37
The assessments/requirements identified in Table 2.1 are used to monitor pre-candidates progress toward formal admission to the College of Education. Several of these assessments/requirements are met in specified courses and referenced in the formal interview for admission to the COE. The others (PPST and the interview) are scheduled by pre-candidates with their professional advisor. Selected data from these assessments/requirements are provided in Standard 1 and the evidence room.
Table 2.2 Content Knowledge Assessments Required of Candidates in all Programs (Gates 2 and 3)
Program Assessments When Assessment is Required
PRAXIS II Content Licensure Examination
Prior to or during student teaching
Lesson Planning Assessment (focus on evidence of content knowledge)
Throughout the terms during which they are enrolled in reading/microteaching, methods/field courses and student teaching
Microteaching Classroom Observation Assessment (focus on evidence of content knowledge)
A required dimension of all reading core courses.
Teacher Work Sample (focus on evidence of content knowledge beginning spring 2007)
During Methods courses and Student Teaching
The assessments identified in Table 2.2 are used to monitor all candidates’ progress toward gaining command of the content knowledge in all licensure programs and are included in the Special Professional Association (SPA) reports for all programs. Data from these assessments are provided in Standard 1 and the evidence room. We use lesson planning assessments, microteaching assessments and teacher work samples to monitor candidates’ command of content (subject) knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. We accomplish this by focusing upon evidence (observed and written) provided for each of these competency areas. Thus, in Table 2.2, these assessments are identified as instruments focusing on content knowledge and in Table 2.4 they are used to monitor candidates’ command of pedagogical content knowledge.
PPST Mathematics (unit requirement) Prior to admission to the COE PPST Reading (unit requirement) Prior to admission to the COE PPST Writing (unit requirement) Prior to admission to the COE Interview for Formal Admission to COE (unit requirement)
Following successful completion of all other Gate 1 requirements, the Professional Advisor will schedule the interview
38
The assessments identified in Table 2.3 are used to monitor candidates’ progress in gaining command of the content knowledge in their respective programs and are included in the Special Professional Association (SPA) reports for all programs. Data from these assessments are provided in Standard 1 and the evidence room.
Table 2.3 Content Knowledge Assessments for Candidates in Selected Programs (Gates 2 and 3)
Program Assessments
AYA and MCE Language Arts Cannon Formation Paper; English Proficiency Exam Prior to student teaching
AYA and MCE Social Studies HIS 4995 Final Paper; HIS 4371 Final Examination
AYA and MCE Mathematics MTH 3000 Portfolio Assessment AYA and MCE Life Science
BIO 1801 Fundamentals of Biology I Final Examination; Assessment of BIO 2400 Lab Reports
AYA Physical Science CHM 1201 (General Chemistry) I Final Examination; PHY 4431 (Modern Physics) Final Examination; CHM 4797 – Undergraduate Research
Early Childhood Education (ECE)
ECE Child Study Project ECE 3320; ECE Professional Development Checklist ECE 4420; ECE Literacy Investigation (Action Research Project) EDU 3310
Intervention Specialist (INS)
IEP/Transition Assessment EDU 4444
Table 2.4 identifies the assessments that are used to monitor candidates’ command of pedagogical content knowledge. These assessments are required only in Gates 2, 3 and 4. The reading core courses in Gate 1 differ with respect to the number of courses from program to program, but are required in every licensure program by the State of Ohio. The state’s interest is in assuring that every teacher in every classroom knows how to teach reading. We have designed our reading courses to include a microteaching dimension that allows us to monitor candidate proficiency in this Table 2.4 Assessment of Pedagogical Content Knowledge at Various Gates
(All Candidates in all Programs)
39
regard. The teacher work sample required during student teaching has been introduced for the first time in spring 2007. While it was introduced primarily to
improve our ability to evaluate candidates’ teaching impact upon students with whom they work, it is also used to assess their command of pedagogical content knowledge. The operation of the unit is assessed in a variety of ways as identified in Table 2.5. We try to monitor all aspects of the operation from a variety of perspectives, including candidates, university and clinical faculty, graduates and employers. We also depend upon the recommendations of several advisory groups (see Standard 6) to inform our operations.
Table 2.5 Instruments Used to Monitor Unit Operations
Gate: 2 Admission to the College
of Education
Gate: 3 Admission to Student Teaching
Gate: 4 Student Teaching
Successful completion of Reading Core courses (focus on knowledge of teaching)
Lesson Plan Assessments in methods/field courses evaluation of pedagogical content knowledge
Pathwise Domains A 2-4, B 5 and C 1-4 Evaluation of Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Lesson Plan Assessments in microteaching (focus on knowledge of teaching)
Pathwise Domains A 2-4, B 5 and C 1-4 evaluation of pedagogical content knowledge
Lesson Planning Assessment in Student Teaching
Teacher Work Sample (beginning spring 2007)
Use of Technologies (from Program Evaluation)
Unit Assessments When Assessment is Required Student Disposition Self-Report Prior to interview for admission to COE
and during student teaching Student Disposition Evaluation During methods/field courses and
student teaching Pre-Candidate/Candidate Evaluation of Advisor
During the fourteenth week of each semester
Pre-Candidate/Candidate Evaluation of Faculty Instruction
During the fourteenth week of each semester
Candidate Evaluation of Clinical Faculty During the last week of each methods/field and/or student teaching experience
University Supervisor Evaluation of Clinical Faculty
During the last week of each methods/field and during the 6th and 12th weeks of student teaching
Candidate Evaluation of University Supervisor
During the last week of methods/field and student teaching experiences
Candidate Evaluation of University Supervisor
During the last week of methods/field and student teaching experiences
Evaluation of the Program During the last week of the fall semester for pre-candidates, candidates, graduates and employers; and during the last week of each semester for cooperating teachers
Faculty Survey of Technology Use During the week before finals Portfolio Assessment (Advanced and Professional)
During EDU 4498 (Capstone Seminar)
40
The assessments identified in Table 2.5 are used to monitor the quality and efficiency of unit operations. Data from these assessments are provided in Standard 1 and the evidence room. Assessments used to determine admission, continuation in, and completion of programs are used as predictors of candidate success. Unit assessment instruments reflect the standards of the profession that have been used in Ohio to predict in-service success. These have been correlated with the knowledge, skill and disposition proficiencies identified in our Conceptual Framework to assure even greater confidence that our completers have been prepared as urban educators who are able to help all students become successful learners. Central State University participates, with every other teacher preparation institution in Ohio, in the Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP). The TQP is a five-year comprehensive longitudinal study of how the preparation and development of teachers affect their success in the classroom as measured by the academic performance of their students. This research partnership is designed to inform future public policy decisions and to suggest new directions for teacher preparation and professional development programs in Ohio and across the nation. At Central State University, all 2005-06 potential and actual completers (n = 24) participated as student teachers in a pre-service survey. The items in the survey investigated twenty separate dimensions of teacher quality (Table 2.6). A description of these dimensions, together with data indicating the mean responses of the Central State cohort as compared to the entire State of Ohio is provided in Standard 1. Data from the state report has provided us with yet another indicator in our quest for continuous improvement. Our current cohort of student teachers will complete the survey in December and data from that research will be available for review in the Evidence Room. The Teacher Quality Partnership also re-surveys a sample of teachers during their first second and third year of teaching following completion of their in-service programs. To date, the study has found no significant difference in the responses of pre-service and in-service teachers, suggesting that teachers prepared at Central State University are satisfied that their teacher education programs generally prepare them well for the realities of work as new teachers. Table 2.6 Teacher Quality Partnership Dimensions of Teacher Effectiveness
DIMENSIONS OF TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS: Dimension 1—Coherence within program Dimension 2—Program quality Dimension 3—Field experiences
41
Dimension 4—Faculty characteristics Dimension 5—Cooperating teacher characteristics Dimension 6—Motivation preparation Dimension 7—Curriculum preparation: Dimension 8—Special education preparation Dimension 9—Diversity preparation Dimension 10—Preparation to teach reading and writing Dimension 11—Preparation to teach mathematics Dimension 12—Assessment preparation Dimension 13—Efficacy for classroom management Dimension 14—Efficacy for student engagement Dimension 15—Efficacy for instructional strategies Dimension 16—General teacher efficacy Dimension 17—Personal teacher efficacy Dimension 18—Concerns – Self Dimension 19—Concerns – Task Dimension 20—Concerns – Impact
The unit takes effective steps to eliminate sources of bias in performance assessments and works to establish the fairness, accuracy, and consistency of its assessment procedures. The following procedures are used:
• Candidates’ performance is monitored at several transition points as they progress in their programs
• Multiple sources of information are used when making judgments about candidates
• Judgments are based on both internal and external sources of information that inform decisions about candidates’ academic and professional competence
• The levels of performance by which candidates are judged are clearly stated in the rubrics and scoring guides for assessment instruments with an eye toward continuously improving inter-rater reliability.
• Faculty meet to review samples of candidate work in order to gain increasing confidence in the reliability and validity of our assessment instruments
All assessment instruments and procedures reflect state and professional standards that are formally examined and revised to reduce/eliminate bias, and are widely accepted as being fair. All data generated from candidates is confidential and almost always reported in aggregate formats. A formal candidate grievance procedure is articulated in the Student Handbook and resolution data maintained by the Dean. Advanced Program
42
The assessment system in the advanced program was developed with the internal advisory committee, an external advisory board and candidate representatives. The internal advisory committee is made up of part- and full-time faculty who teach in the program and other faculty that are interested in program development. The internal advisory committee’s primary function is to address program and course issues and continue to provide feedback on program development, assessment and the usefulness of data and data collection instruments. The candidate representatives are selected from volunteers: one male and one female; one in the beginning of the program and one at the end of the program – working on the masters thesis. The function of the candidate representatives is to provide feedback on the program systems: goals, assessment, course offerings, support, policy, etc. Participation in the advisory board meetings also supports the candidates in their growth as leaders as they participate in collaborative decision-making with leaders in the field. During fall 2006, an external advisory board for the advanced program was organized from the networks already developed through the interactions among program candidates, their schools and the advanced program professors. Specific individuals, who have expertise in the cognate areas and those who hold leadership positions in their school districts from curriculum supervisors to principals, have been asked to serve on the Advisory Board. Members of the internal advisory board are invited to attend the external advisory board meetings. The first joint meeting was held on December 1, 2006. Feedback was provided on the program as it currently stands with special attention to 1) the knowledge skills and dispositions; 2) assessment of those knowledge, skills and dispositions; 3) the cognate areas; 4) the leadership project format; and 5) the requirements for field experiences and clinical practice. The assessment system includes six checkpoints throughout the program for candidates and one checkpoint three years after candidates have finished the program: 1) program admittance, 2) program orientation, 3) at the end of the core courses, 4) at the end of the clinical practice, 5) after the thesis is defended, and 6) employers and graduates three years after leaving the program. See Table A2.1 below.
Table A2.1 Key Assessments for Candidates Advanced Program
Checkpoint Key Assessment
Internal /External
Conceptual Framework Assessment
Professional Standards Assessment
43
Checkpoint Key Assessment
Internal /External
Conceptual Framework Assessment
Professional Standards Assessment
1 – To be accepted into the Graduate Program
1. Pass the GRE with scores of 500-580 (verbal); 610-680 (Quantitative); 4.5-6.0 (Analytical Writing)
Or the MAT with a score of 400 2. essay 3. Undergraduate GPA 2.5 or higher 4. interview
External Internal External Internal
G1 G1
2 – Orientation to Program
1. Pre-Technology Assessment - 2. Pre-Cultural Competence assessment 3. Collaboration & Comm.
Internal Internal Internal
G1.D2 G4 G1, G5
3 – End of Core Courses
1. GPA 3.0 or better 2. Leadership Action Research Project 3. 1st Portfolio Evaluation
Internal Internal & External Internal
NBPTS 3.4; 2.2; 2.1;2.3 G3; NBPTS 4;3.1;3.2; 1.3;1.1;1.2; 5.1;5.2;
4 – At end of 1. Leadership Internal &
44
Checkpoint Key Assessment
Internal /External
Conceptual Framework Assessment
Professional Standards Assessment
Cognate Courses
project in Cognate Area 2. Post Technology 3. Post Cultural Competence
External Internal Internal
G3; TLC.2;A.5;A.4;D.3;D.4 G1, D2 G4
IRA 2.2 ISTE: TFIIIA.1 IRA 1.1, 1.4, 2.2 ISTE: TF1.A.1, TFIII.B
5 – Thesis 1. Thesis Defense
Internal G3,K8; G2.6
6 – Post Graduation
1. Employer Survey 2.Graduate Survey
External External
G1.K4; G2.S4; G3.S7-10
NBPTS 1,2,3,4,5
Before prospective candidates are admitted into the program, they must complete an autobiographical essay which includes how the masters degree fits into their long-term goals. This essay becomes part of the baseline evaluation of the prospective candidates’ written communication skills. They must also have taken or scheduled to take the GRE or the MAT before or during the first semester of their enrollment and receive a minimum score of 500 (verbal), 610 (Quantitative), 4.5 (Analytical Writing) on the GRE or 400 on the MAT. A copy of their undergraduate (and transfer) transcript(s) should show a minimum GPA of 2.5. They must also participate in an interview with the admissions committee. This interview is also an informal assessment of their verbal skills. All four elements of the requirements are taken into consideration when making the decision for admittance. Each element is weighted to show its value toward admittance into the advanced program. Out of a total score of 100, students must receive a minimum of 75 points for admittance. Each element is worth 25 points. If applicants score less than 75 points on the admittance criteria, they are advised to show proof of skill improvement in a second try for admittance after a year has passed. Beginning spring 2007, new candidates admitted into the program will participate in an orientation session during which they will be assessed on their facility with technology based on the ISTE NETS and their cultural competence. They will also participate in a collaborative activity. This activity will be accompanied by a
45
debriefing, and explanation of collaboration and how collaboration, technology and cultural competency concepts are infused throughout the program. Candidates must develop a professional growth plan to gain facility in their weak areas before completing the program. Evidence will be kept in the portfolios, which will be evaluated at the end of the core courses and the clinical practice leadership project in the cognate area. The portfolio evaluation at the end of the core courses is aligned with the program goals and the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), and the portfolio evaluation at the end of the cognate courses: clinical practice leadership project are aligned with the national content standards for the particular cognate area of interest for the candidate. Candidates exit the program with a GPA of 3.0 or above, satisfactory thesis defense, satisfactory evaluation of their portfolio, and demonstrated satisfactory progress in their professional growth plan. Evidence includes GPA in selected core courses, which provide concepts and performance assessment on the five program goals: GEDU 6605 – Interpersonal Communication, GEDU 7700 – Thesis/Scholarly Project, GEDU 6610 – Social and Psychological Contexts of Urban Schools, GEDU 6615 – Collaborative Relationships with Parents and Community, and GEDU 6640 – Leadership in Educational Organization. Input for evaluation of the action research project accomplished during the core classes and the evaluation of the leadership project in the cognate area accomplished during the clinical practice are provided by the field and clinical supervisors, the university supervisors and a self evaluation/reflection by the candidate. Candidate progress is monitored at the end of the core courses and at the end of the cognate courses leadership project. The progress in communication, cultural competence, and collaboration is monitored against baseline data collected at the orientation of new candidates (beginning spring 2007). Selected course objectives are aligned with the program goals and students are assessed on their progress toward those goals in those courses; therefore, the GPA in those courses reflects candidates’ progress toward the program goals. This is also true for the cognate area course; however the alignment is to the national standards related to the cognate area (IRA and NETS). The goals reflected in the action research and leadership projects are assessed by three independent sources, which reflect both internal and external sources (including the candidate) using the same rubric. The goals reflected include NBPTS and national standards, as well as the program standards. Faculty is evaluated by candidates at the end of each semester. This data will be found in the evidence room. During the preparation of the advanced program input for the IR Report, many gaps were discovered in the program delivery. Some of these gaps were closed and as the program is further developed, others will be closed. We have added an external advisory board from the various school districts represented by the advanced program candidates.
46
Two candidates have been placed on the internal/external advisory committees for their input for program improvement. The first internal/external advisory boards meeting was held on Dec 1, 2006 and input was given on the improvement of the advanced program. We have put in place an interview committee made up of the Dean of the College of Education, the Chair of the advanced program, and a representative from the Admissions Office. Before the committee formation, the program chair interviewed prospective candidates. The committee interview team reduces the possibility of bias in decision-making at the interview level. An informal observation of candidates’ communication skills and input from program faculty on this issue was the impetus for adding the communication goals to the program outcomes. We are now in the process of developing appropriate courses and activities in the cognate areas, which align with all of the standards reflected in the special program areas in which these cognate areas reside (IRA; Literacy Leader/Coach and ISTE: Technology Facilitation). We are also working on a better alignment of faculty preparation with the courses they teach. We already have prospective faculty in the pipeline, with specializations that match the courses required in the advanced program. Element 2: Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation A comprehensive description of the unit’s timeline for collecting data on each component of the system is accomplished in accordance with the assessment schedule articulated in College of Education Assessment System (see above). Data are used for multiple purposes and many different people are responsible for different assessments. Tables 2.7 and 2.8 indicate various responsibilities in the assessment system.
Table 2.7 Internal and External Assessment Responsibilities
Who assesses?
Candidate Performance
Program Effectiveness
Unit Operations Effectiveness
Internally
• Faculty • Peers • Themselves
• Candidates • Faculty
• Faculty • Candidates • Advisory Committee
Externally
• Clinical faculty • School Administrators • Ohio
Department of Education
• Clinical faculty • Advisory Committees • SPA
• Graduates • Employers • Title III reporting
process • Advisory Committees • Ohio Department of
Education • NCATE
The unit is using a number of different technologies to assist in the collection and use of data. The university has a sophisticated and comprehensive system of
47
information technology (Banner) that provides for inputting data and tracking individual and cohort progress. Data elements are then maintained in a data warehouse that allows for the generation of any desired information (one-time or historical) in various formats, including reports, tables, charts and graphs. All unit assessments by candidates, faculty, cooperating teachers, graduates and employers are completed and submitted on-line via SurveyMonkey. These data are maintained electronically and can be disaggregated for each semester by Table 2.8 Assessment Responsibilities for Internal and External Evaluators What is assessed?
Candidate Performance
Program Effectiveness
Unit Operations Effectiveness
Internally and/or Externally
• Content knowledge
• Pedagogical knowledge
• Professional demeanor
• Skills • Dispositions
• Progress through Gates
• Successful program completion
• Title II reporting process
• Alignment of assessment system with expected outcomes
• Satisfaction with program
• Continuous improvement of the program
individual programs or aggregated for all initial programs. These data are available for review and analysis by faculty and university staff. Advanced Program Assessment data is collected 1) from prospective candidates, 2) during the orientation of candidates, 3) from the field project, 4) at the end of the core courses, 5) at the end of the clinical practice, at the end of the thesis, 6) three years after completing the program. Since the current program is in its first year of development, there have been no graduates. Assessment data is or will be collected from the following sources: GRE/MAT; Pre- and Post-assessment of technology concepts and skills; Pre-post assessment of cultural competence; Portfolio; Action research project; Leadership project; GPA/Performance assessment see Table A2.1); and Graduates and employers three years after completing the program. The assessment data is collected and analyzed at the end of the fall and spring semesters utilizing EXCEL data analysis formulas (descriptive statistics). This allows us to make program and/or course changes if indicated by the data results during the summer in preparation for the following fall semester. The first data analysis for the 2006-2007 school year will take place at the end of the fall 2006 semester. Currently, the program chair has collected (with the help of program faculty), summarized and analyzed the data because the program is so small.
48
As the program grows, we will select an assessment team composed of representatives of program faculty, candidates and external advisors. Tables A2.2, A2.3 and A2.4 below are summaries of the performance of students on the action research project, oral communication and written communication assignments completed summer 2006 in the GEDU 6620 class. Rubrics were used to determine elements to be evaluated on each project. The scoring guide is as follows:
1 = Unacceptable – Candidate needs to improve skill in this area2 2 = Progressing – Candidate still is not doing acceptable work. Needs to
improve in this area 3 – Acceptable – Candidate can move forward to the next level 4 – Proficient – Candidate is working above the expected level. Can move to
the next level Note; Candidates are expected to reach the “acceptable” level of proficiency. An analysis discussion follows each table.
Table A2.2: GEDU 6620 Action Research Data Table
Student A B C D Mean Rubric Element 1. Ideas/Re-search Question
4 4 4 4 4,0
2. Research 4 3 3 3 3.25 3. Plan for Organizing Information
4 4 3 4 3.75
4. Quality of Sources
4 4 4 4 4,0
5. Data Collection
3 3 3 3 3,0
6.Implementation Plan
4 4 4 4 4,0
7. Data Analysis 4 4 3 3 3.50 8. Conclusion 4 4 4 4 4.0
Mean: 3.88 3.75 3.5 3.63 The weakest level of performance on the Action Research Project is in the area of the actual research. The description of this area is “Research considers some perspectives and sources. Research attempts to synthesize the readings.” Although this is acceptable performance, it is preferable that students’ research “considers varied perspectives and sources and synthesizes the readings.” This is the “Proficient” requirement level. In this class of four students, only one
49
student reached this level. The next element that we need to focus on is the “data analysis” element. Two class members received a 3 and 2 class members received a four. The performance difference in these two levels is that level 3 “attempts to summarize the data and make connections to the outcomes and question,” whereas level 4 “clearly summarizes the data and is connected to the outcomes and question.” This is very important in a research project. When this class is taught in spring 2007, the professor can note this performance as plans are made for teaching another group. Table A2.3: GEDU 6620 Current Issues Presentation Data Table
Student A B C D Rubric Element
1. Speaks Clearly
4 4 4 4 4.0
2. Content Understanding
4 4 4 3 3.75
3. Stays on Topic
4 4 3 3 3.50
4. Preparedness
4 4 4 3 3.75
Mean 4.0 4.0 3.75 3.25 Although the lowest mean is 3.50, which is somewhat above the “acceptable level, it is noted that one-half the class scored a 3 and the other half scored a 4 on “Stays on the Topic” in a presentation. The difference between a 3 and a 4 is that 3 “stays on topic 90-99% of the time; whereas, 4” stays on the topic 100% of the time. Good planning helps one to stay on the topic. This assignment addresses verbal communication which is goal 1.S.3 in the program goals. This performance can be noted in planning for the next time this class is taught. Table A2.4: GEDU 6620 Paper on Notable Educators Student A B C D Mean Rubric Element
1st 4 4 4 4 4.0 Support for Topic (Content) 2nd 4 4 4 4 4.0 1st 4 4 4 4 4.0 Commitment (Voice) 2nd 3 4 4 4 3.75 1st 3 3 4 4 3.50 Word Choice 2nd 3 3 4 4 3.50 1st 4 3 4 4 3.75 Recognition of Reader (Voice) 2nd 4 4 4 4 4.0
Focus on Topic (Content) 1st 3 4 4 4 3.75
50
2nd 4 3 4 4 3.75 Mean 3.6 3.6 4.0 4.0
All scores were between the acceptable and proficient range; however, since this rubric assesses written communication – one of the major goals of the program - the analysis will focus on growth or lack thereof between the first and second assignment on the same element. The class mean decreased from 4.0 to 3.75 on the “Commitment” (voice) element and increased at the same rate on the “Recognition of Reader” (Voice) element. Note that both of these elements relate to “Voice” – voice of the writer and how the writer anticipates the voice of the reader. This dimension of communication is important and relates to goal 1.S1; 1.D1 in the program goals. Although the scores indicate candidates are doing fairly well on this element, there is still room for improvement if we desire that candidates develop effective communication skills as they progress through the program. The above data is the only data collected thus far. Data will be collected, summarized and analyzed at the end of the fall 2006 and spring 2007 semesters on GEDU 6605, GEDU 6610, GEDU 6615, and GEDU 6640. The procedure for candidates to file formal complaints in the program is provided in the evidence room. Element 3: Use of Data for Program Improvement College of Education faculty meets at the end of each academic year to review the assessment data on candidate and faculty performance, to discuss the strengths and weakness of the programs and to review progress toward goals. Since the end of the 2005-2006 academic year, improved operational changes have resulted in:
• The system for interviewing pre-candidates for admission to the COE being revised.
• The database being corrected updated and maintained. • Standardized procedures for disseminating, collecting, analyzing and
reporting data being implemented. • A transition from paper to electronic-based assessments being initiated. • A new system for advising candidates being implemented. • Administration of PPST being transferred to the College of Education
Following a comprehensive analysis of assessment data, using the NCATE review process in March 2006, a significant number of changes have resulted in improvements in faculty alignment, program redesign, clinical experiences, and in unit operations. Specifically, we have increased our faculty; made revisions to our assessment system, all course syllabi and program checksheets, many of
51
our assessment instruments, and scoring rubrics; redesigned the scope and operation of methods courses, practice teaching and field experiences; and increased the time spent by candidates in student teaching. As we have shared with university administration and included in our follow-up report to the Ohio Department of Education, the mock visit conducted by Dr. Steve Lilly and his team (March 11-15, 2006) provided us with specific recommendations that are imperative for the College of Education to be in compliance with NCATE standards. It was also apparent that even before we could address those recommendations, a number of prerequisite policy and administrative decisions needed to be made. The number and complexity of the recommendations transcended merely preparing for the NCATE evaluation in March 2007. It had become very obvious that the College of Education needed to be redesigned. Following the leadership changes in the College of Education, the next highest priority focused on the faculty. The priority with respect to faculty addressed two conditions:
1. A faculty with the appropriate profiles to align with programs in the College of Education.
2. A faculty committed to the performance system necessary to drive continuous improvement as is our intent and also required by NCATE.
Neither of these conditions was present in March 2006. The first is, perhaps most clearly obvious when viewed graphically (Table 2.9)
Table 2.9 Faculty and Program Alignment (March 2006) College of Education Programs Faculty Profile Alignment with Programs
Early Childhood Education 1 tenure track position Intervention Specialist 1 tenure track position (not fully qualified) Middle Childhood Language Arts 0 tenure track positions
Middle Childhood Mathematics 0 tenure track positions Middle Childhood Science 0 tenure track positions Middle Childhood Social Studies 0 tenure track positions
AY A Language Arts 0 tenure track positions AY A Mathematics 0 tenure track positions AY A Life Science 0 tenure track positions AY A Physical Science 0 tenure track positions AY A Social Studies 0 tenure track positions 2 tenure track (general teacher education) 1 tenured faculty (general teacher education)
52
1 tenure track (reading) assigned to Graduate program
With respect to the second condition, we needed to improve our commitment to a performance-based system of continuous improvement. Additionally, two faculty members were away on extended leave. Recognizing the importance of this effort in preparing for the NCATE visit in March 2007, we met with the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, the Registrar and the Office of Finance to propose a new faculty alignment. At that meeting, we acknowledge that we are well positioned to become a major national force in the preparation of mathematics, science and special education teachers who are especially competent at creating successful learners in urban school communities. In order to embark on such a redesign of the College of Education, we argued, an entirely new faculty alignment was required. This alignment needed be grounded in the relationship of programs with faculty profiles. Our proposal, as illustrated in Table 2.10, was adopted. Table 2.10 New Faculty and Program Alignment Proposal (April 2006) College of Education Programs Faculty Profile Alignment with Programs
Early Childhood Education 1 new tenure track position Intervention Specialist 1 new tenure track position AYA and MCE Mathematics 1 new tenure track mathematics educator
Responsible for ECE/MCE/AYA math AYA and MCE Science 1 new tenure track science educator Responsible
for ECE/MCE/AYA science AYA and MCE Social Studies 1 tenure track position AYA and MCE Language Arts/Reading
1 new tenure track positions
General Education Core: Clinical and Foundations
1 new tenure track position (general education); 1 tenured faculty (general teacher education)
Three new faculty (intervention Specialist, Science and field/clinical supervisor) were hired prior to the fall 2007 semester. The success of this redesign necessitates a strong and continuing organizational and professional working relationship with the College of Arts and Sciences. The foundation for that relationship is already in place and can only be strengthened through the implementation of this redesign of the College of Education. Until the spring 2007 semester, candidates in the College of Education were required to complete three distinct field experiences prior to student teaching. Conversations with candidates, college and clinical faculty convinced us that these experiences needed to be redesigned. A proposal to do so was presented
53
to university administration (see Standard 3 and evidence room) and Faculty Senate for approval. The results outlined below take effect spring 2007and result in a stronger teacher preparation program and candidates achieving a significantly higher level of success.
• Field I was eliminated and the observational requirements of that
course accommodated in the foundations course. • Field II was eliminated and replaced with a microteaching experience
as an integral part of each reading core course. Microteaching is organized practice teaching.
• In order to meet the needs of candidates in our Adolescent to Young
Adult and Multi-age programs, we continue to operate discrete methods courses in English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science and Social Studies. In addition, two new methods courses designed and approved by the faculty senate, one to address English Language Arts and Social Studies concurrently and the other to address Mathematics and Science concurrently. These courses will provide the necessary course work and field experiences for Middle Childhood Education candidates concurrently in the two concentration areas required for these programs.
Implementing these recommendations has required major revisions in our course syllabi, but the return on investment has been well worth the effort for candidates, faculty and the university. Advanced Program The program has been in revision since spring 2006 and, therefore, there has been very little opportunity for data collection based upon a conceptual framework that was completed during the summer 2006, and revision of courses made based on the summer 2006 conceptual framework. With the data collection to take place at the end of the fall 2006 semester, we will have data that will provide an indication of course and/or program change.
54
STANDARD 3 Initial and Advanced Programs
Field Experiences and Clinical Practice
The field experience program is an integral part of the preparation of candidates in regular public school classrooms and other diverse learning environments totaling up to 820 hours in the initial licensure undergraduate program. Experiences are designed developmentally, leading to higher levels of performance. For example, introduction and foundation courses provide experiences of observation and tutoring in classrooms. As candidates make the transition to pedagogy courses, experiences focus on opportunities to teach small and whole groups and to reflect on the teaching learning process. The conceptual framework for the initial and advanced programs provides guidance and direction for all aspects of the teacher preparation program, including the field experience and clinical practice components. While each process of the conceptual framework is represented throughout field experiences, the performance component of field experience and clinical practice takes place primarily in the “Ways of Doing” phase of the conceptual framework. Although field experience and clinical practice is centered on the “Ways of Doing”, these knowledge, skills, and dispositions emanate from the “Ways of Knowing”. Element 1: Collaboration between Unit and School Partners At the initial level, the unit’s field experience, clinical practice, and capstone course are designed to bridge the gap between theory and practice. The unit and its school partners design, implement, and evaluate field experiences and clinical practice so that teacher candidates develop and demonstrate the knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary to help all children learn and is committed to preparing urban educators to be outstanding teachers for ALL learners. Partnerships are crucial to the improvement of teacher education and P-12 school improvement. To this end faculty in the unit has developed collaborative relationships with departments in the College of Arts and Sciences as we work together to provide field and clinical experiences for the initial licensure candidates. In addition, the unit works closely with Central State University’s transportation department to provide transportation for candidates who do not have a reliable means of transportation to field sites. We have also developed partnerships with colleagues in P-12 schools. These districts include: Dayton Public Schools, Springfield City Schools, Xenia Community Schools, Mad-River Schools, Trotwood-Madison Schools, Yellow Springs Exempted Village Schools and Northmont City Schools. Table 3.1 illustrates the number and level of placements for clinical practice by licensure area.
55
Table 3.1: Number of Required Clinical Placements by Area of Licensure
Field experiences are based upon the unit’s conceptual framework, designed to facilitate candidate acquisition of the Ohio Standards for the Teaching Profession (INTASC) and to give teacher candidates the opportunity to develop their teaching skills through hands-on experiences with students. The shared vision of the unit serves as the philosophical base for the organization and execution of field experiences. For example, the practice of reflection is woven into field experiences and required throughout the education of teacher candidates. Field experiences for all initial licensure programs follow a developmental design and are completed in urban, multicultural public school environments. Field experiences provide opportunities for candidates to observe in schools and other agencies, tutor students, assist teachers or other school personnel, attend school board meetings, and participate in education-related community events prior to clinical practice. In the fall 2004, principals were invited to become part of our principal partners’ advisory group. Eighteen principals were invited; eight came to the meeting and provided feedback on how to improve our program. (See the agenda and list of attendees in the evidence room.) Together we planned a new attendance policy for our candidates; organized an administrative structure for meeting our clinical practice needs and identified Field II and III classroom spots; and structured the student teaching experience. Those same principals are notified each term with the number of candidates that need to be placed, the grade level and the licensure areas. The principals cooperate with the Director of Field and Clinical Experiences in selecting the specific classrooms for the teacher candidates.
Licensure Number of Placements/Level Levels of Placements Early Childhood Education 1 placement PK-3 Middle Childhood Education 1 –combined language arts/social
studies or math/science assignments 2 –separate language arts, social studies, math & science assignments
Grades 4-5 or 6-9
Multi-Age Education 2 placements PK-3 and either 4-7 or 7-12
Intervention Specialist – Mild to Moderate
1 for PK -3 1 placement in grades 4-8 and 1 placement in grades 9-12.
PK-3 and either 4-7 or 7-12
Adolescent Young Adult 1 placement 7-12
56
Advanced Program In the advanced program in leadership, field experiences and clinical practice began spring 2006. Included in these experiences are action research, leadership projects course-related field assignments with the P-12 learners in their respective classrooms and buildings, and an extended, intensive, collaborative clinical practice within candidates’ cognate area. A description of these projects is found in the evidence room. During fall 2005 and spring 2006, three meetings were held with the first design committee composed of the part-time faculty. Faculty list and minutes of these meetings are found in the evidence room. After each of the three meetings, changes and alignments were made between program outcomes and procedures, including a delineation of the knowledge, skills and dispositions, which are demonstrated in the field experiences and clinical practice. These knowledge, skills and dispositions are referred to in Standard 1. Candidates have a bachelor’s degree and an initial teaching license. Most are in a classroom. Field experiences, therefore, occur in candidates’ school settings. Thus, advanced program faculty collaborates with candidates and school personnel in the design and implementation of the experiences. For example, a candidate in Technology Leadership may want to lead a workshop in his/her building on some aspect of integrating technology into lessons or the use or assistive technology to reach all learners. The candidate must get permission from the building supervisor and his/her professor for the project. Upon approval, the candidate carries out the project, obtains an evaluation from the teachers, the building administrator and the professor. The final step is for the candidate to complete a self-evaluation. During fall 2006, an Advisory Board for the Advanced Program was organized from the networks already developed through the interactions among program candidates, their schools and the advanced program professors. Specific individuals, who have expertise in the cognate areas and those who hold leadership positions in their school districts from curriculum supervisors to principals, have been asked to serve on the Advisory Board. A list of members can be found in the evidence room. The first meeting was held on December 1, 2006. Feedback was provided on the program as it currently stands with special attention to the requirements for field experiences and clinical practice. The Advisory Board meets three times per semester, while the faculty committee meets one time per month. The faculty committee’s primary function is to address program and course issues and continue to provide feedback on program development, assessment and the usefulness of data collection instruments. The Advisory Board provides feedback on the course offerings in each cognate area, the reciprocal needs between the field placement and the candidates’ growth, field activity guidelines,
57
the relationship between the Central State University Masters Program and the P-12 partners, expected candidate performance in the field: (knowledge base, leadership skills, and dispositions) and evaluation of that performance. Members of the faculty committee are invited to attend the Advisory Board meetings. Element 2: Design, implementation and evaluation of field experiences and clinical practice In the current design (Table 3.2) there are three discrete levels of field experiences and a clinical practice. During field experience one, candidates go to the schools and other agencies where they observe learning, attend board meetings, tutor individuals, read to small groups, use computers and other technologies to facilitate student learning, and assist with various school and instructional tasks. During field experiences II and III, candidates complete a hands-on field experience in conjunction with the methods and materials classes and other courses where they are taught the instructional and assessment techniques of teaching. Candidates are placed in the schools for a field experience. Under the joint supervision of unit and clinical faculty, candidates develop lesson plans, teach units, design assessments and gather data on student learning. They take on other teaching tasks, as appropriate, and are responsible for classroom management. The candidate may be responsible for a small group of 3 to 5 students or a large group depending upon the classroom structure. Except for clinical practice, HPR foundations and methods courses are under revision and have not been included in this table. During clinical practice, student teachers complete a period of thirteen consecutive weeks in a classroom, appropriate for the licensure area, under the supervision of both clinical faculty and a university supervisor. During clinical practice, candidates engage in full range of teaching as well as other activities associated with the duties of a teacher. They plan and conduct lessons, design and administer assessments of student learning, manage classroom behavior, make referrals for special services, communicate with colleagues and parents, and have school board experiences. As explained in Standard Two, the current program design, with its three discrete levels of field experiences, generated a multitude of problems associated with logic, operation, quality control and educational soundness. In order to resolve these operational issues and provide for a stronger teacher preparation program that achieves a significantly higher level of educational soundness, a redesign of field experience and clinical practice will be operational January 2007 (Table 3.2).
58
Table 3.2: Initial Program Current & Newly Aligned Field/Clinical Experience Requirements
Current New Alignment Effective January 1, 2007
EDU 2350 Field Experience I
Initial Knowledge • 40 hours of observation. • Taken concurrently with
Foundation courses prior to formal admission into the College of Education.
• Completed in diverse learning environments.
• 1 semester hour.
MCE LA/SS EDU 2200 Introduction to Reading AYA Phys Science, AYA Life Science, MCE Lang Arts & Soc. Studies, MCE Math & Science, MUA Physical Education, INS EDU 2262 Educational Foundations/Field EDU 2264 Multicultural Ed EDU 2266 Ed of Exceptional Children The above courses are 3 semester hours Complete requirements are specified in course syllabi. 40 hours of observations are completed over the course of the semester.
EDU 3350 Field Experience II
Developing Performance • 5 weeks/100 hours. • Half days/ Monday –
Friday. • Completed in diverse
learning environments. • Observations, tutoring,
small group instruction. • Lesson Plans, Teacher
Work Sample • 3 semester hours.
EDU 3330 Reading in the Content Area EDU 3210 Language and Literacy EDU 3315 Children’s Literature EDU 3320 Phonics and Reading Microteaching is a dimension of specified courses. Small and large group instruction, develop lesson/unit plans, teacher work sample. Complete course requirements are listed in class syllabi.
EDU 3370 Field Experience III Developing Performance • 8 weeks/160 hours. • Half days/ Monday –
Friday. • Completed in diverse
learning environments. • Observations, tutoring,
small and large group
EDU 3361 Lang Arts Methods(AYA Lang Arts) EDU 3362 Math Methods(AYA Math) EDU 3371 Social Studies Methods (AYA SS) EDU 3372 Science Methods (AYA Life Sci, Phys. Sci) EDU 3775 Social Std & L.A. Methods (MCE L.A. & Soc. Std, INS,ECE) * EDU 3665 Math & Sci Methods (MCE Math & Science, INS, ECE) * MUS 3380 Music for Elementary Education/Field(Music) MUS 4480 Music for Secondary Education/Field (Music) Art
59
instruction. • Lesson Plans, Teacher
Work Sample • 3 semester hours.
Classes are four semester hours. * Classes are five semester hours. Observations, tutoring small and large group instruction, develop lesson/unit plans, teacher work sample. Complete requirements are specified in course syllabi. 80 hours of field experience per class.
EDU 4491 Clinical Practice Target Performance
• 9 semester hours.
13 weeks/520 hours Full days/ Monday – Friday. Completed in school environments. Observation, small and large group instruction. Lesson Plans, Unit Plans, Teacher Work Sample, Technology
In the revised program, candidates enrolled in educational foundations or methods will concurrently complete field experiences within their respective courses. Faculty agreed that this design better facilitates candidates’ development as professional educators. During these experiences, candidates are provided with opportunities for continued development of content, professional, and pedagogical knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Field and clinical practice includes time for reflection and feedback from peers and clinical faculty.
A new element, microteaching, has been added to field experience and clinical practice. During these microteaching experiences, candidates are involved in organized practice teaching as a means to develop performance skills. This design provides candidates with opportunities to receive feedback from peers, and individual faculty review of lessons taught. Audiences for microteaching events will be classmates and “invited” students from partner schools. Three microteaching events will occur for each candidate over the entire semester. Approved courses with microteaching experiences are; EDU 3310 Language and Literacy, EDU 3315 Reading through Children’s Literature, EDU 3320 Phonics and Reading and, EDU 3330 Reading in Content Area. Courses are approved for four semester hours.
The field experiences and clinical practice components of the licensure programs are well-planned and sequenced. Candidates are expected to study and practice in a variety of settings that include diverse populations, students with exceptionalities and students of different ages. They are placed at the appropriate levels and licensure areas for which they are preparing. Sites are selected in the service region to address diversity, students with exceptionalities, and various ethnicities. Table 4.2 summarizing these characteristics is in Standard 4. Expectations for field experiences are documented in the syllabus for each course in which field experience is a component. Each candidate and host teacher receives a copy of the unit’s vision stated in the conceptual framework,
60
field experience expectations/requirements, candidate observation forms and disposition survey. Evaluations forms and disposition survey are completed by the clinical faculty and are submitted electronically to the Office of Professional Education. Copies of these forms are placed in candidates’ files. Should candidate development not be progressing in a positive manner, an intervention program is employed. Candidates who are identified by university or clinical faculty as needing extra support meet with a committee of department faculty to discuss concerns and develop an “action plan”. The committee then meets with candidates at specified dates to monitor student progress. The unit’s commitment to technology is evidenced at each level of the field and clinical experiences. In methods courses candidates plan and teach lessons using multimedia resources. Candidates demonstrate their use of technology by developing PowerPoint presentations, videotaping one lesson, designing lesson plans which incorporate the use of technology, storing and retrieving electronic lesson plans, and submitting field and clinical assignments online. In addition, candidates gain practice locating and evaluating on-line resources with respect to appropriate student developmental levels, locating campus-based technology resources to help students learn, and use email and other technologies to communicate with faculty, students, parents, and other colleagues. During clinical practice, candidates submit lesson plans electronically, design and teach lessons which include the use of technology and, demonstrate skills in using electronic grade books. For those candidates that are placed in school buildings that do not have the necessary equipment, candidates may check out technology equipment from the Office of Professional Education. Clinical practice experiences have been carefully designed to permit teacher candidates to develop and demonstrate proficiencies in their emerging professional roles. All initial licensure candidates are placed for 13 consecutive weeks in a classroom working with competent, experienced professionals. They are actively involved in planning instruction, teaching and assessing student progress. Candidates also participate in professional activities such as attending faculty meetings, participating in parent-teacher conferences, and attending IEP meetings. Candidates are strongly encouraged to forge professional relationship with other teachers and school personnel and to participate in extra-curricular activities such as school performances and other student related activities. Capstone complements the clinical practice by providing teacher candidates a forum to discussion classroom theory and practice related to classroom experience. Assignments for clinical practice are full time and typically occur in urban multicultural public schools. Specifics regarding the clinical practice application and placement process are provided at the clinical practice in-take session facilitated by the Director of Field and Clinical Experience at least one semester prior to clinical practice. Once the placement is secured, the Handbook for Clinical Practice is disseminated and discussed with teacher candidates. This
61
occurs in person when the Director for Field and Clinical Experiences first meets with teacher candidates in a group meeting. Individuals serving as clinical faculty are selected from urban districts such as Dayton Public, Trotwood-Madison, Springfield City, and Xenia Community Schools. They are identified through a process of discussion with school administrators, recommendations from education professionals inside and outside of Central State University, and from the evaluations received from candidates. Following any clinical practice experience, clinical faculty is evaluated by the university supervisor and the teacher candidate. These evaluations are used for future placements to insure that high quality teachers are supervising Central State University teacher candidates. Clinical faculty are professionals who are employed by partnering urban school districts and are paid a stipend by the unit to supervise teacher candidates who are engaged in clinical practice. All persons employed as clinical faculty are experienced teachers and administrators. Minimum requirements for clinical faculty include: a professional license in the area they will supervise and a, minimum of two years of teaching experience. In addition, clinical faculty is asked to have successfully completed Pathwise training prior to placement of a teacher candidate in his/her classroom. In the fall of 2006, all clinical faculties were fully licensed for their teaching assignments and held a Master of Education degree. They had an average of 10.75 years of teaching experience with a range of 7 – 18 years in teaching. Teacher candidates are monitored and evaluated in a variety of ways. The university supervisor plays an important role in guiding both the teacher candidate and the clinical faculty in this exciting and challenging experience. The university supervisor provides a minimum of six visits during clinical practice. On occasion, it is necessary to increase the number of visits for teacher candidates who are experiencing difficulty in bridging theory and practice. The university supervisor reviews the observation with the teacher candidate, makes suggestions to lesson/units plans and provides resource support to the teacher candidate. The university supervisor also reviews and grades lesson/unit plans, evaluates the teacher candidates dispositions at mid-term, submits weekly observations electronically. Clinical faculty receives the Handbook for Clinical Practice and a copy of the unit’s Shared Vision. This occurs in person when the Director for Field and Clinical Experiences first meet with new clinical faculty. Outlined in the handbook are the clinical faculty’s responsibilities and supervising resources such as attendance policies, general guidelines for the teacher candidate, orientation activities, classroom management, developing lesson and unit plans, scoring rubrics for lesson and unit plans, Teacher Work Sample (TWS) Guidelines, scoring rubrics for the TWS, sample observation evaluation of teacher candidate, and rubrics for classroom observations.
62
Clinical faculty is expected to review lesson plans, formally observe lessons, provide written feedback to the teacher candidate, and; submit an observation evaluation electronically on a weekly basis. They are also to complete a mid-term evaluation, a mid-term disposition report, a final teaching evaluation, and a final disposition report. All of these documents are based on Pathwise. To qualify for professional licensure, the Ohio Teacher Education and Licensure Standards require performance-based assessment of provisional teachers. Pathwise and Praxis III models work together to form a comprehensive system. This system provides support and critical analysis of teaching. Both consist of the same four domains and 19 criteria which serve as the framework for assessment. In addition, candidates are required to attend a weekly capstone seminar which helps tie theory to daily practice. The seminar is intended to help support the candidates during their clinical practice experience, as well as provide on-going information about the next steps in their licensure and degree process. Advanced Program Field experiences are connected with certain core courses and are designed to provide candidates with opportunities to marry theory with practice from a leadership stance. Candidates demonstrate their leadership, communication and collaboration skills (ways of doing). The field experiences and clinical practice are also venues for growth in cultural competence (ways of being) and increasing and using their scholarship (ways of knowing) as they take the initiative to problem-pose and problem-solve, working alone or in small investigative groups, and reflecting on their growth. Candidates have established goals for growth in leadership, communication and collaboration, scholarship and cultural competence in their orientation to the program. Their reflection on their growth in these areas helps them to monitor this growth as they progress through the advanced program. The time for a field experience leadership project ranges from two to four weeks, depending on the nature of the project. The clinical practice will last a minimum of one semester. The guide for clinical practice is located in the evidence room. This project must be in the candidate’s cognate area and designed to solve or address a problem perceived by the building administrator or teachers in the building. The result of the project should objectively show how well all students’ learning, at a grade level or throughout the building, is improved. The clinical practice is an extended, intensive experience in which the candidate is assigned a task to improve learning at the building level by the building administrator or curriculum improvement team. This culminating experience takes place toward the end of the candidate’s program. Again, the experience is
63
evaluated by the building teachers, building leader, the lead professor on the project and a self-evaluation of growth by the candidate. In the advanced program, candidates submit a professional growth plan based on the five goals of the program: 1) utilize effective communication, 2) develop scholarship, 3) develop as an educational leader, 4) develop cultural competence, and 5) develop collaboration and developed in consultation with their school principal and/or CSU graduate advisor. As advanced candidates progress through the program, they participate in activities and assignments that address elements of the professional growth plan. Candidates reflect and evaluate their growth in these areas in reflection papers, kept in their portfolios. The professional growth plan is revisited during the clinical practice experience. Criteria for field and clinical evaluation are the advanced program’s knowledge, skills and dispositions and cognate area standards. Evaluation forms can be found in the evidence room. Clinical faculty in the advanced program may include principals, curriculum supervisors and/or teachers in the field experiences; however, clinical faculty in the clinical practice experience will be the building administrator or curriculum supervisor Although the candidates in the advanced program may be working as colleagues with their fellow teachers and building administrators, they are also in the process of improving their professional status and therefore, are learners interacting with their mentors. Requirements for mentors (clinical faculty) in the advanced program include a minimum of three years experience and a master’s degree. The teachers should have a master’s degree and be identified in their building as a “teacher-leader” except when the teacher and candidate are working together as a team on a project, and then the building administrator is the clinical faculty). The role of the clinical faculty is to provide candid feedback to the CSU candidates in planning and executing the field projects. Their second role is to assist in summative evaluation of the candidates’ field projects based upon the knowledge, skills and dispositions of the program and the cognate areas. The program provides these instruments. Element 3: Candidates’ Development and Demonstration of Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions to Help All Students Learn Entry and exit criteria for candidates in clinical practice are located in Standard 2, Table 2.0. If at any point a candidate is identified by university or clinical faculty as needing extra support developing the knowledge, skills, and disposition necessary to be an effective teacher, an intervention program is developed. The candidate meets with a committee of department faculty to discuss concerns and develop an “action plan”. The committee subsequently meets with the candidate at specified dates to monitor progress. If adequate progress toward rectifying the concern is not made, department faculty discusses the candidate’s possible removal from the teacher education program.
64
Table 3.3 identifies the multiple assessment tools that are utilized throughout field and clinical experiences to assess candidate effect on student learning, candidate ability to reflect on practice, and candidate ability to work with diverse student populations. Table 3.3: Assessment Tools Used During Field Experiences and Clinical
Practice
Assessment Tools Student Learning Reflection Diversity Teacher Work Sample Collection of student
data and analysis of student learning
Element 6 Reflection on student learning
Work with small groups and individuals based upon a common variable
Lesson Plans Data related to student learning
Reflection on teaching/learning
Differentiation of instruction
Portfolio Artifacts for Standard Eight (INTASC) – Assessment of Student Learning
Reflection on Clinical Practice; Goals for the Future
Artifacts for Standard Three (INTASC)– Adapting Instruction for Individual Needs
Candidates, clinical faculty and university supervisors all contribute to the assessment data collected throughout clinical practice. The responsibility for completing each assessment is specified in Table 3.4. Data collected are used for unit and program improvement.
Table 3.4: Persons who are Responsible to Complete Assessment Documents during Clinical Practice
Clinical faculty are to observe formally and electronically submit observation and disposition surveys, discuss informal and formal observations with candidates, and critique candidates’ lesson/unit plans on a weekly basis. The university supervisor observes each teacher candidate a minimum of six times during the placement. After each observation, the university supervisor meets with the teacher candidate and, when feasible, with the clinical faculty. At this time, a
Person Respon-sible
Obser-vations (Path-wise)
Mid- Term Eval. (Path-wise)
Mid- Term Disposition
Mid-Term Lesson/ Unit Plans
Final Eval. (Path-wise)
Final Dispo-sition
Final Lesson /Unit Plans
Port- folio
TWS Fall 07
Use of Tech- nology Survey Spring 07
Candidate X X X Clinical Faculty
X X X X X X
University Supervisor
X X X X X X X X X
65
critique of the lesson delivery and lesson plans are offered, resources shared, and ways to improve performance are discussed. Separate from clinical faculty, the university supervisor electronically submits candidate observation and disposition surveys, reviews and grades lesson/unit plans, reviews and grades portfolios. At mid-term, each candidate meets with their clinical faculty and university supervisor to discuss the candidate’s progress. Prior to this meeting, the candidate, clinical faculty and University supervisor independently complete a mid-term evaluation and disposition survey with the intent of sharing this information during a three-way conference. This conference is designed to identify teaching competencies the candidate will work to develop or improve during the remainder of the experience. The candidate retains copies of these documents along with strengths and recommendations. Teacher candidates are required to provide clinical faculty with typed lesson plans and texts to be used, no later than, the Wednesday prior to the week lessons are taught. Prior to each observation made by the university supervisor, candidates complete an instruction profile which describes how the candidate has accommodated for diverse learners, how the content of the lesson to be observed builds upon previous lessons, how this lesson relates to future lessons, a description of how the learning environment affects the observation, description of classroom routines and activities to be included in the lesson. During the post observation conference the candidate has the opportunity to reflect on the written lesson plans and the lesson delivered, discuss the effect of the lesson, what worked well, what did not work well, and brainstorm alternatives for improving the lesson. Candidates are asked ways they can continue to grow to meet the needs of their students and the required curriculum. The supervisor keeps a written record of all formal observations and related conference documentation. A copy of all documentation is provided to the teacher candidate. At mid-term and at the end of clinical practice teacher candidates are required to submit lesson plans for review to the university supervisor. The lesson plan has an attached page that reflects specifics of respective licensure areas related to SPA proficiencies. Candidate assessment data collected during spring 2006 are presented in Table 3.5. There were no candidates in the following licensure programs: AYA/Life Science, AYA/Lang Arts, AYA/Phys Science., AYA/Math, MCE/Math/Science, MCE/Social St./Lang. Art, MCE/Lang Arts. The unit instituted the teacher work sample, fall 2006, to assess candidates’ performance and effect on student learning because we were not satisfied with the “Goal Attainment Scaling Protocol”, the previous strategy used. The TWS yields the breath and richness of information necessary to provide the confidence level we seek
Table 3.5 Spring 2006 Candidate Performance Mean Scores
66
Area of Concentration
Total Number
Of candidates
Lesson Plan Mean
Scores Range 61-81
Observation Mean
Scores Range (0-2) CF and US
CF/US
Disposition Mean
Scores Range(0-5) CF and US
CF/US
Professional Portfolio
Mean Scores Range 64-69
ECE 2 71 1.43/1.44 3.01/3.24 65 AYA/Social St. 1 81 1.88/1.97 3.08/3.63 69 INS 2 69 1.76/1.22 3.39/3.64 63 MUS 1 81 1.92/1.97 3.98/3.98 69 PE 4 74 1.80/1.39 3.98/3.98 65 Teacher work samples are developmental in nature. Candidates enrolled in level two field experience courses complete a TWS that includes contextual information, instructional sequence goals and objectives, and assessment plan. Elements of level three field experience TWS include: contextual information, instructional sequence goals and objectives, assessment plan, instructional design and implementation, analysis of learning results (whole class only), and reflection on teaching and learning. Clinical practice candidates complete a TWS that encompasses six elements found in level three field experience, however, their instructional design and implementation is for a longer duration and the analysis of student learning includes diverse groups. These TWS elements are: contextual information, unit learning goals/objectives, assessment plan, instructional design and implementation, analysis of learning outcomes, and reflection on teaching and learning. In attempt to customize the TWS to reflect various SPAs, a page is attached to reflect each candidate’s respective licensure area. Examples of TWS used at all three levels of field experience are located in the evidence room. Data for the teacher work sample, collected for fall 2006, is on file in the evidence room. Evidence has been organized by licensure area and work sample elements. The “use of technology” survey will be introduced in clinical practice during the spring 2007. Candidates and clinical faculty will complete the survey which identifies various types of technology and strengths and weaknesses regarding its use. A copy of this document is located in the evidence room. The professional portfolio is the third assessment mechanism used to demonstrate knowledge, skills, and dispositions essential to student learning. The portfolio, either electronic or hard copy, is structured around the Pathwise domains. In addition, candidates are also asked to compile a clinical practice notebook to include, but not be limited to: class profile, candidate attendance log, professional development log, use of technology log, lesson and unit plans, reflection entries, observations and other classroom artifacts.
67
Candidate portfolios are reviewed with the university advisor at Gates (three times) during the building process. Portfolio building begins in the educational foundations course with a skeletal process to introduce the competencies and subparts necessary to meet Gate 3 requirements. Throughout their educational careers at Central State University, candidates are asked to refine and reflect on each competency integrating past and present experiences into their understanding regarding planning for and delivering effective instruction, assessment of student progress, and the use of data to inform instruction. Advanced Program Before candidates can enter the clinical experience, they must complete ninety percent of the required core courses except the thesis and all of the courses in the cognate area. They also must show significant documented growth in their professional growth plan. This evaluation is accomplished between the candidate and the graduate advisor during the “revisiting of the professional growth plan.” At this time, there is also a review of the portfolio, relating the candidate’s professional growth to the goals of the program, which emanate from the conceptual framework, and the standards of the cognate areas, which emanate from their special program areas. As stated above, all field activities and the clinical practice are evaluated by: 1) the clinical supervisor, 2) the teachers in the building (for a building project), 3) the advanced program supervisor, and 4) a self-evaluation and reflection by the candidate on growth toward the program goals as stated in the professional growth plan, and objective data on how the project affects student learning. As candidates work in the schools, and community organizations, they are cognizant of the program goals, which they have to reach, including “helping all students to learn.” This goal is foundational to good leadership. Candidates are cognizant of this goal as it relates to their professional growth. Advanced program goals can be found in the evidence room. In their reflections on this growth in classroom and field encounters, in response to peer and supervisor feedback, candidates must discuss in their reflection papers how they have changed their approach in teaching, leading, and/or communicating. This reflection is housed in the portfolio with evidence of the change in behavior, teaching, communicating or leading
68
STANDARD 4 Initial and Advanced Programs
Diversity Diversity is central to the core beliefs of Central State University (CSU). The mission of the university contains the promise “to academically prepare students with diverse backgrounds and educational needs for leadership and service; that promise is reflected at every level. Within the College of Education diversity is central to the conceptual framework, to prepare urban educators to be outstanding teachers for ALL learners. One of the unit’s goals is to continue to produce candidates who contribute to the learning of every student regardless of age, gender, culture, socioeconomic status, language, religion and/or exceptionality. The primary service areas for the unit include three counties in the State of Ohio: Greene, Clark, and Montgomery. According to 2000 U.S. Census data (Table 4.1), these counties represent eight different ethnic groups and two poverty levels. The percentage rate and income to the poverty level is recorded in the table.
Table 4.1 Demographics of Service Area & Rate of Income (Source U.S. Census Data 2000)
Ethnicity Greene County
Clark County
Montgomery County
African American, Non-Hispanic 6.5% 9.0% 20.6% American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% Asian 2.4% 0.6% 1.5%
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Hispanic or Latino 1.4% 1.4% 1.5%
White, Non-Hispanic 87.9% 87.2% 74.9% Other 1.6% 1.6% 1.5% % Rate of Income to poverty Level
Greene County
Clark County
Montgomery County
Below poverty level 8.2% 11.3% 11.2% Median Income $50,031 $39,959 $41,199
CSU is located in Greene adjacent to Clark and Montgomery counties. We collaborate with schools in these counties for field and clinical experiences in both the initial and advanced programs. These counties provide opportunity for candidates to experience and honor diversity and reflect on the broader socio-cultural context. Greene and Clark counties host a large percentage of white,
69
non-Hispanic populations and smaller American Indian/Alaskan native populations, whereas CSU’s majority population is minority. Within these counties, the unit collaborates with eight school districts for the majority of field and clinical placements. Of these eight districts, as reported by the Ohio Department of education (Table 4.2), there are three high poverty districts two of which have a majority of African-American students, Dayton City Schools and Trotwood-Madison Schools.
Table 4.2 Demographics of School Districts (Source Ohio Department of Education 2006 Local Report Card)
Ethnicity Dayton
Initial Program
Xenia Initial Pro- gram
Beaver-creek Initial Pro-gram
Springfield Initial
Program
Trotwood-Madison
Initial Program
Yellow Springs
Advanced Program
North-mont
Advanced Program
Columbus Initial Program
African-American
70.5 14.5 1.7 25.7 84.8 13.9 14.3 52.6
American Indian or Alaskan Native
NC NC NC NC NC NC 0.2 0.2
Asian, Pacific Islander
0.4 0.5 5.6 0.8 NC NC 1.3 2.2
Hispanic 2.1 0.9 1.7 1.2 0.7 NC 1.1 4.1 White, Non-Hispanic
23.9 79.1 87.9 65.6 10.4 71.2 78.3 30.4
Multi-Racial 3.1 4.9 3.0 6.6 4.0 12.8 4.8 0.6 Special Populations
Dayton Initial
Program
Xenia Initial Prog-ram
Beaver-creek Initial Pro-gram
Springfield Initial
Program
Trotwood-Madison
Initial Program
Yellow Springs
Advanced Program
North-mont
Advanced Program
Columbus Initial
Program
Economically disadvant-aged
65.4 45.2 7.0 61.2 60.5 11.3 15.5 70.9
Limited English Proficient
1.6 0.2 1.1 1.0 NC NC 1.3 8.4
Students w/Disabilities
20.1 15.5 12.2 15.2 13.3 17.7 12.6 14.6
NC = Not Counted This mix of districts is vital for our programs to reinforce and promote the positive values inherent in diverse classrooms and schools and to provide effective ways for our candidates to work with diverse school populations. These districts are characterized by high numbers of students with disabilities and students from ethnically, linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds.
70
The advanced program utilizes the same counties as the initial program; however, the advanced program uses two districts in these counties that the initial program does not use: Yellow Springs Schools (rural) and Northmont City Schools (suburban).
Element 1: Design, implementation, and evaluation of curriculum and experiences Candidate proficiencies at the initial level relate to diversity and are stated in the unit’s conceptual framework as links to knowledge (ways of knowing), to skills (ways of doing) and to dispositions (ways of being). Candidates are expected to: Ways of Knowing
1. Know how students develop and learn within social, historical and philosophical environments.
2. Use multiple strategies, including technologies in teaching the content so that ALL students can learn.
Ways of Doing
3. Demonstrate an understanding of individual learners and adjust teaching to meet the learning needs of ALL students.
4. Use knowledge of school, family, and community context with particular attention to urban settings in connecting concepts to students’ prior experiences and applying the ideas to real world problems.
5. Incorporate learning style theories and technologies so their students can understand their differentiated styles.
6. Demonstrate an understanding of the impact of student background on student learning.
7. Demonstrate a belief that all students can learn and do whatever is necessary to assure student learning.
Ways of Being
8. Treat all students with dignity and help them learn to value each other. The unit has designed coursework and field experiences for initial licensure candidates to assure acquisition of the diversity proficiencies. Courses are designed to ensure that candidates embrace, develop, and understand diversity in the classroom. Examples of course-based learning to develop and teach in a culturally sensitive manner and to develop a classroom culture where diversity is valued are shown in Table 4.3. The work and experiences is on-going. We seek to continuously improve learning.
71
Table 4.3 Examples of Required Courses Addressing Teaching Diverse P-12 Students
Courses Diversity-Related Content
General Education Program EDU 2262: Education Foundations
• Content course designed to introduce historical, philosophical, and sociological perspectives from various teaching settings. Methods, concept attainment, teaching outcomes, and assessment activities are introduced to resolve difficulties
• Develop and/or select assessment measures and instructional programs and practices that respond to cultural, linguistic, exceptionalities and gender differences.
EDU 2263: Classroom Management
• Conduct case studies that address various classroom setting, management styles, and issues based on individual needs where all students learn
• Design and evaluate lesson plan and long range plans attending to learning styles, cultural differences, socio-economic status, developmental level, student interest, ability levels and disabilities
EDU 2264: Multicultural Education
• Research, discuss and develop strategies for preparing students to live harmoniously and productively in a multi-class, multi-ethnic, multicultural world.
• Develop and/or select assessment measures and instructional programs and practices that respond to cultural, linguistic, religion, disabilities and gender differences.
EDU 2265: Education Technology
• Candidates become familiar with area resources helpful in providing, using and selecting available hardware, software and assistive technology appropriate for P-12 students with disabilities
• Enables candidates to use a variety of technologies to support diverse learning styles and abilities.
EDU 2266: Education of Exceptional Children
• Students examine the attitudes toward disability and difference. Develop strategies, methods, materials and resources useful in teaching diverse school-aged children. Design lessons to increase appreciation of students from diverse cultures and linguistic backgrounds.
All Core, Field Programs, Methods – Education Program (current) Field Experience I Included w/EDU 2262
• Requires field experiences in diverse school, community, and college laboratory settings and analysis of those experiences. Candidates observe teachers, school board meetings, tutoring, and case studies of diverse learners.
Field Experience II included
w/EDU 3310, 3315, 3320
• Requires field experiences in diverse school, community, and college laboratory settings. Candidates plan, implement, and evaluate reading Content curricula for diverse learners.
Field Experience III included
w/all Methods Courses
EDU 3665 & EDU 3775
• Requires field experiences in diverse school, community, and college laboratory settings. Candidates plan, implement, and evaluate content area curricula for diverse learners.
All Core, Field Programs, Methods – Education Program (Spring 2007)
72
EDU 2200: Introduction to Teaching Reading
• Requires review of current research, approaches, and methodology of teaching reading and literacy processes and skills
• Required reading and storytelling of traditional tales across world cultures; required reading and critique of fiction and non-fiction works for children that reflect
EDU 3310: Language and
Literacy
• Candidates focus on the language development and literacy growth of diverse learners age birth-eight years of age in early childhood and language arts. Strategies for planning, teaching, and assessing.
EDU 3315: Children’s Literature • Candidates learn current knowledge base reading processes in children’s literature. Emphasis is place on a range of culturally responsive literature.
EDU 3330 Reading in the
Content Area
• Candidates focus on the range of strategies and programs for teaching the reading process in the content area across the disciplines. Candidates focus on the diversity of learners and strategies for impacting each learner.
EDU 3320: Phonics and
Reading
• Required reading and classroom experience to develop awareness to the range of phonemic awareness in human linguistic structures and learning abilities for literacy learning; use of multicultural literature for teaching literacy across languages and cultures.
EDU 3665: Language Arts/ Social Studies Methods Fields
• Prepares candidates to understand problems in reading and language arts and to teach in ways that facilitates the development of these skills for diverse learners
• Prepares candidates to understand problems in the development of social study skills in diverse learners
• Various instruction and assessment models identifying methods, curriculum and materials in applying language arts and social study skills for diverse learners are introduced
EDU 3775: Mathematics/ Science Methods Field
• Prepares candidates to understand problems in the development of math skills in diverse learners
• Various instruction and assessment models identifying methods, curriculum and materials in applying math skills for diverse learners are introduced
• Prepares candidates to understand problems in the development of mathematics and science skills in diverse learners
EDU 4491: Student Teaching • Practical teaching experience in diverse school, community, and college laboratory settings.
EDU 4895: Capstone Seminar • Paraprofessional cumulative development of diverse knowledge base, performance skills, learning styles, cultural differences, socio-economic status, developmental levels, student interest, ability levels and disabilities.
Candidates are encouraged to attend other meetings and conferences for example conferences sponsored by the Institute of Urban Education which extends their knowledge on diversity. (See Evidence Room for Inst. Urban Ed. Opportunities) A number of tools are employed to assess initial candidates’ competence on the diversity proficiencies identified in the conceptual framework beginning with reflection papers in EDU 2264 and EDU 2266 to the teacher work samples in methods courses to performance assessments during field and
73
clinical experiences. Table 4.4 identifies the diversity proficiencies and the tools used to collect the respective data. (See Evidence Room Standard 1 for data).
Table 4.4: Assessment of Initial Candidate Diversity Proficiencies
Proficiencies Assessments Know how students develop and learn within social, historical and philosophical environments.
Pathwise C & D Disposition Survey Item #7 Reflection Papers
Use multiple strategies, including technologies in teaching the content so that ALL students can learn.
Pathwise C & D Disposition Survey Item #7 Reflection Papers/Portfolios
Demonstrate an understanding of individual learners and adjust teaching to meet the learning needs of ALL students.
Pathwise A & B Disposition Survey Items #1,7,4 Reflection Papers/Portfolios
Use knowledge of school, family, and community context with particular attention to urban settings in connecting concepts to students’ prior experiences and applying the ideas to real world problems.
Pathwise A & B Disposition Survey Item #3 Reflection Papers/Portfolios
Incorporate learning style theories and technologies so their students can understand their differentiated styles.
Pathwise A 1
Demonstrate an understanding of the impact of student background on student learning.
Pathwise A & B Disposition Survey Item #3 Reflection Papers/Portfolios
Demonstrate a belief that all students can learn and do whatever is necessary to assure student learning.
Pathwise D Disposition Survey Item #7, 4, 1 Reflection Papers/Portfolios
Treat all students with dignity and help them learn to value each other.
Pathwise B Disposition Survey Item #8 Reflection Papers/Portfolios
In addition to the above, Intervention Specialist candidates (fall 2007) complete the IEP/Transition Assessment and Early Childhood Education candidates complete a Child Study Project and Literacy Investigation (Action Research). Advanced Program The Advanced Program diversity proficiencies are designed to help candidates develop in five skill areas as they move along a continuum to reach cultural competence. This cultural competence requirement is reflected in goal 4 of the advanced program – “Developing Cultural Competence.” Dispositions 1 and 2 under this goal require that candidates 1) are disposed to caring for all students and their learning; and 2) are disposed to exhibiting positive attitudes and
74
humane behaviors that are cognizant of and sensitive to cultural pluralism, ethnic diversity, gender differences, learners’ exceptionalities, language diversity, socioeconomic status and global interdependence. The program provides coursework and case studies that will help candidates develop in five skill areas as they move along a continuum to reach cultural competence. The skill areas that follow, are the proficiencies expected of candidates which are indicators of cultural competence at various levels in the advanced program: 1) awareness and acceptance of difference; 2) self awareness; 3) understanding the dynamics of difference; 4) developing a knowledge of students’ cultures; and 5) adapting pedagogy (and communication) skills to meet the needs of all students (Cross, et al, 1989). Concepts of diversity are taught throughout the Advanced Program, which help candidates gain knowledge, practice skills and make progress in cultural competence. Candidates also benefit from diversity exposure in field and clinical experiences in their respective classrooms in urban schools and communities, which are diverse socio-economically, culturally, cognitively and in gender. These communities provide a laboratory for studying, teaching and interacting with diverse students and colleagues, which support candidates’ growth along the cultural competence continuum. One of the assessment tools in the advanced program is the portfolio, which is organized around the program goals. Candidates reflect on their growth in reaching the goals of the program, including goal 4, “Developing Cultural Competence,” as they encounter experiences in classes, field experiences, and clinical practice. During the program orientation, candidates establish goals for growth in cultural competence after completing the Teacher Student Interaction Instrument and Self-Assessment for Cultural Competence Surveys. The results of all assessments are shared with the candidates by the respective evaluator. Any candidate with unsatisfactory ratings is provided an opportunity to meet with faculty advisors to address any concerns. Element 2: Experiences working with diverse faculty Over the last three years the unit has had significant personnel changes. The 2005-06 academic year began with eleven full time faculty two of whom were on medical leave for most of the year. An additional faculty was added in October. Four of the 2005-06 faculty did not return for the 2006-07 academic year; however two new faculty were hired. The 2006-07 faculty in the unit includes four faculty in the Department of Health, Physical Education and Recreation and nine in the Department of Professional Education, as shown in standard 5. Table 4.6 shows the ethnic, racial and gender diversity of the fall 2006 professional education faculty in the initial, advanced program, and the university as a whole.
75
Table 4.6 Faculty Demographics (2006-07)
Prof. Ed. Faculty in
Initial Preparation Programs
Prof. Ed. Faculty In Advanced Programs
All Faculty in the
Institution
Clinical faculty
Part Time
Faculty
N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) American Indian or Alaskan Native
0
0
0
0
0
Asian or Pacific Islander
1 ( 8)
0
16 (8.9)
1 (14.2)
0
Black, non-Hispanic
7.3 ( 77) 2.7 (84) 110 (61.1) 2 (28.5) 12 (66.7)
Hispanic 0 0 1 (0.6) 0 0 White, non-Hispanic
1.5 (15) .5 (16) 52 (28.9) 4 (57.3) 3 (16.7)
Two or more races
0 0 0 0 1 (5.5)
Other 0 0 0 0 0 Race/ethnicity unknown
0 0 1 (0.6)
0 2 (11.1)
Total 11.8 (100) 3.2 (100) 180 (100) 10 (100) 18 (100) Female 7 (54) 1 (33) 70 (38.9) 6
(86.0) 12 (66.7)
Male 6 (46) 2 (67) 110 (61.1) 1 (14.0)
6 (33.3)
Total 13 (100) 3 (100) 180 (100) 15 (100)
18 (100)
The University faculty throughout the campus impact our candidates in general education courses and content area courses, bringing a rich and diverse pool of resources to the candidates learning experience. Faculty in the unit bring a wealth of experiences and diverse backgrounds in public education to the initial and advanced programs, e.g. twenty years of experience ranging from teaching to central and state educational administration. Faculty also has experience teaching outside the continental United States which enhances the opportunity to expose the candidates to a global perspective. (See Standard 5) The unit is intentional about maintaining and seeking faculty who are diverse in their capacity to serve the unit and its candidates. Good faith efforts are made to hire faculty from Colleges and Universities with vast experiences and backgrounds.
76
Element 3: Experiences working with diverse candidates In that CSU is an HBCU, a majority of its candidates are minority; however, it is an open access institution welcoming all populations. Data on the ethnic, racial, and gender diversity of candidates preparing to work in schools and the students in the institution are presented in Table 4.7 below.
Table 4.7 Candidate Demographics (Fall 2006)
Candidates in Initial Teacher
Preparation Programs
Candidates In Advanced Preparation Programs
All Students in the
Institution
N (%) N (%) N (%)
American Indian or Alaskan Native
2 (.6)
0
4 (0.2)
Asian or Pacific Islander
1 (.003)
1 (.5)
4 (0.2)
African American, non-Hispanic
258 (88)
18 (95)
1,417 (80)
Hispanic 1 (.003) 0 14 (0.8)
White, non-Hispanic 15 (.051) 0 34 (1.9)
Two or more races 0 0 0
Other 0 0 10 (0.6)
Race/ethnicity unknown
17 (.058)
0
113 (6.4)
Total 294 (100) 19 1,766
Female 164 (56) 881 (49.9) Male 130 (44) 885 (50.1) Total 294 (100) 19 (100) 1,766 (100)
Candidates, at both the initial and the advance level, come from predominately African American middle to lower class backgrounds. Because our body of candidates is not widely diverse it is important to take advantage of opportunities provided by the Urban Institute where our candidates meet and interact with
77
candidates from non-minority groups. Our marketing plan for the future recruitment includes reaching areas where diverse populations, gender, special needs, and socioeconomic levels vary and will help increase and promote diversity among the candidates in our teacher education programs.
Element 4: Experiences working with diverse students in P-12 schools Demographic data on the ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic diversity of students in the schools and districts in which candidates do their field experiences and clinical practice is presented in Table 4.8 below reported for the schools State Report Card.
Table 4.8 Demographics on Clinical Sites for Initial and Advanced Programs (2005-06)
Name of school
School District
Asian or Pacific Islander
Black, non-His-panic
Hispanic
White, non-Hispanic
Other
Economi-cally disad-vantaged
Trotwood Madison
Mont-gomery
NC
86.5
NC
9.8
3.1
41.6
Wogaman/ Miami Chapel *
Mont-gomery
NC
95.0
NC
NC
NC
99.2
Broadmoor Elemen-tary
Mont-gomery
NC
80.8
NC
13.1
6.2
70.1
Brantwood Elemen-tary
Mont-gomery
NC
9.2
NC
80.6
6.3
50.9
South High School
Clark
NC
46.7
NC
45.7
7.1
50.8
Hayward Middle Sch
Clark
NC
52.0
NC
38.8
8.3
72.6
Simon Kenton
Greene
NC
12.4
NC
79.8
6.8
52.5
Central Middle Sch
Greene
NC
13.2
NC
81.4
4.2
44.7
Arrowood Elem. Sch
Greene
NC
16.0
NC
73.7
8.9
46.9
Xenia Schools *
Greene
0.5
14.5
0.9
79.1
4.9
45.2
Warder Park –
Clark
NC
4.6
NC
90.6
3.6
50.4
78
Wayne ES Lagonda ES
Clark
NC
19.2
NC
69.8
8.7
56.7
Northmont City Schools
Mont-gomery
1.3
14.3
1.1
78.3
4.8
15.5
YS High School/McKinney Middle School *
Greene
NC
15.3
NC
71.6
10.8
4.5
Townview Elem. Sch.*
Mont-gomery
NC
73.7
NC
20.8
3.3
90.2
NC (Not Counted) (*) Includes the Advanced Program In the initial licensure undergraduate program candidates spend time in diverse settings such as those above. In addition to Hayward Middle School, Townview Elementary School, Miami Chapel Elementary School and Xenia High School, the advanced program collaborates with the Yellow Springs High School/McKinney Middle School and Northmont City Schools. Yellow Springs High School and McKinney Middle School have the lowest rates of economically disadvantaged students, but the highest rate of students with disabilities. Candidates placed in these schools have experiences with a variety of classrooms. Some are predominately white, others are predominately black and still others are a balanced mix of populations. All of these buildings have students with special needs and many socio-economically disadvantaged students. Our candidates, dispersed across these clinical sites, get valuable experiences from these environments which enhance their knowledge, skills, and dispositions as it relates to diversity. Our candidates filter feedback from their peers and supervisors at every stage of their field and clinical experiences. This feedback is crucial for our candidates; it is used to help each candidate reflect on their ability or inability to help all students.
79
Standard 5 Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development
Initial and Advanced Programs
The College of Education at Central State University is comprised of qualified professionals with diverse expertise and experiences. All classes are taught by faculty who are committed to integrating technology, and a respect for diversity into the teaching experiences. These faculty members challenge candidates to think both critically and globally. The faculty is actively engaged in a variety of learning opportunities. All present or attend conferences in their fields, several engage in community efforts, such as collaborative teaching with local P-12 schools or nearby colleges and universities, many are involved in the local community schools, building networks with the school staff while supervising our candidates. Element 1: Qualified Faculty Faculty members in the unit are qualified to teach in their respective disciplines. Tables 5.1 and 5.4 outline the qualifications of both full-time and part-time faculty. There are thirty-one full-time (N =13) and part-time (N =18) faculty members. All faculty members have terminal degrees with the exception of two fulltime faculty members in Health, Physical Education and Recreation (HPR) that have master’s degrees. Of the thirteen full time faculty members listed above all are in the unit. Three full time faculty members teaching for the unit are in the art, math, and music licensure program located in the College of Arts and Sciences. The part time faculty is comprised of eighteen members all holding at least a masters degree with six holding terminal degrees. Many of these part time faculty members hold full time positions in neighboring school districts. For example Susan Lohnes is the special education director in Xenia Public Schools. Two full time and one part time faculty member serve as the university supervisors, they have experience in the P-12 setting at all levels. The advanced program utilizes a mixture of full time and part-time faculty. All faculty in the advanced program have terminal degrees. The strength of Central State University College of Education faculty is the wealth of experiences and diverse backgrounds in public education that faculty bring to their work. Several fulltime faculty members have more than 20 years of experience at various levels in the educational system ranging from classroom to the building to district to state-level educational administration. Similarly, faculty members also have experiences teaching outside the continental United States which strengthens our understanding and support of diversity, and provide a global perspective to knowledge and theories of teaching and learning.
80
Clinical faculty, who supervise candidates are required to hold the appropriate credential in the area(s) they supervise and to have a minimum of two years of experience. See Table 3.1 in Standard 3. Moreover, the school principal must verify that clinical faculty meets the No Child Left Behind definition of a Highly Qualified Teacher. School and higher education faculty in the advanced program who are responsible for instruction, supervision and assessment of candidates during field experiences and clinical practice have some experience in the P-12 sector as teachers and/or administrators. As clinical faculty in the advanced program, they have continued experience collaborating with administrators and teachers in the p-12 sector as they plan for, monitor, and evaluate candidate field activities and clinical experiences. Requirements for school faculty (mentors) in the advanced program include a minimum of three years experience and a master’s degree. The teachers should have a master’s degree and be identified in their building as a “teacher-leader” except when the teacher and candidate are working together as a team on a project, then the building administrator is the supervising clinical faculty) The role of the clinical faculty is to provide candid feedback to the CSU candidates in planning and executing the field projects. Tables 5.1 and 5.2 outline the qualifications of full and part time faculty. Vitae providing information regarding academic preparation, credentials, scholarly publications, presentations, and professional engagements are available in the evidence room. Table 5.1 Qualified Full-Time Professional Education and Advanced Faculty
Fall 2006
Last First Degree or Excep-tional Expertise
P-12 License(s)
Unit Program Assignment
Ashburn Exie Ph.D. Administration and Supervision
K-8 Elementary certification
Professional Educa-tion Faculty-On leave
Esprit Lee Ed.D. Science Education
Elem K-8,; Supt. Foundations; Advanced Program
Hastings Rascheel Ed.D. Special Edu Mild/Mod INS Intervention Specialist Hill-Thornton
Joeanna Ph.D. Educational Administration
History, High Sch. Principal
Middle and High Sch. Social Studies
Hitchcock Kim Ed.D. Health and Physical Education
Health Education P-12
Chair Health, Physical Education and Recreation
Latson Hazel Ph.D. Educational Leadership
Elem. 1-8 and Elem. Principal
Chair of Advance Program
Moore Robert Ph.D. Ed. Leadership
Superintendent Dean of College of Education
Schiraldi Frank Ph.D. Educational Theory and Practice
HS Teacher, Edu-cational Assess-ment and Re-search, HS Prin-cipal, and Instruc-tional Services
Chair of Professional Education NCATE Coordinator
Schiraldi Frank Ph.D. Educational Theory and Practice
HS Teacher, Edu-cational Assess-ment and Re-search, HS Prin-cipal, and Instruc-tional Services
Chair of Professional Education NCATE Coordinator
Searcy Joshua Ed.S. Admin & Supervision, Phys-ical Education and Health ABD- Educational Lead-ership and Policy
Phys. Ed K-12, Health K-12, and Admin. & Supervision 7-12
Physical Education
Sharp Denise Ph.D. Curriculum and Supervision
Home Economics 6-12, Voc. Sup.
Supervisor of field and clinical experiences
Swami Rajeev Ed.D. Curriculum and Supervision
Chemistry/Physics 7-12
Science Education Program
Turner Rosie MA-Physical Educa-tion, Health and Recreation
Phys. Ed. 9-12 Health, PE, and Recreation
81
Element 2: Modeling Best Professional Practices in Teaching Faculty members are committed to helping candidates become professional educators. The conceptual framework emphases are reflected in curriculum objectives, instructional strategies, assignments and assessments as documented in course syllabi. Candidate proficiencies related to diversity, technology and teaching are stated in the unit’s conceptual framework and are linked to knowledge (ways of knowing), to skills (ways of doing) and to dis-positions (ways of being). Candidates are expected to: Ways of Knowing
1. Know how students develop and learn within social, historical and philosophical environments.
2. Use multiple strategies, including technologies in teaching the content so that ALL students can learn.
Ways of Doing
3. Demonstrate an understanding of individual learners and adjust teaching to meet the learning needs of ALL students.
4. Use knowledge of school, family, and community context with particular attention to urban settings in connecting concepts to students’ prior experiences and applying the ideas to real world problems.
5. Incorporate learning style theories and technologies so their students can understand their differentiated styles.
Table 5.2 Qualified Part-Time Professional Education and Advanced Faculty Fall 2006
White-Fitz-patrick
Margaret MA-Education Phys. Ed. 7-12 Health, PE, and Recreation
82
Last First Degree or Exceptional Expertise
P-12 License(s) Unit Program Assignment
Blackburn Donna MA- Educational Administration
Elem. Principal INS courses
Brown Sharon Ph.D. Rehabilitation Education
collaborates with schools
Advance Program
Carr Ad-rienne
MA Secondary Education; ABD Education Technology
Science and Chemistry 7-12
Ed. Tech
Collier Samuel Doctorate of Theology
Social Studies, History, Psychology , Sociology and Inter-
Prof. Ed.
Day
Patricia Allen
MA-Curriculum and Supervision
Social Studies 7-12
Ed. Foundations
Lohnes Susan MA Administra-tion and Supervision
Reading K-12, Special Education K-12
INS courses
Marshall Ken-neth
MS-Physical Education
P.E. K-12 Health, PE, and Recreation
McGill Jerrie Ph.D. Curriculum and Instruction
Superintendent License
Advanced Program
O’Rourke William MA-Elementary Education
P.E. K-12 Health, PE, and Recreation
Perymon Anita MA-Education and Allied Professions
30 years Elem. Ed. Early Childhood Courses
Price Ruth MA-Elem. Ed. Elem. Ed. Reading Courses Price Ronald Ph.D. Language Arts
7-12 Reading Courses and Field Supervision
Swonigan Howard Ph.D. Coun-seling and Edu-cational Psych-ology
professional develop-ment with various school districts.
Advanced Program
Thomas Ronald MA-Educational Leadership
OH Supt.& Principal, Elem, Social Studies
Ed. Foundations
Wallace Sonya MA-Literacy Reading & Elem. Ed. Reading Watchel Susan MA-
Administration No P-12 experience Health, PE, and
Recreation Wilson Peggy Ph.D. Health
and Human Services Education
No P-12 experience Health, PE, and Recreation
Woodland-Cuff
Janice MA-Education 18 years experience as a reading specialists,
Reading and Early Childhood Education Classes
83
6. Demonstrate an understanding of the impact of student background on student learning.
7. Demonstrate a belief that all students can learn and do whatever is necessary to assure student learning.
Ways of Being
8. Treat all students with dignity and help them learn to value each other. Professional education faculty use a wide variety of instructional strategies to promote candidate learning, reflection, critical thinking, problem solving, and professional dispositions. Faculty encourages, support, and model the development of these skills by building into course content opportunities for exploratory learning and self-reflection. Faculty use scenarios, case studies, documentaries, field experiences and site based learning to foster the development of critical thinking skills as well as problem solving skills. Faculty incorporate the use of technology into instruction with the use of power point presentation and using other audiovisual devices to enhance class lectures and present course content (see Table 1.15). We have identified some important examples of how faculty model best professional practice in teaching and learning (see evidence room for a complete description of these efforts). The classes listed are core classes. All candidates in the initial program in the unit take these classes. Core classes are also provided for the advanced program. The advanced program provides coursework, field and clinical experiences, readings and case studies that help candidates develop in five skill areas as they move along a continuum to reach cultural competence. The skill areas that follow, are the proficiencies expected of candidates which are indicators of cultural competence in the advanced program: awareness and acceptance of difference; self awareness; understanding the dynamics of difference; developing a knowledge of students’ cultures; and adapting pedagogy (and communication) skills to meet the needs of all students (Cross, et al, 1989).
Faculty members in the advanced program model best professional practices in teaching. These practices are documented in a variety of ways. At the conclusion of each semester, candidates evaluate the quality of instruction and the quality of courses. In addition, one faculty member received the SOCHE outstanding teacher award for the 2005-2006 year Advanced program faculty reflects the unit’s conceptual framework in their courses. They model reflective decision-making through their own instruction and assessment of candidates. In addition, they require candidates to complete
84
performance-based projects that encourage candidate reflection and assessment of P-12 student learners Advanced program faculty integrates technology in their instruction to enhance learning opportunities for candidates. For example, candidates are placed on a listserv to facilitate communication among candidates and faculty. Some courses are offered as combination on-line and face to face (GEDU 5574, GEDU 5516, and GEDU 7700); some courses encourage students to send assignments by e-mail to the professor for written feedback using the “comment” facility on the computer (GEDU 7700). Other courses use texts with Internet resources, which enhance the instruction. Candidates are required to utilize the Internet in their course projects, and production software such as graphics, Microsoft Word, Excel for charts, analyzing and organizing data, and other formulaic activities, and make presentations utilizing PowerPoint. The Educational Research and the Research Thesis/Scholarly Project (GEDU 6650, GEDU 7700) are taught using statistical software programs to compute analyses (see GEDU 6650, GEDU 7700 Syllabi).
Candidates assess the teaching of faculty every semester and faculty receives a compilation of the student evaluations. This information is shared with each faculty member. Faculty members are encouraged to use the student evaluation to focus on their professional development but also to foster self-assessment of their teaching. Self assessment is an important part of professional development and should take place frequently. Faculty are encouraged to reflect on their teaching practices, review current data in their fields and also from student evaluation and develop ways to improve their teaching practices. Element 3: Modeling Best Professional Practices in Scholarship Central State University and the unit encourage scholarly activity and professional development throughout a faculty member’s tenure (see Table 5.3). Although Central State is primarily a teaching, institution, faculty members are encouraged to pursue research and to involve candidates in research endeavors. Completion of an article in a peer-reviewed journal and presenting at national and regional conferences are necessary components for tenure track faculty. Faculty demonstrate scholarship by publishing books, writing in refereed journals, attending national and regional conferences, attending and conducting workshop presentations, serving on journal editorial boards, and writing both external and internal grants. Faculty vitae and examples of scholarship activities are available in the evidence room.
Table 5.3: Modeling Best Professional Practice in Scholarship Last First Scholarship
85
Ashburn Exie On Leave Esprit Lee Dissertation: A comparison of cognitive styles; Clinical Field-
Based at Central State University: Problems and Promises Hastings Rascheel PDK - Teacher Across the Hall (electronic responses, March
2003 & August 2004); Presentation on Asperger's Syndrome, May 2003, at Annual Indiana Emotional Handicapped Conference (May 2003) and Ball State Annual Student Symposium (March 2003). Provided Leadership for the preparation of the NCATE standard 5 report.
Hill-Thornton
Joeanna Provided leadership and facilitation for the COE faculty initiative to redesign and/or develop required course syllabi: implemented an Early Childhood Grant in the Unit.
Hitchcock Kim Dissertation: Health Risk Appraisals Comparing Black and White Clinic Users.
Latson Hazel Provided leadership for the preparation of the Institutional Report (Advanced Program); paper presented at the Society for Applied Anthropology Association: “Now that the Tape is Off paper presented at the American Association of Anthropologists. “Response to Workman: How Culture Misdirects Multiculturalism.” Summer 2006, Presented Pilot Study at Oxford England Roundtable, “Reading Strategies for College Students.”
Moore Robert Developed the Urban Institute at Central State University; provided leadership for the preparation of the NCATE standard 6 report.
Schiraldi Frank Provided leadership to the SPA report preparation and submission process: the preparation of NCATE standards 1 and 2; the redesign of all programs of study; the redesign of reading/microteaching and methods/field courses; and the alignment of faculty profiles and COE programs.
Searcy Joshua Smith, C., Lirgg, Searcy, J., Jifri, A., Perkins, M., & Witke, J. (2001). Effects Model Gender and Model race on perceptions of Archery. Arkansas Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 36, 45-48.
Sharp Denise Provided leadership for the redesign of field and clinical experiences; developed the Teacher Work Sample assessment instrument; provided leadership for the preparation of the NCATE standard 3 report.
Swami Rajeev Swami, R. (2006). Science Teaching Crisis: Outsourcing a Solution. The Journal for the Liberal Arts and Sciences. Volume 8, Number 2. Hill, S. & Swami, R. (2006). Science Inquiry and Impact of Coca-Cola As a Fertilizer in Plants. Teachers, Learners and curriculum, Volume 4. Swami, R. (2006). Same gender classes: An effective solution or a myth. For academic success and changing students’
86
attitudes towards Science. Proceedings of the 19th Annual World International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement. Swami, R. (2006). Perceptions of College Science Faculty about Teaching Science. The Journal of the International Society of Teacher Education, Volume 9, Number 2.
Turner Rosie Women’s health Information Seminar, April 2003 Central State University
White-Fitzpatrick
Margaret
Dissertation: A Comparative Study of Black and White clinic Users Infectious Waste in the Dental Office, 1994, Dental Office. Stevens Publishing Company. Knowledge and Beliefs of HIV modes of Transmission among African-American and Caucasian College Students.
All full time faculty engage in scholarship vitae and examples of scholarship activities are available in the evidence room. Element 4: Modeling Best Professional Practices In Service Faculty members are actively involved in service opportunities at the university (Table 5.4), in the public school system and also in the community. All full time faculty members serve on committees both in the unit and across the university. Many faculty members are involved in organizations that serve the surrounding school districts and the community. Full documentation of the various ways that faculty members model best professional practices in service are highlighted in the evidence room and detailed in faculty vitae.
Table 5.4 Modeling Best Professional Practice in Service
Last First P-12 Experience University Service Community Service
Ashburn Exie 16 years teaching experience, 8 years administration experience, 15 prior higher education experience
Presently on leave Presently on leave
Esprit Lee 19 years teaching experience
University Senate Committee, Tenure and Promotion, Assessment Com-mittee, Technology Committee, Curri-culum Committee
President of Xenia City Council, Chair of Loan and Trust Committee, Chair Human Relations Committee, Dayton Area American Red
87
Cross Advisory Board
Hastings Rascheel Internships with Northside Middle School and Storer Elementary School); 3 yrs H.Sch.-self contained, mild disabilities-Virgin Islands
NCATE Standard 5 Chair
First year at CSU: new to the community
Hill Thornton
Joeanna 15 years teaching experience at the elementary middle school and high school levels, 3 years experience as an Assistant principal
Program Coordinator Early Childhood Educ. Partnership Grant, Title II Coordinator. Syllabi alignment to content standards.
Ohio Council for the Social Studies, Executive Board
Hitch-cock
Kim Substitute Teaching at the P-12 level
Executive Senate Committee, Com-mittee on Com-mittees, AAUP, Band Chaperone, Health Fair
Red Cross, Health Fair, and Center For Peace Education
Latson Hazel 17 years P-12 teaching experience, 3 years Principal experience
Chair Assessment Committee, Program Committee SAEM Project, Member of Assessment Committee SAEM
The LINKS Inc.- Women’s Service Organization, Board of Springfield Academy of Excellence
Moore Robert 34 years building, central office and state educational administrative experience
Academic Affairs Council, President’s Administrative Team
Board member of OIC, Ohio Industrial Commission
Schiraldi Frank 17 years P-12 experience, (teacher, building and district administrator), 22 years experience educational leadership experience at the state level.
Search Committees for Provost, Vice President for Academic Affairs and Vice President for Finance; member of Academic Affairs Appeals Committee
Consultant to the Ohio Resource Center :enhance-ing professional practice; Gov-ernor’s Educa-tional Leadership Award
Searcy Joshua 5 years P-12 experience New to university New to area
88
Sharp Denise 17 years P-12 experience and 12 years experience at the district level.
NCATE Standard 3 Committee Chair
Partnerships for Success, Early Childhood Education 2004-05; Clark County Early Childhood Collaborative
Swami Rajeev 6 years P-12 experience Faculty presentation on course syllabi alignment to content standards
First Year at CSU; new to the community
Turner Rosie No P-12 experience Served on NCATE committees, Associate Vice President Search Committee 2005, Semester Conversion Task Force 2004
Excellent Community Service Award, Faculty Development 2005-2006, Honors program 2005-2006, Most Inspiration Teacher-College of Education 2003-2004
White-Fitz-patrick
Margaret 5 years teaching experience at the middle at high school levels
Most Inspirational Teacher, College of Education Central State University 2001, 2002
Volleyball, Basketball, Track & Field Coach. Cheerleader Advisor
Faculty is expected to advise candidates as a part of their professional responsibilities. Advising is viewed as an expectation of service within the unit. Faculty advises candidates within the program(s) that they teach. (See faculty advisor assignment in the evidence room. Element 5: Collaboration Professional education faculty collaborate regularly and systemically with colleagues in P-12 schools primarily through the organizational structures that maintain field and methods clinical partnerships both are detailed in Standard 3. Partnerships are crucial to the improvement of teacher education and P-12 school improvement. The unit is committed to preparing urban educators to be outstanding teachers for all learners and to prepare candidates to take the PRAXIS tests for initial licensure. Partnerships have also been developed with
89
the following school districts: Dayton Public, Springfield City, Xenia Community, Mad-River, Trotwood-Madison, Jefferson Township, Columbus Public, Yellow Springs Exempted Village and Northmont City Schools. Some personnel school serve on advisory or external committees while others serve as placement for field and clinical supervisors. Table.5 identifies the professional organizations to which unit faculty belong. As can be seen, faculty members are actively engaged in profession organizations in their fields and are abreast of the current literature, data, and developments in their respective fields.
Table 5.5 Professional Memberships of Unit Faculty
Last First Professional Organizations Ashburn Exie International Foundation for Education and Self-Help
(IFESH) Esprit Lee NSTA, NCTM, ASCD Hastings Rascheel CEC, PDK Hill-Thornton Joeanna NAME, OCTEO, ASCD, AAUP Hitchcock Kim AAHPERD Latson Hazel ASCD, NSTA, PDK, NMSA, NAME, IRA Moore Robert AASA, BASA, ASCD, PDK Schiraldi Frank NCREL, OASCD, CCSSO, ASCD, PDK, BASA Searcy Joshua AAHPERD, NASPE, ACSM, NSCA, AERA, ACA Sharp Denise ASCD, NAEYC, OATE, OCTEO Swami Rajeev International Society of Teacher Education; NARST Turner Rosie AAHPERD White-Fitzpatrick Margaret AAHPERD, NASPE, AAHE
The unit has developed collaborative relationships with departments in the College of Arts and Sciences as we work together to develop programs. Central State University houses the University’s Urban Institute, sponsor of a conference entitled Teaching and Learning in the Urban Environment. Featured speakers included Reggie Weaver, NEA President; Steve Mille, Scientific Learning and Jonathon Kozol. General sessions were followed by breakout sessions. Participants included staff from Springfield, Trotwood, and Xenia schools and candidates from the Universities of Dayton and Cedarville. Cedarville and Central State candidates took the opportunity (on-going) to begin a rich dialogue. A joint urban conference co-sponsored by both institutions is scheduled for the 2007 academic year.
90
Element 6: Unit Evaluation of Professional Education Faculty Performance Evaluation of Central State University faculty, administration, and staff is an on-going process and is designed to maximize individual growth in meeting the responsibilities of the profession. At the end of each semester evaluation forms are distributed to candidates in all classes for the evaluation of faculty both full time and part time faculty members. These forms are collected and centrally collated and the results are shared with faculty through the Deans and Chairpersons. A meeting is held to discuss the findings from the candidate evaluation of faculty teaching and suggestions for improvement are made. Current administration could not find documentation of past evaluation meetings. In the course of faculty conversation about the evaluation process many suggestions for improving the process was made, as a result two things are scheduled. At the start of the spring 2007 semester, faculty under the leadership of the Dean, will develop a unit evaluation system to include scholarship, service, and teaching with measurable goals. At that meeting, faculty will also be asked to develop a self reflective review of professional practice as a basis for requesting professional development resources and support. Element 7: Unit Facilitation of Professional Development Faculty members are encouraged to present and attend conferences in their fields to foster professional growth and development. The Office of Faculty Development has two primary functions 1) to provide CSU faculty with opportunities to enhance their pedagogy, general professional skills and overall bases of knowledge and 2) to support the enhancement and expansion of cross-disciplinary academic initiatives. Faculty has opportunities to develop their skills and knowledge, hold interdisciplinary discussions, and disseminate information to enhance the processes of teaching and learning at the University. In addition to supporting workshops and forums, the Office maintains both Web CT-based resource site for faculty and a physical resource center. The office also coordinates orientations for new full-time faculty and part-time faculty and hosts an annual faculty retreat. In the area of curriculum enhancement, the program coordinates cross-disciplinary initiatives including the undergraduate research initiative, technology infusion, and faculty involvement in Learning Communities Initiative. In addition, Faculty Development manages a faculty travel fund which is used to support faculty’s professional, especially as it relates to improving students’ academic improvement and retention. Faculty conversations during the NCATE process resulted in a suggestion to schedule some faculty sessions for the purpose of engaging each other in ways to enhance our own professional growth. These might include discussion of candidate work samples, inter-rater reliability and other dimensions of reliable and valid assessment.
91
Standard 6 Unit Governance and Resources Initial and Advanced Programs
Element 1: Unit Leadership and Authority The College of Education is the unit that has leadership and authority for all aspects of the development, delivery and operations related to the preparation and professional development of P – 12 professional educators. The unit is guided by the conceptual framework, which presents the academic unit’s mission statement and goals that demonstrates the unit’s leadership role on campus in the development of Initial and Advanced Program candidates. The College of Education coordinates with the College of Arts and Sciences in the content preparation for all licensure programs. Candidates for the licensure program complete general education requirements in the College of Arts and Sciences. The College of Education also has the leadership in SPA program reviews and the alignment of teacher licensure programs with the Ohio Content Standards. The College of Education is part of Academic Affairs: Dr. Robert Moore, Interim Dean of the College and three program chairs: Dr. Frank Schiraldi, Interim Chair of the Professional program, Dr. Kim Hitchcock, Chair of the H.P.E.R. program and Dr. Hazel Latson, Chair of the Advanced Program. There is a coordinator of programs at Central State West who works with and helps coordinate COE programs, including the Post Baccalaureate and Graduate programs with the West campus. Table 6.1 is the organization chart for the College of Education. Organization charts for the University and the Department of Academic Affairs are available in the evidence room. Members of the professional community participate in program design and evaluation. Regular meetings are held with cooperating teachers to discuss candidate progress and program design. Cooperating teachers also fill out an evaluation on each student teacher candidate and the program. Principals of schools receiving Field Experience or Student Teachers attend regular meetings to discuss the educational program. Two advisory committees inform the College of Education on all aspects of program development and program improvement. The external advisory committee provides impute on the Conceptual framework and all program changes or improvements. The internal advisory committee serves as a connector for the College of Education with all the other departments on campus faculty from each licensure area are members of the committee. All program changes go through this committee. (See tables 6.2 and 6.3).
The Center for Student Academic Success (CSAS) is a comprehensive and integrative approach to ensuring student success. The Center, funded by the USDOE Title III, with the direction of Mr. Lee Ingham, is designed to help all students, particularly first year students, make a smooth transition to the University. The overall objective of the Center is to provide services to ensure
92
that the students will succeed in their college careers, graduate, and enter the workforce or go on to graduate or professional school. The University and the College of Education maintain a system of updating the university catalogue, course offerings, and program information on a regular basis to remain current in information and advising. The university catalogues are updated every two years. The recruiting and admission policies in the catalogue are also reviewed at the same time.
First Year Seminar (FYS 1101 and 1102) are one credit hour courses that are required for first year students and transferring students with less than 47 credit hours. The primary goal of these courses is to help first year students make a successful transition to university life. Topics include CSU’s history and traditions, study skills, values, time management, critical thinking, teamwork and civil engagement. Tutoring is offered in coursed that CSU students have traditionally found difficult. It is free and open to all students enrolled at CSU. Tutors guide students through organized review, practice, study skills and test preparation. Tutoring hours are M-R 8:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m. and Fridays 8:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. Students may be referred to our Center by themselves, instructors, or through the Learning Communities in which they participate. The CSU Learning Communities Program is on the cutting edge of institutional advancement. Universities around the country are using Learning Communities to help their students succeed, to increase retention rates, and to strengthen the kind of education the University offers. Participants in the program will take most of their courses together while working for their own success and the success of the group. Faculty teaching the courses in the Learning Communities will work together to plan common assignments and coordinate learning, thus making connections between coursed and assignments. Students also have the opportunity to increase their sense of community by residing together in one of our newer residence halls. The goal of the CSU Learning Communities Program is to establish a sense of cohesiveness, self-responsibility, and high standards among its participating students. The College of Education believes that student advising is a faculty responsibility. The systems are in place to assure that every student has access to quality advising. Freshman entering the College are advised by Dr. Angela Edwards, our Gate 1 and transfer advisor. After admission to the College candidates are advised by faculty in their major area. Additional counseling services are offered thru the university Center for Student Academic Success (CSAS). A list of services provided to students by the CSAS is located in the Evidence Room.
93
Table 6.1 College of Education Organizational Chart
Two advisory committees (External Table 6.2 and Internal Table 6.3) inform the College of Education on all aspects of program development and program improvement.
Table 6.2 External Advisory Board
Name Title School District Bayless, Marsha Principal – McKinely ES Xenia Community City
Brathwaite, Debra Deputy Superintendent Dayton Public Schools Brown, Dr. Norris Superintendent Jefferson Township Local Harris, Gene Superintendent Columbus City Schools Lovelace, Horace Principal Dayton School for Boys Mims, Jeff Director, Legislative, & Compliance Dayton Public Schools Robinson, Dr. Carl Principal – City Day School Dayton Public Schools Samuels, Susie Principal-Haywood Middle School Springfield City Schools Spears, Scott Consultant – Scientific Learning NA Taylor, Jan Principal-Kenwood Elementary School Springfield City Schools Temple, Joyce Teacher Hilliard City Schools Wallace, Sonia Teacher Xenia City Schools Walker, Roy Personnel Director Hilliard City Schools Young, Pam Director of Accreditation University of Dayton
The external advisory committee provides impute on the Conceptual framework and all program changes or improvements. The internal advisory committee serves as a connector for the College of Education with all the other departments on campus faculty from each licensure area are members of the committee. All program changes go thru this committee. MEMBERSHIP LISTS
Table 6.3 Internal Advisory Board
Name Title Brogdan-Wyatt, Lenora Director of CSU West Claxton, Ronald Chair – Art Department Darrow, Sheila Archivist Giddings, Geoffrey Chair- English Department Ingham, Lee Director-Student Services Johnson, Judith Chair – Math Department Joseph, Mervyn Chair – Music Department Lowell, Cadance Chair-Science Department Searcy, Joshua Instructor – Health, Physical Education, and Recreation
95
Members of the professional community participate in program design and evaluation. Regular meetings are held with cooperating teachers to discuss candidate progress and program design. Cooperating teachers also fill out an evaluation on each student teacher candidate and the program. Principals of schools receiving Field Experience or Student Teachers attend regular meetings to discuss the educational program. The University and the College of Education maintain a system of updating the university catalogue, course offerings, and program information on a regular basis to remain current in information and advising. The university catalogues are updated every two years. The recruiting and admission policies in the catalogue are also reviewed at the same time. Element: 2: Unit Budget Central State University is Ohio’s only state supported Historical Black College/University (HBCU). The university has never been properly funded by the state. This fact has been well documented by both federal and state reviews. This lack of proper state funding affects the entire university as well as the College of Education. When we talk about the program being adequately funded we are indicating funding at a very basic level. The budget process starts with the department chairs meeting with faculty to discuss priorities for the department. The dean and department chairs meet and confer about the needs of the college and the dean with input from the chairs submits the budget to the Vice President of Academic affairs. The president’s cabinet reviews and recommends funding levels. (See Table 6.3)
Table 6.3 Budgets: College of Education vs. Other colleges
Academic Year
College of Education
Arts & Science Business & Industry
2004 – 2005 $1,299,468 $4,591,069 $2,355,945 2005 – 2006 $1,643,071 $4,541,959 $2,426,037 2006 - 2007 $1,770,345 $5,261,503 $2,517,796
The College of Education financially supports faculty attendance at professional meetings and workshops based on the approval of the department chair and the dean. The department has also organized professional development activities for the faculty. Some examples are: a conference on teaching and learning in urban school environment, special training session on the use of Banner to access student data, special training sessions for putting grades on MY CSU, and a workshop on Praxis III. The university also provides professional development funds for faculty thru the professional development office. Faculty can access these funds by getting approval of the chair and the dean and applying to the professional development office.
96
Element 3: Personnel As elaborated in Standard 5, the workload policies of the university and the academic unit do provide for faculty to be productively engaged in teaching, research, and service. The faculty workload policy as stated in the faculty handbook is 12 hours of teaching at the undergraduate level and nine hours at the graduate level. Faculty is also expected to provide 10 hours of availability to candidates for counseling or advising. Part-time faculty is an important part of the educational program. They are selected to teach within the unit based on academic background, P-12 experience, ability to contribute to the professional preparation of the candidates and ability to strengthen the overall quality of the program. The chair of the department meets with each part-time faculty member to review the conceptual framework and to develop course syllabi. University policy and procedures are also included in the discussions. Part-time faculty are included in all unit faculty meetings. (See Tables 6.5 and 6.6)
Table 6.5 College of Education Full-Time Faculty Loads
** denotes Graduate Semester Credit Hours In addition to the faculty, the initial program consists of five support personnel, three administrative assistants, one secretary II and a part-time secretary for the graduate program.
Name
Tenure Status
Rank
Fall ’06 Regular Teaching
Spring ’07 Regular
Teaching Ashburn, Exie Non-Tenured Assistant 0/Leave 0/Leave Esprit, Lee Tenured Professor 9 6/3** Hastings, Rascheel Non-Tenured Assistant 12 9 Hill-Thornton, Joeanna Non-Tenured Assistant 0 12 Hitchcock, Kimberly Tenured Associate 3 6 Latson, Hazel Non-Tenured Associate 9** 9** Moore, Robert (Dean) Non-Tenured Assistant 0 0 Schiraldi, Frank Non-Tenured Assistant 0 3 Searcy, Joshua Non-Tenured Assistant 12 12 Sharp, Denise Non-Tenured Assistant 12 12 Swami, Rajeev Non-Tenured Assistant 4 9 Turner, Rosie Tenured Assistant 13 11 White-Fitzpatrick, Margaret Tenured Assistant 14 11
97
Table 6.6 College of Education Part-Time Faculty Loads
** denotes Graduate Semester Credit Hours Element 4: Unit Facilities The unit is located in the Center for Education and Natural Sciences Building. This is a new facility opened on September 22nd 2006. The facility has thirteen classrooms, a lecture hall and a two hundred seat auditorium. The facility is equipped with the latest in technology, student lounges and study areas. The facility has distance learning capability, as well as wireless capacity. There are two computer rooms, three seminar rooms and a section of the building houses the Urban Institute. Early next year construction will begin on the Natural Sciences section of the facility. The H.P.E.R. facilities are located in Walker Gymnasium which is complete with faculty offices, regular classrooms and activity spaces appropriate for physical education, health education and swimming instruction. Element 5: Unit Resources The Institution and the unit provide appropriate resources for faculty and candidates. The Information Technology Department provides up to date technology across the campus and programs. Faculty has computers that are networked to the entire campus
Name
Rank
Fall ’06 Regular Teaching
Spring ’07 Regular Teaching
Total
Blackburn, Donna Instructor 3 0 3 Brown, Sharon Instructor 3** 6** 9 Carr, Adrienne Instructor 3 3 6 Collier, Samuel Instructor 6/3** 6/3** 18 Day, Patricia Instructor 6 0 6 Lohnes, Susan Instructor 3 3 6 Marshall, Ken Instructor 2 3 5 McGill, Jerrie Instructor 0 3** 3 O’Rourke, William Instructor 4 0 4 Perymon, Anita Instructor 9 12 21 Price, Ronald Instructor 9 0 9 Price, Ruth Instructor 3 0 3 Swonigan, Howard Instructor 6** 3** 9 Thomas, Ronald Instructor 6 3 9 Wallace, Sonya Instructor 3 7 10 Watchel, Susan Instructor 4 3 7 Wilson, Peggy Instructor 2 2 4 Woodland-Cuff, Janice
Instructor 9 6 15
98
with e-mail access for all faculty and to all candidates. Faculty can issue grades on line thru MY CSU, the university’s web portal. The portal allows candidates and faculty access to information, email accounts, online class registration, submission and viewing of grades, attendance, candidate communication with faculty, and other links such as Ohio Link. There are two computer labs in the unit .One lab is equipped with an online service for Praxis I testing. Praxis I is required for admission to the unit. The other lab is used for classroom instruction in computer technology and it is also open daily for candidate use. The preparation and implementation of the unit’s assessment plan was developed in part thru a grant from the Ohio Department of Education and also funded by the unit. Two members of the unit handle the assessment system - Dr. Frank Schiraldi, chair of Professional Education program; an NCATE Coordinator for the unit; and Julia Leedy, Administrative Assistant for NCATE. Hallie Q. Brown Library The Hallie Q. Brown Memorial Library at Central State University has a collection of 195,608+ items which include cataloged books, periodicals, and audiovisual materials. The CSU library is a member of Ohio Link, a network of 85 institutions of higher learning with: 44.5 million items available for circulation; 132 research data bases for online research; and 1523 digital videos for viewing. Curricular titles are held in six collections of the Hallie Q. Brown Library, the Curriculum Library, the General Collection, the Reference Collection, the Black Collection, Periodicals, and Instructional Services Department. The Curriculum Library, a juvenile collection, has 10,643 items including: 7,847 items in general literature; 2,542 items of academic text books for most subjects taught in grades kindergarten through grade twelve; an 254 manipulative in reading and math. This collection also contains literature written and/or illustrated by Afro-American authors and artists, with titles that received Caldecott, Coretta Scott King, Newbery and other awards, multicultural books, and titles recommended by Specialized Professional Associations. The General Collection has 9,024 books which support professional education. The Reference Collection has 843 items which support professional education. The Black Collection has 938 items in education, psychology and general literature classifications which support professional education. Periodicals consist of: 66 current print subscriptions for the College of Education and 9 periodical current print subscriptions for the Health, Physical Education, and Recreation. The Instructional Services Department consists of: Juvenile Software and films on the following topics: mathematics, grammar, earth science, biology, physics, health, and transportation. Professional development CDs and video tapes on the following topics: instruction, classroom organization, teaching to objectives, theories of development, cooperative learning, discipline and classroom management, exceptional children, and the history of education.
99
The materials held in the Hallie Q. Brown Memorial Library are sufficient for the instructional needs of the Professional Education Professors and candidates as they develop educational concepts and prepare for clinical practice. The library maintains this sufficiency by acquiring books and audio-visual materials requested by faculty and candidates from the Department of Professional Education as well as by acquiring materials selected by the Curriculum Librarian. Currency for the library is defined as materials less than 10 years old. The percentage of current materials for each collection is listed below. Collection Currency Percentage Curriculum Library 57.75% General Collection 05.00% Reference Collection 28.54% Black Collection 16.09% Instructional Service 77.99% The percentages were calculated by dividing the # of current curriculum supporting items in each collection by the total # of curriculum supporting items in that particular collection. On campus, the materials available through Ohio Link are accessible to the faculty and candidates through Hallie, the library’s online system. Off campus access is available through the internet. Library barcodes on the back of candidate and faculty identification cards serve as IDs to request books through Ohio Link and to enter the electronic research databases. Computers for accessing Ohio Link are available on all floors including computer labs. Academic videos from the Ohio Link Digital Video Collection may be viewed from any campus computer or from off campus internet computers using the library ID barcodes described above. Technology available to candidates from the library include: analog and digital video recorders, cassette tape recorders, audio and video tape copying equipment, LCD, overhead, filmstrip, and motion picture projectors, language master machines with cards, image/document scanners, photo quality printers, software to produce PDF documents, DVD recordings, and computer generated videos. Equipment for the production of learning aides includes: Ellison Letter machine with a variety of alphabet and numeral dies, holiday and decorative dies, map and puzzle dies, exacto knives with cutting pad, laminators with pouches and film, black & white or color printed transparencies, page protectors, GBC binder, and electric typewriter. Materials and supplies that are available for candidates to produce learning aides include: poster boards, tri-fold display boards, craft paper, construction paper, markers, crayons, glue, page reinforces, rulers, compass, and erasers. Assistance in the use of all equipment, software, and materials are available 25-30 hours per week.
100
The library is a valuable resource to the educational unit. One of seven librarians spends the majority of support efforts giving assistance to the Department of Professional Education. 2004-2005 funding for curricular resources was $14,595.56, which was fourteen percent of the acquisitions budget. Curricular resources are housed primarily in the collections of the Hallie Q. Brown Library on the Wilberforce Campus. Limited resources are available on the CSU West Campus, in Dayton, Ohio. CSU West candidates access Hallie and Ohio Link resources as described above for on campus candidates.