comprehensive assessment system manual · the comprehensive assessment system manual (casm) ... the...
TRANSCRIPT
Comprehensive Assessment
System Manual
Education Department
2012
1
INTRODUCTION
The Comprehensive Assessment System Manual (CASM) was initially produced at Benedictine
College in 2002. It outlined and described the elements of the newly established system for the
assessment of candidate, program, and unit performance. The document contained an overview
of the system, a transition plan, and the initial rubrics used for evaluation of candidate
professional portfolios. The CASM was first submitted to the Kansas State Department of
Education in September of 2002.
In the ten years since, many refinements have been made. This version of the CASM reflects
those refinements. In place of a transition plan, it now features a document that describes the
historical development of the system and cross-references this chronology with specific artifacts.
The professional portfolio continues to serve as the linchpin for candidate and unit assessment,
providing quantitative data on program outcomes. New documents have been developed to
explain the system to candidates and new instruments have been developed to assess growth.
Part One of this manual explains the design of the system and provides a historical chronology.
Part Two of the manual includes instruments used to evaluate teacher education program
candidates and explanatory documents. Part Three of the manual contains instruments and
materials used for assessment in the M.A. in School Leadership (MASL) and Master of Arts in
Education (M.Ed.) programs. Part Four contains examples of data and analysis submitted to the
Kansas State Department of Education in evaluating candidates and operation of specific
licensure programs.
2
Comprehensive Assessment System Manual (CASM)
Table of Contents
Part 1: CASM Overview
Comprehensive Assessment System Overview .......................................................3
Historical Development ...........................................................................................7
Standards Alignment ..............................................................................................14
The Comprehensive Assessment System in Detail ................................................21
Answers to Commonly Asked Questions ..............................................................26
Assessment Calendar .............................................................................................30
Four Year Plan for Assessment (Focal Point 2).....................................................33
Part 2: Teacher Education Program Documents
Introduction to Part 2 ........................................................................................... 38
Professional Portfolio Guide ................................................................................ 40
Standard Artifact Rubric ...................................................................................... 48
Guide to Writing Builder of Community Essay .................................................. 49
Professional Portfolio Evaluator’s Rubric ........................................................... 54
Professional Portfolio Score Summary ................................................................ 64
Benedictine Performance Assessment Rubric ..................................................... 65
Part 3: Graduate Programs in Education Documents
Introduction to Part 3 ........................................................................................... 86
Professional Portfolio Evaluator’s Rubric ........................................................... 87
MASL Practicum Portfolio Evaluation Rubric .................................................... 97
M.Ed. Directed Study Portfolio Evaluation Rubric ........................................... 104
Graduate Programs Dispositional Rubric .......................................................... 110
Part 4: Licensure Program Documents
Introduction to Part 4 ......................................................................................... 111
Example of KSDE Program Report (English Lang. Arts) ................................. 112
3
Comprehensive Assessment System Overview Introduction
The Comprehensive Assessment System Manual (CASM) at Benedictine College describes
ongoing candidate and program evaluation processes for both initial and advanced education
programs. Emphasis is placed on articulating, aligning, and assessing candidate knowledge,
performance and dispositions as they relate to NCATE/KSDE unit standards, KSDE program
licensure standards and candidate outcomes identified by the unit’s conceptual framework,
Educators as Builders of Community.
The Comprehensive Assessment System for Benedictine College’s education programs at the
initial and advanced levels is designed to:
align with the conceptual framework, Educators as Builders of Community
align with KSDE content area program standards for all licensure areas
align with NCATE/KSDE unit accreditation standards
use professional portfolios to obtain quantitative information regarding candidate
and unit performance on program outcomes
track performance over time by individual, by cohort, and by course/experience
outline a system for using assessment findingsto inform program decisions
Aligns with the Conceptual Framework, Educators As Builders of Community
The unit’s conceptual framework, Educators as Builders of Community, defines student
performance outcomes at the initial and advanced levels. These outcomes identify what is
developmentally appropriate for candidates at the undergraduate and graduate level to know and
be able to do as they prepare to teach in or administer schools, respectively. The outcomes for
the teacher education program (TEP) align with the INTASC standards. The outcomes for the
M.A. in School Leadership (MASL) align with the ISLLC and KSDE school leadership
standards and the M.A. in Education is aligned with the KSDE Teacher Leader Standards. An
alignment of the student outcomes for the conceptual framework, and INTASC/ISLLC standards
follows.
There are three benchmark points throughout the initial and advanced programs when
assessments are made of candidates’ progress toward meeting the outcomes. Candidates prepare
and expand a professional portfolio throughout their program that includes performance artifacts
representing development and mastery of the candidate outcomes. The professional portfolio is
presented by candidates at benchmark points in each program and evaluated on required
knowledge, performance, and dispositions that align with Educators as Builders of Community
and professional standards.
As defined by the unit, a benchmark point is one in which a candidate’s professional portfolio is
evaluated by a team consisting at a minimum of one member of the Education Department and
one member of the broader professional community. Portfolios are evaluated independently. If
there is a significant discrepancy (defined as a rating that is different by more than one point) a
third individual also scores that component of the portfolio.
4
It is important to note that the unit systematically makes decisions about both candidate
performance and unit operations at a number of points beyond the three benchmark points. The
unit strives for continuous improvement and evaluation. Such additional decision points include
the monthly and bimonthly meetings of the Education Department (“Candidate dispositions,” for
example are a permanent agenda item at all such meetings) and data collected from all program
completers and their employers at the end of the first year of teaching.
Aligns with Content Area Program Standards for all Licensure Areas
Each program Benedictine College offers for the licensure of professional educators is aligned
with the relevant KSDE program standards. Products and performances in courses and
experiences are identified based on their demonstration of candidate mastery on knowledge and
performance indicators that align with content area program standards. Data are input into the
Comprehensive Assessment System each semester from all courses supporting licensure
programs regarding the performance of candidates and prospective candidates.
Aligns with KSDE and NCATE Unit Accreditation Standards
The Comprehensive Assessment System (CAS) was developed with the unit’s professional
community. The CAS includes a comprehensive and integrated set of evaluation measures that
are used to monitor candidate performance and manage and improve both the teacher preparation
and administer preparation programs. Decisions about candidate performance are based on
multiple assessments made at admission into programs, at appropriate transition points, and at
program completion. The CAS uses multiple assessments from internal and external sources,
collecting data from applicants, candidates, recent graduates, faculty, and other members of the
professional community. Data derived from the CAS are regularly and systematically analyzed
to improve candidate performance, program quality and unit operations. The unit maintains the
CAS through the use of information technologies.
Uses professional portfolios to obtain quantitative data regarding performance on program
outcomes
Candidates are required to submit professional portfolios. These serve as the linchpins for
candidate and unit assessment. Artifacts in both the initial and advanced level portfolios are
organized according to knowledge, skills, dispositions and six program outcomes. Evaluation of
the portfolios produces quantitative data regarding candidate and unit performance.
Tracks Performance Over Time by Individual, by Cohort, And by Course/Experience
The Comprehensive Assessment System enables tracking and analyses of performance over time
for the candidate, the cohort, and the benchmark course/experience. Regular reports provide data
based findings of candidate and program performance and evaluate effectiveness in achieving
outcomes and standards. Candidate performance is assessed at three benchmark points during the
program: 1) program admission; 2) admission to student teaching/practicum; 3) completion of
program. Program recommendations and necessary improvements are identified based on
analyses of performance patterns within candidate cohorts and within benchmark courses and
experiences that are aligned with standards.
5
Outlines a System for Using Assessment Findings to Inform Program Decisions
Regular reports of data patterns are key to the system for using assessment findings to inform
program decisions. These reports provide an interpretive, annual picture of performance.
Systemic review of data from all initial and advanced programs occurs at the extended Education
Department meetings that occur during finals week of each term. CAS data is collected each
semester from all courses that support the various licensure areas. Chairs for licensure programs
annually review this data and provide data-driven recommendations and changes. To assure
systematic, face-to-face reflection between full-time Education Department faculty and
secondary content area faculty, the unit recently adopted the following policy, which is printed in
the current Benedictine College Catalog, “A co-chair of the Education Department meets at least
annually with representatives of other Benedictine College departments with programs leading to
teacher licensure to consider data specific to these licensure areas.”
Collection, Analysis, Summarization, and Use of Data
Types of data to be collected to evaluate candidate and program performance standards continue
to be identified by education faculty, licensure program chairs, candidates and members of the
broader professional community. Criteria used for the selection of data types and collection
points include benchmark assessments at transition points, multiple assessment measures for
licensure standards, individual candidate performance over time, cohort performance over time,
and candidate performance by course or experience. Data and artifacts used for unit assessment
are concisely described in the professional portfolio guides which follows in Part 2 and Part 3 of
this document. Data and artifacts used for licensure program assessment are determined by
content area faculty in conjunction with the Education Department.
Tests, Develops and Employs Different Information Technologies to Improve its Assessment
System
The unit employs a variety of different information technologies in implementing and improving
the CAS. Two of these are college-wide. Student evaluations of Benedictine College faculty are
summarized, analyzed and compiled by the Individual Development and Educational
Assessment (IDEA) Center of Manhattan, KS. The flagship service of this company, the IDEA
Student Ratings of Instruction system, focuses on student learning of 12 specific objectives while
factoring out extraneous circumstances via statistical adjustment. Through data provided by this
non-profit company, faculty members are able to gather information regarding their success in
achieving self-selected objectives. The IDEA system also allows the college to compare student
ratings at the department level and institutional level as well as providing comparisons with six
to ten peer colleges and members of the same general Carnegie classification nation-wide.
A software program developed by Empower Student Information Systems is used for managing
grades, enrollment, and transcript information. This program, the Online Academic Student
Information System (OASIS) provides immediate and continuous information regarding
candidate progress. The campus-wide information system OASIS, is used to collect data on
candidates such as demographics, course enrollment, and directory information. The data in
OASIS is extracted using Crystal Reports and is directly merged with data in Excel. Excel’s
analysis feathers and Crystal Reports are used to create readable tables and graphs for analysis.
6
Faculty have the ability to use OASIS via the web to monitor course enrollment and advisees.
OASIS also allows faculty to enter grades on-line.
Within the Education Department, data is primarily managed using Microsoft Excel, however,
the unit continues to test and employ other information technologies to improve the assessment
system. During the 2007-2008 academic year, using funds obtained through the NCATE
Assessment Activity Fee, the unit purchased LiveText software for use by both candidates and
unit faculty in managing data. All department members participated in training for this program.
During the 2008-2009 academic year, however, after a year of use, shortcomings apparent in the
LiveText software caused the unit to abandon this program and then consider Filemaker Pro for
the CAS. The lack of available training workshops/ personnel in Filemaker Pro kept the unit
from adopting this program (Historical Development Comprehensive Assessment System for
triangulation/ documentation regarding these efforts).
The unit is presently considering a software package developed by the company Campus Labs
for managing CAS data. A decision on this program will be made during the 2012-2013
academic year.
7
Historical Development – Comprehensive Assessment System
Time Period Development/ Modification
Pre-1999 2.75 GPA required for admission to teacher preparation program; 3.00 GPA required for admission to administrator
preparation program.
Committee on Teacher Education (formerly Faculty Committee on Teacher Education) approves/ rejects candidates
for admission into teacher education program, admission for student teaching, and program completion.
Committee on Teacher Education serves as policy-making body for teacher education program; Graduate Studies
Committee serves as policy-making body for administrator preparation program.
Educational Advisory Committee and Educational Administration Advisory Committee consulted formally and
informally regarding all aspects of program development.
1998-1999 March 15, 1999 all four members of the Education Department attend Kansas State Department of Education
workshop held in Topeka describing new NCATE 2000 standards.
1999-2000 December 16, 1999, Education Department holds all-day meeting focusing on ways of meeting new NCATE
standards. Concerns expressed regarding need to prove what candidates know and can do. Consensus reached at the
meeting is that immediate growth area is revision of student teaching evaluation scale and all pre-student teacher field
experience evaluation instruments so that they: a) are aligned with the seven program outcomes and b) provide
performance data on what candidates can do. Items for the pilot versions of these instruments determined at this
meeting. Schedule of biannual extended meetings/ data retreats for systematic program assessment established.
Modified student teaching evaluation scale and all other pre-student teaching field experience scales piloted during
spring 2000 term.
2000-2001 Modifications are made in all field experience evaluation scales based on suggestions from piloting made by
cooperating teachers, clinical supervisors, and Education Department faculty.
During the 2000-2001 school year, Education Department meeting minutes reflect discussion in regards to requiring
candidates to submit professional portfolios at the various transition points. Unit faculty established a preliminary set
of artifacts and other criteria for the portfolio.
Extended meetings/ data retreats instituted twice a semester.
8
2001-2002 After a semester of piloting, requirements for the Professional Portfolios were revised and approved by the Faculty
Committee on Teacher Education.
Teacher Education Programs begin assessing candidate dispositions separately from the seven program outcomes as
part of the interview process for acceptance into teacher education.
MASL receives North Central Approval for its off-site campus located in Roeland Park, Kansas for the Kansas City,
Kansas metro area cohort. Approval by the Education Department and Graduate Studies Committee to waive the
GRE or MAT as admission for students who have a prior Master’s degree and graduate level GPA of 3.0
demonstrating ability to successfully complete graduate level work.
2002-2003 New evaluation rubric used for evaluating Professional Portfolios; quantitative scale implemented thereby allowing
calculation of means for comparison of unit performance on seven outcomes, knowledge, skills, and dispositions over
time. Collection of CAS data begins.
Education Department receives $53,000 KSDE Performance Assessment Grant titled, “Assessing Builders of
Community.” Grant has two components: 1) establishing inter-rater reliability in evaluating portfolios and 2)
working on curriculum issues.
Teacher Work Samples/ Benedictine Performance Assessment required of student teachers for the first time.
Teams of K-12 educators and unit faculty begin evaluating Professional Portfolios (as opposed to only Education
Department faculty)
2003-2004 “Guide to Writing the Professional Portfolio” and rubrics for it revised in accordance with suggestions from
consultants. Because of concerns that candidates are being admitted to teacher education with borderline dispositions,
evaluation of dispositions is no longer artifact-based but rather a rating arrived at collectively by members of
Education Department with input from secondary education chairs.
Education Department receives approval from dean of college for NCATE assessment activity fee of $10 per course
for education candidates. This fee provides funds to “… meet NCATE and KSDE standards regarding performance
assessment of candidates and to provide assessment training to Education Department faculty and K-12 educators
assisting with candidate evaluation.” It will be used initially to provide stipends for K-12 educators to continue
evaluating professional portfolios, and for stipends to clinical supervisors and cooperating teachers.
9
2004-2005 Faculty Committee on Teacher Education becomes Committee on Teacher Education. Three additional K-12
educators added to committee.
Committee on Teacher Education (CTE) considers aggregated data regarding candidate performance over last three
to five years and unit performance on program outcomes. Aggregated data from both Teacher Education Program
(TEP) and MASL will henceforth be presented to governing bodies (CTE for teacher education program; Graduate
Committee for MASL) twice a year for initial programs and at least once a year for advanced program.
Revision of TEP and MASL program handbooks and practicum handbooks.
2005-2006 Revised TEP/ MASL/ educaiton department policies and procedures approved by Committee on Teacher Education
and Graduate Studies Committee.
On-site NCATE/KSDE visit in October 2005.
2006-2007 Teacher work sample required for student teachers revised to improve aligned with Kansas Performance Assessment.
Revised assessment named, “Benedictine Performance Assessment (BPA).”
2007-2008 Using funds obtaining through the NCATE assessment activity fee, the Education Department purchases LiveText
software for use by both candidates and unit faculty in managing data. All unit members participate in LiveText
training.
Teacher education program outcomes revised. The revision is made to make the outcomes less holistic and more
measurable, eliminate redundancy, and bring the outcomes into a greater degree of alignment with KSDE and
INTASC standards. TEP moves from seven outcomes (plus knowledge, skills and dispositions) to six.
Student teaching evaluation scale incorporating revised TEP outcomes is piloted.
KSDE developing new template for KSDE program reviews. Unit initiates meetings with all department chairs
involved in teacher licensure to create and implement data collection systems for KSDE program templates.
First draft of elementary education comprehensive examination created. Exam is created to be in complete alignment
with the seven KSDE elementary standards. Discussion regarding comprehensive examinations for other licensure
programs.
At April 2008 Education Department meeting, discussion of shortcomings in LiveText software and whether to
continue with program.
10
Professional Portfolio rubrics revised to make criteria more clear for evaluators.
Survey from Education Advisory Committee, candidate feedback and other anecdotal information indicates there is a
desire and a market for a Master of Arts in Education program at Benedictine. The director of the Graduate Programs
in Education begins developing a proposal.
2008-2009 Unit decides not to continue with LiveText system for collection of unit and candidate data. Filemaker Pro
considered for Comprehensive Assessment System.
An assessment survey is completed at the Education Advisory Committee meeting held in October 2008 for both
TEP and MASL programs. For TEP program, lowest rating (2.5 on 4-point scale) on item, “Facilitate student
learning through the use of technology.” Unit begins taking steps to improve in this area. At January 2009
Education Department meeting, unit approves expenditures of $6800 in funds generated by NCATE activity fee for
purchase of Promethean Boards and related software. ED 662 Instructional Technology and Applications is added to
the MASL program.
Candidate rejected for student teaching because of inappropriate dispositions. Candidate follows due process/
complaint procedures for contesting decision. Special Committee on Teacher Education meeting held in January
2009 to consider candidate’s appeal of decision.
Elementary education comprehensive examination revised. A number of test items are changed, also test is expanded
from 63 to 70 items with ten for each KSDE standard.
At May 2009 extended meeting/ data retreat, format of TEP Professional Portfolios is described. Two changes (to be
made over the summer) are approved. 1) One artifact (unit) is eliminated and for a number of other artifacts,
candidates will only include the Standard Artifact Rubric and not the artifact itself. This will reduce the size of the
portfolio and allow evaluators to focus better on what is actually being evaluated. 2) Professional Portfolio will
become blind. Candidates submitting portfolios in fall 2009 will be required to remove/ white out their names. This
will help ensure fairness, consistency and absence of bias.
Department decides that for the time it will continue to manage Comprehensive Assessment Data Base with
Microsoft Excel as opposed to Filemaker Pro or other commercial software systems.
Master of Arts in Education Program is approved by the Education Department, Graduate Studies Committee and
Benedictine College Board of Directors. The director of the Graduate Programs in Education begins work to seek
approval from the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) and from KSDE for the program to lead to the Kansas
11
Teacher Leader endorsement.
2009-2010 The unit’s Committee on Teacher Education approves changes in Professional Portfolio discussed at spring 2009 data
retreat.
Cooperating teacher stipends raised from $75 to $100. Additional funds to pay for this to come out of NCATE
assessment activity fee.
Discussion at data retreat regarding inter-rater reliability. Procedure created for when two scorers vary more than 1
point on the 3-point scale. In such cases, a third person scores the outcomes on which there is the variance. New
scores are the average of the two closest scores.
Concerns are expressed at unit meetings regarding the low return rates of evaluations sent to program completers and
their employers at the end of first year and third year of teaching. These were averaging in the 20-30% range.
Decision is made to survey graduates/ employers only at the end of the first year of teaching but to increase efforts to
improve upon response rate. Return rates have subsequently increased to 66.7% for three year period from 2010-
2012.
The Master of Arts in Education is approved by the HLC, additional funds are alloted to the graduate education
budget for advertising the program.
2010-2011 Revised two year MASL program begins. Based on graduate candidate feedback, ED512 Introduction to Educational
Research is replaced with ED534 Assessment and School Improvement as a more meaningful course for school
leaders in using research and assessment data to make data driven decisions.
Based on input received from K-12 educators and on graduate surveys, unit decides to require course in differentiated
instruction for all education majors. Ed 455, Differentiated Instruction, to be required as part of the block courses for
student teaching.
Professional Portfolio rubric for “Knowledge” revised. For program completion only, knowledge score will be
determined only by GPA and knowledge section of student teaching evaluation scale (PPST and ACT scores not to
be considered) with evaluators to give each score approximately 50% weight.
Training sessions conducted for new portfolio scorers. Large increase in number of candidates applying to program
necessitates training of more scorers.
Instruction in use of Promethean Board technology examined to ensure that all students receive adequate training.
12
Secondary education program in English language arts agrees to offer grammar course in English for teacher
education program candidates. Feedback/ suggestion for this course received from students on survey of program
completers at the end of their first year of teaching.
The M.Ed. program is approved with stipulation as a Kansas Teacher Leader program (the best approval rating for
new programs in Kansas is “approved with stipulation.”).
2011-2012 Master of Arts in Education (M.Ed.) Teacher Leader program begins.
The unit decides to begin offering an English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program for education majors
and M.Ed. candidates. The director of the Graduate Programs in Education researched and began planning the
program; we may not have time to apply for this licensure until after NCATE/KSDE on-site visit in fall 2013.
Department determines that “Candidate Dispositions” will become a permanent agenda item for monthly and bi-
monthly Education Department meetings.
The Education Department formally adopts the following policies which codify past practices: “The Education
Department’s assessment system provides regular and comprehensive data on program quality, unit operations and
candidate performance at each stage of its programs extending into the first year of actual teaching. These data are
regularly and systematically compiled, aggregated, summarized and analyzed. In addition to regular monthly
discussions of anecdotal data, the unit conducts --- at a minimum --- two data retreats/ extended meetings each
semester at which time all relevant quantitative and qualitative data bearing on unit, program, and candidate
performance are reviewed. A co-chair of the Education Department also meets at least annually with representatives
of other Benedictine College departments with programs leading to teacher licensure to consider data specific to
these licensure areas. Assessment data bearing on program quality, unit operations, and candidate performance are
shared with the larger professional community and general public by being posted annually on the Benedictine
College website.”
“The Education Department and its school partners jointly determine the selection of cooperating teachers and other
specifics regarding the placement of student teachers. Student teachers are supervised by cooperating teachers,
clinical supervisors, and higher education faculty. In addition, each student teacher is observed and evaluated at least
once by an Education Department co-chair.”
The unit redefines term “benchmark points” in making terminology and practices consistent between initial and
advanced programs. Henceforward, benchmark points are those in which Professional Portfolio is submitted and
13
evaluated by teams consisting of unit faculty and members of broader professional community. There are three
benchmark points: 1) program admission, 2) admission to student teaching or practicum, and 3) program completion.
Prior to this refinement, there was another benchmark point at the end of the practicum. Candidates must still meet
all practicum requirements, however, we no longer call this a benchmark point. Both advanced programs maintain
professional portfolios assessed at three benchmark points: 1) program admission, 2) admission to practicum (MASL)
or admission to directed study (M.Ed.), and 3) program completion.
2012-2013
14
Standards Alignment: Conceptual Framework (TEP) with
INTASC Model Core Teaching Standards (2011)
Educators as Builders of Community Outcomes TEP INTASC Model Core (2011)
Knowledge: Understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry and
structures of the discipline(s) he or she teaches.
Standard 4: The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of
inquiry, and structures of the discipline(s) he or she teaches and
creates learning experiences that make the discipline accessible and
meaningful for learners to assure mastery of the content.
Skills: Uses a variety of instructional strategies to create meaningful
educational experiences that substantively increase student learning.
Standard 5: The teacher understands how to connect and use
differing perspectives to engage learners in critical thinking,
creativity, and collaborative problem solving related to authentic
local and global issues.
Standard 8: The teacher understands and uses a variety of
instructional strategies to encourage learners to develop deep
understanding of content areas and their connections, and to build
skills to apply knowledge in meaningful ways.
Dispositions: Is a professionally responsible builder of community
who models the altruistic values and characteristics desired for
students.
Standard 9: The teacher engages in ongoing professional learning
and uses evidence to continually evaluate his/ her practice,
particularly the effects of his/ her choices and actions on others and
adapts practice to meet the needs of each learner.
Outcome 1: Uses practices which nurture the whole child/
adolescent within the learning community.
Standard 1: The teacher understands how learners grow and
develop, recognizing that patterns of learning and development vary
individually within and across the cognitive, linguistic, social,
emotional, and physical areas, and designs and implements
developmentally appropriate and challenging learning experiences.
Outcome 2: Uses his/ her understanding of communication and
human behavior to create a classroom community that fosters
positive social interaction, collaboration and active inquiry.
Standard 3: The teacher works with others to create environments
that support individual and collaborative learning, and that
encourage positive social interaction, active engagement in learning
and self-motivation.
15
Outcome 3: Respects and promotes diversity while creating
instructional opportunities that meet the needs of students from
diverse cultural backgrounds and with exceptionalities.
Standard 2: The teacher uses understanding of individual
differences and diverse cultures and communities to ensure inclusive
learning environments that enable each learner to meet high
standards.
Outrcome 4: Builds partnerships with students, colleagues, families
and community to enhance communication and learning.
Standard 3: The teacher works with others to create environments
that support individual and collaborative learning, and that
encourage positive social interaction, active engagement in learning
and self-motivation.
Outcome 5: Plans and assesses instruction based upon knowledge of
subject matter, students, the community and curriculum goals.
Standard 6: The teacher understands and uses multiple methods of
assessment to engage learners in their own growth, to monitor
learner progress, and to guide the teacher’s and learner’s decision
making.
Standard 7: The teacher plans instruction that supports every student
in meeting rigorous learning goals by drawing upon knowledge of
content areas, curriculum, cross-disciplinary skills, and pedagogy, as
well as knowledge of learners and the community context.
Outcome 6: Is a reflective builder of community who continually
evaluates the effects of his/ her actions on others and who actively
seeks out opportunities to grow professionally.
Standard 10: The teacher seeks appropriate leadership roles and
opportunities to take responsibility for student learning, to
collaborate with learners, families, colleagues, other school
professionals, and community members to ensure learner growth and
to advance the profession.
16
Standards Alignment: Conceptual Framework, KSDE, ISLLC (MASL)
Educators as Builders of Community
Outcomes MASL
KSDE Building Leadership/ ISLLC MASL Areas of Professional
Competency and Administrative
Effectiveness
A. Ensure successful communication with
teachers and parents to help nurture the
whole child/ adolescent.
Standard #1: The building level
administrator is an educational leader who
promotes the success of all students by
facilitating the development, articulation,
implementation, and stewardship of a vision
of learning that is shared and supported by
the school and community.
School-Community Activities
School Improvement
Quality and accuracy in written and verbal
communication
Constructive interpersonal relationships
Facilitate and articulate a vision of learning
that is shared by other members of the
school community.
B. Demonstrate leadership by advocating,
nurturing, and sustaining a school culture
and instructional program conducive to
student learning and staff professional
growth.
Standard #2: the building level administrator
is an educational leader who promotes the
success of all students by advocating,
nurturing, and sustaining a building climate
and instructional programs conducive to
student learning and staff professional
growth.
School Improvement
Faculty and staff supervision
Meeting needs of special student populations
Use and infusion of educational technology
into school programs
Facilitate and articulate a vision of learning
that is shared by other members of the
school community.
C. Promote success of all students by acting
with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical
manner that demonstrates respect for all
cultures.
Standard #5: The building level
administrator is an educational leader who
promotes the success of all students by
acting with integrity, fairness, and in an
ethical manner.
Student supervision and school discipline
Faculty and staff supervision
Meeting needs of special student populations
School Law
Show efficient organizational skills
Act with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical
manner
Work effectively in resolution of conflicts
Demonstrate sound decision making
17
D. Create a community of caring
relationships that unify all educational
participants in the education process.
Standard #4: The building level
administrator is an educational leader who
promotes the success of all students by
collaborating with families and community
members, responding to diverse community
needs and interests, and mobilizing
community resources.
School-Community Activities
School Budgeting and Finance
School Law
Quality and accuracy in written and verbal
communication
Act with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical
manner
Constructive interpersonal relationships
Facilitate and articulate a vision of learning
that is shared by other members of the
school community.
E. Incorporate student research and
information into the perpetual process of
educational improvement.
Standard #1: The building level
administrator is an educational leader who
facilitates the development, articulation,
implementation and stewardship of a vision
of learning that is shared and supported by
the school and community (including school-
community communications and the
collection/analysis of statistical data related
to achieving school goals).
Standard #2: The building level
administrator is an educational leader who
advocates, nurtuters and sustains a building
climate and instructional programs
conducive to student learning and staff
professional growth.
School Improvement Initiatives using data
driven decision making
Meeting needs of special student populations
Use and infusion of educational technology
into school programs
Supervision of MTSS (RtI) initiatives
Case studies and implementation of action
research
F. Promote the success of all students by
understanding and influencing the larger
political, social, economic, and legal
institutions which impact education.
Standard #6: The building level
administrator is an educational leader who
understands, responds to, and influences the
larger political, social, economic, legal, and
cultural context.
School Law
School Community Activities
P-12 education activies at the state and
national level
Communication with all stakeholders
18
Standards Alignment: Conceptual Framework, KSDE Teacher Leader
Standards (M.Ed.)
Educators as Builders of Community
Outcomes MASL
KSDE Teacher Leader M.Ed. Areas of Professional
Competency and Teacher Leader
Effectiveness
A. Ensure successful communication with
teachers and parents to help nurture the
whole child/ adolescent.
Standard 3: The teacher leader is able to
improve the quality of colleagues’
collaboration and interaction with families
and other stakeholders.
Standard 5: The teacher leader is able to
develop and support collaborative teams and
promote collegial interactions that improve
the effectiveness of practice.
Standard 6: The teacher leader is able to
identify and assess opportunities for
educational improvement, and advocate
effectively for them within and beyond the
school community.
Working to activily build partnerships
between, schools, families and communities
School Improvement Initiatives using data
driven decision making
Quality and accuracy in written and verbal
communication
Constructive interpersonal relationships
Facilitate and articulate a vision of learning
that is shared by other members of the
school community
B. Demonstrate leadership by advocating,
nurturing, and sustaining a school culture
and instructional program conducive to
student learning and staff professional
growth.
Standard 2: The teacher leader is able to
advance the professional skills of colleagues
by demonstrating and applying expertise in
observational skills and in providing quality
feedback in order to support reflective
practice focused on improving curriculum,
instruction, and assessment.
Standard 1: The teacher leader is able to
apply strategies of adult learning across
teacher leadership activities.
Standard 8: The teacher leader is able to
School Improvement Initiatives using data
driven decision making
Meeting needs of special student populations
Use and infusion of educational technology
into school programs
Supervision of MTSS (RtI) initiatives
Case studies and implementation of action
research
Mentoring and Peer Coaching Activities
Creating Individualized Professional
Development Plans
19
inform and facilitate the design and
implementation of coherent, integrated and
differentiated professional development
based on assessed student and teacher needs.
C. Promote success of all students by acting
with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical
manner that demonstrates respect for all
cultures.
Standard 7: The teacher leader is able to
inform and facilitate colleagues’ selection or
design, use, and interpretation of multiple
assessments, along with other available data,
to make informed decisions that improve the
quality of instruction and student learning.
Standard 8: The teacher leader is able to
inform and facilitate the design and
implementation of coherent, integrated and
differentiated professional development
based on assessed student and teacher needs.
Student supervision and school discipline
Mentoring and peer coaching activities
Meeting needs of special student populations
Show efficient organizational skills
Act with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical
manner
Work effectively in resolution of conflicts
Demonstrate sound decision making
Working to activily build partnerships
between, schools, families and communities
D. Create a community of caring
relationships that unify all educational
participants in the education process.
Standard 3: The teacher leader is able to
improve the quality of colleagues’
collaboration and interaction with families
and other stakeholders.
Standard 5: The teacher leader is able to
develop and support collaborative teams and
promote collegial interactions that improve
the effectiveness of practice.
Standard 6: The teacher leader is able to
identify and assess opportunities for
educational improvement, and advocate
effectively for them within and beyond the
school community.
Quality and accuracy in written and verbal
communication.
Act with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical
manner.
Constructive interpersonal relationships.
Facilitate and articulate a vision of learning
that is shared by other members of the
school community.
Working to activily build partnerships
between, schools, families and communities.
20
E. Incorporate student research and
information into the perpetual process of
educational improvement.
Standard 4: The teacher leader is able to
initiate and facilitate colleagues’ design and
implementation of action research and
analysis of data for individual and group
decision-making.
Standard 7: The teacher leader is able to
inform and facilitate colleagues’ selection or
design, use, and interpretation of multiple
assessments, along with other available data,
to make informed decisions that improve the
quality of instruction and student learning.
Design and implementation of action
research project
Presentation of data to the school community
Analysis of data to determine school
improvement intitiatives
Development of case studies and utilization
of data for student improvement
F. Promote the success of all students by
understanding and influencing the larger
political, social, economic, and legal
institutions which impact education.
Standard 3: The teacher leader is able to
improve the quality of colleagues’
collaboration and interaction with families
and other stakeholders.
Standard 5: The teacher leader is able to
develop and support collaborative teams and
promote collegial interactions that improve
the effectiveness of practice.
Working to activily build partnerships
between, schools, families and communities
Effective communication among all
stakeholders
Quality and accuracy in written and verbal
communication
P-12 education activies at the state and
national level
21
The Comprehensive Assessment System
in Detail
This section describes the:
Benchmark points and other data collection points
Major assessments used at benchmark points
Answers to commonly asked questions about the comprehensive assessment system
Assessment calendar
Assessment plan/ timeline for continued refinement of assessment system
Benchmark Points
As defined by the unit, a benchmark point is one in which a candidate’s professional portfolio is
evaluated by a team consisting at a minimum of one member of the Education Department and
one member of the broader professional community. If there are significant discrepancies in
scoring (defined as ratings that differ by more than one point) a third individual also scores that
component of the professional portfolio. When a third scorer is needed, a member of the unit
does the scoring.
The Professional Portfolio is the linchpin of our assessment system, however, it is important to
note that the unit systematically makes decisions about both candidate and unit operations at a
number of other points. These other decision points include: 1) data collected at the end of the
practicum experience (for both initial and advanced programs) but prior to program completion,
2) data collected from all program completers and their employers at the end of the first year of
licensed experience, and 3) data collected and discussed at the monthly and bimonthly meetings
of the Education Department (“Candidate dispositions,” for example, are a permanent agenda
item at all such meetings). The unit strives for continuous assessment, evaluation and
improvement.
Prior to 2012, there were four benchmark points for both initial and advanced programs. For
each program, the additional benchmark point was at the end of the practicum but before
program completion. We continue to collect data and make important decisions at this time, but
we have redefined benchmark points to include only those points at which the Professional
Portfolio is submitted by candidates.
For the initial level, candidates prepare and upgrade their Professional Portfolio when they apply
for:
Benchmark Point 1: Program Admission
Benchmark Point 2: Admission to Student Teaching
Benchmark Point 3: Completion of Program
The Professional Portfolio identifies requirements for performance and artifacts that demonstrate
progress on meeting program outcomes. The Professional Portfolio must be submitted and meet
acceptable standards at Benchmark Points 1, 2, & 3 for candidates to continue in the program.
22
Requirements are outlined in Part 2 and Part 3 of the CASM. Guidelines for submission at each
benchmark point are described in these sections of the CASM.
A team composed of at least one Education Department faculty member and one trained member
of the broader professional community evaluate the Professional Portfolios at Benchmark Points
1, 2, & 3. Criteria for evaluating the applications at each level are established and described on 0
to 3-point rubrics used by education faculty and trained K-12 educators as they assess the
candidates’ Professional Portfolios. If it is decided, based on the evidence presented, that
candidates are not yet ready to proceed to the next level of their program, the chair of the CTE
and faculty advisors work with the candidate to develop a plan of action for achieving his or her
professional goals. A variety of strategies and recommendations are explored, such as re-taking
courses and assessments, revising portfolio artifacts, establishing a plan to address areas of
concern, and career counseling. If denied admission, candidates are allowed to re-apply after
deficiencies have been addressed. Procedures for moving through each benchmark point
including the responsibilities and rights of candidates, faculty, and the CTE are described in the
Professional Portfolio Guide (see Part 2 of this document), and the Education Department
Handbook.
Use of mathematical means obtained for candidate performance on the six program outcomes,
knowledge, skills and dispositions also enables the unit to evaluate its own strengths and areas
for improvements. Each semester, members of the unit discuss this data and take appropriate
steps based upon the data to improve the unit.
For the advanced level, candidates prepare and upgrade a Professional Portfolio when they apply
for:
1. Program Admission
2. Admission to the Practicum or Directed Study
3. Completion of the Program
Requirements for performance and artifacts that demonstrate candidate progress and mastery
must be submitted and meet acceptable standards at each benchmark. Education Department
faculty including members of the P-12 community who serve as adjunct instructors in the
graduate education programs evaluate portfolio submissions and makes recommendations for full
acceptance, provisional acceptance, or denial of the candidate’s application to enter or continue
in the program. The Graduate Studies Committee (GSC) reviews portfolio submissions and
deliberates on the Education Department’s recommendations as they make the final decisions on
applications.
Criteria for evaluating the applications at each level are established and used by education
faculty as they assess the candidates’ Professional Portfolios (see Part 3 of this document). If it is
decided, based on the evidence presented, that candidates are not yet ready to proceed to the next
level of their program, the director of the graduate education programs works with the candidate
to develop a plan of action for achieving their professional goals. A variety of strategies and
recommendations are explored, such as re-taking practicum sections and assessments, revising
portfolio artifacts, establishing a plan to address areas of concern, and career counseling. If
denied admission, candidates are allowed to re-apply after deficiencies have been addressed.
23
Procedures for moving through each benchmark, including the responsibilities and rights of
candidates, faculty, and the GSC are described in the Graduate Education Student Handbook,
Practicum Handbook, Performance Assessment Handbook, Professional Portfolio Evaluator’s
Rubric (see Part 3 of this document) and the Education Department Handbook.
Major Assessments used at Transition Points
In selecting major assessments, alignment and multiple measures were central criteria. They
align with the conceptual framework, Educators as Builders of Community. The learner
outcomes described by the conceptual framework, Educators as Builders of Community align
with the INTASC, ISLLC, Kansas Teacher Leader (KTLead) and KSDE professional education
standards. The professional education program benchmarks are aligned with these standards.
Course artifacts and field experience evaluation scales are identified based on required
knowledge, performance, and dispositions that provide candidate assessment data on meeting the
professional education outcomes and standards.
The assessments for content knowledge and pedagogy align with the program and content area
standards for all licensure areas. Each program that the unit offers for the licensure of
professional educators is aligned with the relevant KSDE program standards. Benchmark course
and experiences are identified based on required knowledge and performances that provide
candidate assessment data on meeting the program standards. Each licensure program collects
and analyzes data on at least three assessments per standard. Identification of data points is based
upon ensuring multiple measures per standard and representative evaluation of candidate mastery
on standards.
The major assessments used for candidate evaluation at each benchmark in the initial program
are listed below.
PROGRAM ADMISSION: BENCHMARK POINT 1
Grade Point Average
Pre-Professional Skills Test (PPST) or ACT composite above 22
Faculty/Staff Recommendations
Essay on Builders of Community (BOC) outcomes
CTE Interview
CTE Approval
The following items are optional for program admission. If candidates have not completed
courses in which required artifacts are embedded, they are not required. If candidates have
completed these courses, the artifacts are required to be in their Professional Portfolio:
Field Experience Evaluations
Reflection on teaching students with disabilities
Reflection on multicultural field experience
Builders of Community (BOC) peer evaluations
24
ADMISSION TO STUDENT TEACHING: BENCHMARK POINT 2
Grade Point Average
Updated essay on Builders of Community outcomes
Field Experience Evaluations
Reflection on teaching students with disabilities
Reflection on multicultural field experience
Builders of Community peer evaluations
CTE Approval
COMPLETION OF PROGRAM: BENCHMARK POINT 3
Grade Point Average
Updated Essay on Builders of Community outcomes
Professional Portfolio
Student Teaching Evaluations
Classroom Management Model
Benedictine Performance Assessment
CTE Approval
The major assessments used for candidate evaluation at each benchmark in the advanced
program are listed below.
MASL PROGRAM ADMISSION: BENCHMARK POINT 1
Millers Analogies Test/GRE
Undergraduate Grade Point Average
Essay on Builders of Community
Written statement of educational philosophy, educational goals, and professional goals
Recommendations (3) for knowledge, skills, and dispositions
ADMISSION TO THE PRACTICUM: BENCHMARK POINT 2
Grade Point Average
Essay on Builders of Community (planned)
Outcomes Self-Assessment (planned)
COMPLETION OF THE PROGRAM: BENCHMARK POINT 3
Resume
Leadership Credo
School Mission and Goals Development Plan
Supervision & Evaluation reflection & video
Comprehensive Curriculum Plan
Education Law Paper
School Budget Analysis Project
Risk Management Video
Crisis Plan Analysis
School Assessment and Improvement Project
Case Study
Practicum Log
25
Documentation for Practicum Projects & School Demographic Information
Visitation Log with Student Reflections
Practicum Evaluations by Cooperating Administrator, College Supervisor, Student
Grade Point Average
Final BOC Essay
Comprehensive Examination
GSC Approval
INDUCTION PERIOD
Graduate Survey on BOC outcomes
Employer Survey on BOC outcomes
26
Answers to Questions About the
Comprehensive Assessment System
When are the data collected?
Data are collected every semester for every candidate or prospective candidate enrolled in
courses and experiences required for licensure.
How is data collected?
Data are collected in a variety of ways. At benchmark points, candidates present their
professional portfolios with all required data and artifacts to the Education Department and P-12
educators who have received special training in portfolio evaluation. Each semester there is a due
date for portfolio submissions that is publicized via emails and signs/ bulletin boards in the
hallways. The schedule for the candidate’s applications at the benchmark points is based upon
the candidate’s program of study.
Faculty collect performance data when they administer assessment measures in required courses
and experiences. Performance evaluation and survey data from clinical faculty, graduates, and
employers is submitted to the Education Department and staff enter it in the database.
Standardized assessment data is downloaded and entered into the database.
Who does the evaluating?
Evaluation of candidate performance on assessment measures is completed by the designated
faculty or supervisor. The Professional Portfolios are evaluated by education faculty, trained P-
12 educators, and Committee on Teacher Education (initial program) or Graduate Studies
Committee (advanced program) members. For self-assessment of performance, candidates,
graduates, and unit faculty all evaluate themselves on surveys and the required Faculty Annual
Review. Partners from the larger P-12 community evaluate the unit while participating on such
bodies as the Committee on Teacher Education and the Education Advisory Council. Informal
evaluation occurs in the discussions held by these bodies. Formal evaluation occurs in written
need assessments and forum groups interviewed by the Education Advisory Council.
Who summarizes and analyzes the data?
Education faculty and secondary content faculty share responsibility for summarizing and
analyzing data. This allows for checks and balances on reporting findings and trends.
Agreements are made about the design and reporting format so that data patterns can be
examined for individual candidates, for cohorts, and for required courses and experiences.
Comparison of interpretations is made and discrepancies are addressed. Combined reports of
patterns and trends for candidate and program performance are presented to and analyzed by
appropriate policy committees, either CTE for initial programs or GSC for advanced programs.
When does this take place?
Data on candidates are summarized and reported each semester. Trend analysis with
recommendations is conducted --- at a minimum --- at the extended meetings of the Education
Department held during finals week of each term. Secondary content licensure programs provide
a written summary and analysis of licensure programs annually. Face-to-face meetings between
27
secondary department chairs and full-time Education Department co-chairs are planned and
conducted a minimum of once a year.
It is important to note that the unit systematically makes decisions about both candidate
performance and unit operations at a number of points beyond the three benchmark points. The
unit strives for continuous improvement and evaluation. Such additional decision points include
the monthly and bimonthly meetings of the Education Department (“Candidate dispositions,” for
example are a permanent agenda item at all such meetings) and data collected from all program
completers and their employers at the end of the first year of teaching.
When are data shared and with whom is it shared?
Data have always been shared with education faculty each semester. Data were shared with CTE
and GSC at least annually in the fall at the committees’ first meetings. Data were also shared
with the larger professional community twice a year at the meetings of the Educational Advisory
Committee.
In addition, effective fall 2012, the unit began systematically sharing data with the public. The
policy that was adopted at this time states, “Assessment data bearing on program quality, unit
operations and candidate performance shall be shared with the larger professional community
and general public by being posted annually on the Benedictine College website.”
What mechanisms are place to ensure that the data is used to improve the programs?
Reporting trend analysis data requires faculty to consider program implications. The extended
Education Department meetings that typically occur during finals week each semester are the
initial forum in which aggregated data are examined and possible program changes discussed.
Subsequent review and comment by the Graduate Studies Committee and the Committee on
Teacher Education ensures a quality control component for program implementation and
evaluation. Reporting from the various committees and licensure programs to the dean of the
college ensures that balanced and accurate information about program effectiveness is provided
to the institutional administrator accountable for academic program quality.
What has been done in the past in assessing unit operations?
The education unit collects data from a variety of sources for the purpose of assessing unit
operations. For at least the past 15 years, the unit has collected and analyzed the following
sources of input and evaluation.
Each spring, 1st year graduates are surveyed based on their perceived effectiveness of the
program in preparing on each of the BOC outcomes. At the same time, employers of 1st
year graduates are asked to evaluate them on their performance based on the Builder of
Community (BOC) outcomes. These surveys are updated when program outcomes are
revised or refined or when new initiatives are implemented in the program. Data from
these surveys are compiled and analyzed by education faculty.
Course evaluations consistent with criteria of the conceptual framework and based on
criteria for building communities of learners are completed in each education course each
semester. Faculty performance is reviewed using the tabulated results of these
evaluations.
28
Program completers evaluate the program and the data is summarized. Analysis of data
by education faculty leads to revisions in courses, experiences, and the program.
Other members of the professional community provide feedback on the quality of the
preparation programs based upon their roles as cooperating teachers, clinical faculty, and
Education Advisory Committee members. Education faculty members solicit
recommendations based on this feedback and consider revisions to the program and
preparation experiences.
For the last twelve years, the Education Department has used the extended meetings held
typically during finals week of each term to ensure that evaluation of candidates and unit
operations occurs on a systematic as opposed to anecdotal basis.
How is technology being used for managing and monitoring the Comprehensive Assessment
System?
The unit employs a variety of different information technologies in implementing and improving
the CAS. Two of these are college-wide. Student evaluations of Benedictine College faculty are
summarized, analyzed and compiled by Individual Development and Educational Assessment
(IDEA) Center of Manhattan, KS. The flagship service of this company, the IDEA Student
Ratings of Instruction system, focuses on student learning of 12 specific objectives while
factoring out extraneous circumstances via statistical adjustment. Through data provided by this
non-profit company, faculty members are able to gather information regarding their success in
achieving self-selected objectives. The IDEA system also allows the college to compare student
ratings at the department level and institutional level as well as providing comparisons with six
to ten peer colleges and members of the same general Carnegie classification nation-wide.
A software program developed by Empower Student Information Systems is used for managing
grades, enrollment, and transcript information. This program, the Online Academic Student
Information System (OASIS) provides immediate and continuous information regarding
candidate progress. The campus-wide information system OASIS, is used to collect data on
candidates such as demographics, course enrollment, and directory information. The data in
OASIS is extracted using Crystal Reports and is directly merged with data in Microsoft Excel.
Excel’s analysis feathers and Crystal Reports are used to create readable tables and graphs for
analysis. Faculty have the ability to use OASIS via the web to monitor course enrollment and
advisees. OASIS also allows faculty to enter grades on-line.
Within the Education Department, data is primarily managed using Microsoft Excel, however,
the unit continues to test and employ other information technologies to improve the assessment
system. During the 2007-2008 academic year, using funds obtained through the NCATE
Assessment Activity Fee, the unit purchased LiveText software for use by both candidates and
unit faculty in managing data. All department members participated in training for this program.
During the 2008-2009 academic year, however, after a year of use, shortcomings apparent in the
LiveText software caused the unit to abandon this program and then consider Filemaker Pro for
the CAS. The lack of available training workshops/ personnel in Filemaker Pro kept the unit
from adopting this program (Historical Development Comprehensive Assessment System for
triangulation/ documentation regarding these efforts).
29
The unit is presently considering a software package developed by the company Campus Labs
for managing CAS data. A decision on this program will be made during the 2012-2013
academic year.
30
The Assessment Calendar: A Look At The
12 Month Cycle In Education Programs
Month Activity Responsibility
August Monthly or Bi-monthly (two a month) Education Department meetings begin. These
meetings are typically the first forum at which assessment developments are
discussed.
Co-chairs, Education Faculty
August Graduate Studies Committee dates are determined. Director of graduate education
programs and Graduate Studies
Committee (GSC).
September Annual training for unit and P-12 Professional Portfolio evaluators if necessary Co-chairs, Director of graduate
education programs.
September GSC acts on Education Department recommendations in accepting/ rejecting
candidates for MASL and M.Ed.
Graduate Studies Committee
September Interviews of candidates for admission to teacher education program Committee on Teacher Education
September Professional Portfolios due for applicants for teacher education program and student
teaching
Candidates
September Portfolios evaluated by teams of Education Department faculty and trained K-12
educators
Co-chair, Portfolios Evaluators
October Special meeting of Education Department at which dispositions for candidates
submitting portfolios and overall recommendations (accept/ deny) for Committee on
Teacher Education (CTE) are determined for initial program candidates.
Education Department
October CTE acts on Education Department recommendations in accepting/ rejecting
candidates for teacher education and student teaching. Summaries of assessment data
are presented to CTE
Committee on Teacher Education
November Fall Educational Advisory Committee meeting occurs in November. Trends in
assessment data presented.
Co-Chairs, Educational Advisory
Committee, Director of Graduate
Education Programs.
December Professional Portfolios due for applicants for program completion (fall initial program
graduates)
Candidates
December Portfolios evaluated by teams of Education Department faculty and trained K-12
educators
Co-chair, Portfolio Evaluators
31
December Special meeting of Education Department at which dispositions for candidates
submitting portfolios and overall recommendations (accept/ deny) for Committee on
Teacher Education (CTE) are determined.
Education Department
December Special meeting of Education Department at which grades for student teaching
(Benchmark Point 3) are determined
Education Department
December CTE acts on Education Department recommendations in accepting/ rejecting
candidates for program completion. Summaries of assessment data are presented to
CTE
Committee on Teacher Education
December Data from all courses in programs leading to teacher licensure (both Education
Department courses and content area courses) submitted.
Faculty, Department Chairs,
December Special extended (half to full day) meeting of Education Department at which all
areas of our program are discussed and assessment data is reviewed. Referred to in
meeting minutes as, “TEP or MEd. or MASL Discussion of Unit Operations,
Assessment and Program Outcomes.” This meeting is always scheduled on the study
day during Finals Week. It is scheduled so as to allow a full day for the meeting;
sometimes it doesn’t take the full day to consider all issues/ agenda items.
Education Department faculty
December Benchmark Point 2 data for Entry to Practicum or Directed Study presented to
Education Department with dispositional ratings (determined by all graduate
instructors) for overall recommendations (accept/ deny) for Graduate Studies
Committee (GSC).
Director of Graduate Education
Programs, Education Department,
GSC
February Interviews of candidates for admission to teacher education program Committee on Teacher Education
February Professional Portfolios due for applicants for teacher education program and student
teaching
Candidates
February Portfolios evaluated by teams of Education Department faculty and trained K-12
educators
Co-chair, Portfolios Evaluators
February Special meeting of Education Department at which dispositions for candidates
submitting portfolios and overall recommendations (accept/ deny) for Committee on
Teacher Education (CTE) are determined.
Education Department
February CTE acts on Education Department recommendations in accepting/ rejecting
candidates for teacher education and student teaching. Summaries of assessment data
are periodically presented to CTE.
Committee on Teacher Education
March Spring Educational Advisory Committee meeting scheduled in March. Trends in
assessment data presented.
Co-Chairs, Director of Institutional
Assessment, Educational Advisory
Committee
32
April Professional Portfolios due for applicants for teacher education program and student
teaching
Candidates
April Portfolios evaluated by teams of Education Department faculty and trained K-12
educators
Co-chair, Portfolios Evaluators
May Special meeting of Education Department at which dispositions for candidates
submitting portfolios and overall recommendations (accept/ deny) for CTE are
determined.
Education Department
May Special meeting of Education Department at which grades for student teaching
(Benchmark Point 3) are determined
Education Department
May CTE acts on Education Department recommendations in accepting/ rejecting
candidates for program completion. Summaries of assessment data are periodically
presented to CTE
Committee on Teacher Education
May GSC acts on Education Department recommendations in accepting/ rejecting
candidates for program completion. Summaries of assessment data are periodically
presented to GSC
Graduate Studies Committee
May Special extended (half to full day) meeting of Education Department at which all
areas of our program are discussed and assessment data is reviewed. Referred to in
meeting minutes as, “TEP or MASL or M.Ed. Discussion of Unit Operations,
Assessment and Program Outcomes.”
Education Department faculty
33
Four Year Plan for Comprehensive Assessment System (Focal Point 2)
Analysis
The Education Department provides more systematic assessment of its students than any other department at Benedictine College. The
NCATE/KSDE team that visited Benedictine in 2005 identified our assessment system as an area of strength. Under the revised
NCATE Standards, each college using the “Continual Improvement” model must designate at least one area in which to seek a
“Target” rating. Assessment is probably the most logical choice for us.
Professional Portfolios serve as the linchpin for both our TEP and advanced program assessment systems. Although we are strong in
this area, numerous refinements need to be implemented. These include: 1) Streamlining the format of the portfolios so we aren’t
collecting unneeded data, 2) conducting studies of candidates and portfolio scorers to ensure that assessment procedures are fair,
accurate and consistent, 3) reporting data regarding candidate performance, program quality, and unit operations publicly to all stake
holders in our professional community, 4) systematizing the record keeping of formal candidate complaints and 5) continuing to test
different information technologies for improving the assessment system.
Goal 2.1: The Education Department, with appropriate support from Benedictine College, will assess, evaluate and revise all
initial and advanced educational programs. This evaluation will include all professional portfolio requirements, their
explanatory materials for candidates and their training procedures for scorers.
2012-13 2013-2014 2014-2016
Examine Professional Portfolio
requirements and revise where
appropriate.
Examine explanatory materials for
candidates and expand or otherwise
clarifying scoring rubrics and
procedures.
Designate different member of the unit
as having primary responsibility for
management of initial program portfolio
Involve Educational Advisory
Committee in conducting focus groups
interviewing candidates and scorers
regarding Professional Portfolios and
guides for candidates.
Develop new set of training materials
for portfolio scorers. Use funds from
NCATE Assessment line item to do
another extensive training session using
new materials and portfolio
Modify Professional Portfolio system
based on results of NCATE/KSDE off-
site and on-campus evaluations. Begin
redevelopment of assessment system
based on new standards developed with
the merging of NCATE and CAEP
(Council for the Accreditation of
Educator Preparation).
Examine new CAEP standards and
decide whether to retain Professional
34
2012-13 2013-2014 2014-2016
system. Following first submission of
initial program portfolios (September
2012), survey candidates regarding
ways in which portfolio assessment can
be improved and perceptions as to
whether assessment procedures are fair,
accurate and consistent.
Use funds from NCATE Assessment
Line Item to pay for a mock NCATE
visit approximately August 2013.
Review portfolio assessment process for
graduate programs with department
begin any needed portfolio revisions.
Develop training materials for Teacher
Leader portfolio scorers and make
revisions to Building Leadership
training materials.
Implement Professional Portfolio
requirements for the Teacher Leader
(M.Ed.) program.
requirements.
Evaluate Teacher Leader Program
Portfolio Requirements and Assessment.
Make any necessary revisions.
Evaluate and revise as needed the new
two year format of the MASL.
Evaluate and revise the M.Ed. program.
Evaluate and revise as needed the new
course Ed 534 Assessment and School
Improvement.
Portfolio system presently used for
assessment. If decision is affirmative,
develop new guidelines for portfolios
based on new CAEP standards.
35
Goal 2.2: The Education Department, with appropriate support from Benedictine College, will revise Benedictine Portfolio
Assessment (BPA) requirements and expand scoring of BPA’s to at least a second evaluator to improve reliability of BPA
scores.
2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2016
Examine BPA and Kansas Performance
Teaching Portfolio (KPTP). Revise
BPA requirements appropriately.
Expand scoring of BPA’s to include
second evaluator to improve reliability
of BPA scores.
Continue dual scoring of BPA’s.
Develop procedures for handling
inconsistencies between scores
Analyze data from BPAs. Make
changes to BPA and BPA evaluation as
needed. Examine BPA in light of new
CAEP standards; make decision whether
to retain.
Goal 2.3: The Education Department will report data regarding candidate performance, program quality, and unit operations
publicly to all stakeholders in its professional community via the Benedictine College web site.
2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2016
Develop a summary of important data
regarding candidate performance,
program quality and unit operations and
post on the BC website by December
2012. Information to include: 1)
quantitative data at Benchmark Points,
2) pass rates of candidates on licensure
exams, 3) employment rates, 4)
information from IDEA system
regarding faculty evaluations.
Revise and update publically reported
data. Assess public perceptions of this
information via focus groups or surveys.
Revise and update publically reported
data. Consider continuation of this
practice in light of new CAEP standards
and accreditation procedures.
36
Goal 2.4: The Education Department will expand and systematize the record keeping of formal candidate complaints and their
resolution.
2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2016
The initial program will ensure that
extensive due process procedures
published in Education Department
Policies and Procedures Handbook are
communicated to candidates.
Adopt and publish formal Education
Department policy regarding the record
keeping of formal candidate complaints
and their resolution. Examine anecdotal
and formal records and meeting minutes
for past several years to ensure that all
formal candidate complaints have been
included in system.
Revision of grievance and due process
procedures for the advanced programs
brought to the Education Department
and Graduate Studies Committee for
approval and publication in the
Graduate Programs Handbook and
Graduate Studies Committee Handbook.
Revise and update publically reported
data. Assess public perceptions of this
information via focus groups or surveys.
At data retreats held at the end of
semester, discuss and identify any
possible candidate complaints expressed
that term.
Revise and update publically reported
data. Consider continuation of this
practice in light of new CAEP standards
and accreditation procedures.
Continue to monitor systematic
maintenance of formal candidate
complaints and documentation of
resolution of such issues.
37
Goal 2.5: The Education Department will continue to test different information technologies for improving assessment.
2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2016
The Education Department will contact/
invite representatives of at least one
untried commercial software company
and consider adopting company’s
products.
Develop and circulate Survey Monkey
instrument to be sent to all 22 Kansas
institutions of higher education with
licensure programs asking them to
describe and evaluate the information
technology they use for assessment.
Act on this information by adopting new
information technology if appropriate.
Consider modification of existing
information technologies for assessment
in light of new CAEP standards and
accreditation procedures.
38
PART TWO
Introduction
This portion of the Comprehensive Assessment Manual contains information and assessment
instruments specific to the teacher education program at Benedictine College. The professional
portfolio is the linchpin of candidate and unit assessment for the teacher education program; the
materials presented here all relate in some way to candidate professional portfolios.
The first document in Part Two is the Professional Portfolio Guide. It was written and
implemented during spring 2004. Its target audience was candidates, many of who had
previously struggled in understanding the Education Department’s expectations. Prior to the
existence of this document, candidates were only given the rubric that was used for evaluating
the professional portfolio. This guide explains the process by which portfolios are judged.
The second document in Part Two is an example of a Standard Artifact Rubric (SAR). It became
evident in 2003 that portfolio scorers lacked guidance in terms of how some of the more
extended artifacts (i.e. teaching unit, philosophy of education term paper, etc.) should be
evaluated within the professional portfolio. The instructor of the particular course in which the
artifact is completed scores the artifact using the SAR. It is evaluated on the same 0 – 3 scale as
the professional portfolio. Its purpose is to provide guidance to scorers. The SAR was
implemented in fall 2004.
The third document in Part Two is the Guide to Writing the Builder of Community Essay. This
essay is a critical artifact that is redone each time the portfolio is submitted at a benchmark point.
In the essay, candidates are expected to explain and defend their progress in achieving the six
program outcomes. The first time the essay is submitted (Benchmark Point One), candidates
must only demonstrate that they intellectually understand the outcomes and are critically
reflecting on their own progress. The second time the essay is submitted (Benchmark Point
Two), candidates must demonstrate that they are making satisfactory progress and that the
outcomes have been partially achieved. The last time the essay is submitted (Benchmark Point
Three), candidates must demonstrate full realization of the six outcomes. The purpose of this
document, which was written and implemented in fall 2003, is again to provide a cogent
explanation of unit expectations to candidates.
The fourth document in Part Two is the Evaluator’s Rubric for professional portfolios. This is
the instrument on which scorers (each portfolio is evaluated independently by one unit faculty
and one P-12 educator) grade the portfolios by circling a number on the 0 – 3 scale.
The fifth document in Part Two is the one-page score sheet on which the scores of the two
portfolio evaluators are summarized. If any of the scores of the two evaluators differ by one or
more points, a third evaluator scores those areas of the portfolio and the two scores which are
within the closest range are then averaged. If a candidate has a mean score below 1.0 on any of
the nine areas (six program outcomes + knowledge + skills + dispositions), the Education
Department recommends that the Committee on Teacher Education not approve this individual
for passage to the next benchmark point.
39
The final document in Part Two is the Benedictine Performance Assessment (BPA). This teacher
work sample contains prompts and evaluation rubrics. During student teaching, all candidates
are required to complete a BPA in their licensure area. When completed, the candidate separates
the BPA into its five different parts (criterion). Each criterion is inserted in the candidate’s
professional portfolio within the appropriate teacher education program outcome.
40
Professional Portfolio Guide
Education Department
41
GUIDE TO CREATING YOUR PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO
Your professional portfolio will be used to determine whether you are accepted into the Teacher
Education Program, into student teaching, and for completion of your degree in education. It is
therefore critical for you to do a good job in its preparation.
General Requirements
Your professional portfolio is to be submitted in a white hardcover three-ring notebook with a transparent
plastic cover. Insert into the cover of the notebook a title page following the format shown on pg. 6 of this
guide. This title page is available in the Education Department Office, FAC 212. Also, on the vertical
spine of the notebook, insert a strip of paper with your Student ID Number and whether you are applying
for “Admission to Teacher Education Program,” “Admission to Student Teaching,” or “Program
Completion.
To help control possible bias on the part of evaluators, we are requiring that you white out/ black out or
otherwise remove your name wherever it occurs in your professional portfolio on all artifacts. Your name
should not be visible at all once removed. Replace it with your Benedictine College Student ID Number.
Artifacts MUST be presented in the order shown on the following pages and separated by
tabbed, labeled notebook dividers (see pg. 2).
If you have completed the course in which a particular artifact is produced (or its equivalent at
another college) and for some reason do not have it, please include a written explanation in
place of the artifact. If you have not yet completed the course, a written explanation is not
necessary.
It is your responsibility to obtain copies of required artifacts/rubrics at the time they were
completed in your coursework. Make copies of all field experience evaluations at the time you
receive them from cooperating teachers. Your failure to provide required artifacts, without a
valid written explanation, may result in you being denied admission to the Teacher Education
Program, admission to student teaching, or completion of the degree in education.
Artifacts that are in your professional portfolio MUST include the professor’s grades and/or
completed rubrics. When course instructors return artifacts to students, they will be
accompanied by a Standardized Artifact Rubric (SAR). It is your responsibility to include the
completed rubric, IF REQUIRED, with its respective artifact in your professional portfolio. An
example of the SAR follows on pg. 7.
DO NOT include extraneous materials in your professional portfolio. A portfolio that includes
materials that are not in the required Portfolio Components section (pg. 3) may be returned to the
student without being scored.
Please do not put professional portfolio materials in plastic sheet protectors.
42
Evaluation Process
As you progress through the Teacher Education Program, you will submit your professional
portfolio three times. Each time, the following evaluation process occurs:
1. The team evaluating your portfolio generally consists of one Education Department
faculty member and one member of the broader professional community who has
received special training. Each member of the team individually rates your portfolio in
nine areas: 1) knowledge, 2) performance/skills, 3) professional dispositions, and 4) each
of the six program outcomes for “Educators as Builders of Community.” A copy of the
scale used in evaluating portfolios follows:
Unacceptable
Specific criteria are included
in each rubric.
Acceptable
Specific criteria are included
in each rubric.
Distinguished
Specific criteria are included
in each rubric. Evaluator’s
Name
0 .25 .50 .75 1.0 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.0
The evaluator simply makes a mark on the number line to indicate his/her evaluation for
the specific outcome.
2. At a special meeting the Education Department faculty summarizes the ratings your
portfolio received and agrees upon a recommendation to be made to the Committee on
Teacher Education. If your portfolio receives a mean score of less than 1.0 on
knowledge, performance/skills, dispositions or any of the six outcomes, the Education
Department recommends that you not be approved for acceptance into the Teacher
Education Program, into student teaching, or for program (degree) completion.
3. The Committee on Teacher Education votes on the Education Department’s
recommendations.
4. Students who disagree with a decision of the Committee on Teacher Education are
extended the right of a due process hearing before this committee. Following this, if
necessary, an appeal may be made to the dean of the college.
Portfolio Organization
Your professional portfolio is to be divided into the following labeled sections:
1. Applications
2. Knowledge
3. Performance/Skills
4. Dispositions
5. Outcome 1
6. Outcome 2
7. Outcome 3
8. Outcome 4
9. Outcome 5
10. Outcome 6
43
PORTFOLIO COMPONENTS
APPLICATIONS
Completed “Application to the Teacher Education Program”.
Completed “Application for Student Teaching”.
Completed “Application for Program Completion”.
If you are only applying for acceptance into the Teacher Education Program, do not
include an application for Student Teaching or Program Completion. When you apply for
Student Teaching, both completed applications should be included and applicants for
Program Completion should include all three applications.
An autobiography which includes an introduction, an explanation of why you want to be a
teacher, any experiences working with children/adolescents, and a list of pertinent interests
and accomplishments. Do not refer to yourself by name in your autobiography.
Satisfactory recommendations from three faculty members outside the Education
Department. If you are a transfer student, two of these recommendations may be from
faculty members of the college previously attended. Please put your name and Student ID
Number on these forms before giving to faculty members for recommendation.
Recommendations normally are sent directly to Mrs. Kathy Scott, FAC 212, by faculty
members, who places them in your portfolio. It is your responsibility to check with Mrs.
Scott to insure that your portfolio has all three recommendations.
You must provide documentation that you have declared education as your major for
acceptance into the Teacher Education Program. This can be done in the Education
Department Office.
NOTE: If you are a secondary education major, you MUST also provide documentation
that you have declared a major in your content area (English, math, Spanish, PE, music,
etc.) with that department. secondary education majors should have a “Petition for
Acceptance to a Major Program” form from the Education Department AND your content
area department in your portfolio.
KNOWLEDGE
A current Benedictine College transcript showing a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.75. An
unofficial transcript is acceptable which can be printed from the OASIS website.
Documentation of a minimum composite ACT score of 23 OR a copy of your PPST test
scores. Minimum acceptable PPST scores are 168 in Writing, 169 in Reading and 170 in
Math with a total score of at least 519 (note that the total score of 519 requires 12 points in
addition to the sum of the 3 minimum subtest scores).
NOTE: If you are applying for acceptance into the Teacher Education Program and have
registered for the PPST but not yet taken it or received your scores, you MUST include
either: a) a copy of the admission form, or b) a copy of your completed application to take
the PPST. If all other parts of the portfolio are acceptable, you will be conditionally
admitted to the teacher education program (the condition being that you must receive a
passing grade on the PPST.
In addition to the above, PROGRAM COMPLETERS must provide the following:
Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scales for “Knowledge” from the cooperating
teacher(s) and clinical faculty supervisor(s).
44
PERFORMANCE/SKILLS All pre-student teaching field experience evaluations based on the following chart. If you
are a transfer student, include field experience evaluations from colleges previously
attended.
LEVEL FIELD EXPERIENCE EVALUATIONS
(Required if course has been completed) Elementary & Special
Education ED 201, ED 307, ED 314, ED 317/319
Secondary Education ED 201, ED 358 or MU 309, ED 332, Cont. Methods 457 (i.e. EN
457, SS 457)
In addition to the above, PROGRAM COMPLETERS must provide the following:
Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scales for “Skills” from the cooperating teacher(s) and
clinical faculty supervisor(s).
DISPOSITIONS*
Evaluation sheet(s) from interview with two-person subcommittee of Committee on
Teacher Education.
Applicants to Teacher Education Program only: Please schedule an interview with Mrs.
Kathy Scott, FAC 212, prior to, or at the time of, submission of your portfolio.
Note: After your interview, the interview evaluation sheet(s) is given directly to Mrs. Kathy
Scott, FAC 212, who places it in your portfolio.
In addition to the above, PROGRAM COMPLETERS must provide the following:
Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scales for “Dispositions” from the cooperating
teacher(s) and clinical faculty supervisor(s).
*The rubric score for dispositions is determined entirely by Education Department faculty
and, if the candidate is a secondary education major, the respective content area chair at a
special meeting. The professional qualities you display in courses, field experiences, and
meeting Education Department requirements are all considered in determining your rating
in this area.
OUTCOME 1 Outcome 1 portion of your Builders of Community essay
The Builders of Community essay on our six program outcomes is a critical artifact in your
Professional Portfolio. A separate guide for creating this artifact has been prepared to help
candidates and is attached to this application.
In addition to the above, PROGRAM COMPLETERS must provide the following:
ED 455: Differentiated Instruction Multi-Media Presentation Standard Artifact Rubric
(SAR) ONLY (no artifact)
Benedictine Performance Assessment: Criterion 1: Contextual Information
Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scales for “Outcome 1” from the cooperating
teacher(s) and clinical faculty supervisor(s).
45
OUTCOME 2
Outcome 2 portion of your Builders of Community essay
ED 451: Philosophy of Education paper Standard Artifact Rubric (SAR) ONLY (no
artifact)
In addition to the above, PROGRAM COMPLETERS must provide the following:
ED 462: Classroom Management Model Standard Artifact Rubric (SAR) ONLY (no
artifact)
Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scales for “Outcome 2” from the cooperating
teacher(s) and clinical faculty supervisor(s)
OUTCOME 3 Outcome 3 portion of your Builders of Community essay
ED 222: Reflection on Teaching Students with Disabilities and Standard Artifact Rubric
(SAR).
ED 313: Reflections on Multicultural Field Experiences, which include Boys and Girls
Club, Lunch Delivery, and Valentine's Dance, and the Standard Artifact Rubric (SAR).
In addition to the above, PROGRAM COMPLETERS must provide the following:
Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scales for “Outcome 3” from the cooperating
teacher(s) and clinical faculty supervisor(s)
OUTCOME 4 Outcome 4 portion of your Builders of Community essay
ED 220: Builder of Community Peer Evaluation Standard Artifact Rubric (SAR) ONLY
(no artifact)
In addition to the above, PROGRAM COMPLETERS must provide the following:
Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scales for “Outcome 4” from the cooperating
teacher(s) and clinical faculty supervisor(s)
OUTCOME 5 Outcome 5 portion of your Builders of Community essay
Standard Artifact Rubric (SAR) ONLY (no artifact) from one unit which was created with
lesson plans, objectives, and assessment. If you are an elementary education major, this
unit is normally created in Ed 301/307, Social Studies Methods and Media. Secondary
education majors create their unit in Ed 357/358, General Secondary Methods and Media
and Content Methods (i.e. EN 457, SS 457).
In addition to the above, PROGRAM COMPLETERS must provide the following:
Benedictine Performance Assessment: Criterion 2: Goals & Objectives
Benedictine Performance Assessment: Criterion 3: Instructional Design
Benedictine Performance Assessment: Criterion 6: Analysis of Assessment
Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scales for “Outcome 5” from the cooperating
teacher(s) and clinical faculty supervisor(s)
46
OUTCOME 6 Outcome 6 portion of your Builders of Community essay
In addition to the above, PROGRAM COMPLETERS must provide the following:
Benedictine Performance Assessment: Criterion 7: Reflection and Self-evaluation
Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scales for “Outcome 6” from the cooperating
teacher(s) and clinical faculty supervisor(s)
Portfolio Submission
When submitting your portfolio, you will be asked to sign the following statement verifying that
your portfolio has been done according to directions provided for submission of portfolios and
that you understand the penalty if your portfolio does not meet the standards:
Any portfolio that doesn’t meet form or content requirement will not be scored this semester and
you will need to resubmit it again next semester. If your timeframe doesn’t allow a later
submission, you will be charged a $50 fine to pay scorers for the inconvenience of scoring it
after corrections are made.
Please be aware of the most common mistakes that are made each semester:
1. Students’ names are still on artifacts,
2. Artifacts are not in the correct place in the portfolio,
3. Artifacts are missing or missing without a legitimate explanation,
4. Extra materials are included in the portfolio that are not required.
Take time now to insure that your portfolio is done correctly.
47
(Format for Title Page of Professional Portfolio)
Student ID #
Application for Admission to Teacher
Education Program
Professional Portfolio Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of
Education Department Requirements at Benedictine College
Date __________________________
BENEDICTINE COLLEGE
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
48
Standard Artifact Rubric (SAR) Example for Professional Portfolio
Course: ED 220/ Psychoeducational Development
Artifact: Builders of Community Peer Evaluation
Brief Description: During the semester, each student works in a cooperative
learning base group on a variety of
activities related to the course. These include discussions,
simulations of teaching situations, and creating a film. At
the end of the semester, each student anonymously
evaluates each member of the group on their performance
as a team member.
How related to outcome: This artifact is related to Outcome 5: “The BC
student teacher builds partnerships with
colleagues, students’ families and community
to enhance communication and learning.” It’s
related because students are evaluated by their peers
on their ability both to lead and to be receptive to
the leadership of others.
Unacceptable Failure by the candidate to
perform at an acceptable level
Acceptable The candidate performed at an
acceptable level on this artifact
Distinguished The candidate performed at an
exemplary level on this artifact.
0 .25 .50 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0
Student’s Name ______________________________________
Instructor’s Signature
49
Guide to Writing
the
Builder of Community Essay
Education Department
50
GUIDE TO WRITING THE BUILDER OF COMMUNITY ESSAY
Introduction
The Builder of Community Essay (BOCE) is probably the most important single artifact in your
Professional Portfolio. In this essay, you are to critically reflect on your developing proficiencies
as they relate to each of the six teacher education program outcomes. Self-evaluation is critical in
writing a successful BOCE. Essays that describe best practices will be rejected if they fail to
examine the candidate’s growth in acquiring such practices.
Three Levels of Evaluation
The BOCE is to be written at three points in a candidate’s program: 1) Entry to the Teacher
Education Program, 2) Entry to Student Teaching, 3) Program Completion. Because your skills
are presumably growing as you progress through the program, you must meet a higher standard
with each successive essay.
Entry to Teacher Education Program - At this benchmark of our program, you must show that
you intellectually understand key elements of each outcome and that you are honestly
considering your strengths and areas for improvement as related to each outcome. At this level,
you must only demonstrate that you are meeting the outcome to the extent to which you have
completed Education Department coursework. An important source of data for this essay is the
experiences you have had with children and adolescents in quasi-educational settings (tutoring,
coaching, teaching Sunday School, parenting, day cares, etc.).
Entry to Student Teaching - At this benchmark of our program, you must show that you
intellectually understand key elements of each outcome and that you are honestly considering
your strengths and areas for improvement as related to each outcome and that you have made
substantive progress toward meeting each outcome. Because student teaching is normally done
in your last semester at Benedictine College, this essay needs to show three years growth toward
meeting the outcomes.
Program Completion - To go successfully through this benchmark, you must demonstrate that
you have met each of the six program outcomes. Use all of your experiences in the Teacher
Education Program for making this argument. A common error made by candidates is to only
discuss student teaching in this essay. Consider, for example, the candidate who completes
student teaching at Kickapoo Nation School. If he/she in responding to Outcome 3 states,
“Because all my third graders were Kickapoo children, I really don’t know how to balance
diversity in a classroom,” the essay will be evaluated accordingly.
51
Requirements for BOCE
1. Begin a new page with each outcome.
2. State the outcome in bold at the top of the page.
3. This is an essay. Write in paragraphs and double-space your essay.
4. Appropriate use of writing conventions (grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc.) will be
considered in evaluating your essay.
5. Suggested minimum length is two pages per outcome.
The Six Outcomes
Your awareness of our program outcomes will deepen during your years at Benedictine College
because of experiences/interaction with faculty, cooperating teachers, other candidates, and
students. To assist you, however, in understanding our expectations, each outcome is stated in
bold below, followed by a number of prompts. Use the prompts to guide you in writing your
essay, however, it is essential for you to realize that your essay must stand as an integrated
whole. Essays that consist of isolated answers to these questions will be rated unacceptable.
Outcome 1: The BC candidate uses practices which nurture the whole child/ adolescent
within the learning community.
How will you build positive relationships with students?
How will you encourage and motivate students to always do their best?
What personal qualities or techniques do you use for nurturing students as human beings?
How will you apply what is known about multiple intelligences to make success possible
for every student?
How will you interact with students in ways that are appropriate to their age and/or
developmental level?
Outcome 2: The BC candidate uses his/her understanding of communication and human
behavior to create a classroom community that fosters positive social interaction,
collaboration and active inquiry.
How will you constructively manage students’ behavior to enhance learning within the
classroom community?
How will you encourage positive student interaction, collaboration, and respect for
others?
What educational methods or projects do you plan to employ that will help students
contribute to: a) the good of the classroom community, b) the good of the school
community, and c) the good of the town or regional community?
What practices will you use which engage students in active (as opposed to passive)
learning?
52
Outcome 3: The BC candidate respects and promotes diversity while creating instructional
opportunities that meet the needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds and those
with exceptionalities.
How will you balance diversity and unity within the classroom?
How will you encourage students to be proud of their own unique qualities while at the
same time encouraging them to work toward common goals?
How knowledgeable are you regarding students of other cultures, ethnicities, and
socioeconomic status?
How knowledgeable are you regarding students with exceptionalities?
What will you do to insure that you are being fair in terms of interacting equally with all
students regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic status, or exceptionality?
When students in your class do group work, how will you determine the membership in
groups?
How will you see having diverse students in your classroom - as an advantage or a
disadvantage? If such students are an advantage, how will you use their diversity as a
learning opportunity for you and other students?
Are you interested in learning from students of different cultures, ethnicities, religions,
socioeconomic status, and exceptionalities?
How will you structure learning activities so that students can make meaningful choices
and pursue their own interests?
Outcome 4: The BC candidate builds partnerships with students, colleagues, families and
community groups to enhance communication and learning.
How will you build partnerships with students and their families?
How will you build positive relationships with your co-workers at the school?
How will you work effectively with school administrators?
How will you involve your students in the larger school community?
How will you involve your students in the community outside of the school?
How will you welcome the outside community into your school and your classroom?
What will you mean to be professional and how will you model professionalism? For
example, your dress, punctuality, communication, receiving constructive feedback,
handling confidential information, your attitude, etc.
Outcome 5: The BC candidate plans and assesses instruction based upon knowledge of
subject matter, students, the community and curriculum goals.
How will you demonstrate knowledge of your subject matter?
How will your lesson planning help you to engage all students in active learning?
How will you plan lessons that take into consideration students’ interests, needs and
abilities?
How will you use questioning techniques to promote student growth?
How do you provide clear and effective feedback to students regarding their efforts?
How will you plan lessons addressing the school and grade level’s curriculum goals and
state or common core standards?
How will you plan lessons addressing the school and grade level’s curriculum goals?
How will you provide multiple ways of assessing student learning?
53
Outcome 6: The BC candidate is a reflective builder of community who continually
evaluates the effects of his/her actions on others and who actively seeks out opportunities to
grow professionally.
How will you systematically use reflection?
Give examples of your use of reflection in self-improvement.
What would your goals be for building a learning community in your classroom?
How will you consistently analyze and assess learning situations?
As you progress through the teacher education program and into P-12 schools, what will
you do to insure that you won’t stagnate but will grow professionally?
In writing to Outcome 6, be specific in describing the techniques/strategies you’ve used
to improve yourself in the past and the techniques/strategies you will use to improve
yourself in the future.
How can we be sure that five, ten, or twenty years from now you will still be a Builder of
Community?
54
PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO
EVALUATOR’S RUBRIC
TEP Student Teaching Completion
Student ID No. (Circle One) Evaluator
Evaluator’s Signature
55
The same rubrics are used for admission to the Teacher Education Program, admission to student teaching, and program/ degree completion.
However, our expectations for candidates increase as they move through the program. When you are scoring a portfolio and see the following
phrases in the rubric, “Unacceptable for ___________,” “Acceptable for ______________,” and “Distinguished for _______________,” consider
where the student is in his or her program. A student who is applying for program completion needs to demonstrate a higher degree of proficiency
than a student applying for admission to the program to receive acceptable ratings on his or her portfolio.”
Candidates for admission into teacher education and for student teaching sometimes do not have required artifacts because they have not yet taken
the course in which an artifact is produced. If in doubt, check the student’s transcript to see if he/ she has completed the course.
KNOWLEDGE
Knowledge includes both content area knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. For a more complete definition of knowledge, please
see the NCATE 2000 Standards Glossary, available in Ferrell Academic Center 212 or online at ncate.org.
Unacceptable for __________
A cumulative grade point average below 2.75,
or
ACT composite below 23 AND PPST total
below 519 or PPST subtest scores below 168
in Writing, 169 in Reading or 170 in Math
Acceptable for ________
A cumulative grade point average between
2.75 and 3.5, and
ACT composite between 23–29 OR PPST
total between 519 and 540 with PPST
subtest scores above 168 in Writing, 169 in
Reading and 170 in Math
Distinguished for __________
A cumulative grade point average above
3.5, and
ACT composite above 29 OR PPST total
above 540
*To evaluate PROGRAM COMPLETERS, consider ONLY the cumulate grade point average and Final Student
Teaching Evaluation Scale for "Knowledge" (50% each). Do not consider the ACT or PPST scores. Evaluator
0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0
Required Artifacts for KNOWLEDGE:
A current Benedictine College transcript showing a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.75. An unofficial transcript is acceptable.
Documentation of a minimum composite ACT score of 23 OR a copy of PPST test scores*. Minimum acceptable PPST scores are 168 in
Writing, 169 in Reading and 170 in Math AND at least 12 additional points in addition to the sum of the three minimum subtest scores to
make a TOTAL SCORE of at least 519.
In addition to the above, PROGRAM COMPLETERS must provide the following portfolio artifacts:
Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scales for “KNOWLEDGE” from the cooperating teacher(s) and clinical faculty supervisor(s).
*If a candidate is applying for acceptance into the Teacher Education Program and has registered for the PPST but not yet taken it/ received
scores, he/she MUST include either: a) a copy of the admission form, or b) a copy of the completed application to take the PPST.
56
PERFORMANCE/SKILLS
The qualities and levels of proficiency of a candidate in application of his/ her knowledge to classroom teaching and other
professional situations.
Unacceptable for ___________ “Unacceptable” ratings by:
cooperating teachers,
clinical faculty,
education faculty
on field experience evaluations.
Acceptable for _________
“Acceptable” ratings by:
cooperating teachers,
clinical faculty,
education faculty
on field experience evaluations.
Distinguished for __________
“Distinguished” ratings by:
cooperating teachers,
clinical faculty,
education faculty
on all field experience evaluations.
Evaluator
0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0
Required Artifacts for PERFORMANCE/SKILLS:
ALL pre-student teaching field experience evaluations based on the following chart.
Candidates for admission into Teacher Education and for admission into Student Teaching sometimes do not have required field experience
evaluations because they have not yet taken the course in which such evaluations occur (portfolios for student teaching are due before grades/
field experience evaluations have been completed for the previous semester). Please check the student’s transcript to see if he/she has
completed the course.
Level Required Field Experience Evaluations
Elementary or Special Education ED 201, ED 307, ED 314, ED 317 or ED 319
Secondary Education ED 201, ED 358 or MU 309, ED 332, Content Methods 457 (i.e. EN 457, SS 457)
In addition to the above, PROGRAM COMPLETERS must provide the following portfolio artifacts:
Final student teaching evaluation scales for “SKILLS” from the cooperating teacher(s) and clinical faculty supervisor(s).
57
TEP Student
Student Teaching Student ID No.
Completion
DISPOSITIONS ---- TO BE SCORED BY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT FACULTY
AT SPECIAL DEPARTMENT MEETING Dispositions may be defined as the values, commitments, and professional ethics that influence behaviors toward students, families, colleagues, and communities
and affect student learning, motivation, and development as well as the educator’s own professional growth. Candidates at Benedictine College are expected to
demonstrate that they are “Professionally Responsible Builders of Community.” Indicators of Professional Responsibility are: 1) punctuality, 2) reliability in
fulfilling commitments, 3) respecting and supporting colleagues and supervisors, 4) respecting confidential information 5) displaying a professional, positive, and
enthusiastic attitude, 6) accepting feedback, 7) professional dress, 8) demonstrating the belief that all students are valuable and all can learn*, 9) demonstrating
equitable interactions with all students* and 10) seeking professional growth. Indicators of Community Building include: 1) establishing positive relationships with
students, peers, teachers, supervisors, administrators, parents, and community members; 2) demonstrating the desire to help others and the willingness to put the
needs of others first, 3) participation in service activities, 4) use of instructional activities that teach students to help others and be of service to the classroom,
school, and geographical community. Candidates must demonstrate that their dispositions provide evidence of both “Professionally Responsibility,” and
“Community Building.”
*To successfully demonstrate Professional Responsibilities Indicators 8 & 9, candidates must show through their words and actions that they value the cultural
heritage of all students and that they value the opportunity to instruct students with exceptionalities.
Unacceptable for __________
The failure to adequately demonstrate
EITHER:
professional responsibility, or
community building.
Acceptable for ________
The candidate acceptably demonstrates
BOTH:
professional responsibility, and
community building.
Distinguished_________
The candidate acceptably demonstrates
BOTH:
professional responsibility
community building at an exemplary
level.
Overall Faculty
Rating*
0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0
*This score is determined by consensus as opposed to mathematical averaging of scores.
(Signatures of Education Department Faculty)
58
OUTCOME 1
“The BC candidate uses practices which nurture the whole child/ adolescent within the learning community.”
Unacceptable for __________
Failure by the candidate to demonstrate and
articulate practices which nurture the whole
student. These generally include:
building positive relationships with
students, providing encouragement to
students, and motivating students,
interacting with the student in a
developmentally appropriate manner.
Acceptable for __________
The candidate clearly demonstrates and
articulates practices nurturing the whole
student. These generally include:
building positive relationships with
students, providing encouragement to
students, and motivating students,
interacting with the student in a
developmentally appropriate manner.
Distinguished for _________
The candidate provides exemplary
demonstration and articulation of
practices nurturing the whole student.
These generally include:
building positive relationships with
students, providing encouragement to
students, and motivating students,
interacting with the student in a
developmentally appropriate manner.
Evaluator
0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0
To evaluate PROGRAM COMPLETERS, the essay is worth 50% of the outcome score and the artifacts collectively are worth the other
50% of the outcome score.
Required Artifacts for OUTCOME 1:
Outcome 1 portion of Builders of Community essay
In addition to the above, PROGRAM COMPLETERS must provide the following portfolio artifacts: ED 455: Differentiated Instruction Multi-Media Presentation Standard Artifact Rubric (SAR)
Benedictine Performance Assessment: Criterion 1: Contextual Information
Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scales for “Outcome 1” from the cooperating teacher(s) and clinical faculty supervisor(s).
59
OUTCOME 2
“The BC candidate uses his/her understanding of communication and human behavior to create a classroom community that fosters positive
social interaction, collaboration and active inquiry.”
Unacceptable for ________
Failure by the candidate to clearly articulate
and critically reflect on practices that
contribute to a classroom community that
fosters:
positive social interaction,
collaboration, and
active inquiry.
These generally include:
demonstrating fair and consistent
behavioral expectations,
using cooperative learning strategies
effectively, and
encouraging students to demonstrate
respect for others at all times.
Acceptable for ____________
The candidate clearly articulates and critically
reflects on practices that contribute to a
classroom community that fosters:
positive social interaction,
collaboration, and
active inquiry.
These generally include:
demonstrating fair and consistent behavioral
expectations,
using cooperative learning strategies
effectively, and
encouraging students to demonstrate respect
for others at all times.
Distinguished for __________
The candidate provides exemplary
articulation and critical reflection with
respect to practices that contribute to a
classroom community that fosters:
positive social interaction,
collaboration, and
active inquiry.
These generally include:
demonstrating fair and consistent
behavioral expectations,
using cooperative learning strategies
effectively, and
encouraging students to demonstrate
respect for others at all times.
Evaluator
0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0
To evaluate PROGRAM COMPLETERS, the essay is worth 50% of the outcome score and the artifacts collectively are worth the other
50% of the outcome score.
Required Artifacts for OUTCOME 2:
Outcome 2 portion of Builders of Community essay
ED 451: Philosophy of Education paper Standard Artifact Rubric (SAR)
(for acceptance to STUDENT TEACHING & PROGRAM COMPLETERS only)
In addition to the above, PROGRAM COMPLETERS must provide the following portfolio artifacts: ED 462: Classroom Management Model Standard Artifact Rubric (SAR)
Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scales for “Outcome 2” from the cooperating teacher(s) and clinical faculty supervisor(s).
60
OUTCOME 3
“The BC candidate respects and promotes diversity while creating instructional opportunities that meet the needs of students from
diverse cultural backgrounds and those with exceptionalities.”
Unacceptable for ___________
Failure by the candidate to clearly articulate
and critically reflect on practices respecting
and integrating:
different viewpoints,
learning styles,
cultures, and
lived experiences
into the classroom and school community.
These generally include:
equitable teacher interaction with all
students,
understanding students with
exceptionalities,
encouraging inclusion,
valuing cultural and socioeconomic
diversity,
encouraging students to pursue personally
meaningful questions, and
allowing them to make meaningful choices.
Acceptable for _________
The candidate clearly articulates and critically
reflects on practices respecting and integrating:
different viewpoints,
learning styles,
cultures, and
lived experiences
into the classroom and school community.
These generally include:
equitable teacher interaction with all students,
understanding students with exceptionalities,
encouraging inclusion,
valuing cultural and socioeconomic diversity,
encouraging students to pursue personally
meaningful questions, and
allowing them to make meaningful choices.
Distinguished for ________
The candidate provides exemplary articulation and
critical reflection upon practices respecting and
integrating:
different viewpoints,
learning styles,
cultures, and
lived experiences
into the classroom and school community.
These generally include:
equitable teacher interaction with all students,
understanding students with exceptionalities,
encouraging inclusion,
valuing cultural and socioeconomic diversity,
encouraging students to pursue personally
meaningful questions, and
allowing them to make meaningful choices.
Evaluator
0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0 To evaluate PROGRAM COMPLETERS, the essay is worth 50% of the outcome score and the artifacts collectively are worth the other
50% of the outcome score.
Required Artifacts for OUTCOME 3:
Outcome 3 portion of Builders of Community essay
ED 222: Reflection on Teaching Students with Disabilities and Standard Artifact Rubric (SAR)
ED 313: Reflections on Multicultural Field Experiences, which include Boys and Girls Club, Lunch Delivery, and Valentine's
Dance, and the Standard Artifact Rubric (SAR).
In addition to the above, PROGRAM COMPLETERS must provide the following portfolio artifacts: Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scales for “Outcome 3” from the cooperating teacher(s) and clinical faculty supervisor(s).
61
OUTCOME 4
“The BC candidate builds partnerships with students, colleagues, families and community groups to enhance communication and learning.”
Unacceptable for ___________
Failure by the candidate to clearly articulate and
critically reflect on practices which build
partnerships with:
colleagues,
students’ families, and
community groups.
These generally include:
building positive relationships with staff,
colleagues, administrators and parents;
respecting confidential information;
accepting constructive feedback; and
demonstrating professionalism in dress,
communication, and punctuality.
Acceptable for ___________
The candidate clearly articulates and critically
reflects on practices that build partnerships
with:
colleagues,
students’ families and
community groups.
These generally include:
building positive relationships with staff,
colleagues, administrators and parents;
respecting confidential information;
accepting constructive feedback; and
demonstrating professionalism in dress,
communication, and punctuality.
Distinguished for ___________
The candidate provides exemplary
articulation and critical reflection upon
practices that build partnerships with:
colleagues,
students’ families and
community groups.
These generally include:
building positive relationships with staff,
colleagues, administrators and parents;
respecting confidential information;
accepting constructive feedback; and
demonstrating professionalism in dress,
communication, and punctuality.
Evaluator
0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0
To evaluate PROGRAM COMPLETERS, the essay is worth 50% of the outcome score and the artifacts collectively are worth the other
50% of the outcome score.
Required Artifacts for OUTCOME 4:
Outcome 4 portion of Builders of Community essay
ED 220: Builder of Community Peer Evaluation Standard Artifact Rubric (SAR)
In addition to the above, PROGRAM COMPLETERS must provide the following portfolio artifacts: Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scales for “Outcome 4” from the cooperating teacher(s) and clinical faculty supervisor(s).
62
OUTCOME 5
“The BC candidate plans and assesses instruction based upon knowledge of subject matter, students, the community and
curriculum goals.”
Unacceptable for _____________
Failure by the candidate to clearly demonstrate
and articulate practices which contribute to the
effective planning and assessment of
instruction. Such practices generally include
incorporating knowledge of:
the students,
the community,
the curriculum, and
state standards
into the:
planning,
delivery,
assessment, and
analysis
of instruction.
Acceptable for ______________
The candidate clearly demonstrates and
articulates practices that contribute to the
effective planning and assessment of instruction.
Such practices generally include incorporating
knowledge of:
the students,
the community,
the curriculum, and
state standards
into the:
planning,
delivery,
assessment, and
analysis
of instruction.
Distinguished for _____________
The candidate provides exemplary demonstration
and articulation of practices that contribute to the
effective planning and assessment of instruction.
Such practices generally include incorporating
knowledge of:
the students,
the community,
the curriculum, and
state standards
into the:
planning,
delivery,
assessment, and
analysis
of instruction.
Evaluator
0 25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0 To evaluate PROGRAM COMPLETERS, the essay is worth 50% of the outcome score and the artifacts collectively are worth the other
50% of the outcome score.
Required Artifacts for OUTCOME 5:
Outcome 5 portion of Builders of Community essay
Standard Artifact Rubric (SAR) from one unit that was created with lesson plans, objectives, and assessment. Elementary
education majors normally create this unit in Ed 307. Secondary education majors create their unit in Ed 357/358 and Content
Methods 457.
In addition to the above, PROGRAM COMPLETERS must provide the following portfolio artifacts: Benedictine Performance Assessment: Criterion 2: Goals & Objectives
Benedictine Performance Assessment: Criterion 3: Instructional Design
Benedictine Performance Assessment: Criterion 6: Analysis of Assessment
Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scales for “Outcome 5” from the cooperating teacher(s) and clinical faculty supervisor(s).
63
OUTCOME 6
“The BC candidate is a reflective builder of community who continually evaluates the effects of his/her actions on others and who actively
seeks out opportunities to grow professionally.”
Unacceptable for ___________
Failure by the candidate to:
clearly articulate and critically reflect on
decisions he/she makes, and
to evaluate the effectiveness of such
decisions in relation to the educational
foundations which support Educators as
Builders of Community.
Practices related to this outcome generally
include:
continually evaluating the effects of one’s
choices on others,
articulating goals for building learning
communities,
accurately analyzing and assessing learning
situations,
seeking out opportunities to grow
professionally, and
participating constructively in team decision-
making.
Acceptable for __________
The candidate:
clearly articulates and critically reflects on
decisions that he/she makes, and
evaluates the effectiveness of such
decisions in relation to the educational
foundations supporting Educators as
Builders of Community.
Practices related to this outcome generally
include:
continually evaluating the effects of one’s
choices on others,
articulating goals for building learning
communities,
accurately analyzing and assessing learning
situations,
seeking out opportunities to grow
professionally, and
participating constructively in team
decision-making.
Distinguished for _________
The candidate:
provides exemplary articulation and critical
reflection on decisions that he/ she makes, and
evaluates the effectiveness of such decisions
in relation to the educational foundations
supporting Educators as Builders of
Community.
Practices related to this outcome generally
include:
continually evaluating the effects of one’s
choices on others,
articulating goals for building learning
communities,
accurately analyzing and assessing learning
situations,
seeking out opportunities to grow
professionally, and
participating constructively in team decision
making.
Evaluator
0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0
To evaluate PROGRAM COMPLETERS, the essay is worth 50% of the outcome score and the artifacts collectively are worth the other
50% of the outcome score.
Required Artifacts for OUTCOME 6:
Outcome 6 portion of Builders of Community essay
In addition to the above, PROGRAM COMPLETERS must provide the following portfolio artifacts: Benedictine Performance Assessment: Criterion 7: Reflection and Self-evaluation
Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scales for “Outcome 6” from the cooperating teacher(s) and clinical faculty supervisor(s).
64
Portfolio Score Summary
Student ID 123789
Scorer 1 (S1) John Doe
Scorer 2 (S2) Jane Smith
Scorer 3 (S3) (if required)
Level of Portfolio
Teacher Ed Student Teaching Completion
(Circle One)
OUTCOME SCORE
S1 S2 S3 (Mean of S1, S2, S3)
Knowledge 1.50 1.50 --- 1.50
Performance/Skills 3.00 2.50 --- 2.75
Dispositions (determined by department
members at a special
meeting)
--- --- --- 3.00
Outcome 1 1.75 1.75 --- 1.75
Outcome 2 2.00 1.75 --- 1.88
Outcome 3 1.75 1.50 --- 1.63
Outcome 4 2.00 1.75 --- 1.88
Outcome 5 1.00 1.50 --- 1.25
Outcome 6 1.25 1.50 --- 1.38
Score Range (0 – 3.0)
(initials of data
summarizer)
65
The
Benedictine
Performance
Assessment
Education Department
Benedictine College
November 22, 2012
66
The Vision
Successful teachers should have an impact on student learning. Their students should gain substantive
knowledge and skills. Classroom teachers should be able to demonstrate that they can deliver an effective
instructional unit, employ meaningful classroom assessments and analyze and reflect on their experiences.
The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate:
Your ability to analyze your classroom context and make instructional decisions based upon
that analysis.
Your ability to construct and deliver an instructional unit.
Your ability to construct challenging, meaningful classroom assessments.
Your students’ learning.
Your ability to provide information on assessment data, student achievement, and the school
accreditation status.
Your ability to analyze and reflect on your experience to promote your own professional
growth.
This assessment provides teachers with feedback on their own professional development. In addition,
teachers who demonstrate evidence of their ability to plan and deliver effective instruction will be an asset
to their school district and more professionally competitive in the job market. A glossary at the end of
this document defines the terms italicized.
The Requirements
You are required to teach a multiple week instructional sequence. You will describe the learning context
and any specific instructional adaptations you made to meet the learning needs of individual students.
Your instructional goals should be based on Kansas content standards. Your learning objectives must
include outcomes in subject matter knowledge, skills, and reasoning abilities. You will also need to create
an assessment plan including (but not limited to) measures of student performance before (pretest) and
after (posttest) your instructional sequence. Finally, you need to analyze and reflect on your instructional
design, educational context and the degree of learning demonstrated by your students.
The following are format requirements for your work:
Your completed work must not exceed 25 pages (12 point font, double-spaced with one-inch
margins.) Tables and charts may be single-spaced. Be sure to insert page numbers in your
document.
Do not include any student names anywhere in your completed performance assessment. Refer to students by number or alias.
The document must be submitted in narrative format with the following criterion headings
indicated in bold print (suggested page length in parentheses):
1. Contextual Information and Learning Environment Adaptations (4 pages)
2. Unit Learning Goals and Objectives (2 pages)
3. Instructional Design and Implementation (6 pages)
4. Analysis of Assessment Procedures (6 pages)
5. Reflection and Self-Evaluation (4 pages)
67
You should include a copy of your pretest/ posttest instruments that are required in BPA Criterion 6 as
Attachment #1. The attachments will not count towards your 25 page maximum requirement. Be sure to
use page numbers in your BPA. When it is completed clip the pages together securely with either a large
stapler or a binder clip in the top left hand corner.
You must address several questions when constructing a response for each criterion of the Benedictine
Performance Assessment. These questions are found at the top of each of your scoring rubrics. You
should read each scoring rubric carefully to make sure that you provide information in your narrative to
receive the maximum score possible. The terms that are italicized throughout this document have been
defined in the glossary. Notice that the suggested page length for all the criteria totals 22 pages. This
gives you some flexibility in making the response for some criteria longer and some shorter. However,
you MUST stay within the maximum limit of 25 pages for your Benedictine Performance Assessment.
68
BPA Criterion 1
Contextual Information and Learning Environment Adaptations
The teacher understands how individuals learn, understands child and adolescent development,
demonstrates knowledge of appropriate adaptations, and has the ability to provide instructional strategies
that afford learning opportunities for all learners. [KSDE Standards 2 and 3]
1. What are some important characteristics of students in your classroom? Describe such factors
as: number of students in school and in classroom, ethnic/cultural/gender make-up, socio-
economic profile, previously demonstrated academic performance/ability, developmental
characteristics, district/school/community/classroom environmental considerations and
students with special needs. Include a brief, general description of students in your class.
Identify the groups for whom you will separate (disaggregate) data for analysis in Criterion 6.
Environmental considerations that affect learning may include such factors as district
regulations (e.g. about books), type of community (e.g., urban, suburban, rural etc.), and
physical classroom setting (e.g. self-contained, portable etc.). You must identify the grade
level(s) of the students in your class.
2. In consideration of environmental, personal, demographic and background characteristics, and
the knowledge, skill, cognitive capacities, dispositions and readiness of your students, what are
the needs of your students as a group as well as individually, and the implications for your
instruction. Describe and discuss the learning needs of individual or clusters of students and
how these considerations will influence your approach to instruction in order to address the
learning and affective needs of all students in the class.
In addition to the text description, you may use a table to illustrate the relationship between Part 1 and 2
above. Example:
Contextual Factors Given Diversity, Implications for Instruction
Gender:
12 boys, 13 girls
Provide mixed gender grouping during cooperative learning activities.
Achievement:
3 below, 17 at grade
level, 5 above grade
level
The 3 below sometimes require peer or adult assistance and more time. 2 of the 5
above are in the gifted program, and I provide more enrichment activities within
each unit such as . . .
Etc. Etc.
Checklist: The Teacher Describes His/Her: N Y
Environmental Factors (district, school, and classroom; all three must be present) ............. 0 1
Community (urban, rural, suburban etc.) ................................................................................ 0 1
Classroom’s Ethnic/Cultural Make-up .................................................................................. 0 1
Classroom’s Gender Make-up .............................................................................................. 0 1
School’s Socio-Economic Status (SES) Make-up ................................................................. 0 1
Students with Special Needs/At Risk Students ..................................................................... 0 1
Students’ Developmental Characteristics .............................................................................. 0 1
Total Checklist Score: /7
69
Rating
Indicator
0
Performance
Not
Demonstrated
1
Performance
Partially
Demonstrated
2
Performance is
Demonstrated
X Score
Demonstrates an
awareness of
students’
backgrounds,
(Socio-cultural,
class, parents,
building, community
and district factors),
and identifies
implications for
instruction
accordingly to meet
individual needs of
students.
No consideration
or recognition of
the implications
when planning
instruction for
individual
differences
Sources of student
differences are
specified, but
implications when
planning to meet the
instructional needs of
the students are not
addressed.
Sources of student
differences are
specified, and the
teacher offers
reasonable
implications that
impact plans to meet
students’ individual
needs.
1
Demonstrates an
understanding of
the cognitive/ non-
cognitive
characteristics of
the students in the
class describes how
these differences,
impact the planning
of instruction for
the class as a whole.
No consideration
or recognition of
the implications
when planning
instruction for
individual
differences
Sources of student
differences are
specified, but
implications when
planning to meet the
instructional needs of
the students are not
addressed.
Sources of student
differences are
specified, and the
teacher offers
reasonable
implications that
impact plans to meet
students’ individual
needs.
1
Total Rubric Score: _____/4
Total Score for BPA Criterion 1: _____/11
70
BPA Criterion 2
Learning Goals and Objectives
The teacher selects goals and objectives based upon knowledge of all students, subject matter, and
curriculum outcomes. [KSDE Standard 7]
1. List and describe your unit learning goal(s) and objectives for this instructional sequence.
Provide a minimum of one goal and three objectives written across all levels, (lower level, middle
level, and higher level. See examples below.) Be sure to include a description of subject matter
knowledge, skills/applications, and reasoning ability students will achieve if your unit learning
goal(s) and objectives are met.
2. Your lesson objectives should be clearly stated, developmentally appropriate, aligned with
state/district standards or local curriculum outcomes and described in terms of student
performance, not activities. (The state/district standards or local curriculum outcomes that you
follow should be written out completely so that alignment can be checked. Do not merely cite the
title or number of the standard or outcome.) Each objective must do the following: a. Describe precisely what performance is expected of students
b. Indicate exactly how student performance will be measured (multiple choice test,
observation instrument completed by student teacher, rubric completed by student
teacher, self-assessment by student, etc.
c. State the minimum mastery level that will be used in evaluating student performance.
3. Give a rationale for choosing your range of objectives. While we expect teachers to provide
objectives at all levels, we realize that in some cases it may not be appropriate to provide a wide
range (e.g. at least two higher level objectives for kindergarten, or for some special needs
students.) If this is the case, be sure to provide a fully developed rationale for not presenting a
balance across the range of objectives.
Example of Objectives:
Knowledge:
1. Each student will correctly identify the seven continents and four oceans
on a map with at least 80% accuracy.
Skills:
1. Each student will be given a detailed map of their school. Using the
map, they will correctly find 20 objects hidden in the school with 80%
accuracy.
Reasoning:
1. Given a map with six distinct geographical features, each student will be
able to evaluate the best location for building a new city, achieving a
minimum score of 80% on a teacher-developed rubric.
71
Checklist: Unit Goals and Objectives Are : N Y
Aligned with State/District Standards or local curriculum outcomes ................................... 0 1
Developmentally Appropriate Given Grade Level and Classroom Context .......................... 0 1
Objectives Describe Precisely the Expected Student Performance ....................................... 0 1
Objectives Indicate Precisely How Student Performance Will Be Measured ....................... 0 1
Objectives State Minimum Mastery Level ............................................................................ 0 1
Focus of the Objectives is on What the Student Will Learn or Be Able to Do ...................... 0 1
Total Checklist Score: /6
Rating
Indicator
0
Criterion Not Met
1
Criterion Partially
Met
2
Criterion Met
X Score
Balance in the
Range of
Objectives*
No rationale or
description is
provided for the
range of objectives
selected.
The description of
the range of
objectives selected
lacks a convincing
rationale.
The description of
and rationale for the
range of objectives
selected is fully
explained.
2
Lower
Level/Content
Knowledge
Objectives
Absent (no
knowledge objectives
listed)
At least one objective
is written at the lower
level.
1
Middle
Level/Skill or
application
Objectives
Absent (no
skill/application
objectives listed)
At least one objective
is written at the
middle level.
1
Higher
Level/Reasoning
Objectives
Absent (no reasoning
objectives listed)
At least one objective
is written at the
higher level)
1
Objectives
precisely describe
student
performance, how
it will be
measured and
mastery level.
Objectives meet one
or less of these
criteria.
Objectives meet two
of these criteria.
Objectives meet all
three criteria. 4
* Candidates are expected to provide a balance in the range of three objectives across all levels and must
also provide a rationale for why that range of objectives is selected (i.e., why it is appropriate).
Total Rubric Score: _____/18
Total Score for BPA Criterion 2: _____/24
72
BPA Criterion 3
Instructional Design and Implementation
The teacher understands and uses a variety of appropriate instructional strategies, including those that
represent a wide range of technological tools, to develop various kinds of students’ learning including
critical thinking, problem solving, reading, and subject matter knowledge. The teacher also uses
knowledge of parents, community and agencies to support all students’ learning and well-being when
planning and implementing instruction. [KSDE Standards 4, 10 and 12]
Describe the Instructional Design and Implementation by addressing the following questions:
Why were the activities sequenced in this way?
How did the instruction address the multiple learning strategies?
How did you encourage student use of critical thinking and problem solving?
How did you accommodate varied levels of reading skills?
What adaptations did you make for students who have reading difficulties?
What adaptations (if any) did you make from your original design based on contextual
information and/or diagnostic assessment data?
What changes did you make in the resources you used?
What technology (e.g., audio-video, overhead, computers, calculators, adaptive, etc) was
integrated into your instructional activities? Include information related to your instruction and
to the students’ use for learning purposes.
How was the use of community resources connected to the unit?
Present your instructional design and implementation in both narrative and tabular form.
Example of Design for Instruction Table:
Day/Date Objective Instruction Assessment Adaptations
Day 2/
Tues. Aug. 30
The students will
be able to edit a
paragraph for
proper
punctuation
I will read the book
Punctuation Takes A
Vacation by Robin Pulver
to help students understand
the importance of
punctuation. We will
complete a worksheet
together that has missing
punctuation.
The students
will look for
missing
punctuation
marks in a
paragraph on
their own.
I will work one-
on-one with
Student B in order
for him to
complete this task.
Day 3
Day 4
Etc.
73
Checklist: Instructional Design and Implementation of Instruction: N Y
Are Aligned with Goals and Objectives stated in BPA Criterion Two…….………. 0 1 Are Progressively Sequenced ................................................................................................ 0 1
Adaptations are made for Special Needs Students
(e.g., language, cognitive, etc. If no adaptations are made, a rationale is
stated and supported)…….…………………………………………………………....... 0 1
Provides Evidence that Context Data is Used in Instructional Decisions.............................. 0 1
Total Checklist Score: ___ /4
Rating
Indicator
0
Performance Not
Demonstrated
1
Performance
Partially
Demonstrated
2
Performance is
Demonstrated
X Score
Multiple
Instructional
Strategies
Only one strategy is
used throughout the
unit.
A variety of
instructional strategies
is incorporated
throughout the unit,
but reflects only the
more common type
(e.g., relies only on
direct instruction,
including visual,
verbal-linguistic, or
paper-pencil).
Multiple instructional
strategies utilizing
multiple types/levels of
learning - other than
direct instruction - are
incorporated
throughout the unit
(e.g., application of the
theories of multiple
intelligences, learning
styles, constructivist
techniques, cooperative
learning).
2
Provide and
Adapt
Instructional
Strategies
Teacher does not
address implications
of contextual and /or
diagnostic
information in
planning instruction
and assessment; no
adaptations are
considered or stated.
(Referring a student
to a specialist is not
an appropriate
strategy.)
Adaptations do not
address the specific
contextual needs of
individuals, small
group, or class.
(Adaptations should be
made for instruction of
those groups in need
of them as identified in
Criterion One.)
Adaptations address
the specific identified
contextual needs of the
individuals, small
group, or class; or the
teacher adequately
defends the decision to
not make instructional
adaptations.
2
74
Use of
Community
Resources
Outside of the
School
The teacher does not
attempt to use
community resources
to foster learning.
The teacher uses
community resources
to foster learning but it
is not related to the
objectives of the unit.
The teacher uses
community resources to
foster learning and it is
directly related to the
unit’s objectives.
2
Use of
Technology
Connected to
the Objectives
of the Unit
Instruction does not
include technology or
no rationale is given
why it is
inappropriate to use
technology with
students.
Technology is used but
only by the teacher.
The teacher uses
technology and guides
the students’ use of
technology, or a
rationale is given why
it is inappropriate to
use technology with
students in this
particular unit.
2
Total Rubric Score: _____/16
Total Score for BPA Criterion 3 _____/20
75
BPA Criterion 4
Analysis of Assessment Procedures
The teacher understands and uses formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate and ensure the
continual intellectual, social and other aspects of personal development of all learners.
[KSDE Standard 8]
You must give a pretest on two of your three objectives. On the third objective, you may estimate student
performance. Calculate learning gain scores using the learning gain worksheet. You must provide data
for your students using the two tables shown below.
Criterion 4, Table 1: Raw Scores and Learning Gains
Student K
Pre
K
Post
K
Gain
S
Pre
S
Post
S
Gain
R
Pre
R
Post
R
Gain
Avg.
Gain
Male Caucasian #1*
Male Caucasian #2
Male Caucasian #3
Male Hispanic #1
Male Hispanic #2
Female Caucasian#1
Female Caucasian#2
Female Hispanic #1
Average Female Students
Average Male Students
Average Caucasian Students
Average Hispanic Students
Overall Average
*Only eight students are shown on this table; you must do this for each individual student in
your class. You must use male/ female and one other demographic factor. Some to consider:
LEP vs. non-LEP; students identified for Title 1 or special education vs. those not so
identified; low SES vs. middle and upper SES; or cultural/ ethnic status as indicated above.
Criterion 4, Table 2: Student Mastery
Objective Male %
Mastery
Female %
Mastery
Caucasian %
Mastery
Minority
% Mastery Overall %
Knowledge Objective
Skills Objective
Reasoning Objective
Average Mastery
76
A. What did your analysis of the learning results tell you about the degree to which each of your
learning objective(s) were achieved for your class as a whole?
B. What did your analysis of each subgroup of students (if applicable) tell you about the degree to
which each of your learning objective(s) were achieved? Discuss specific evidence from the pre
and post assessment data to support your answer. Make sure you address and evaluate the
learning of all students.
C. Do the assessment results accurately reflect the degree of learning students demonstrated during
the classroom activities? Explain.
D. Was the available instructional time adequate to cover all the stated learning goals?
Checklist: N Y
Presents Graphics and Data that are Easily Read and Interpreted....................................... 0 1
Uses Narrative Which Reflects the Degree of Learning Students Demonstrated
During the Classroom Activities Compared to Assessment Results..................... 0 1
Includes Accurate Calculations of Gain Scores……………………………...................... 0 4
Includes Accurate Percentages of Students Who Attained Objective Mastery................... 0 2
Uses Identical Pretests and Posttests ..................................................................................... 0 1
Disaggregates Data By At Least Two Subgroups……………………………..…….…… 0 4
Includes “Overall Averages” as required in Table 1…………………………..…….………..0 4
Includes “Average Mastery” as required in Table 2……………………………...….………. 0 4
Total Checklist Score:_____ / 21
Rating
Indicator
0
Performance Not
Demonstrated
1
Performance
Partially
Demonstrated
2
Performance
Demonstrated
X
Score
Pretests are
Utilized for
Instruction and
Evaluation
No pretest
assessment data are
collected, or the
data/information
collected is not
appropriate for
(aligned with) unit
objectives.
Appropriate student
pretest assessment
data are collected,
but not used for
instructional
decision- making.
Student instruction is
monitored by pretest
data and used
appropriately in
instruction and
decision-making.
1
Formative
Assessment is
Utilized for
Instruction and
Evaluation
No formative
assessment data are
collected, or the
data/information
collected is not
appropriate for
(aligned with) unit
objectives.
Appropriate student
assessment data is
collected, but not
used for
instructional
decision-making.
Student progress is
monitored by
appropriate formative
assessment data and
used appropriately in
instructional decision-
making.
1
Multiple Types
of Assessment
Only one assessment
is used, or
procedures and
formats are very
limited to non-
existent.
There is more than
one assessment but
no variety in the
types and format of
assessments.
A variety of assessment
formats are used (e.g.
portfolios, observation,
tests, projects,
performance tasks, peer
assessment, etc.).
1
77
Rating
Indicator
0
Performance Not
Demonstrated
1
Performance
Partially
Demonstrated
2
Performance
Demonstrated
X
Score
Alignment of
Assessments to
Objectives, and
Instruction.
Does not align
learning objectives
to instruction, and
assessment.
Aligns only two
among learning
objectives, instruction, and
assessment (i.e.
omits alignment of
one of the three.)
Aligns learning
objectives, instruction,
and assessment.
1
Student
Evaluation and
Performance
Criteria
No evaluative or
grading criteria or
standards or
expectations are
identified.
Response includes
some criteria or
expectations, but
connections of
objectives to
instruction,
outcomes, and
evaluation are not
complete.
Response includes
consideration of criteria
which reflect grading
and evaluation based
on integration aligning
instruction,
performance
expectations, and
grading or evaluation
standards.
2
Total Rubric Score: _____ / 12
Total Score for BPA Criterion 4: ______ /33
78
BPA Criterion 5
Reflection and Self-Evaluation
The teacher is a reflective practitioner who continually evaluates the effects of his or her choices and
actions on others (students, parents, and other professionals in the learning community), actively seeks out
opportunities to grow professionally and participates in the school improvement process (Kansas Quality
Performance Accreditation).
[KSDE Standards 9 and 10]
1. Select the learning objective where your students were most successful. Provide two or more
reasons for this success. Consider your goals, objectives, instruction, and assessment along with
student characteristics and other contextual factors under your control.
2. Select the learning objective where your students were least successful. Provide two or more
possible reasons for this lack of success. Consider your goals, instruction and assessment along
with student characteristics and other contextual factors under your control. Explain any mid-
unit adaptations you made. Discuss what you could do differently or better in the future to
improve your students’ performance.
3. Reflect on possibilities for professional development. Describe at least two professional
learning goals that emerged from your insights gained while teaching this unit. Identify two
specific activities you will undertake to improve your performance as a teacher in the critical
areas you identified.
79
BPA CRITERION 5
Rating
Indicator
0
Indicator Not Met
1
Indicator Partially
Met
2
Indicator Met
X Score
Successful
Activities
Identifies no
successful activities
related to an
objective, or the
basis for the choice is
not valid.
Identifies successful
activities related to an
objective, but
provides no adequate
explanation or
analysis of reasons
for the successes
identified.
Identifies successful
activities related to
an objective, and
provides an adequate
explanation or
analysis of reasons
for the successes
identified.
2
Implications for
Future Teaching
of This Unit
Including a
Focus on
Unsuccessful
Objectives
Provides no ideas for
redesigning learning
goals/objectives,
instruction, or
assessment.
Provides ideas for
redesigning learning
goals/objectives,
instruction, or
assessment but offers
no or an inadequate
rationale for why
these changes are
warranted.
Provides ideas for
redesigning learning
goals/objectives,
instruction, or
assessment and
adequately explains
why these
adaptations would
improve student
learning.
2
Implications for
Professional
Development/
Continuous
Learning
Provides fewer than
two professional
learning goals that
emerge from insights
gained while
teaching this unit.
The teacher presents
at least two
professional learning
goals that emerge
from insights gained
while teaching this
unit but he/she does
not describe specific
activities planned for
meeting each
professional goal
presented.
Presents at least two
professional learning
goals that emerge
from insights gained
while teaching this
unit and describes
specific activities
planned for meeting
each professional
goal presented.
2
Total Rubric Score: _____/12
Total BPA Criterion 5 Score: _____/12
80
A Glossary of Terms For the purpose of the performance assessment methodology, the following terms have these definitions:
Active Inquiry: A teaching/learning strategy in which the students are active in the pursuit of knowledge.
They are asking questions, researching, and answering their own and each other’s questions. The teacher
is a facilitator and guide but not the chief instructional agent. The use of inquiry does not have to be in
every lesson, but it should occur often enough that it is a strong instructional component in the teaching of
the unit.
Adaptations: Those adjustments in preparation and delivery of instruction and monitoring the learning
environment that are made by a candidate to meet the special learning needs of any students. It also
includes adjustments deemed necessary by the candidate to provide fair treatment of students during the
assessments of learning.
Affective Domain: The affective domain includes objectives that emphasize feeling and emotion, such as
interests, attitudes, appreciation, and methods of adjustment. At the lowest level, students simply attend to
a certain idea. At the highest level, students take an idea or a value and act on that idea. Five basic
objectives make up this domain: Receiving, Responding, Valuing, Organization, and Characterization by
Value (developed by Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia).
Appropriate Rationale: (for doing or not doing something that is addressed in the rubric): A statement
or description of educationally defensible reasons for not using a device or method called for in the
rubric. The statement may also be used to explain why the candidate is doing something differently than
is called for in the rubric. To be complete, the rationale should include a statement of how the teacher’s
decision(s) will impact intended outcomes and their achievement together with a description of the
learning benefits of the choice(s) that the candidate has made.
Balance in the Range of Objectives: Candidates are required to provide a minimum of one goal and six
objectives for a unit. The expectation of balance in the range of these objectives is that the candidate will
provide two objectives for each level or type of objective. The candidate should also provide a rationale
for why all the objectives were selected for inclusion in the unit. This rationale should demonstrate the
appropriateness of these choices, or address why a balance may not be present (e.g., if it is not
developmentally appropriate).
Classroom Environment: Information related to issues of culture, safety, classroom management,
physical environment, and socio-personal interaction that have potential to influence the learning
environment.
Cognitive Domain: The cognitive domain includes objectives that emphasize intellectual outcomes, such
as knowledge, understanding, and thinking skills. This domain is important to all areas of study. It
provides a system for teachers to develop lessons that require students to move beyond memorization of
facts at the knowledge level to the development of higher level thought processing skills at the synthesis
and evaluation levels. The six major categories include: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application,
Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation (Bloom).
Collaboration: The deliberate use by the teacher of educational strategies that require students to work
together in pairs or other groupings to solve problems, accomplish tasks, or to achieve learning goals.
Collaboration may include, but is not limited to, formal cooperative learning strategies.
Community: Information about the school district or city/town as well as the attendance center that
defines the community of learners in the school or classroom. Such information should focus on
81
definitive student characteristics to which the candidate ought to pay attention and use in planning and
delivering instruction in order to help all students achieve the unit learning goals.
Community Resources: These would include institutions, agencies, organizations, industry, students’
family members with expertise/knowledge, etc. Examples would include community library, museum,
observatory, local media, local businesses or farms, community groups like 4-H or Kiwanis, etc.
Context Data: The “Contextual Information” characteristics that are narrated in Criterion One. (e.g.,
ethnic, gender, SES, special needs, varying developmental levels, varying intellectual/academic
performance levels, emotional and/or behavioral deviations, etc.).
Critical Thinking/Problem Solving: Critical thinking/problem solving requires higher cognitive
processing (e.g., using information in new ways, analyzing information/concepts and/or breaking into
sub-parts or sub-concepts, making evaluations and judgments supported by appropriate rationales,
creating new constructs, processes or products, etc.). Students are not to perform tasks which rely simply
on rote learning, list making, recitation, or on simplistic manipulation of numbers, facts, or formulae.
Developmental Characteristics: Objectives, assessments and activities should be aligned with the
skills, abilities, maturity, as well as the intellectual and emotional or behavioral characteristics of the
typical student at the grade or level at which one is teaching. Deviations from providing instruction at the
expected developmental level of a particular grade should be explained and documented as to rationale.
Diagnostic Assessment: This is given before instruction to identify the students’ ability, skills, or
knowledge about the topic that is about to be taught. The teacher uses this assessment to determine
students’ previous knowledge in order to prepare or adjust objectives appropriately.
Disaggregation of Data: Organizing and reporting data from the diagnostic assessment and summative
assessment to show the achievement levels for groups present in the classroom (gender, SES, ELL,
students with disabilities, ethnicity, low and high achievers, etc.)
Environmental Factors: Circumstances or conditions in the school, the district, the community and/or
the classroom that might affect the students and their learning. For example, school practices, district
policies or regulations, transience in the community, physical attributes of the classroom etc.
Ethnic/Cultural Make-up: The diversity of races, languages, religions, beliefs and practices of the
students in your classroom. Cultural practices might include dress, typical foods, and special customs.
Formative Assessment: Those assessments of student performance, formal or informal, done during the
unit to give both the teacher and the student feedback regarding learning and the possible need for either
enrichment or remediation.
Goals: General learning standards or outcomes. Goals are supported by more specific learning
objectives.
Group and Subgroup: A group is a number of students in a broad category – e.g. gender. A subgroup
refers to a subordinate group within the group – e.g. males or females.
Higher Level/Reasoning Objective: A reasoning objective requires students to analyze, synthesize
and/or make judgments about (evaluate) information, knowledge and ideas. Students analyze, calculate,
compare, criticize, differentiate, examine, create, organize, propose, compose, appraise, assess, and
evaluate.
82
Instrument: An assessment or test for the purpose of measuring student ability.
Integration: The teacher has the knowledge and ability to import appropriate content, information or
processes from other disciplines (subjects) as a means of expanding student thinking, and/or
understanding and showing relation and relevance between subject fields i.e., a social studies teacher
integrates math skills into a geographic map lesson, an English teacher incorporates history lessons into a
Renaissance Literature unit, an elementary teacher integrates math, science, social studies, and language
arts into a unit.
Learner-centered Instruction: Classroom learning activities in which the learner and not the candidate
is the center of focus. The candidate may serve as facilitator but not as presenter or director. The student
works independently or in a small group that is in charge of the learning sequence, timing, goal setting,
and production of evidence of learning.
Learning Context: Information about the school, community, or individual students that should impact
the manner in which the candidate plans, executes, and assesses learning for all students in the class.
Low and High Level Objectives: When Bloom (1956) originally presented his taxonomy, he described
six cognitive objectives as hierarchically arranged from low-level (knowledge, comprehension) to high
level (application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation), with higher-level objectives building on the lower
ones. Bloom’s cognitive objectives can be used when planning assessments. True/false, matching,
multiple-choice, and short answer items are often used to assess knowledge and comprehension (low-
level objectives). Essay questions, class discussions, projects, position papers, debates, student work
products, and portfolios are especially good for assessing application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluations
(high level objectives).
Lower Level/Knowledge Objective: For the purposes of the BPA a knowledge objective requires
students to define, list, memorize, name, recall, recognize, recite or record. Knowledge objectives may
involve student comprehension where students demonstrate that they understand the meaning of what
they have learned by describing, distinguishing between, discussing, explaining, expressing, identifying,
locating, or reporting.
Middle Level/Skill Objective: A skill objective requires students to apply the information that they have
learned. Students apply, demonstrate, illustrate, practice, translate, interpret or dramatize.
Non-Verbal Communication Among Students: The use of positive non-verbal strategies could include,
but is not limited to the following: using hand or body movements to indicate understanding, showing
answers, raising hands up, nodding, using eye contact, smiling, using hand gestures to indicate, for
example, “Good job!” These non-verbal strategies fall generally into the categories of active listening
and will complement such things as use of body language, paying attention, facing the speaker, etc.
Objective: A statement of what students should be able to do as a result of instruction. Objectives must
be specific, observable and measurable. They should be focused on the outcomes expected from the
instruction and not on the activities done as a part of instruction.
Properties: The characteristics, elements or contents of an assessment system or instrument.
Psychomotor Domain: The psychomotor domain is concerned with motor skills and the performance of
the skill. This domain is important to sciences, family and consumer science, technology, physical
education, art, and music teachers. The major categories range from perception at the lowest level to
origination at the highest level. The seven major categories include: Perception, Set, Guided Response,
Mechanism, Complex Overt Response, Adaptation, and Origination (developed by Simpson,).
83
Quality Performance Accreditation (QPA): A process by which schools are assigned a status based
upon performance and quality criteria established by the state board. The performance criteria include
meeting state requirements on assessments, attendance, and for high schools, graduation rates. There are
eleven quality criteria which include a school improvement plan, a staff development plan and having
fully qualified staff. Schools may be assigned one of four levels of accreditation status ranging from
“Accredited” to “Not Accredited”.
Rationale: (for doing or not doing something that is addressed in the rubric): A statement or description
of educationally defensible reasons for not using a device or method called for in the rubric. The
statement may also be used to explain why the candidate is doing something differently than is called for
in the rubric. To be complete, the rationale should include a statement of how the teacher’s decision(s)
will impact intended outcomes and their achievement together with a description of the learning benefits
of the choice(s) that the candidate has made.
Readiness: Student readiness is the students’ previous knowledge, skills and understanding of concepts
related to the unit objectives. It includes the knowledge that is foundational to achievement of the current
unit’s objectives as well as previous knowledge of the concepts to be taught.
Reading: Understanding the communication of written ideas through skills taught by every teacher across
the curriculum. Every teacher should reinforce important reading skills by incorporating them into
instruction every day. Some teaching strategies include vocabulary building; using content-based reading
material to help students identify main ideas and supporting information; providing questions to generate
interest in a reading passage; and many developed systems to teach reading skills such as Question-
Answer Relationship (QAR), Survey, Question, Read, Recite, and Review (SQ3R), and Know, Want,
Learn (KWL), which all involve questioning and reviewing.
Rubric: An assessment tool that defines quality of performance as well as identifying skills, knowledge,
or concepts possessed by the student.
Special Needs: A description of students with special needs should not be limited to Individualized
Education Program’s (IEP). Students with social, familial, emotional, cognitive, language and/or other
needs should also be addressed. Students who are functioning below grade level or who have difficulty in
reading could be included in the special needs area.
State/District Standards or Local Curriculum Outcomes: Objectives should be aligned with state
standards. However for areas where there are no state standards candidates should use district standards
or local curriculum outcomes.
Subgroup: A group is a number of students in a broad category – e.g., gender. A subgroup refers to a
subordinate group within the group – e.g. males or females.
Summative Assessment: A comprehensive test given at the end of the unit of instruction to check the
level of student learning.
Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives is a three-domain
scheme (cognitive, affective, and psychomotor) for classifying instructional objectives. Each domain is
organized in hierarchical order, ranging from low-level categories to high-level categories. The system is
based on the assumption that learning outcomes can be described in terms of changes in student
performance. Therefore, the taxonomy provides a structure for writing instructional objectives in
performance terms (Gronlund).
84
Technology: For the use of the Benedictine Performance Assessment, technology includes a wide range
of technological tools that a teacher can use to enhance instruction. Examples include audio-visual
devices, overhead projectors, computers, calculators, copy machines, telephones, cameras (video and
still), adaptive technology, robotics, etc.
Unit Learning Goal: The primary goal set by the candidate to guide the learning. The unit learning goal
is stated in terms of student performance. It will be further subdivided into subordinate tasks or unit
objectives.
85
Sample of Attachment #2 Learning Gain Scores
You must calculate a learning gain score for each individual student. Once you have figured every
student’s gain score, you must calculate the average gain score for the entire class as a whole.
Interpretation
Formula: (Post-assessment - Pre-assessment) You are dividing the actual gain
(numerator) by the potential gain
(denominator). You are calculating
------------------------------------------- how much the student gained out
of the total possible that they could have
(100% - Pre-assessment) gained from pre to post assessment.
where: pre-assessment is the percent correct on pre-unit assessment
post-assessment is the percent correct on the post unit assessment
Interpretation
Ex. for student #1 below: 70 - 45 25 Student #1 demonstrated a gain of 25
percentage points out of a potential 55
----------- = ------ = .45 percentage points that they could have
gained. Thus, they gained .45 (or 45%) of
100 - 45 55 the possible percentage points they could
have gained from pre to post assessment.
Example for when a student scores higher on their pre-assessment than they did on their post-
assessment: Interpretation
Ex. for student #2 below: 50- 75 -25 Student #2 could have gained up to 25
percentage points, but instead they lost
---------- = ------ = - 1.00 25 percentage points (or 100% of what
100 – 75 25 they could have gained).
Pre Post Individual
Assessment Assessment Student
Student # Score Score Gain Score 1 45% 70% .45
2 75% 50% -1.00
3 60% 80% .50
4 40% 40% .00
5 65% 70% .14
6 90% 95% .50
7 53% 59% .13
8 60% 90% .75
9 40% 95% .92
10 42% 45% .05
11 58% 88% .71
12 24% 30% .08
13 45% 89% .80
GROUP AVERAGE GAIN SCORE .31 (or a 31% average learning gain for the entire class)
86
Part Three
Introduction
The graduate programs in education, the Master of Arts in School Leadership (MASL) and the
Master of Arts in Education (M.Ed.), feature three (3) benchmark points when assessments are
made toward meeting the graduate programs knowledge, skills, dispositions, and teach
program’s professional standards. Upon entrance and throughout the program, candidates
submit artifacts at each benchmark point to their Professional Portfolio. The portfolio is then
evaluated at each benchmark point on required knowledge, skills, and dispositions aligned with
the conceptual framework, Educators as Builders of Community, and the professional standards
associated with each degree. The first document in Part Three is the evaluator’s rubric for the
MASL Professional Portfolio and the M.Ed. Professional Portfolio.
The four-semester Practicum experience provides the most significant section to the MASL
Professional Portfolio. The practicum semesters have dual purposes. In the formative sense, the
purpose of the practicum semesters is to provide each candidate with a “real life” apprenticeship
in school leadership, foster his/her professional development through “on the job” training. In
the summative sense, the purpose of the practicum is to ensure that each candidate for the M.A.
in School Leadership has met the standards prescribed by the KSBE, NCATE, ISLLC, and those
of Benedictine College. The practicum experiences and the accompanying evaluation criteria are
designed to be in congruence with the conceptual framework for the MASL program. The
second document in Part Three is the Practicum Completion Evaluation Rubric.
Similarly, the Directed Study in the M.Ed. program serves to provide the teacher leader
candidate with the “real life” opportunity to lead faculty in P-12 schools in the design and
implementation of action research, analysis of data, and plans for improvement. The summative
purpose of the directed study is to ensure that each candidate for the M.A. in Education has met
the standards prescribed by the KSDE, NCATE, and those of Benedictine College. The third
document in Part Three is the Directed Study Evaluation Rubric.
All candidates in the advanced programs must demonstrate appropriate “dispositions.” This term
means the values and professional ethics that the graduate student brings to becoming a principal
or teacher leader. We are required by the state of Kansas and NCATE to evaluate candidates on
their dispositions. The dispositions we expect candidates to demonstrate may be summarized in
the phrase, “Professionally Responsible Builders of Community.” These are divided into two
areas: 1) “Professional Responsibilities” and 2) “Building Community.” When MASL and
M.Ed. candidates apply for admission into the program, dispositions are evaluated using the
three letters of recommendation and an interview with the director of the program. Dispositions
are evaluated again at application to the practicum semesters (MASL) or to the directed study
(M.Ed.) by the program director and graduate program faculty who have worked with the
candidate. Finally, dispositions are evaluated by the cooperating administrators midway through
the practicum or directed study experience and again at the end of the experience. The fourth
document is the Graduate Program Dispositional Rubric.
87
GRADUATE PROGRAMS PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO
EVALUATOR’S RUBRIC
Entry Admission to Practicum/Directed Study Completion
Candidate ID No.
(Circle One)
Evaluator’s Signature
88
The same rubrics are used for admission to the MASL/M.Ed. Program, admission to the MASL practicum or M.Ed. directed study, and
MASL/M.Ed. Program/ degree completion. However, our expectations for candidates increase as they move through the program. When you are
scoring a portfolio and see the following phrases in the rubric, “Unacceptable for ___________,” “Acceptable for ______________,” and
“Distinguished for _______________,” consider where the student is in his or her program. A student who is applying for program completion
needs to demonstrate a higher degree of proficiency than a student applying for admission to the program to receive acceptable ratings on his or her
portfolio.”
Candidates for admission into the graduate programs or the MASL practicum/M.Ed. directed study sometimes do not have required artifacts
because they have earned a previous Master’s level degree and have transferred in the course in which an artifact is produced. If in doubt, check
the student’s transcript to see if he/ she has completed the course.
KNOWLEDGE
Knowledge includes both content area knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. For a more complete definition of knowledge, please see
the NCATE 2000 Standards Glossary, available in Ferrell Academic Center 212 or online at ncate.org
Unacceptable for __________
A cumulative grade point average below 3.0
(initial) 3.25 (completion), or
GRE scores on any two of the three
subsections below 480 or a MAT score
below 400 (MASL only), or
Unacceptable knowledge ratings on letters
of recommendation (initial) unacceptable
score on comprehensive exam (completion)
Acceptable for ________
A cumulative grade point average between 3.0
and 3.5, and
GRE subscores at or above 480 or MAT at or
above 400 (MASL only), and
Acceptable knowledge ratings on letters of
recommendation (initial) passing score on the
comprehensive exam (completion)
Distinguished for __________
A cumulative grade point average above 3.5,
and
GRE subscores above 480 or MAT above
400 (MASL only), and
Distinguished knowledge ratings on letters of
recommendation (initial) distinguished score
on the comprehensive exam (completion)
Evaluator
0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0
Required Artifacts for KNOWLEDGE:
Bachelor’s level degree transcript showing a minimum cumulative GPA of 3.0 in the last 60 hours of undergraduate coursework.
MASL or M.Ed. transcript showing a minimum cumulative GPA of 3.25*
A copy of the GRE or MAT test scores or Master’s degree transcript (MASL)
Acceptable Knowledge ratings on Letters of Recommendation**
Passing score on the comprehensive exam***
* For Admission to Practicum and Completion
** For Initial Admission only
*** For Completion only
89
PERFORMANCE/SKILLS
The qualities and levels of proficiency of a candidate in application of his/ her knowledge to classroom teaching and other
professional situations.
Unacceptable for ___________ “Unacceptable” ratings by:
Letters of Recommendation,
MASL/M.Ed. faculty, or
cooperating administrator
on practicum evaluations.
Acceptable for _________
“Acceptable” ratings by:
Letters of Recommendation,
MASL/M.Ed. faculty, or
cooperating administrator
on practicum evaluations.
Distinguished for __________
“Distinguished” ratings by:
Letters of Recommendation,
MASL/M.Ed. faculty, or
cooperating administrator
on practicum evaluations.
Evaluator
0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0
Required Artifacts for PERFORMANCE/SKILLS:
Acceptable skills ratings on Letters of Recommendation
MASL or M.Ed. transcript of performance/skills*
Performance ratings on final practicum evaluations**
* This artifact is produced after the first year of MASL/M.Ed. courses
** This artifact is produced during the practicum semesters and is presented at program completion
90
DISPOSITIONS ---- TO BE SCORED BY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT FACULTY
AT SPECIAL DEPARTMENT MEETING
Dispositions may be defined as the values, commitments, and professional ethics that influence behaviors toward students, families, colleagues, and communities
and affect student learning, motivation, and development as well as the educator’s own professional growth. Candidates at Benedictine College are expected to
demonstrate that they are “Professionally Responsible Builders of Community.” Indicators of Professional Responsibility are: 1) punctuality, 2) reliability in
fulfilling commitments, 3) respecting and supporting colleagues and supervisors, 4) respecting confidential information 5) displaying a professional, positive, and
enthusiastic attitude, 6) accepting feedback, 7) professional dress, 8) demonstrating the belief that all students are valuable and all can learn*, 9) demonstrating
equitable interactions with all students* and 10) seeking professional growth. Indicators of Community Building include: 1) establishing positive relationships with
students, peers, teachers, supervisors, administrators, parents, and community members; 2) demonstrating the desire to help others and the willingness to put the
needs of others first, 3) participation in service activities, 4) use of instructional activities that teach students to help others and be of service to the classroom,
school, and geographical community. Candidates must demonstrate that their dispositions provide evidence of both “Professionally Responsibility,” and
“Community Building.”
*To successfully demonstrate Professional Responsibilities Indicators 8 & 9, candidates must show through their words and actions that they value the cultural
heritage of all students and that they value the opportunity to instruct students with exceptionalities.
Unacceptable for __________
The failure to adequately demonstrate
EITHER:
professional responsibility, or
community building.
Acceptable for ________
The candidate acceptably demonstrates
BOTH:
professional responsibility, and
community building.
Distinguished_________
The candidate acceptably demonstrates
BOTH:
professional responsibility
community building at an exemplary
level.
Overall Faculty
Rating*
0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0
*This score is determined by consensus as opposed to mathematical averaging of scores.
Acceptable disposition rating on Letters of Recommendation
Acceptable dispositional ratings by director of graduate programs and MASL/M.Ed. faculty*
Acceptable disposition ratings on Final Practicum Evaluation
* determined by all faculty who have worked with the candidate
** This artifact is produced during the practicum/directed study semesters and is presented at program completion
91
OUTCOME A
The graduate candidate ensures successful communication with teachers and parents to help nurture the whole child/adolescent.
Unacceptable for __________
Failure by the candidate to demonstrate and
articulate practices that ensure successful
communication with teachers and parents to
help nurture the whole child/adolescent.
Acceptable for __________
The candidate clearly demonstrates and
articulates practices that ensure successful
communication with teachers and parents to
help nurture the whole child/adolescent.
Distinguished for _________
The candidate provides exemplary
demonstration and articulation of
practices that ensure successful
communication with teachers and parents
to help nurture the whole
child/adolescent.
Evaluator
0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0
Required Artifacts for OUTCOME A:
Outcome A portion of Builders of Community essay
MASL Practicum Final Evaluation for Standard #1 or Directed Study final evaluation for Standards #3 and #5/6*
Final Professional Portfolio Artifacts*
* These artifacts are produced throughout the program and during the practicum/directed study and are submitted at program
completion
92
OUTCOME B
The graduate candidate demonstrates leadership by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional
programs conducive to candidate learning and staff professional growth.
Unacceptable for ________
Failure by the candidate to clearly articulate
and demonstrate leadership by advocating,
nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and
instructional programs conducive to
candidate learning and staff professional
growth.
Acceptable for ____________
The candidate clearly articulates and
demonstrates leadership by advocating,
nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and
instructional programs conducive to candidate
learning and staff professional growth.
Distinguished for __________
The candidate provides exemplary
articulation demonstrates leadership by
advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a
school culture and instructional programs
conducive to candidate learning and staff
professional growth.
Evaluator
0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0
Required Artifacts for OUTCOME B:
Outcome B portion of Builders of Community essay
Final Practicum Evaluation for Standard #2 or Directed Study final evaluation for Standards #1, #2, and #8*
Final Professional Portfolio Artifacts*
* These artifacts are produced throughout the program and during the practicum/directed study and are submitted at program
completion
93
OUTCOME C
The graduate candidate promotes success of all students by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner that
demonstrates respect for all cultures.
Unacceptable for ___________
Failure by the candidate to clearly articulate and
critically reflect on practices that promote
success of all students by acting with integrity,
fairness, and in an ethical manner that
demonstrates respect for all cultures.
Acceptable for _________
The candidate clearly articulates and critically
reflects on practices that promote success of all
students by acting with integrity, fairness, and
in an ethical manner that demonstrates respect
for all cultures.
Distinguished for ________
The candidate provides exemplary
articulation and critical reflection upon
practices that promote success of all students
by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an
ethical manner that demonstrates respect for
all cultures.
Evaluator
0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0
Required Artifacts for OUTCOME C:
Outcome C portion of Builders of Community essay
Final Practicum Evaluation for Standard #5 or Directed Study final evaluation for Standards #1 and #4/7*
Final Professional Portfolio Artifacts*
* These artifacts are produced throughout the program and during the practicum/directed study and are submitted at program
completion
94
OUTCOME D
The graduate candidate creates a community of caring relationships that unify all educational participants in the educational
process.
Unacceptable for ___________
Failure by the candidate to clearly articulate and
critically reflect on practices that create a
community of caring relationships that unify all
educational participants in the educational
process.
Acceptable for ___________
The candidate clearly articulates and critically
reflects on practices that create a community of
caring relationships that unify all educational
participants in the educational process.
Distinguished for ___________
The candidate provides exemplary
articulation and critical reflection upon
practices that create a community of caring
relationships that unify all educational
participants in the educational process.
Evaluator
0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0
Required Artifacts for OUTCOME D:
Outcome D portion of Builders of Community essay
Final Practicum Evaluation for Standard #3 and Standard #4 or Directed Study final evaluation for Standards #1, #2, #3, #5, #6,
and #8*
Final Professional Portfolio Artifacts*
* These artifacts are produced throughout the program and during the practicum/directed study and are submitted at program
completion
95
OUTCOME E
The graduate candidate incorporates sound research and information (including action research generated by the school
community) into the perpetual process of educational improvement.
Unacceptable for _____________
Failure by the candidate to clearly demonstrate
and articulate practices that incorporate sound
research and information (including action
research generated by the school community) into
the perpetual process of educational
improvement.
Acceptable for ______________
The candidate clearly demonstrates and
articulates practices that incorporate sound
research and information (including action
research generated by the school community)
into the perpetual process of educational
improvement.
Distinguished for _____________
The candidate provides exemplary
demonstration and articulation of practices
that incorporate sound research and
information (including action research
generated by the school community) into the
perpetual process of educational
improvement.
Evaluator
0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0 Required Artifacts for OUTCOME E:
Outcome E portion of Builders of Community essay
Final Practicum Evaluation for Standards #1, #2, and #3 or Directed Study final evaluation for Standard #4 and #7*
Final Professional Portfolio Artifacts*
* These artifacts are produced throughout the program and during the practicum/directed study and are submitted at program
completion
96
OUTCOME F
The graduate candidate is a reflective builder of community who promotes the success of all students by understanding and
influencing the larger political, social, economic, and legal institutions which impact education.
Unacceptable for ___________
Failure by the candidate to promote the
success of all students by understanding and
influencing the larger political, social,
economic, and legal institutions which impact
education.
Acceptable for __________
The candidate clearly demonstrates and
articulates practices that promote the success
of all students by understanding and
influencing the larger political, social,
economic, and legal institutions which impact
education.
Distinguished for _________
The candidate provides exemplary
articulation and demonstrates ability to
promote the success of all students by
understanding and influencing the larger
political, social, economic, and legal
institutions which impact education.
Evaluator
0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0
Required Artifacts for OUTCOME F:
Outcome F portion of Builders of Community essay
Final Practicum Evaluation for Standards #4, and #6 or Directed Study final evaluation for Standard #5 and #6*
Final Professional Portfolio Artifacts*
*These artifacts are produced throughout the program and during the practicum/directed study and are submitted at program
completion
97
MASL Practicum Portfolio Evaluation
MASL Candidate Student ID# __________________________
Evaluator’s Signature ________________________________
98
STANDARD #1
The building level administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by facilitating the
development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school
community.
MASL Outcome A: Ensure successful communication with teachers and parents to help nurture the whole child/adolescent.
MASL Outcome E: Incorporates sound research and information (including action research generated by the school community) into
the perpetual process of school improvement.
Required Artifacts Standard
# 1: Outcomes A & E
1) Welcome Back to School
Letter to Faculty and Staff
2) Principal Newsletter
3) Assessment & School
Improvement Project
4) School Mission and Goals
Development Plan
5) Additional Artifacts and
Logged Experiences
6) Final Practicum
Evaluation, page #1
Unacceptable for ______
Failure by the MASL candidate to
demonstrate understanding and
skills in promoting the success of
all students by facilitating the
development, articulation,
implementation, and stewardship
of a vision of learning that is
shared and supported by the
school community. Candidate
does not provide acceptable
evidence to ensure the
incorporation of sound research
and information (including action
research generated by the school
community) into the perpetual
process of school improvement.
Acceptable for ______
The MASL candidate provides
acceptable evidence to ensure
promoting the success of all
students by facilitating the
development, articulation,
implementation, and stewardship
of a vision of learning that is
shared and supported by the
school community. In addition,
the candidate provides acceptable
evidence to ensure the
incorporation of sound research
and information (including action
research generated by the school
community) into the perpetual
process of school improvement.
Distinguished for ______
The MASL candidate provides
exemplary evidence to ensure
promoting the success of all
students by facilitating the
development, articulation,
implementation, and stewardship
of a vision of learning that is
shared and supported by the
school community. In addition,
the candidate provides acceptable
evidence to ensure the
incorporation of sound research
and information (including action
research generated by the school
community) into the perpetual
process of school improvement.
Evaluator
0 .25 .5 .75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3
99
STANDARD #2
The building level administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students advocating, nurturing, and
sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.
MASL Outcome B: Demonstrates leadership by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional programs
conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.
MASL Outcome E: Incorporates sound research and information (including action research generated by the school community) into
the perpetual process of school improvement.
Required Artifacts Standard
# 2: Outcomes B & E
1) Supervision Video and
Reflection
2) Curriculum Coherence
Project
3) Additional Artifacts and
Logged Experiences
submitted
4) Final Practicum
Evaluation, page 2
Unacceptable for ______
Failure by the MASL candidate to
provide acceptable evidence of the
school leader’s role in advocating
and nurturing a school culture and
instructional program conducive
to student learning and staff
professional growth. The
candidate does not supply
evidence to ensure the
incorporation of sound research
and information into the perpetual
process of school improvement.
Acceptable for ________
The MASL candidate provides
acceptable evidence of the school
leader’s role in advocating and
nurturing a school culture and
instructional program conducive
to student learning and staff
professional growth. The
candidate provides acceptable
evidence to ensure the
incorporation of sound research
and information into the perpetual
process of school improvement.
Distinguished for ______
The MASL candidate provides
exemplary evidence of the school
leader’s role in advocating and
nurturing a school culture and
instructional program conducive
to student learning and staff
professional growth. The
candidate provides exemplary
evidence to ensure the
incorporation of sound research
and information into the perpetual
process of school improvement.
Evaluator
0 .25 .5 .75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3
100
STANDARD #3
The building level administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by ensuring management of
the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.
MASL Outcome D: The MASL Candidate promotes the success of all students by creating a community of caring relationships that
unify all educational participants in the educational process.
MASL Outcome E: Incorporates sound research and information (including action research generated by the school community) into
the perpetual process of school improvement.
Required Artifacts Standard
# 3: Outcomes D & E 1) Risk Management Video
2) Crisis Plan Analysis
3) School Budget Analysis
4) Additional Artifacts and
Logged Experiences
5) Final Practicum
Evaluation, page 3
Unacceptable for ______
Failure by the MASL candidate to
demonstrate knowledge and skills
ensuring the management of the
organization operations, and
resources for a safe efficient, and
effective learning environment.
The candidate does not supply
evidence to ensure the
incorporation of sound research
and information into the perpetual
process of school improvement.
Acceptable for ______
The MASL candidate provides an
acceptable demonstration of
knowledge and skills ensuring the
management of the organization
operations, and resources for a
safe efficient, and effective
learning environment. The
candidate provides acceptable
evidence to ensure the
incorporation of sound research
and information into the perpetual
process of school improvement.
Distinguished for ______
The MASL candidate provides an
exemplary demonstration of
knowledge and skills ensuring the
management of the organization
operations, and resources for a
safe efficient, and effective
learning environment. The
candidate provides exemplary
evidence to ensure the
incorporation of sound research
and information into the perpetual
process of school improvement.
Evaluator
0 .25 .5 .75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3
101
STANDARD #4
The building level administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by collaborating with
families and community members, responding to diverse community needs and interests, and mobilizing community
resources.
MASL Outcome D: The MASL Candidate promotes the success of all students by creating a community of caring relationships that
unify all educational participants in the educational process.
MASL Outcome F: The MASL Candidate promotes the success of all students by understanding, responding to, and influencing the
larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context.
Required Artifacts Standard
# 4: Outcomes D & F 1) Case Study and
Accompanying Data
2) Additional Artifacts and
Logged Experiences
submitted for Standard #4
3) Final Practicum
Evaluation, page 4
Unacceptable for ______
Failure by the MASL candidate to
demonstrate creating a community
of caring relationships that unify
all educational participants
(students, teachers, families,
community members, etc.) in the
education process.
Acceptable for ______
The MASL candidate provides an
acceptable demonstration of
creating a community of caring
relationships that unify all
educational participants (students,
teachers, families, community
members, etc.) in the education
process.
Distinguished for ______
The MASL candidate provides an
exemplary demonstration of
creating a community of caring
relationships that unify all
educational participants (students,
teachers, families, community
members, etc.) in the education
process.
Evaluator
0 .25 .5 .75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3
102
STANDARD #5
The building level administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by acting with integrity,
fairness, and in an ethical manner.
MASL Outcome C: The MASL Candidate who promotes the success of all students by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical
manner.
Required Artifacts Standard
# 5: Outcome C 1) Leadership Credo
2) Philosophy of Education
and Leadership
3) Additional Artifacts and
Logged Experiences
submitted for Standard #5
4) Final Practicum
Evaluation, page 5
Unacceptable for ______
Failure by the candidate to
promote the success of all students
by acting with integrity, fairness,
and in an ethical manner.
Acceptable for ______
The MASL candidate provides an
acceptable demonstration of
promoting the success of all
students by acting with integrity,
fairness, and in an ethical manner.
Distinguished for ______
The MASL candidate provides an
exemplary demonstration of
promoting the success of all
students by acting with integrity,
fairness, and in an ethical manner.
Evaluator
0 .25 .5 .75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3
103
STANDARD #6
The building level administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by understanding,
responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context.
MASL Outcome F: The MASL Candidate promotes the success of all students by understanding, responding to, and influencing the
larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context.
Required Artifacts Standard
# 5: Outcome F 1) Education Law Paper
2) Reflection and Log from
Alternative School
3) Additional Artifacts and
Logged Experiences
submitted for Standard #6
4) Final Practicum
Evaluation, page 6
Unacceptable for ______
Failure by the candidate to
promote the success of all students
by understanding, responding to,
and influencing the larger
political, social, economic, legal,
and cultural context.
Acceptable for ______
The MASL candidate provides an
acceptable demonstration of
promoting the success of all
students by understanding,
responding to, and influencing the
larger political, social, economic,
legal, and cultural context.
Distinguished for ______
The MASL candidate provides an
exemplary demonstration of
promoting the success of all
students by understanding,
responding to, and influencing the
larger political, social, economic,
legal, and cultural context.
Evaluator 0 .25 .5 .75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3
104
M.Ed. Directed Study Portfolio Evaluation
M.Ed. Candidate Student ID# __________________________
Evaluator’s Signature ________________________________
105
KTLead STANDARDS #1 & #2
The teacher leader is able to apply strategies of adult learning across teacher leadership activities.
The teacher leader is able to advance the professional skills of colleagues by demonstrating and applying expertise in
observational skills and in providing quality feedback in order to support reflective practice focused on improving curriculum,
instruction, and assessment.
Graduate Outcome B: Demonstrates leadership by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional programs
conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.
Graduate Outcome C: Promotes the success of all students by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner.
Graduate Outcome D: Promotes the success of all students by creating a community of caring relationships that unify all educational
participants in the educational process.
Required Artifacts Standards
# 1 & #2: Outcomes B, C, &
D:
1) Adult Learners Report
2) Case Study
3) Peer Coaching and
Mentoring Project
4) Directed Study
Evaluation for
Standards #1 and #2
Unacceptable for ______
Failure by the candidate to
demonstrate leadership by
advocating, nurturing, and
sustaining a caring community
and instructional programs
conducive to student learning
through staff professional
growth. Failure of the
candidate to act with integrity,
fairness, and in an ethical
manner.
Acceptable for ______
The candidate provides
acceptable evidence and
demonstrates leadership by
advocating, nurturing, and
sustaining a caring community
and instructional programs
conducive to student learning
through staff professional
growth. The candidate acts
with integrity, fairness, and in
an ethical manner.
Distinguished for ______
The candidate provides
exemplary evidence and
demonstrates leadership by
advocating, nurturing, and
sustaining a caring community
and instructional programs
conducive to student learning
through staff professional
growth. The candidate
consistently acts with integrity,
fairness, and in an ethical
manner through all processes.
Evaluator
0 .25 .5 .75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3
106
KTLead STANDARD #3
The teacher leader is able to improve the quality of colleagues’ collaboration and interaction with families and other
stakeholders.
Graduate Outcome A: Ensure successful communication with teachers and parents to help nurture the whole child/adolescent.
Graduate Outcome D: Promotes the success of all students by creating a community of caring relationships that unify all educational
participants in the educational process.
Required Artifacts Standard
# 2: Outcomes B & E
1) Action Plan for School,
Family and Community
Collaboration
2) Evaluation for Standard
#3
Unacceptable for ______
Failure by the candidate to
provide acceptable evidence of
successful communication with
teachers and parents and
creation of a caring community
that unifies all educational
participants.
Acceptable for ________
The candidate provides
acceptable evidence of
successful communication with
teachers and parents and
creation of a caring community
that unifies all educational
participants.
Distinguished for ______
The candidate provides
exemplary evidence of
successful communication with
teachers and parents and
creation of a caring community
that unifies all educational
participants.
Evaluator
0 .25 .5 .75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3
107
KTLead Standards #4 & #7
The teacher leader is able to initiate and facilitate colleagues’ design and implementation of action research and analysis of
data for individual and group decision making
The teacher leader is able to inform and facilitate colleagues’ selection or design, use, and interpretation of multiple
assessments, along with other available data, to make informed decisions that improve the quality of instruction and student
learning.
Graduate Outcome C: Promote success of all students by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner that demonstrates
respect for all cultures.
Graduate Outcome E: Incorporates sound research and information (including action research generated by the school community)
into the perpetual process of school improvement.
Required Artifacts Standard
# 3: Outcomes D & E 1) Action Research Plan
including project, data
presentation and
reflection
2) Evaluation for
Standards #4 & #7
Unacceptable for ______
The candidate fails to
demonstrate sound action
research design and
implementation for the purpose
of school improvement. The
candidate fails to act with
integrity, fairness, and in an
ethical manner that
demonstrates respect for all
cultures.
Acceptable for ______
The candidate demonstrates
sound action research design
and implementation for the
purpose of school
improvement. The candidate
acts with integrity, fairness, and
in an ethical manner that
demonstrates respect for all
cultures.
Distinguished for ______
The candidate provides an
exemplary demonstration of
sound action research design
and implementation for the
purpose of school
improvement. The candidate
consistently acts with integrity,
fairness, and in an ethical
manner that demonstrates
respect for all cultures.
Evaluator
0 .25 .5 .75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3
108
KTLead STANDARDS #5 & #6
The teacher leader is able to develop and support collaborative teams and promote collegial interactions that improve the
effectiveness of practice.
The teacher leader is able to identify and assess opportunities for educational improvement, and advocate effectively for them
within and beyond the school community.
Graduate Outcome A: Ensure successful communication with teachers and parents to help nurture the whole child/adolescent
Graduate Outcome D: Promotes the success of all students by creating a community of caring relationships that unify all educational
participants in the educational process.
Graduate Outcome F: Promotes the success of all students by understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social,
economic, legal, and cultural context.
Required Artifacts Standard
# 4: Outcomes D & F 1) Assessment and
School Improvement
Project
2) Curriculum
Development Plan
3) Final Evaluation for
Standards #5 & #6
Unacceptable for ______
Failure by the candidate to
demonstrate effective
communication, creating a
community of caring
relationships that unify all
educational participants
(students, teachers, families,
community members, etc.) in
the education process.
Candidate does not
demonstrate promotion of the
success of all students by
understanding, responding to,
and influencing the larger
political, social, economic,
legal, and cultural context.
Acceptable for ______
The candidate provides an
acceptable demonstration of
effective communication and the
creation of a community of
caring relationships that unify all
educational participants
(students, teachers, families,
community members, etc.) in the
education process. Candidate
demonstrates promotion of the
success of all students by
understanding, responding to,
and influencing the larger
political, social, economic, legal,
and cultural context.
Distinguished for ______
The candidate provides an
exemplary demonstration of
effecting communication and
creating a community of caring
relationships that unify all
educational participants
(students, teachers, families,
community members, etc.) in
the education process.
Candidate demonstrates
promotion of the success of all
students by understanding,
responding to, and influencing
the larger political, social,
economic, legal, and cultural
context in an exemplary
manner.
Evaluator
0 .25 .5 .75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3
109
KTLead STANDARD #8
The teacher leader is able to inform and facilitate the design and implementation of coherent, integrated and differentiated
professional development based on assessed student and teacher needs.
Graduate Outcome B: Demonstrate leadership by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional programs
conducive to candidate learning and staff professional growth.
Graduate Outcome D: Create a community of caring relationships that unify all educational participants in the educational process.
Required Artifacts Standard
# 5: Outcome C 1) Professional
Development Plan
2) Final Evaluation for
Standard #8
Unacceptable for ______
Failure by the candidate to
demonstrate leadership and
create a caring community by
advocating, nurturing, and
sustaining a school culture and
instructional programs
conducive to candidate
learning and staff professional
growth.
Acceptable for ______
The candidate provides an
acceptable demonstration of
leadership and creation a caring
community by advocating,
nurturing, and sustaining a
school culture and instructional
programs conducive to
candidate learning and staff
professional growth.
Distinguished for ______
The candidate provides an
exemplary demonstration of
leadership and creation a caring
community by advocating,
nurturing, and sustaining a
school culture and instructional
programs conducive to
candidate learning and staff
professional growth.
Evaluator
0 .25 .5 .75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3
110
Graduate Programs Dispositional Rubric
Dispositions may be defined as the values, commitments, and professional ethics that influence
behaviors toward students, families, colleagues, and communities and affect students’, teachers’,
and staff members’ learning, motivation, and development, as well as a school leader’s own
professional growth. MASL and M.Ed. candidates at Benedictine College are expected to
demonstrate that they are “Professionally Responsible Builders of Community.”
Indicators of Professional Responsibility are:
a) fulfilling commitments in a reliable and satisfactory manner,
b) respecting and supporting all members of the school community,
c) respecting confidential information,
d) accepting constructive feedback,
e) displaying a positive and enthusiastic attitude about being a teacher leader,
f) demonstrating the belief that all students are valuable and all students can learn*,
g) demonstrating equitable interactions with all students*,
h) seeking opportunities to grow professionally.
*To successfully demonstrate Professional Responsibilities Indicators “f” and “g,” candidates
must show through their words and actions that they value the cultural heritage of all students
and that they value the opportunity to instruct students with exceptionalities.
Indicators of Community Building include:
a) establishing positive relationships with students, faculty, staff, parents, and community
members,
b) demonstrating the desire to help others,
c) demonstrating the willingness to put others’ needs before your own,
d) participation in service activities that contribute to the good of the community,
e) supporting instructional strategies/ activities that involve students in contributing to the
good of the classroom community, the larger school community, and the geographical
community.
Unacceptable
The candidate fails to adequately
demonstrate either professional
responsibility or community
building.
Acceptable
The candidate acceptably
demonstrates both professional
responsibility and community
building.
Distinguished
The candidate demonstrates
exemplary professional
responsibility and community
building. 0 .25 .5 .75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3
(please circle a number along the line indicating a score)
* This score is determined by consensus of all evaluators as opposed to a mathematical averaging of scores.
_________________________________ ___________________________________
Director of Graduate Programs Graduate Faculty Member
_________________________________ ___________________________________
Graduate Faculty Member Graduate Faculty Member
_________________________________ ___________________________________
Graduate Faculty Member Faculty Member/Cooperating Administrator
111
PART FOUR
Introduction
Data pertaining to Kansas State Department of Education licensure programs is recorded each
semester by the Administrative Assistant for the Education Department. Quantitative data is
stored and tabulated in Microsoft Excel files. In addition, according to the policies and
procedures for the Education Department, “A co-chair of the Education Department meets at
least annually with representatives of other Benedictine College departments with programs
leading to teacher licensure to consider data specific to these licensure areas.”
Licensure program data in Kansas is evaluated by KSDE teams. The teams report their findings
to the Evaluation Review Committee (ERC). The ERC makes recommendations to the Kansas
State Board of Education which ultimately approves or denies approval to institutions of higher
education. Findings from the most recent review of Benedictine College’s licensure programs in
education are reported and discussed in Standard 1 of the Institutional Report.
An example of one licensure program’s report to KSDE is presented in the pages of Part Four.
This report is for English Language Arts Grades 6-12. Data tables reported to KSDE have been
included; examples of rubrics have not.
112
Revised 6-15-09
Program Report Format
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
Kansas State Department of Education
COVER SHEET
Institution: Benedictine College
Accredited By: KSDE NCATE
Date Submitted: February 2, 2012
Name of Preparer(s): Dr. Chuck Osborn, Dr. George Nicholas
Unit Head Name: Dr. Chuck Osborn, Dr. Dianna Henderson
Unit Head Phone Number: 913-360-7601 Unit Head Email: [email protected]
Level of the Program: Initial Advanced
Grade levels for which candidates are being prepared:
6-12
Is this program being offered at more than one site? Yes No
If yes, please list the sites at which the program is offered:
Program Report Status:
New Program Continued Program Dormant Program
(NEW PROGRAMS MUST SUBMIT SYLLABI)
A PROGRAM WILL NOT BE RECOMMENDED FOR FULL APPROVAL IF IT
MEETS FEWER THAN 75% OF THE STANDARDS.
113
GENERAL DIRECTIONS
The following directions are designed to assist institutions as they complete this program report. To
complete the report, institutions must provide data from multiple assessments that, taken as a whole, will
demonstrate candidate mastery of the Kansas standards. These data will also be used to answer the
following questions. Reviewers expect these prompts to be answered by the report.
Have candidates mastered the necessary knowledge for the subjects they will teach or the jobs they
will perform?
Do candidates meet state licensure requirements?
Do candidates understand teaching and learning and can they plan their teaching?
Can candidates apply their knowledge in classrooms and schools?
Are candidates effective in promoting student learning?
To that end, the program report form includes the following sections:
I. Contextual Information – provides the opportunity for institutions to present general information
to help reviewers understand the program.
II. Assessments and Related Data – provides the opportunity for institutions to submit
multiple assessments, scoring guides or criteria, and assessment data as evidence that standards are
being met.
III. Standards Assessment Chart – provides the opportunity for institutions to indicate which of the
assessments are being used to determine if candidates meet program standards.
IV. Evidence for Meeting Standards – provides the opportunity for institutions to discuss the
assessments and assessment data in terms of standards.
V. Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance – provides the
opportunity for institutions to indicate how faculty are using the data from assessments to improve
candidate performance and the program, as it relates to content knowledge; pedagogical and
professional knowledge, and skills; and effects on student learning.
Page limits are specified for each of the narrative responses required in Sections IV and V of the report,
with each page approximately equivalent to one text page of single-spaced, 12-point type. Each
attachment required in Sections I and IV of the report should be kept to a maximum of five text pages.
Although attachments longer than five pages will be accepted electronically, staff will require institutions
to revise reports submitted with lengthy attachments.
Except for the required attachments, institutional responses can be entered directly onto the form.
Specific directions are included at the beginning of each section.
114
SECTION I—CONTEXT
Complete the following contextual information:
A program of study that outlines the courses and experiences required for all candidates to
complete the program. The program of study must include course titles and hours of credit per course.
(This information may be provided as an attachment from the college catalog or as a student
advisement sheet-- maximum of five text pages.) NEW PROGRAMS MUST SUBMIT SYLLABI
IN THE DOCUMENT WAREHOUSE AND IN A FOLDER ON THE CD.
1. Chart with the number of candidates and completers. (Title-Chart with Candidate Information) 1
(response limited to 6 pages, not including charts)
1. Program of Study:
Provide the following contextual information:
Description of the relationship of the program to the unit’s conceptual framework.
The English language arts 6-12 program at Benedictine College has a strong relationship to the unit’s
conceptual framework build upon the commitment to prepare teachers to become Builders of
Community. The program calls for future English teachers to perceive their roles in education as
developing cooperative classroom communities, an enriched atmosphere within the school community,
and ultimately assuming responsibility for and becoming vital to the expression and appreciation of the
local, national, and global community. Grounded in a Benedictine, liberal arts tradition, the English
education program advocates that the goals and means of the educative process are complementary and
ultimately seek the pursuit of human dignity and social responsibility.
The English education program has been developed to mesh seamlessly with the Teacher Education
Program Conceptual Framework’s goals and performance-based outcomes for future secondary teachers
as they become builders of community by developing knowledge, skills and dispositions as well as
mastery of the four KSDE English language arts 6-12 standards as well as the six Teacher Education
Program outcomes which are designed to education future teachers to:
1. Use practices which nurture the whole child/adolescent whithin the learning community;
2. Use their understanding of communication and human behavior to create a classroom
community that fosters positive social interaction, collaboration and active inquiry.
3. Respect and promote diversity while creating instructional opportunities that meet the needs of
students from diverse cultural backgrounds and those with exceptionalities.
4. Build partnerships with students, colleagues, families and community groups to enhance
communication and learning.
5. Plan and assess instruction based upon knowledge of subject matter, students, the community
and curriculum goals.
6. Reflectively build community while continually evaluating the effects of their actions on others
and to actively seek out opportunities to grow professionally.
An integrated course of study that includes particularly selected courses, a professional education core, a
methods core, and a research and field experience core. These courses are all designed to assure that
English education majors develop the knowledge, skills, dispositions, and critical understanding
necessary for action and reflection.
1 KSDE uses the Title II definition for program completers. Program completers are persons who have met all the
requirements of a state-approved teacher preparation program. Program completers include all those who are documented as having met such requirements. Documentation may take the form of a degree, institutional certificate, program credential, transcript, or other written proof of having met the program’s requirements.
115
Indication of the program’s unique set of program assessments and their relationship of the
program’s assessments to the unit’s assessment system.2
A comprehensive assessment system is in place that provides for the assessment of English language
arts, teacher candidates as they progress through education courses and associated assessments as well as
the four benchmarks of the teacher education program. These include:
1. Admission to the teacher education program
2. Admission to student teaching
3. Completion of student teaching
4. Program completion
The English language arts 6-12 program implements the same comprehensive assessment system as do
all other programs. Field experience evaluations all contain a smaller subset of the 44 indicator items
present on the student teacher evaluation.
During the professional student teaching semester, English education candidates’ progress is assessed by
trained Cooperating Teachers and Clinical Supervisors, as well as Benedictine Education Faculty
members. All utilize the same Student Teacher Evaluation Scale containing 44 indicators measuring
knowledge, skills, dispositions and the six teacher education program outcomes. Each individual
indicator is calculated as a mean score for each of the nine major teacher candidate effectiveness areas.
Each semester these data are used to evaluate the program and make any necessary changes to assure
ongoing program improvement and the preparation of English educators as Builders of Community.
A number of individual items from the Student Teacher Evaluation Scale are aligned with the four
KSDE English standards. The ratings for English candidates on these items are presented in the data
tables for Assessment #3.
During the Spring of 2009, we realized the need to have assessments more closely aligned to the Kansas
standards. We responded to this need by developing an assessment specific to the KSDE English
language arts standards. The BC Evaluation of Student Teacher Performance on KSDE English
Language Arts 6-12 Standards is wholly based on the standards. Because most of the English standards
have multiple elements, each standard on this scale has two to four items. During 2009, this assessment
was completed only by the cooperating teacher at the end of the term. In 2010 we modified this
procedure.
The evaluation is now completed with about a month to go in the student teaching term by a) the
cooperating teacher, and b) one of the co-chairs of the Education Department who has evaluated the
student teacher at the placement school, following a special meeting with the student teacher. These two
scores are averaged to produce the ratings reported for Assessment #7.
With respect to Assessments 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7, candidates must demonstrate they have met ALL elements
of each standard by scoring in the “Basic,” “Acceptable,” or “Target” ranges on the various instruments
used for meeting KSDE standards. Remediation and/ or resubmission are required if the candidate has a
score in the “Unacceptable” range for any part of the product. It is not possible for the candidate to have
an “Unacceptable” score on any part of the assessment for a standard and still pass that standard. On
Assessment 5 (Course Grades), “Below Average” (lower than C-) grades are unacceptable and must be
made up prior to student teaching. So as not to produce artifically inflated scores, “Unacceptable”
scores are retained in any tables although the candidates are required to remediate and correct any
deficiencies.
With respect to Assessment 6 (ETS Major Field Test for Literature in English) “Below Average” scores
2 This response should clarify how the key assessments used in the program are derived from or informed by the assessment system that the unit will address under NCATE/KSDE Standard 2.
116
are accepted, but all candidates must produce an overall passing score on this assessment to receive their
degree in English.
117
Description of the criteria for admission, retention, and exit from the program, including
required GPAs and minimum grade requirements for the content courses accepted by the
program..
Progress through the Teacher Education Program is determined by whether or not candidates meet
standards adopted by the Committee on Teacher Education at four benchmark points. These points are
as follows:
1. Admission into the Teacher Education Program;
2. Admission to Student Teaching;
3. Completion of Student Teaching;
4. Completion of the Teacher Education Program
At benchmark points 1, 2, and 4, candidates must complete and submit a professional protfolio.
Professional portfolios are evaluated by a team of trained evaluators including members of the education
faculty and teachers and administrators in our Partnership Schools.
1. Admission to Teacher Education
Student must be formally accepted into the Teacher Education Program, which is required for
enrollment in education courses higher than Ed 226. This application process is typically intiated in the
sophomore year and includes the following for consideration:
Submission of a Professional Portfolio containing the following components:
a) Complete the “Application to the Teacher Education Program” form.
b) Satisfactory recommendations from three faculty members outside the Education Department
indicating a belief that the applicant possesses the knowledge, skills and dispositions to do well
as a member of the teaching profession. Transfer students may request two recommendations
from faculty members at the institution from which they have transferred.
c) An official Benedictine College transcript showing that the applicant has a minimum GPA of at
least 2.75. Grades of “D” are not accepted for any required English content courses or education
courses.
d) Demonstration of a minimum composite ACT score of 23 or satisfactory performance on the
Pre-Professional skills Test (PPST) with a minimum total score of 519. (It should be noted,
however, that minimum acceptable subtest scores of 169 in Reading, 170 in Mathematics and
168 in Writing must be achieved, yet only making the minimum subtest scores will not achieve
the required total of 519.)
e) Evaluation of pre-student teaching experiences by cooperating teachers from education courses
completed prior to application to the Teacher Education Program.
f) Candidate Builder of Community essay on their progress in meeting the six Teacher Education
Program Outcomes.
g) Additional required artifacts as noted in the Guide to Creating a Professional Portfolio.
h) Evaluation sheet from the interview with the two-person subcommittee from the Committee on
Teacher Education.
Final approval for admission to the Teacher Education Program is determined by the Committee on
Teacher Education. Completion of the above requireements does not in and of itself necessarily qualify
candidates for admission to the Teacher Education Program. Students are admitted to the Teacher
Education Program on ly if the above requirements are met; and if, in the judgment of a majority of the
members o fthe Committee on Teacher Education, the students has the knowledge, skills and
dispositions necessary to be successful as a teacher.
2. Admission to Student Teaching
The Committee on Teacher Education formally considers all student teacher applicants, based on the
following:
Submission of an updated Professional Portfolio containing the following items additional to those
submitted upon entrance into the Teacher Education Program:
a) Additional required artifacts taken from education courses as specified in the professional
118
portfolio description.
b) Additional field experience evaluation sheets from pre-student teaching cooperating teachers.
c) An updated official Benedictine College transcript showing that the applicant continues to have
a minimum GPA of at least 2.75. Grades of “D” are not accepted for any required education
courses or English content courses.
d) Documentation of health standards required by K.S.A. 72-5213 Certification of Health for
School Personnel.
3. Completion of Student Teaching
Teacher education candidates must make progress through and successfully complete at least 12 weeks
of student teaching. This is measured via the Student Teaching Evaluation Scale, submitted by both
Cooperating Teachers and Clinical Supervisors. These are submitted four separate times, at
approximately three week intervals. The final student teaching evaluation scores are tabulated and
evaluated for ongoing program assessment.
4. Program Completion
Teacher education candidates submit a final Professional Portfolio at the end of student teaching. The
Committee on Teacher Education formally considers all program completers based on the following:
Submission of an updated Professional Portfolio containing the required items additional to those
submitted upon acceptance to student teaching:
a) All required criteria sections from the Benedictine Performance Assessment.
b) The final student teaching evaluations.
Description of the field and clinical experiences required for the program, including the number
of hours for early field experiences and the number of hours/weeks for student teaching or
internships.
The Benedictine English language arts 6-2 program includes 1) general education courses; 2) English
content courses, acquiring content knowledge; 3) Professional education core courses; 4) Methodology
core courses; and a 5) Field experience core. Work with children, youth, and their families in schools
and the community is a part of other courses not designated in the field experiences. However, the
minimum program requirements for field experiences prior to student teaching for English education
majors are:
English education majors:
ED 201 Introduction to Education Field Experience 20 hours
ED313 School as Community Research and Field Experience 50 hours
ED 258 Secondary Education Practicum 50 hours
ED 332 Teaching Reading in the Content Areas 20 hours
EN 457 English Teaching Methods 20 hours
TOTAL 160 hours
Internship experiences build in their intensity from ED 201 through Student Teaching. Initially students
observe classrooms and schools as they explore the nature of schooling. They extend this insight as they
compare and contrast educational invironments and conduct in-depth interviews with educators,
students, parents, and community members. Then they work with small groups of students and try out
lessons in alternative learning environments. This leads them to preparing, delivering, and assessing
integrated curriculum units, which they critique in terms of secondary students’ learning performance
and teacher effectiveness. At this stage they also mentor secondary students over the course of a
semester, investigating their unique needs and experiences, and assessing their progress. As English
education candidates move into their student teaching, they are experienced with using and applying
relevant information and skills to create a learning community for at least 12 weeks.
119
Student teaching for English education majors lasts a minimum of 12 weeks for a total of at least 480
hours.
At the completion of the Teacher Education Program, English education candidates have completed at
least 640 hours of hands-on teaching experiences with children from sixth through 12th grade.
120
2. Chart with Candidate Information:
Directions: Provide three years of data on candidates enrolled in the program and completing the
program, beginning with the most recent academic year for which numbers have been tabulated. Please
report the data separately for the levels/tracks (e.g., baccalaureate, post-baccalaureate, master’s,
doctorate) being addressed in this report.
Program (initial):
Academic Year # of Candidates Enrolled in
the Program3
# of Program
Completers4
2008-2009 13 5
2009-2010 9 4
2010-2011 9 3
Program (Post-baccalaureate – Added Endorsement):
Academic
Year
# of Candidates
Enrolled in the
Program
# of Program
Completers
Master’s/Ed.
Specialist/Doctoral
20 -20
20 -20
20 -20
3 An enrolled candidate is officially admitted to the program. 4KSDE uses the Title II definition for program completers. Program completers are persons who have met all the
requirements of a state-approved teacher preparation program. Program completers include all those who are documented as having met such requirements. Documentation may take the form of a degree, institutional certificate, program credential, transcript, or other written proof of having met the program’s requirements.
121
SECTION II— ASSESSMENTS AND RELATED DATA
In this section, list the multiple assessments that are being submitted as evidence for meeting the Kansas standards for this content area. All
programs must provide a minimum of six assessments, maximum of eight assessments; assessments #1-6 are required for all programs. For each
assessment, indicate the type or form of the assessment and when it is required/administered in the program.
Name of Assessment5
Type or
Form of Assessment6
When the Assessment Is Required/
Administered7
1 [Licensure assessment, or other content-based assessment] 8
* (Required)
a. Praxis II-content test data and sub-score data if
utilized
b. PLT
Standardized
Required post graduation for teacher
licensure
2 [Assessment of candidate ability to plan instruction]
* (Required)
EN 457 English Language Arts Methods Portfolio
Checklist and Rubric Course completion during the junior
or senior year.
3 [Assessment of clinical experience]9 * (Required)
Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scale
Comprehensive Observation
Rubric
End of student teaching
4 [Assessment of candidate effect on student learning]
* (Required)
Benedictine Performance Assessment
Checklist and Rubric During student teaching
5 [Content-based assessment (Required)] Examples of
assessments include comprehensive examinations, projects,
comprehensive portfolio tasks and score/s aligned to
standards OR course grades-based assessments10
related to
content knowledge.
English Course Grades
Course Grades Course Completion
5 Identify assessment by title used in the program; refer to Section IV for further information on appropriate assessment to include. 6 Identify the type of assessment (e.g., essay, case study, project, comprehensive exam, reflection, portfolio). 7 Indicate the point in the program when the assessment is administered (e.g., admission to the program, admission to student teaching/internship, required courses [specify course title and number], or completion of the program). 8 Assessment #1a Praxis II sub-score data may be used as an assessment for meeting content standards. A data table for Praxis II content test and a data table for sub-score data must be submitted but a rubric is not required 9 Clinical experience includes practica, student teaching and internships.
10 Course grades-based assessments can only be used for Assessment 5.
122
Name of Assessment5
Type or
Form of Assessment6
When the Assessment Is Required/
Administered7
6 [Content-based assessment (Required)] Examples of
assessments include comprehensive standard examinations,
case studies involving many content standards, projects,
comprehensive portfolio tasks and score/s related to
content knowledge.
English Comprehensive Exam: ETS Major Field Test for
Literature in English
Standardized Assessment Senior Year BC
7 [Additional assessment that addresses Kansas content
standards (Optional) ] Final Evaluation of Student Teacher Performance on KSDE
English Language Arts 6-12 Standards
Comprehensive Evaluation
Rubric
During Student Teaching Semester
8 [Additional assessment that addresses Kansas content
standards (Optional) ]
*Required Assessments
11
Course grades-based assessments can only be used for Assessment 5.
123
SECTION III—STANDARDS ASSESSMENT CHART
For each Kansas standard on the chart below, identify the assessment(s) in Section II that address each standard. One assessment may apply to
multiple Kansas standards. In Section IV you will describe these assessments in greater detail and summarize and analyze candidate results to
document that a majority of your candidates are meeting Kansas standards. To save space, the knowledge and performance indicators of the
Kansas standards are not identified here, but are available on the website — www.ksde.org . The full set of standards provides more specific
information about what should be assessed. Please include information on assessments used for PreK if this is an all-level program.
KANSAS STANDARD
APPLICABLE ASSESSMENTS
FROM SECTION II
1. The teacher of English language arts demonstrates knowledge of a variety of texts, both print and nonprint,
and of how learners create and discover meaning in a text.
#1a #2 #3 #4
#5 #6 #7 #8
2. The teacher of English language arts demonstrates knowledge of the history, structure, and development of
the English language and how people use language to influence the thinking and actions of others.
#1a #2 #3 #4
#5 #6 #7 #8
3. The teacher of English language arts demonstrates the ability to communicate effectively and responsibly
for a variety of audiences and for different purposes.
#1a #2 #3 #4
#5 #6 #7 #8
4. The teacher of English language arts demonstrates knowledge of current methods for teaching processes of
reading, writing, speaking, listening, thinking, and viewing and their interconnections.
#1a #2 #3 #4
#5 #6 #7 #8
124
SECTION IV—EVIDENCE FOR MEETING STANDARDS
DIRECTIONS: Information on the multiple assessments listed in Section II and the data findings must be reported in this section. The
assessments must be those that all candidates in the program are required to complete and should be used by the program to determine candidate
proficiencies as expected in the program standards.
For each assessment, the evidence for meeting standards should include the following information:
A brief description of the assessment, project, portfolio and its use in the program. Explain specificity of the assessment to the standard/s. An
assessment may assess several standards at the same time;
The alignment of the assessment with the specific KSDE standards addressed by the assessment, as they are identified in Section III;
A brief summary of the data findings;
An interpretation of how that data provides evidence for meeting standards.
The response to each assessment is limited to the equivalent of two text pages.
For each assessment listed, you will need to attach the following:
Scoring guides, criteria or rubric (specific to content of standard/s) used to score candidate responses on the assessment;
A table (include # of candidates) with the aggregated results of the assessment providing, where possible, data for at least the most recent
three years. Data should be organized according to the categories used in the scoring guide/criteria. Provide the percentage of candidates
achieving at each category.
For each assessment #1a (sub-score data) and assessment #5(course grades-based assessments), you will include the following information:
Praxis II sub-score data tables must be clearly labeled to indicate alignment with the standard it is assessing. Section IV narrative must
clearly show alignment of sub-score data to the standard or elements of the standard.
Course grades-based assessments have a brief description in the matrix. A more detailed and specific discussion of the alignment of
activities, exams, and projects in the course to the standard should be included in the narrative description of assessment 5. The course
grades-based assessments data tables will be included in the narrative of assessment 5. Each course grades-based assessments is
numbered and lettered as 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E and 5F. Use the same number and letter in the narrative and the data table. If the course
grades-based assessments are used as evidence for meeting two standards, the course key assessments’ data (exams, projects, portfolio
tasks) must be disaggregated in a data table for each of the two standards. This is necessary to provide evidence of meeting each standard.
One course MAY NOT MEET more than two standards.
In the two columns for attachments, click in the box for each attachment to be included with the report. Each attachment should be no longer than
five pages. The two attachments related to each assessment must be included for the program report to be complete. The report will not be
reviewed until it is complete.
125
#1 (Required) CONTENT KNOWLEDGE: Data from licensure tests for content knowledge. Provide assessment information as outlined in
the directions for Section IV. PRAXIS II Content and PLT. (PRAXIS II data should be sub-score data that are aligned to specific
standard/s.)
DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSESSMENT: ETS Praxis II English Language, Literature, and Composition: Content Area Knowledge (0041)
The English Language, Literature, and Composition: Content Knowledge test (0041) is designed to assess whether an examinee has the broad base
of knowledge and competencies necessary to be licensed as a beginning teacher of English in a secondary school. The test covers literature and
reading, the English language, and composition and rhetoric.
ETS provides both an overall score for this test, and also more detailed information on sub-skill performance. Total raw points and performance
ranges on sub-skills vary slightly across testing dates.
ALIGNMENT TO THE STANDARDS:
The sub-skill performance information provided by ETS in the Designated Institution Score Report is aligned to three of the four of the standards.
ETS Sub-skill English, Language Arts Standard(s) Alignment
The Literature and Understanding Text subtest is aligned with Standard 1. This subtest is aligned with the element of Standard 1 that states,
“…demonstrates knowledge of a variety of texts…” and “…of how learners create and discover meaning in a text.”
The Language and Linguistics subtest is aligned with Standard 2. This subtest is aligned with the element of Standard 2 that states,
“…demonstrates knowledge of the history, structure and development of the English language…”.
The Composition and Rhetoric subtest is aligned with the element of Standard 3 that states, “…demonstrates the ability to communicate
effectively…and for a variety of audiences and different purposes.”
DATA:
Eleven candidates completed the Praxis II during the three year reporting period. Subscore data was available for the of the eleven candidates. On
the subtest aligned with Standard 1, 60% of the candidates teted at the average level while the remaining 40% achieved above average scores. On
the subtest aligned with Standard 3, 70% of candidates tested at the average level while the other 30% achieved above average scores. No
candidate tested in the below average range on any of the three subtests.
EVIDENCE:
The performance of Benedictine College English Language Arts candidates on their content area test and subtests supports the conclusion that they
have adequately mastered content for KSDE standards 1, 2, and 3.
126
Attachments
Assessment #1
Scoring Guides/Criteria/ Rubric Data Table11
1a—Praxis II Content
1b—PLT
NA
NA
Click the box if attached.
11
Licensure test data must reflect the percentage of candidates who have passed the state licensure test for each year since the last accreditation visit. The most
recent year of data must include the range of total scores and sub-scores on the licensure test. Data must be presented for all program completers, even if there were fewer than 10 test takers in a given year. Sub-score data tables will report the N, the % of candidates’ performance and the average performance range
provided in the Praxis report.
127
#2 (Required) PEDAGOGICAL AND PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS: Assessment that demonstrates candidates can
effectively plan classroom-based instruction. Examples of assessments include the evaluation of candidates’ abilities to develop lesson or unit
plans, individualized educational plans, needs assessments, or intervention plans. Provide assessment information as outlined in the directions for
Section IV.
EN 457 English Language Arts Methods Portfolio
DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSESSMENT:
The EN 457 English Language Arts Methods Portfolio Evaluation Rubric assesses candidate performance for the semester on both academic
assignments and in applying their knowledge of the English language arts to the secondary school setting. The rubric for the portfolio is divided
into four categories: 1) Reflection journals, 2) Lesson Plans, 3) Field Experience Evaluation and 4) Assessment.
ALIGNMENT TO THE STANDARDS:
The rubric descriptions show the close alignment of the course portfolio with the four standards.
Standard Language From English/Language Arts Standards How Aligned with Assessment
1 “…demonstrates knowledge of a variety of texts, both print and nonprint, and of how learners create and discover meaning in a text.”
The rubric description for “Acceptable” on Reflection Journals states, “Reflections demonstrate an acceptable knowledge of a variety of texts,
both print and nonprint, and of how learners create and discover meaning in a text.”
2 “…demonstrates knowledge of the history, structure, and development of the English language and how people use language to influence the
thinking and actions of others.”
The rubric description for “Acceptable” on Reflection Journals states, “Journals demonstrate an acceptable knowledge of the history, structure
and development of the English language and how people use language to influence the thinking and actions of others.”
3 “…demonstrates the ability to communicate effectively and responsibly for a variety of audiences and for different purposes.”
The rubric description for “Acceptable” on Lesson Plans states, “Lesson Plans demonstrate acceptable ability to communicate effectively for a
variety of different audiences and purposes.”
4 “…demonstrates knowledge of current methods for teaching processes of reading, writing, speaking, listening, thinking, and viewing and their
interconnections.”
The rubric description for “Acceptable” on the field experience evaluation portion of the portfolio rubric states, “The field experience
evaluation of the candidate demonstrates an acceptable knowledge of current methods for teaching processes of reading, writing, speaking,
listening, thinking, and viewing and their interconnections.”
128
DATA:
This course is only offered on an as needed basis. During the three year reporting period, it was offered once during the Fall 2010 term. Six
candidates completed the course. Candidates’ performance on the various sections of the portfolio was acceptable with the majority of them
receiving “Distinguished” ratings for the reflection section, the journal section, the lesson plans section and the field experience section.
EVIDENCE:
The performance of Benedictine College English Language Arts candidates on the EN 457 Portfolio Evaluation supports the conclusion that
candidates are meeting the requirements of KSDE Standards 1-4.
Attachments
Assessment #2
Scoring Guides/Criteria/
Rubric
Data Table
[Assessment of candidate ability to
plan instruction] * (Required)
EN 457 Portfolio Evaluation
Click the box if attached.
Click the box if attached.
129
#3 (Required) PEDAGOGICAL AND PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS: Assessment that demonstrates candidates'
knowledge and skills are applied effectively in practice. The assessment instrument used in student teaching should be submitted. Provide
assessment information as outlined in the directions for Section IV.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSESSMENT: Benedictine Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scale
The Benedictine College Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scale is completed by both the cooperating teacher and the clinical supervisor at the
end of student teaching. It consists of 44 items using a 4-point Likert scale. The scale is organized into sections for “Knowledge,” “Skills,”
“Dispositions,” and each of the six teacher education program outcomes. Candidate scores on 5 of the 44 items have been selected as well-aligned
to the English language arts 6-12 standards.
ALIGNMENT TO THE STANDARDS:
On the student teaching evaluation scale, Knowledge Indicator A, “Demonstrates knowledge of the subject area” aligns with both Standard 1
(“…demonstrates knowledge of a variety of texts etc…”) and Standard 2 (“…demonstrates knowledge of the history, structure, and development,
etc…)
Skills Indicator B, “Successfully engages all students in activities and discussion,” aligns with Standard 3 (“…demonstrates the ability to
communicate effectively and responsibly for a variety of audiences and for different purposes).
Skills Indicator D, “Demonstrates knowledge of strategies for teaching the subject,” aligns with Standard 4 (“…demonstrates knowledge of
current methods for teaching processes of reading etc…)
Outcome #2 Indicator D, “Demonstrates clear and appropriate communication with students,” aligns with Standard 3 (“…demonstrates the ability
to communicate effectively and responsibly etc…”)
Outcome #5 Indicator A, “Effectively plans lessons, addressing student needs and curriculum goals,” aligns with Standard 4 (“…demonstrates
knowledge of current methods for teaching processes of reading etc…).
DATA:
On Knowledge Indicator A (“Demonstrates knowledge of the subject area”) an item aligned with Standards 1 & 2, 45% of candidates during the
three year reporting period were rated “Proficient,” while the remaining 55% were rated “Distinguished.”
On Skills Indicator B (“Successfully engages all students in activities and discussion”), an tiem aligned with Standard 3, 73% of candidates were
rated as “Proficient” with the remaining 27% earning “Distinguished” ratings.
On Skills Indicator D (“Demonstrates knowledge of strategies for teaching the subject”), an item aligned with Standard 4, 36% of candidates were
130
rated “Proficient” with the remaining 64% earning “Distinguished ratings.
On Outcome 2 Indicator D (“Demonstrates clear and appropriate communication with students”), an item aligned with Standard 3, 45% of
candidates were rated as “Proficient” with the remaining 55% earning “Distinguished” ratings.
On Outcome 5 Indicator A (“Effectively plans lessons, addressing student needs and curriculum goals”) an item aligned with Standard 4, one
student (9%) received the “Basic” rating. The remaining students were evaluated as either “Proficient” (18%) or “Distinguished” (73%).
EVIDENCE:
Data regarding the performance of candidates on the Final Student Teaching Evaluation provides strong evidence that 6-12 English/Language Arts
standards are being met. Five individual items from this scale were identified as being strongly aligned with elements of the standards. The
eleven candidates received a total of 55 ratings (5 x 11 = 55). 54 of these ratings (98%) were either “Distinguished” or “Proficient,” with only 1
rating in the “Basic” range.
Attachments
Assessment #3
Scoring Guides/Criteria/
Rubric
Data Table
[Assessment of clinical experience]12
* (Required)
Student Teaching Evaluation Scale
Click the box if attached.
Click the box if attached.
12
Clinical experience includes practica, student teaching and internships.
131
#4 (Required) EFFECTS ON STUDENT LEARNING:13 Assessment that demonstrates candidate effects on student learning. Examples of
assessments include those based on student work samples, portfolio tasks, case studies, follow-up studies, and employer surveys. Provide
assessment information as outlined in the directions for Section IV.
Benedictine Performance Assessment
DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSESSMENT:
The Benedictine Performance Assessment (BPA) is a form of teacher work sample. Student teachers are required to teach a multiple week
instructional sequience in a given subject area. Student teachers analyze the context of their classroom considering both cognitive and societal
characteristics of their students and delineating ways in which they can meet their diverse needs (Criterion 1). They develop goals and objectives
based on Kansas content standards (Criterion 2). They create an assessment plan including (but not limited to) measures of student performance
before and after the instructional sequence. Finally, they analyze and reflect on their instructional design, educational context, and the degree of
learning demonstrated by their students (Criteria 3, 6, & 7).
Student teachers must address several questions when constructing a response for each criterion of the Benedictine Performance Assessment.
Their responses on each criterion are evaluated using rubric items and checklist items. The BPA was originally based on Emporia State
University’s Teacher Work Sample in that it requires all candidates to calculate learning gain scores. When the learning gain requirement was
removed from the Kansas Performance Assessment, Benedictine College elected to continue calculation of such scores. Table 1 in Criterion 6
requires candidates to calculate such scores for their knowledge objectives, their skill objectives, their reasoning objectives, as well as an overall
learning gain score. Criterion 7 requires candidates to reflect on their most successful and least successful objectives as these relate to student
learning.
ALIGNMENT TO THE STANDARDS:
BPA Criterion 2 is aligned with the element of Standard 3 which states “…demonstrates the ability to communicate effectively and responsibly for
a variety of audiences and for different purposes.” The development of concise objectives required in Criterion 2 and communication of these
objectives to both students and BPA scorers require effective communication to 2 audiences (students and scorers).
BPA Criterion 2 is also aligned with the element of Standard 3 which speaks to communication “…for a variety of audiences…”. In Criterion 3,
candidates are required to articulate adaptions that they make for students in their classroom with disabilities and other special needs.
BPA Criterion 3 is also aligned with the elements in Standard 4 which speak to “…knowledge of current methods for teaching processes of
reading, writing, speaking, listening, viewing and their interconnections. In fulfilling the rubric requirements in Criterion 3, candidates are
evaluated on their use of current methods. Particularly the fourth standard in this licensure area pertains to the ability of candidates to
“…demonstrate knowledge of current methods for teaching processes…”. Criterion 3 is aligned with these standards because it assesses
13 Effects on student learning include the creation of environments that support student learning.
132
candidates’ success in using a variety of teaching techniques and making instructional adaptations so as to meet the needs of all students.
Criterion 6 of the BPA focuses on assessment of student performance. The student teacher is required to conduct pre-tests, teach a multi-week
unit, conduct post-tests, calculate learning gain scores for every student in a particular class, and analyze performance using various types of
formative and summative assessment. These required activities align with the element of Standard 4 which states, “…demonstrates knowledge of
current methods for teaching, etc…”
Criterion 7 of the BPA requires students to reflect on their greatest successes and areas for improvement in teaching the unit and to create
professional development plans based on insights realized in teaching the unit. This criterion also aligns with Standard 4.
DATA:
Criterion 2 of the BPA is aligned with Standard 3. On this criterion, ten of the candidates received ratings of “Disginguished,” with the remaining
student receiving a rating of “Proficient.”
Criterion 3 of the BPA is also aligned with Standard 3. On this criterion, all eleven candidates received ratings of “Distinguished.”
Criterion 6 of the BPA is aligned with Standard 6. On this criterion, all eleven candidates received ratings of “Distinguished.
Criterions 7 of the BPA is aligned with Standard 4. On this criterion, six (55%) of the candidates received “Basic” scores while the remainder
(45%) received “Distinguished” scores.
EVIDENCE:
One concern emerging here is the relatively high proportion of students who received “Basic” ratings on Criterion 7. During the Spring of 2011,
we analyzed BPA’s from the preceding two years to determine where students were going astray on Criterion 7. One of the requirements of this
criterion is that candidates need to create professional goals for themselves based on the insights they received while teaching the BPA unit.
Candidates were successfully creating professional goals, however, they were failing to relate these goals to insights received while teaching their
units. Because of this, they failed to receive points for this portion of Criterion 7. During the 2011 year, when BPA instructions/orientation was
given, we emphasized the importance of relating their goals to past unit experiences. None of the 3 candidates in 2011 received deductions in this
area.
With the exception of candidate performance on Criterion 7, the evidence presented in the scores of candidates on Criterion 1, 2, 3, & 6 strongly
suggests that candidates are successfully meeting all requirements poised by KSDE Standards Three and Four.
133
Attachments
Assessment #4
Scoring Guides/Criteria/
Rubric
Data Table
[Assessment of candidate effect on
student learning] * (Required)
Benedictine Performance Assessment
Click the box if attached.
Click the box if attached.
134
5 (Required) CONTENT KNOWLEDGE: Assessment of content knowledge. Examples of assessments include comprehensive examinations,
projects, comprehensive portfolio tasks and score/s aligned to standards OR the option of submitting course grades-based assessment related to
content knowledge evaluation. Provide assessment information as outlined in the directions for Section IV. If submitting course grades-based
assessment, the detailed description for Assessment #5 must clearly delineate the alignment of the course description and assessments to the
standard that is assessed during the course in order to assure that the course grade reflects candidate knowledge of the standard. Describe course
key activities, projects, assessments that show specificity to the standard. If course grades are used, include the program or unit definition of
grades in the narrative or as an attachment to assessment 5. If the course grades-based assessments are used as evidence for meeting two
standards, the course key assessments’ data (exams, projects, portfolio tasks) must be disaggregated in a data table for each of the two standards.
This is necessary to provide evidence of meeting each standard. This narrative must state the proficiency level or grade acceptable by the
program. COURSE GRADES-BASED ASSESSMENTS ARE LIMITED TO SIX COURSES.
DATA:
A total of 49 course grades are shown in the data tables for Assessment 5 (this figure will have to be updated after Fall 2011 grades are in). Of
those 40 grades, 3 (6%) fall in the average range (using the Benedictine College Catalog descriptors). The remaining 94% of grades, fall in the
“better than average” or “superior” ranges.
EVIDENCE OF MEETING THE STANDARDS:
A review of assessment date indicates that in all courses (EN 201, 302, 357, 403, and 457) all candidates achieved grades in the better than average
or superior range. Because these scores are strongly aligned with standards 1, 2, and 4, this suggests that all candidates are meeting standard
criteria and the average or distinguished level.
135
If submitting comprehensive examinations, projects, comprehensive portfolio tasks and scores/s aligned to standards, the
program must use the table below and submit the Scoring Guides/Evaluation Criteria/Rubric and a Data Table. DO NOT
USE THIS TABLE FOR COURSE GRADES-BASED ASSESSMENTS!!!
Attachments
Assessment #5
Scoring Guides/Criteria/
Rubric
Data Table
[Content based assessment that
addresses Kansas content
standards] * Required
Examples of assessments include
comprehensive examinations,
projects, comprehensive portfolio
tasks and score/s aligned to
standards.
Course Grades
Click the box if attached.
Click the box if attached.
IF COURSE GRADES-BASED ASSESSMENTS are submitted, the following matrix MUST be used in addition to the
narrative detailed description of the assessments the program provides in the above #5 Content Knowledge description!
Alignment Matrix and Course Description for Course Grades-Based Assessment
Assessments 5.A-
F for SIX courses
Course Name &
Number
Program Standard
Addressed by Course
Assessment
Brief Description of how the Course addresses and assesses the standard from an
AUTHENTIC source—such as a syllabus or a course catalog. Cite the most current
source. The description should provide evidence of the alignment of the course to the
standard indicated on the chart in Section III. Cite your source in each description below.
EXAMPLE:
Calculus I
Math 172
Standard 6 Calculus of algebraic functions of one variable: limits differentiation, implicit differentiation,
definite and indefinite integrals. Mean value theorem, maxima and minima, area, and volume.
Vectors, polar coordinates, parametric equations, and vector valued functions and use of
technology. Applications to other fields.
Source: Blank University Undergraduate Catalog
5.A.
EN 201 World
Literature 1
Standard 1 “Primarily an explanation of literary masterpieces of Western Civilization from Homer to
Shakespeare.”
Source: Benedictine College Catalog
136
Alignment Matrix and Course Description for Course Grades-Based Assessment
Assessments 5.A-
F for SIX courses
Course Name &
Number
Program Standard
Addressed by Course
Assessment
Brief Description of how the Course addresses and assesses the standard from an
AUTHENTIC source—such as a syllabus or a course catalog. Cite the most current
source. The description should provide evidence of the alignment of the course to the
standard indicated on the chart in Section III. Cite your source in each description below.
5.B.
EN 302
Shakespeare
Standard 2 “Shakespeare as a poet and dramatist…Attention is given to the historical and literary
background or setting; some consideration also of secondary works of major Shakespearean
critics and scholars.”
Source: Benedictine College Catalog
5.C.
EN 375 Young
Adult Literature in
Language Arts
Standard 4 “Addresses issues in teaching young adult literature, multicultural literature and other issues in
teaching high school English such as grammar and dealing with censure.”
Source: Benedictine College Catalog
5.D.
EN 205/ 403
American Lit to
the Civil War (the
English Dept.
changed the
number of this
course in Fall
2010).
Standard 1 A study of American Literature from Colonial times to the Civil War with attention given to
national movements, growth of literary genres, and the works of the chief writers.”
Source: Benedictine College Catalog
5.E.
EN 431
Linguistics
Standard 2 “A beginning course in the scientific study of language. Studies the background of modern
linguistics as well as contemporary descriptions of English. Useful also for foreign language and
education majors.”
Source: Benedictine College Catalog
5.F.
EN 457 Methods
of Teaching
Language Arts
Standard 4 “Designed to prepare students to teach language arts at the secondary level. Focus is on teaching
literature and grammar and is extended to include methods of teaching speech communication,
theatre arts and journalism. In addition, the students identify suitable teaching materials and
prepare tests for units in literature, composition, speech, and journalism.
Source: Benedictine College Catalog
137
#6 (Required) CONTENT KNOWLEDGE: Assessment of content knowledge. Examples of assessments include comprehensive standard
examinations, case studies involving many content standards, projects, comprehensive portfolio tasks and score/s aligned to standards and related
to content knowledge. Provide assessment information as outlined in the directions for Section IV.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSESSMENT:
The ETS Major Field Test for Literature in English (Form Code K-3ZMFC) serves as the comprehensive examination for all degree seeking
English majors at Benedictine College. It consists of 150 multiple-choice questions on poetry, pose, and drama. The test covers British and
American works of all periods. In addition to an overall score on the exam, sub-test scores are provided for the following categories: S1)
Literature 1900 and Earlier, S2) Literature 1901 and Later, S3) Literary Analysis, and S4) Literary History and Identification.
ALIGNMENT TO THE STANDARDS:
The ETS Major Field Test for Literature in English aligns well with the first two English Language Arts 6-12 standards.
The overall score for performance on this assessment as well as subtest 1 (Literature 1900 and Earlier), Subtest 2 (Literature 1901 and Later) and
Subtest 4 (Literary History and Identification align with Standard 1 (“…demonstrates knowledge of a variety of texts, both print and nonprint, and
of how learners create and discover meaning in a text.”)”
Subtest 3 (Literary Analysis) aligns with Standard 2 (“…demonstrates knowledge of the history, structure, and development of the English
language and how people use language to influence the thinking and actions of others.”)
DATA:
Candidates completing this test within the three year reporting period produced scores falling predominantly into the “Average” and “Above
Average” ranges. Only one of ten candidates had an overall score that was below average. On the four subtests, similar results were achieved
with candidates generally average to above average.
EVIDENCE OF MEETING THE STANDARDS:
These results support the conclusion that English Language Arts candidates at Benedictine College are meeting KSDE standards One and Two.
138
Attachments
Assessment #6
Scoring Guides/Criteria/
Rubric
Data Table
[Content based assessment that addresses
Kansas content standards] * Required
Examples of assessments include
comprehensive standard examinations,
case studies involving many content
standards, projects, comprehensive
portfolio tasks and score/s aligned to
standards, and related to content
knowledge. The ETS Major Field Test for Literature in
English
Click the box if attached.
Click the box if attached.
139
7 (Optional) Additional assessment that addresses Kansas content standards. Examples of assessments include evaluations of field
experiences, case studies, portfolio tasks, licensure tests not reported in #1, and follow-up studies. Provide assessment information as outlined in
the directions for Section IV.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSESSMENT:
The BC Evaluation of Student Teacher Performance on KSDE English Language Arts 6-12 Standards.
The BC Final Evalution of Student Teacher Performance on KSDE English Language Arts 6-12 Standards is a scale developed specifically to
assess performance on KSDE standards and elements of standards. There were two phases in the implementation of this instrument. During the
2009 calendar year, this instrument was completed solely by the cooperating teacher for student teaching. Effective during the 2010 calendar year,
we required that this scale be completed by both the cooperating teacher and a co-chair of the Education Department who has evaluated the student
teacher at the placement school. The co-chair of the department has a substantive discussion with each English student teacher regarding his/her
performance on the scale. The scores of the cooperating teacher and the department chair are averaged to produce the ratings reported here.
Successful completion of this assessment is required; the handbook/ syllabus for student teaching states, “You must receive a passing grade on this
evaluation as well as the final student teaching evaluation scale to successfully pass student teaching.”
ALIGNMENT TO THE STANDARDS:
This assessment is totally aligned to the standards. Items correspond directly to the standard as a whole, and each element of the standard.
Because each English standard has several elements, each standard is assessed with two to four items on the scale.
DATA:
Overall performance for the 13 items on this instrument has been highly satisfactory. On each item, a majority of candidates have received
“Distinguished” or “Proficient” scores. On eleven of the thirteen items, 80-100% of candidates were rated as “Distinguished” or “Proficient.”
By assessing each standard or element of the standard separately, specific strengths and areas for improvement have been identified. The two
lowest scores were on the items, “Demonstrates knowledge of the structure of the English language,” and “Demonstrates knowledge of current
method for teaching processes of speaking.” The highest scores have been on the items, “Demonstrates the ability to communicate effectively and
responsibly,” and “Demonstrates the ability to communicate with a variety of audiences.”
EVIDENCE:
Data collected by this instrument supports the conclusion that candidates are mastering the four English language arts standards and the many
specific elements with the standards. The instrument has also helped to identify future growth areas. These are discussed in Section V of the
report.
140
Attachments
Assessment #7
Scoring Guides/Criteria/
Rubric
Data Table
[Additional assessment that addresses
Kansas content standards ] * Optional Final Evaluation of Student Teacher
Performance on KSDE English Language
Arts 6-12
Click the box if attached.
Click the box if attached.
#8 (Optional) Additional assessment that addresses Kansas content standards. Examples of assessments include evaluations of field
experiences, case studies, portfolio tasks, licensure tests not reported in #1, and follow-up studies. Provide assessment information as outlined in
the directions for Section IV.
Attachments
Assessment #8
Scoring Guides/Criteria/
Rubric
Data Table
[Additional assessment that addresses
Kansas content standards ] * Optional
Click the box if attached.
Click the box if attached.
141
SECTION V—USE OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS TO IMPROVE
CANDIDATE AND PROGRAM PERFORMANCE Evidence must be presented in this section that assessment results have been analyzed and have been or will be used to improve candidate
performance and strengthen the program. This description should not link improvements to individual assessments, but rather, it should
summarize major findings from the evidence, the faculty’s interpretation of those findings, and changes made in (or planned for) the program as a
result. Describe the steps program faculty have taken to use information from assessments for improvement of both candidate performance and the
program.
The unit holds two data retreats/ extended meetings a year at which assessment results are analyzed and used to improve candidate performance
and strengthen the program. At the two meetings conducted during 2009, we concluded that the assessments then in use for analyzing candidate
performance were not closely enough aligned with the KSDE standards to allow us to determine if standards --- and all elements of each standard -
-- were being met. During 2009, we developed a new assessment specific to the English Language Arts Standards.
The BC Final Evaluation of Student Teacher Knowledge/ Performance on KSDE English Standards is wholly based on the standards. This
evaluation is completed at the end of the student teaching term by a) the cooperating teacher and b) one of the co-chairs of the Education
Department who has observed the student teacher in action. These two scores are averaged to produce the ratings reported for Assessment #7.
In addition to the data retreats conducted by the unit with its secondary education partners, a Co-Chair of the Education Department has met at
least once each semester for the last five years with the chair of the English Department to together specifically consider data collected pertaining
to the KSDE standards for English Language Arts 6-12.
Results of these and all other assessments provided in this report have been analyzed regularly (twice a year) since 2009. The results show that the
candidates enrolled in this program are overall effectively meeting the KSDE standards. A number of specific strengths and areas for
improvement have also been identified.
A number of substantive improvements have recently been implemented in the English program, however, these changes have been promted not
by the performance of the very few candidates reported on here, but rather on the overall performance of English majors.
Assessment 6 in this report is the ETS Major Field Test for Literature in English. Scores provided in the data for Assessment 6 show that,
particularly in 2008, candidates were not achieving at the same level as in other areas. This trend held not just for English Education majors, but
also for the greater number of students who were simply English majors. Two years ago, the English Department did an indepth analysis of
candidate performance ont eh Major Field Test for Literature in English (Assessment 6). Although overall performance of candidates was highly
satisfactory, the department determined that required coursework needed to be more closely aligned with what was being assessed. Two new
courses were created which are required of all majors. EN 203 Survey of British Literature to 1750 and EN 204 Survey of British Literature from
1750 to the Present. Existing American literature courses were modified, renumbered, and required of all majors: EN 205 American Literature to
the Civil War, and EN 206 American Literature from the Civil War to the Present. The department also added the requirement of existing course
142
EN 411 Literary Criticism for all students, although due to a proofreading error it is omitted from the list of courses for English education found
on page 163 of the Benedictine College Catalog.
An item in Assessment 7, “Demonstrates knowledge of the structure and of the English language,” was rated relatively lower (although still
acceptable overall) than most other items on the assessment. Followup conversations with candidates at the end of student teaching showed that
most felt they would benefit from a required course in grammar. Followup converations with cooperating teachers showed that they felt English
student teachers demonstrated good grammar but that for the purposes of teaching, would benefit from a grammar course. At the time this report
is being written an optional course in grammar is being piloted/ recommended for all English education majors. Following evaluation of the
course’s effectiveness, it will be required for all English majors becoming secondary teachers.
(No more than 3 pages)
143
KSDE English Language Arts 6-12 Program Report
Praxis II: Data from English Language Literature and Composition Exam (10041)
Assessment 1a Data
Table 1A
Praxis II Overall Scores Since Last Accreditation Visit
YEAR Total
Number
(N)
Not Passing Passing
2006 1 0 1
2007 1 0 1
2008 3 0 3
2009 5 0 5
2010 3 0 3
2011 3 0 3
TOTAL 16 0 16 (100%)
Table 1B
Literature and Understanding Text Subtest – Three-Year Reporting Period
(Aligned With KSDE Standard 1)
YEAR Total
Number
(N)
Below Average Average Above Average
2009 4* 0 2 2
2010 3 0 2 1
2011 3 0 2 1
TOTAL 10 0 6 (60%) 4 (40%)
*Subscore information was not received on one candidate taking the test 3/14/09. Hence subscore
totals for 2009 show only a total of four on Tables 1B, 1C, and 1D.
Table 1C
Language and Linguistics Subtest Score – Three-Year Reporting Period
(Aligned With KSDE Standard 2)
YEAR Total
Number
(N)
Below Average Average Above Average
2009 4 0 3 1
2010 3 0 2 1
2011 3 0 1 2
TOTAL 10 0 6 (60%) 4 (40%)
144
Table 1D
Composition and Rhetoric Subtest - Three-Year Reporting Period
(Aligned With KSDE Standard 3)
YEAR Total
Number
(N)
Below Average Average Above Average
2009 4 0 3 1
2010 3 0 2 1
2011 3 0 2 1
TOTAL 10 0 7 (70%) 3 (30%)
KSDE English Language Arts 6-12 Program Report
English PLT Scores
Assessment 1b Data
Overall Pass Rate Since Last Accreditation Visit
English Program Completers on PLT Secondary (6-12) 0524
YEAR Total
Number
(N)
Didn’t Pass Passed
2006 1 0 1
2007 1 0 1
2008 3 0 3
2009 5 0 5
2010 3 0 3
2011 3 0 3
TOTAL 16 0 16 (100%)
145
KSDE English Language Arts 6-12 Program Report
Assessment #2: EN457 English Language Arts Methods Portfolio
2009-2011
Overall Performance on EN 457 Portfolio: Total Score (100 possible) Term Total N Unsatisfactory
0 to 60
Acceptable
61 to 88
Distinguished
89 to 100
2009 0 0 0 0
2010 6 0 1 5
2011 0 0 0 0
Totals 0 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%)
EN 457 Portfolio: Reflections Section
Aligned With KSDE Standard 1 Term Total N Unacceptable
0 - 15
Acceptable
16 - 22
Distinguished
23 - 25
2009 0 0 0 0
2010 6 0 1 5
2011 0 0 0 0
Totals 0 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%)
EN 457 Portfolio: Journal Section
Aligned With KSDE Standard 2 Term Total N Unacceptable
0 - 15
Acceptable
16 - 22
Distinguished
23 - 25
2009 0 0 0 0
2010 6 0 1 5
2011 0 0 0 0
Totals 0 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%)
EN 457 Portfolio: Lesson Plans Section
Aligned With KSDE Standard 3 Term Total N Unacceptable
0 - 15
Acceptable
16 - 22
Distinguished
23 - 25
2009 0 0 0 0
2010 6 0 1 5
2011 0 0 0 0
Totals 0 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%)
EN 457 Portfolio: Field Experience Evaluation
Aligned With KSDE Standard 4 Term Total N Unacceptable
0 - 15
Acceptable
16 - 22
Distinguished
23 - 25
2009 0 0 0 0
2010 0 0 2 4
2011 0 0 0 0
Totals 0 0 (0%) 2 (33%) 4 (67%)
146
KSDE English Language Arts Program Report Assessment 3 Data: Selected Items and Total Score
Benedictine College Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scale
2009-2011
Table 3 A: Rubric From Student Teaching Evaluation Scale
Unsatisfactory (1) Basic (2) Proficient (3) Distinguished (4) The student teacher does not appear
to understand the concepts underlying the indicator and/ or
does not apply the indicator at an
acceptable level.
The student teacher appears to
understand the concepts underlying the indicator and attempts to
implement it. Implementation is
intermittent and/ or not entirely successful.
The student teacher clearly
understands the concepts underlying the indicator and
implements it well.
Implementation is consistent and effective.
The student teacher has
demonstrated an exemplary ability to understand and apply
this indicator.
Scores reported below are the mean of the cooperating teacher and clinical supervisor’s scores on the
Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scale.
Table 3 B: Knowledge Indicator A: “Demonstrates Knowledge of the Subject Area”
Aligned With Standards 1 (“….knowledge of a variety of texts…) and 2
(…knowledge of the history, structure, and development…) Year Total N Unsatisfactory
(Mean = 1.00 –
1.99)
Basic
(Mean = 2.00 –
2.99)
Proficient
(Mean = 3.00 –
3.50)
Distinguished
(Mean = 3.51 –
4.00)
2009 5 3 2
2010 3 1 2
2011 3 1 2
Totals 11 5 (45%) 6 (55%)
Table 3 C: Skills Indicator B: “Successfully Engages
All Students in Activities and Discussion”
Aligned With Standard 3 (“…the ability to communicate effectively
and responsibly for a variety of audiences…”) Year Total N Unsatisfactory
(Mean = 1.00 –
1.99)
Basic
(Mean = 2.00 –
2.99)
Proficient
(Mean = 3.00 –
3.50)
Distinguished
(Mean = 3.51 –
4.00)
2009 5 4 1
2010 3 2 1
2011 3 2 1
Totals 11 8 (73%) 3 (27%)
147
Table 3 D: Skills Indicator D: “Demonstrates Knowledge of Strategies for Teaching the
Subject”
Aligned With Standard 4 (“…demonstrates knowledge of current methods for teaching
processes of reading, writing, speaking, listening, thinking…”) Year Total N Unsatisfactory
(Mean = 1.00 –
1.99)
Basic
(Mean = 2.00 –
2.99)
Proficient
(Mean = 3.00 –
3.50)
Distinguished
(Mean = 3.51 –
4.00)
2009 5 2 3
2010 3 1 2
2011 3 1 2
Totals 11 4 (36%) 7 (64%)
Table 3 E: Outcome #2 Indicator D: “Demonstrates Clear and Appropriate Communication
With Students”
Aligned With Standard 3 (“…the ability to communicate effectively
and responsibly for a variety of audiences…”) Year Total N Unsatisfactory
(Mean = 1.00 –
1.99)
Basic
(Mean = 2.00 –
2.99)
Proficient
(Mean = 3.00 –
3.50)
Distinguished
(Mean = 3.51 –
4.00)
2009 5 3 2
2010 3 1 2
2011 3 1 2
Totals 11 5 (45%) 6 (55%)
Table 3 F: Outcome #5 Indicator A: “Effectively Plans Lessons,
Addressing Student Needs and Curriculum Goals”
Aligned With Standard 4 (“…demonstrates knowledge of current methods for teaching
processes of reading, writing, speaking, listening, thinking…”) Year Total N Unsatisfactory
(Mean = 1.00 –
1.99)
Basic
(Mean = 2.00 –
2.99)
Proficient
(Mean = 3.00 –
3.50)
Distinguished
(Mean = 3.51 –
4.00)
2009 5 1 1 3
2010 3 3
2011 3 1 2
Totals 11 1 (9%) 2 (18%) 8 (73%)
148
KSDE English Language Arts Program Report
Assessment 4: Benedictine Performance Assessment Criteria 2, 3, 6 & 7
2009-2011
Table 4 A: Candidate BPA Scores Criterion 2*
Aligned With Standard 3
Year Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished
2009 1 4
2010 3
2011 3
Totals 1 (9%) 10 (91%)
* For the purposes of the BPA, 94-100% = Distinguished, 87-93% = Proficient, 80-86%
= Basic, and 0-85% = Unsatisfactory.
Table 4 B: Candidate BPA Scores Criterion 3
Aligned With Standard 3
Year Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient
Distinguished
2009 5
2010 3
2011 3
Totals 11 (100%)
Table 4 C: Candidate BPA Scores Criterion 6
Aligned With Standard 4
Year Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished
2009 5
2010 3
2011 3
Totals 11 (100%)
Table 2 D: Candidate BPA Scores Criterion 7
Aligned With Standard 4
Year Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient
Distinguished
2009 4 1
2010 2 1
2011 3
Totals 6 (55%) 5 (45%)
149
KSDE English Language Arts 6-12 Program Report
Assessment 5: Content Based Assessment/ Course Grades
2009-2011
As stated in the Benedictine College Catalog, the following grades, grade points, and
descriptors are used in evaluating candidate performance:
GRADING POINTS
A 4.0 Superior C+ 2.3
A- 3.7 C 2.0 Average
B+ 3.3 C- 1.7
B 3.0 Better than Average D 1.0 Less Than Average
B- 2.7 F 0 Unacceptable
The tables below show candidate performance in courses aligned with KSDE Elementary
Education Standards.
Table 5 A: Candidate Performance in EN 201 World Lit 1
Aligned With KSDE Standard 1 Year Unacceptable Less Than
Average
Average Better Than
Average
Superior
0 – 0.9 pts.
Letter Grade
of F
1.0 – 1.6 pts
Letter
Grade of D
1.7 - 2.3 pt
Letter
Grade
from C- to
C+
2.4 – 3.3
pts.
Letter
Grade from
B- to B+
3.4 – 4.0 pts.
Letter Grade
from A- to A
2009 1
2010
2011 3 1
Totals 3 (60%) 2 (40%)
Table 5 B: Candidate Performance in EN 302 Shakespeare
Aligned With KSDE Standard 2 Year Unacceptable Less Than
Average
Average Better Than
Average
Superior
0 – 0.9 pts.
Letter Grade
of F
1.0 – 1.6 pts
Letter
Grade of D
1.7 - 2.3 pt
Letter
Grade
from C- to
C+
2.4 – 3.3
pts.
Letter
Grade from
B- to B+
3.4 – 4.0 pts.
Letter Grade
from A- to A
2009 2 1
2010 1 1 2
2011 2
Totals 1 (11%) 3 (33%) 5 (56%)
150
Table 5 C: Candidate Performance in EN 357 Young Adult Literature
Aligned With KSDE Standard 4 Year Unacceptable Less Than
Average
Average Better Than
Average
Superior
0 – 0.9 pts.
Letter Grade
of F
1.0 – 1.6 pts
Letter
Grade of D
1.7 - 2.3 pt
Letter
Grade
from C- to
C+
2.4 – 3.3
pts.
Letter
Grade from
B- to B+
3.4 – 4.0 pts.
Letter Grade
from A- to A
2009 3
2010 5
2011 0
Totals 8 (100%)
Table 5 D: Candidate Performance in EN 403/ 205* American Lit to the Civil War
Aligned With KSDE Standard 1 Year Unacceptable Less Than
Average
Average Better Than
Average
Superior
0 – 0.9 pts.
Letter Grade
of F
1.0 – 1.6 pts
Letter
Grade of D
1.7 - 2.3 pt
Letter
Grade
from C- to
C+
2.4 – 3.3
pts.
Letter
Grade from
B- to B+
3.4 – 4.0 pts.
Letter Grade
from A- to A
2009 4
2010 1 4
2011 3 1
Totals 4 (31%) 9 (69%)
*This course was renumbered during the 3-year reporting period.
Table 5 E: Candidate Performance in EN 431 Linguistics
Aligned With KSDE Standard 2 Year Unacceptable Less Than
Average
Average Better Than
Average
Superior
0 – 0.9 pts.
Letter Grade
of F
1.0 – 1.6 pts
Letter
Grade of D
1.7 - 2.3 pt
Letter
Grade
from C- to
C+
2.4 – 3.3
pts.
Letter
Grade from
B- to B+
3.4 – 4.0 pts.
Letter Grade
from A- to A
2009
2010 3
2011 2 3 1
Totals 2 (22%) 3 (33%) 4 (44%)
151
Table 5 F: Candidate Performance in EN 457 Methods of Teaching English Language
Arts
Aligned With KSDE Standard 4 Year Unacceptable Less Than
Average
Average Better Than
Average
Superior
0 – 0.9 pts.
Letter Grade
of F
1.0 – 1.6 pts
Letter
Grade of D
1.7 - 2.3 pt
Letter
Grade
from C- to
C+
2.4 – 3.3
pts.
Letter
Grade from
B- to B+
3.4 – 4.0 pts.
Letter Grade
from A- to A
2009
2010 5
2011
Totals 5 (100%)
152
KSDE English Language Arts Program Report
Assessment 6: Candidate Performance on English Comprehensive Exam
ETS Major Field Test for Literature in English
2009-2011
The tables below show candidate performance on the ETS Major Field Test for Literature in
English. Table 6 A: Overall Candidate Performance on ETS Test
Aligned With KSDE Standards 1-2 Year Below Average Average Above Average
0 – 29th Percentile 30
th to 69
th Percentile 70
th to 99
th Percentile
2008* 1 2 1
2009 0 1 2
2010 0 0 3
2011** 0 0 0
Totals 1 (10%) 3 (30%) 6 (60%)
*Data from 2008 is included here to provide documentation for a programmatic improvement
discussed in Section V of this report.
**ETS has not yet returned scores for candidates who took this exam in November 2011.
Table 6 B: Candidate Performance on ETS Subtest 1
1900 and Earlier
Aligned With KSDE Standard 1 Year Below Average Average Above Average
0 – 29th Percentile 30
th to 69
th Percentile 70
th to 99
th Percentile
2008* 1 2 1
2009 0 1 2
2010 0 0 3
2011** 0 0 0
Totals 1 (10%) 3 (30%) 6 (60%)
*Data from 2008 is included here to provide documentation for a programmatic improvement
discussed in Section V of this report.
**ETS has not yet returned scores for candidates who took this exam in November 2011.
153
Table 6 C: Candidate Performance on ETS Subtest 2
1901 and Later
Aligned With KSDE Standard 1 Year Below Average Average Above Average
0 – 29th Percentile 30
th to 69
th Percentile 70
th to 99
th Percentile
2008* 0 3 1
2009 0 3 0
2010 0 0 3
2011** 0 0 0
Totals 0 6 (60%) 4 (40%)
*Data from 2008 is included here to provide documentation for a programmatic improvement
discussed in Section V of this report.
**ETS has not yet returned scores for candidates who took this exam in November 2011.
Table 6 D: Candidate Performance on ETS Subtest 3
Literary Analysis
Aligned With KSDE Standard 2 Year Below Average Average Above Average
0 – 29th Percentile 30
th to 69
th Percentile 70
th to 99
th Percentile
2008* 0 3 1
2009 0 1 2
2010 0 0 3
2011** 0 0 0
Totals 0 4 (40%) 6 (60%)
*Data from 2008 is included here to provide documentation for a programmatic improvement
discussed in Section V of this report.
**ETS has not yet returned scores for candidates who took this exam in November 2011.
154
Table 6 D: Candidate Performance on ETS Subtest 4
History and Identification
Aligned With KSDE Standard 1 Year Below Average Average Above Average
0 – 29th Percentile 30
th to 69
th Percentile 70
th to 99
th Percentile
2008* 1 2 1
2009 0 0 3
2010 0 0 3
2011** 0 0 0
Totals 1 (10%) 2 (2%) 7 (70%)
*Data from 2008 is included here to provide documentation for a programmatic improvement
discussed in Section V of this report.
**ETS has not yet returned scores for candidates who took this exam in November 2011.
155
KSDE English Language Arts Program Report
Assessment 7: Evaluation of Student Teacher Performance on
KSDE English Language Arts 6-12
2009-2011
Rubric From Evaluation Scale
Unsatisfactory (1) Basic (2) Proficient (3) Distinguished (4) The student teacher does not appear to understand the
concepts underlying the KSDE
standard and/ or does not apply the standard at an acceptable
level.
The student teacher appears to understand the concepts
underlying the KSDE standard
and attempts to implement it. Implementation is intermittent
and/ or not entirely successful.
The student teacher clearly understands the concepts underlying
the KSDE standard and implements it
well. Implementation is consistent and effective.
The student teacher has demonstrated an exemplary
ability to understand and apply
this KSDE standard.
Scores on the tables which follow are the mean of the ratings of the cooperating teacher and one of
the Co-Chairs of the Education Department following a special meeting with the student teacher.
Table 7 A: Performance English Language Arts 6-12 Standard 1 Element 1
Item: “Demonstrates knowledge of a variety of texts both print and nonprint.” Year Total N Unsatisfactory
(Mean = 1.00 –
1.99)
Basic
(Mean = 2.00 –
2.99)
Proficient
(Mean = 3.00 –
3.50)
Distinguished
(Mean = 3.51 –
4.00)
2009 5 3 2
2010 3 2 1
2011 3 1 1 1
Totals 11 (0%) (9%) (55%) (36%)
Table 7 B: Performance English Language Arts 6-12 Standard 1 Element 2
Item: “Demonstrates knowledge of how learners create and discover meaning in a text.” Year Total N Unsatisfactory
(Mean = 1.00 –
1.99)
Basic
(Mean = 2.00 –
2.99)
Proficient
(Mean = 3.00 –
3.50)
Distinguished
(Mean = 3.51 –
4.00)
2009 5 1 3 1
2010 3 1 2
2011 3 1 1 1
Totals 11 (0%) (18%) (45%) (36%)
156
Table 7 C: Performance English Language Arts 6-12 Standard 2 Element 1
Item: “Demonstrates knowledge of the history of the English language.” Year Total N Unsatisfactory
(Mean = 1.00 –
1.99)
Basic
(Mean = 2.00 –
2.99)
Proficient
(Mean = 3.00 –
3.50)
Distinguished
(Mean = 3.51 –
4.00)
2009 5 3 2
2010 3 2 1
2011 3 1 1 1
Totals 11 (0%) (9%) (55%) (36%)
Table 7 D: Performance English Language Arts 6-12 Standard 2 Element 2
Item: “Demonstrates knowledge of the structure of the English language.” Year Total N Unsatisfactory
(Mean = 1.00 –
1.99)
Basic
(Mean = 2.00 –
2.99)
Proficient
(Mean = 3.00 –
3.50)
Distinguished
(Mean = 3.51 –
4.00)
2009 5 1 3 1
2010 3 1 1 1
2011 3 1 1 1
Totals 11 (0%) (27%) (45%) (27%)
Table 7 E: Performance English Language Arts 6-12 Standard 2 Element 3
Item: “Demonstrates knowledge of the development of the English language.” Year Total N Unsatisfactory
(Mean = 1.00 –
1.99)
Basic
(Mean = 2.00 –
2.99)
Proficient
(Mean = 3.00 –
3.50)
Distinguished
(Mean = 3.51 –
4.00)
2009 5 1 3 1
2010 3 1 1 1
2011 3 2 1
Totals 11 (0%) (18%) (55%) (27%)
Table 7 F: Performance English Language Arts 6-12 Standard 2 Element 4
Item: “Demonstrates knowledge of how people use language to influence the thinking and
actions of others.” Year Total N Unsatisfactory
(Mean = 1.00 –
1.99)
Basic
(Mean = 2.00 –
2.99)
Proficient
(Mean = 3.00 –
3.50)
Distinguished
(Mean = 3.51 –
4.00)
2009 5 4 1
2010 3 2 1
2011 3 2 1
Totals 11 (0%) (0%) (73%) (27%)
157
Table 7 G: Performance English Language Arts 6-12 Standard 3 Element 1
Item: “Demonstrates the ability to communicate effectively and responsibly.” Year Total N Unsatisfactory
(Mean = 1.00 –
1.99)
Basic
(Mean = 2.00 –
2.99)
Proficient
(Mean = 3.00 –
3.50)
Distinguished
(Mean = 3.51 –
4.00)
2009 5 1 4
2010 3 3
2011 3 1 2
Totals 11 (0%) (0%) (18%) (82%)
Table 7 H: Performance English Language Arts 6-12 Standard 3 Element 2
Item: “Demonstrates the ability to communicate with a variety of audiences.” Year Total N Unsatisfactory
(Mean = 1.00 –
1.99)
Basic
(Mean = 2.00 –
2.99)
Proficient
(Mean = 3.00 –
3.50)
Distinguished
(Mean = 3.51 –
4.00)
2009 5 4 1
2010 3 1 2
2011 3 2 1
Totals 11 (0%) (0%) (64%) (36%)
Table 7 I: Performance English Language Arts 6-12 Standard 3 Element 3
Item: “Demonstrates the ability to communicate for different purposes.” Year Total N Unsatisfactory
(Mean = 1.00 –
1.99)
Basic
(Mean = 2.00 –
2.99)
Proficient
(Mean = 3.00 –
3.50)
Distinguished
(Mean = 3.51 –
4.00)
2009 5 2 3
2010 3 3
2011 3 1 1 1
Totals 11 (0%) (9%) (27%) (64%)
Table 7 J: Performance English Language Arts 6-12 Standard 4 Element 1
Item: “Demonstrates knowledge of current methods for teaching processes of reading.” Year Total N Unsatisfactory
(Mean = 1.00 –
1.99)
Basic
(Mean = 2.00 –
2.99)
Proficient
(Mean = 3.00 –
3.50)
Distinguished
(Mean = 3.51 –
4.00)
2009 5 3 2
2010 3 1 2
2011 3 2 1
Totals 11 (0%) (0%) (55%) (45%)
158
Table 7 K: Performance English Language Arts 6-12 Standard 4 Element 2
Item: “Demonstrates knowledge of current methods for teaching processes of writing.” Year Total N Unsatisfactory
(Mean = 1.00 –
1.99)
Basic
(Mean = 2.00 –
2.99)
Proficient
(Mean = 3.00 –
3.50)
Distinguished
(Mean = 3.51 –
4.00)
2009 5 2 3
2010 3 2 1
2011 3 1 2
Totals 11 (0%) (9%) (55%) (36%)
Table 7 L: Performance English Language Arts 6-12 Standard 4 Element 3
Item: “Demonstrates knowledge of current methods for teaching processes of speaking.” Year Total N Unsatisfactory
(Mean = 1.00 –
1.99)
Basic
(Mean = 2.00 –
2.99)
Proficient
(Mean = 3.00 –
3.50)
Distinguished
(Mean = 3.51 –
4.00)
2009 5 1 3 1
2010 3 1 2
2011 3 1 2
Totals 11 (0%) (27%) (45%) (27%)
Table 7 M: Performance English Language Arts 6-12 Standard 4 Element 4
Item: “Demonstrates knowledge of current methods for teaching processes of listening, thinking
viewing and their interconnections.” Year Total N Unsatisfactory
(Mean = 1.00 –
1.99)
Basic
(Mean = 2.00 –
2.99)
Proficient
(Mean = 3.00 –
3.50)
Distinguished
(Mean = 3.51 –
4.00)
2009 5 3 2
2010 3 2 1
2011 3 2 1
Totals 11 (0%) (0%) (64%) (36%)