division/department goals - home - delta state … and report_0809.doc · web viewtrends noticed...

DELTA STATE UNIVERSITY Unit Strategic Plan and Annual Report -- Academic Year 2008-09

____X___Academic Unit ______ Administrative/Support Unit

I. Unit Title: Division of Teacher Education

School/College or University Division: College of Education

Unit Administrator: Jenetta R. Waddell, Ed.D.

II. Educational Program Learning Outcome Assessment Plan (Academics)Learner Outcomes identified for the major.

Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education Degree Program

The Learning Outcomes presented below are from the Spring 2008 Semester, Summer I and II 2008 Terms, and the Fall 2008 Semester.

(Note: Instruments and/or scoring rubrics for the assessments presented below may be found in the Appendices.)

A. Learning OutcomeWhat should a graduate in the undergraduate Elementary Education major know, value, or be able to do at graduation and beyond?

B. Data Collection and Analysis1. What assessment tools and/or methods will you use to determine achievement of the learning outcome? 2. Describe how the data from these tools and/or methods will be/have been collected.

C. Results of EvaluationWhat were the findings of the analysis?

D. Use of Evaluation Results1.List any specific recommendations.2. Describe changes in curriculum, courses, or procedures that are proposed or were made/ are being made as a result of the program learning outcome assessment

Division of Teacher Education Unit Plan and Report 2008-091

3.Explain the procedure to analyze the data.

process

# 1 Demonstrate mastery of the knowledge and skills associated with both the content and pedagogy of the undergraduate degree program in Elementary Education.

GE 1

1. Institutional reports and individual score reports for PRAXIS II Content: Elementary Education: Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment, K-5, and PRAXIS II: Principles of Learning and Teaching (PLT) will be the assessment tools used.

2. These assessments are norm-referenced measures, the passage of which is required to receive a teaching license in Mississippi. The assessments are taken by all candidates prior to admission to student teaching.

3. The assessment results will be analyzed in the aggregate to determine strengths and weaknesses in candidates’ knowledge of content and pedagogy in the field.

The last available data (09/01/07 – 08/31/08) for the PRAXIS II Content assessment revealed that 52 teacher candidates took the PRAXIS II (0011) Elementary Education: Ed: Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment. The pass rate was 75%. This is a new version of the test, and the pass rate is lower than for previous years. On the Grade K – 6 Principles of Learning and Teaching (PLT), the passing rate was 90%. This pass rate is consistent with previous years.

1. Continue to evaluate the impact of program changes that require students in CEL 317, Principles and Techniques of Teaching in Early Childhood, and CEL 318, Principles and Techniques of Teaching in the Middle Grades to plan an integrated unit comprised of lessons in all content areas. Evaluate candidates as they teach this five-day unit in the field. 2. Faculty will emphasize planning for different content areas with a special emphasis on social studies.


# 2 Demonstrate mastery of the knowledge associated with content in Elementary Education.

GE 2, 3, 8

1. a. College BASE (C-Base), a criterion-referenced academic achievement exam (covering mathematics, social studies, science, and English) will be administered. 2. a. The assessment will be administered to all candidates in CEL 301/CUR 302, Introduction to Education, as a measure of students’ content knowledge.

3. a. An institutional summary, as well as individual score reports, provides descriptive data.

1. b. Indicators from the Student Teacher Assessment Instrument (STAI) will be used to assess the content knowledge of methods course candidates and the student teachers. The STAI, cross-referenced to Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC)

For 2008, scores on the C-Base assessment range from 40-560, with 300 being average. Candidates in the introductory courses (CEL 301 & CUR 302) demonstrated the highest average performance in the areas of English (Avg. =240) and mathematics (Avg. =228). The strength in mathematics was also present in the 2006 and 2007 data. The lowest average performance was noted in the area of social studies (Avg. =193). When compared to the national norms, overall, the candidates demonstrated low to marginal content knowledge of science, social studies, English, writing, and math.

For 2008, the majority of the candidates in the methods courses and during student teaching received outstanding or acceptable ratings on all indicators. Similar ratings for student teachers were identified in 2007. While weaknesses were noted in the method candidates’ ability to select

1.a. Faculty members have agreed that passing the C-Base exam should be an entry requirement for the program. A cut score will be set during the 2009-2010 school year when the sample number is large enough to be valid.

2. a. Faculty members continue to meet with candidates to discuss individual scores on the C-Base test. Recommendations are made to those scoring in the low category on any portion of the test. Data from the C-Base test is discussed with faculty in an elementary faculty meeting.

1. b. None at this time.

2. b. Faculty will emphasize to candidates how to select teaching materials and procedures for assessing learner progress. Further, faculty will instruct candidates on methods that can be used to connect knowledge of students’ needs,


Standards 1, is an instrument used statewide to measure teacher candidates’ abilities within the following domains: planning and preparation, communication and interaction, teaching and learning, managing the learning environment, assessment of student learning, and professionalism and partnerships.

2.b. Data will be collected during CEL 317, Principles and Techniques of Teaching in Early Childhood, and CEL 318, Principles and Techniques of Teaching in the Middle Grades, as well as in the student teaching experience.

3b. A 4-point rubric will be used. TaskStream reports provided descriptive data. (See Appendix A, Instrument 1 for the STAI instrument.)

materials and procedures for assessing learner progress and for using knowledge of students’ needs, interests, and experiences, it did not manifest itself as a weakness for student teachers. A disparity of greater than 20% was noted between the Cooperating Teachers (CO) and University Supervisors (US) ratings of outstanding on some indicators including builds and sustains a classroom climate of acceptance, encouraging creativity, inquisitiveness, and risk-taking (CO 86%, US 64%). Another was uses a variety of appropriate teaching strategies (CO 89%, US 68%). For acceptable communication with students, 74% of the CO gave outstanding ratings while only 47% of US did so.

interests, and experiences to appropriate procedures used during lessons.

# 3 –Demonstrate the ability to plan and implement instruction for diverse populations in the elementary school setting that reflects Interstate New Teacher

1. a. The STAI Indicators 1 – 8 will be used to assess the candidates’ ability to plan instruction.

A majority of the candidates in the methods courses and during student teaching received outstanding or acceptable ratings on all indicators, a trend

1. None at this time.

2. Faculty will continue to emphasize to candidates how to select appropriate materials and


Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) Standards.

GE 1, 9

2. a. Data will be collected during CEL 317, Principles and Techniques of Teaching in Early Childhood, and CEL 318, Principles and Techniques of Teaching in the Middle Grades, as well as in the student teaching experience.

3. a. A 4-point rubric will be used. TaskStream reports provided descriptive data. (See Appendix A, Instrument 1 for the STAI instrument.)

continued from 2006 and 2007. Candidates completing student teaching received the greatest percentage (98% for the spring semester and 95% for the fall semester from COs) of outstanding ratings in selecting learner objectives (Indicator 1). USs rated candidates 96% (Spring) and 93% (Fall) for the same indicator. Indicator 1 was also identified as a strength in 2007. For student teachers, only one student, representing 5% of the group, received a score of unacceptable from their CO for Indicator 8, which focuses on incorporating multiculturalism and diversity. In all other indicators for both CO and US scorings, candidates received a rating of either acceptable or outstanding.

procedures to meet learner objectives. Disparities between COs and SUs continue to be noted at about the same proportions. Cooperating teachers tend to rate student teachers slightly higher than do university supervisors. Discussions with the COs about expectations for candidate performance will be pursued.

# 4 - Demonstrate ability to plan and implement integrated instruction in the elementary school through a collaborative network.

GE 1, 9

1. All candidates in CEL 317, Principles and Techniques for Teaching in the Primary Grades, and CEL 318, Principles and Techniques for Teaching in the Middle Grades, will plan and teach integrated units covering all content areas

Data revealed that all candidates in the methods courses were successful in collaborative planning and teaching of an integrated unit in the field. In both spring and fall of 2008, candidates scored highest in the area of


2. Faculty in all classes that require candidates to plan lessons will emphasize each component of the planning process to include examination of contextual factors,


through collaborative group work.

2. Candidates work in groups to develop and implement two, multifaceted units (one for CEL 317 & one for CEL 318). Each unit will be scored by the course instructor using rubrics and scoring guides. Implementation of the units will be scored by a small group of Elementary Education and Special Education faculty using indicators 16- 38 of the STAI.

3. SPSS will be used to analyze means, frequencies, and percentages. (Appendix B, Scoring Guide/Rubric 1 for the Integrated Lesson Plan scoring guide.)

multiculturalism - diversity in lessons (M = 3.72 out of 4). The lowest mean for these candidates was 3.33 for uses information about students to plan for differences. While candidates in CEL 317 and CEL 318 demonstrated their ability to plan, candidates in CEL 317 had one area of concern. The mean for this group in adaptations based on the individual needs of students was 3.712 with 64.3% at acceptable levels. This area of concern was also noted in 2007.

development of appropriate learning goals, instructional activities, and assessments, and differentiating instruction to meet the needs of diverse learners. Faculty from the Special Education Program at Delta State University will continue to present workshops on differentiating instruction in CEL 318. Enhanced field experiences to be implemented in fall 2009 will provide more opportunities for candidates to teach in a variety of settings prior to the student teaching internship, which should assist in developing the knowledge and skills needed to adapt instruction for individual needs.

# 5 - Demonstrate ability to measure impact on student learning in the elementary school setting based on assessment data.

GE 1, 2, 3, 4

1. The Teacher Work Sample (TWS) Folio is a performance-based assessment that requires teacher candidates to assess their impact on student learning while simultaneously improving their ability to reflect upon practice and make needed improvements. In CEL 497, Diagnosis and Evaluation

Candidates in student teaching in both spring and fall of 2008 met every category at a 100% level. For spring and fall of 2008, candidates in the methods course (CEL 497) met or partially met all indicators of the TWS for the area of contextual factors (95%, 99%), learning goals (92%, 91%), the


2. Student teachers performed better than candidates in the methods courses indicating that the learning process continues throughout the time candidates are working under the university instructor and the cooperating teacher. The


of Student Achievement in the Elementary School, candidates will be required to complete the Teacher Work Sample (TWS) assessment based on hypothetical data in preparation for implementation during CEL 496, Directed Teaching in the Elementary School.

2. For each experience, the teacher candidate will complete a seven-day unit of integrated study according to the Student Teacher Assessment Instrument (STAI) indicators, and develop a corresponding Teacher Work Sample (TWS). In completing the TWS, candidates gather data, assess, and reflect upon the following eight dimensions related to teaching and learning: Contextual Information, Learning Goals, Assessment Plan, Design for Instruction, Instructional Decision Making, Analysis of Student Learning, Reflection and Self-Evaluation, and Design for Instruction in Elementary Education.

3. Each component of the TWS

assessment plan (95%, 92%), design for instruction (95%, 94%), and reflection and self-evaluation (89%, 88%). Percentages in parentheses are for spring then fall. Candidates in the fall methods course had 4% scoring a level 1 (Unacceptable) on the rubric for instructional decision-making and analysis of student learning. When comparing categories for design for instruction, the social science area in spring had 10% scoring at a level 1 (Unacceptable) and in fall had 4% scoring a level 1 (Unacceptable).

faculty in the field experience office will continue to work at placing student teaching candidates in classrooms with master level teachers. Teaching faculty members will continue to emphasize planning for different content areas with a special emphasis on the social science area. Further, faculty will reinforce instructional decision-making and analysis of student learning for candidates in the methods courses.


will be graded with its respective rubric. TaskStream reports provided means, frequencies, and percentages. (See Appendix B, Scoring Guide/Rubric 2 for the TWS rubric.)

# 6 - Demonstrate ability to diagnose and remediate deficits in reading skills exhibited by diverse elementary students.

GE 1, 2

1. A Reading Case Study (RCS) will be used to collect data on candidates’ ability to diagnose and remediate deficits in reading skills exhibited by diverse elementary students during CRD 326, Diagnosis and Remediation of Reading Difficulties. All components are aligned with ACEI standards.

2. Each candidate in CRD 326 will complete a RCS as s/he works with an assigned elementary student in a local school. The RCS will be assessed with a scoring guide. The scoring guide consists of 7 components that cover the areas of contextual factors, test administration, analysis of testing results, recommendations for remediation, and development and implementation of needs-

Data for spring 2008 in CRD 326 Diagnosis and Remediation of Reading Difficulties revealed that candidates exhibited strong abilities to collect student data (94.74% target and 5.26% acceptable) and to use background information for students (100% target). Students in fall 2008 scored 100% and 93% target for these categories. These strengths were also noted in the fall 2007 results. The lowest scores were for field experiences/teaching. In the spring semester 42.11% were at the target level and 57.89% were at the acceptable level. No candidates scored below the acceptable level. Candidates in the fall scored 43% target, 54% acceptable and 3% unacceptable. Data for

1. Faculty members will continue to emphasize collection of student data and using background information to plan lessons during instructional time. Faculty will also work with candidates on differentiating instruction to meet the individual needs of students.

2. With the redesign of teacher education, candidates will spend more hours in the field teaching students needed skills based on the Reading Case Study results. Prior to field experiences for CRD 326, faculty will work with candidates on methods for teaching specifically to students’ needs based on the results of assessments given to students. Faculty will then observe/score candidates’ work


based instruction.

3. The scores will be analyzed in SPSS, with means, frequencies, and percentages. (See Appendix B, Scoring Guide/Rubric 3 for the RCS scoring guide.)

spring 2008 indicated that candidates could administer tests and use the results appropriately at a rate of 84.21% target and 15.79% acceptable. Candidates in the fall scored 71% target and 29% acceptable.

with students.

# 7 - Exhibit dispositions associated with successful teaching in the elementary school.

GE 10

1. & 2. The Dispositions Rating Scale (correlated with the Student Teacher Assessment Instrument) will be used to assess students’ dispositions in CEL 301/ CUR 302, Introduction to Teaching, and CEL 496, Directed Teaching (student teaching). The scale will also be used to assess individual candidates’ progress toward exhibiting the dispositions throughout the program. The instrument changed for the Fall 2008 Semester. The scale used during the Spring 2008 Semester contained 15 dispositions and associated indicators correlated with effective teaching research. For the Fall 2008 Semester, the scale contained five indicators.

Candidates in the introductory courses received the highest average for dependability with a mean of 2.96 out of a possible 4 in the spring semester and a mean of 2.27 out of a possible 4 for the fall semester of 2008. Candidates in CEL 496 were scored by both the Cooperating Teacher (CO) and the University Supervisor (US). For dependability in the spring semester, COs rated student teachers with a mean of 3.91 (98%) while USs rated these students with a mean of 3.63 (91%). Candidates in the fall semester were rated at a mean of 3.58 out of 4 (89%) by COs and with a mean of 3.21 (80%) by USs. For candidates in the introductory courses in spring 2008, the lowest average was

1. The Dispositions Rating Scale was changed from 15 indicators to 5 with the change being made after the spring semester. The new rubric went into use during the fall semester.

2. Faculty teaching introductory courses (CEL 301 and CEL 302) teach candidates dispositions classroom teachers are expected to meet. Further, candidates are assessed on these disposition expectations. Candidates rate themselves on dispositions and are rated by their university instructor as well. Student teaching candidates are rated on the same disposition scale by both their cooperating teacher (CO) and their university supervisor (SU). Typically there is a


3. Ratings will be analyzed for means, frequencies, and percentages using TaskStream. (See Appendix A, Instrument 2 for the Dispositions Rating Scale.)

for attendance and punctuality with a mean of 2.78 (70%). Because the scale changed from the spring to the fall semester, there is no punctuality category for the fall semester. Punctuality is addressed in the new rubric under Disposition 5 – dependability. Candidates in student teaching were scored with an average mean of 3.89 (97%) by COs and with an average mean of 3.61 (90%) by USs.

disparity between introductory candidates and student teaching candidates indicating that candidates continue to learn more about expected dispositions and gain more control over those with continued work throughout their college career. An ongoing disposition not mastered by some candidates is that of punctuality. Faculty will continue to discuss the importance of punctuality with candidates. Faculty will also continue to record tardies by candidates as indicated by university policy. Candidates with excessive tardies will be cancelled by the faculty member.

# 8 - Demonstrate ability to synthesize views of education which are commensurate of best practices and professionalism.

GE 1, 5, 10

1. Each semester, all teacher candidates in CEL 301/CUR 302, Introduction to Elementary Education, will develop a brief position paper that synthesizes the candidate’s views of education, providing rationale related to beliefs about the purposes of and influences upon education, personal goals, factors

For the year 2008, mean ratings for candidates in the introductory courses were at the Acceptable level in all areas of the teaching philosophy, with the exception of Composition/Mechanics in fall 2008. A relative weakness for introductory students was noted in the area of Content. Mean ratings for student teaching


2. Data from the TaskStream report indicates that over time candidates in both the introductory courses and in student teaching are developing a mature philosophy of education and that they can articulate this philosophy at either an acceptable or target


associated with the teaching/learning climate, content to be taught and influences upon it, and professional growth expectations and responsibilities. Candidates will also refine their philosophies during student teaching. 2. Both philosophies will be graded with the same scoring guide. However, scores assigned to candidates in CEL 301/CUR 302 are given with the consideration that they are novices to education and have not yet had an opportunity to attain much of the knowledge and engage in key experiences that are necessary for synthesizing an appropriate view of the teaching/learning interaction.

For the Fall 2008 Semester, the rubric will be changed to provide more concise scoring.

3. Scores will be entered into TaskStream and analyzed for means, frequencies, and percentages. (The Philosophy

candidates were in the Acceptable range. Trend data indicate that student teaching candidates typically scored as well as or better than the candidates in the introductory courses overall. This indicates that candidates continue to develop a more mature philosophy of education during the time they are in the field for student teaching. An ongoing area of concern for candidates in the introductory courses is that of composition/mechanics.

level. However for those candidates in the introductory courses, faculty will continue to discuss the area of curriculum content as this is one of their lowest areas. Faculty will continue to stress the importance of content knowledge for candidates to help them understand and project a vision of life long learning. In all methods courses, faculty will stress the use of state and district standards when candidates are preparing lesson plans.For those candidates having difficulty with composition and the mechanics of writing, faculty will recommend they attend the Delta State University Writing Lab for remediation.


of Education rubric is found in Appendix A, Scoring Guide/Rubric 4.)

1The Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) Standards were developed by the Council of ChiefState School Officers and member states to guide teacher preparation programs.

Master of Education in Elementary Education Degree Program



Learning OutcomeWhat should a graduate in the Master’s Elementary Education major know, value, or be able to do at graduation and beyond?

Data Collection and Analysis

1. What assessment tools and/or methods will you use to determine achievement of the learning outcome? 2. Describe how the data from these tools and/or methods will be/have been collected. 3.Explain the procedure to analyze the data.

Results of EvaluationWhat were the findings of the analysis?

Use of Evaluation Results

1.List any specific recommendations.2. Describe changes in curriculum, courses, or procedures that are proposed or were made/ are being made as a result of the program learning outcome assessment process

# 1 - Demonstrate understanding of knowledge and skills associated with the content of the M. Ed. degree program in Elementary education.

1. Content and pedagogical content knowledge will be assessed using a comprehensive examination.

2. The comprehensive examination will be administered each semester and each summer session to candidates in the final course of

Data showed that the majority of students enrolled in the program acquired the knowledge and skills associated with its content. Eighty percent passed the exam and 20% failed on the first attempt. The highest pass rate occurred spring 2008 (100%) and the lowest pass rate


2. Conferences continue to be held with students failing the comprehensive examination to help them understand their weaknesses and means of remediation.


the M. Ed.

3. A rubric will be used to evaluate the exams. Distribution of scores will be analyzed to assess strengths and weaknesses in the program. The comprehensive examination is linked to both the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) 1 for the middle childhood/generalist (Standard II, Knowledge of Content and Curriculum), and the early childhood generalist (Standard V, Knowledge of Integrated Curriculum). These standards relate directly to knowledge/skills that elementary teachers need in order to understand what needs to be taught. (See Appendix B, Scoring Guide/Rubric 5 for the comprehensive examination scoring rubric.)

occurred fall 2008 (50%). Results from 2007 and 2006 are similar.

# 2 - Demonstrate ability to plan and support planning at both the lower and upper elementary levels using appropriate professional expertise.

1. & 2. In CEL 630, Practicum in Elementary Education, candidates will be required to plan and implement a teaching unit.

In CEL 630, candidates demonstrated the ability to use contextual information (75% met indicator) and technology (75% met indicator) to plan effective lessons. Most of the

1. Continue to track ratings in the areas of weakness to identify trends.



3. Sections of the Teacher Work Sample (TWS) will be used as a means to demonstrate candidate ability to plan and support planning. Sections to be used are Contextual Factors, Learning Goals, Assessment Plan, Design for Instruction, Instructional Decision Making, and Design for Instruction in Elementary Education. A distribution of scores will be used to analyze data. (See Appendix B, Scoring Guide/Rubric 2 for the TWS Rubric)

candidates (75% met indicator) were able to accurately represent content and use a variety of instructional activities. Most of the candidates were able to modify instructions based on the student data (92% met indicator) and align lessons with the Mississippi curricular standards (83%) met indicator. Weaknesses were noted in the candidates’ ability to explicitly align all lessons with learning goals (50% indicator not met) and integrate physical education and health into the unit lessons (42% indicator not met). These data indicate that a majority of the candidates demonstrated the ability to plan effective lessons.

# 3 - Demonstrate the ability to teach effectively in a field experience/clinical setting.

1. & 2. In CEL 630, Practicum in Elementary Education, candidates will be evaluated while teaching a lesson. 3. A rubric and a modified TWS incorporating parts of the STAI will be used to evaluate the candidates’ teaching. (See Appendix A, Instrument 1 for the STAI instrument. See

In CEL 630, all candidates received either outstanding or acceptable ratings in all areas of the STAI, a trend also noted in 2007 and 2006.




Appendix B, Scoring Guide/Rubric 2 for the TWS.)

# 4 - Demonstrate the ability to have an impact on student learning and support of an environment that supports learning.

1. & 2. CEL 630, Practicum in Elementary Education, pre- and post-assessment data will be used to evaluate the impact of the lesson on student learning and the support of an environment that supports learning.

3. The TWS will be used in CEL 630 to collect the data to show that candidates have an impact on student learning and support an environment that supports learning. (See Appendix B, Scoring Guide/Rubric 2 for the TWS.)

Most candidates in CEL 630 demonstrated the ability to meaningfully interpret student data and draw appropriate conclusions (75% met indicator). Most (75% met indicator) were able to demonstrate evidence of the impact on student learning in terms of number of students who achieved and made progress toward each learning goal. The majority of the candidates demonstrated they were able to positively impact student learning and provide evidence of such impact. This was also noted in 2007 and 2006.



# 5 - Demonstrate appropriate dispositions for candidates who are working toward the M. Ed. degree in Elementary Education.

1 & 2. The Disposition Rating Scale will be used by faculty to rate candidates.

3. A distribution of scores will be used to analyze data. (See Appendix A, Instrument 3 for the dispositions scale.)

Candidates were rated by faculty. The greatest percentage of candidates was rated as meeting and exceeding expectations on indicators regarding maturity and ethics (93%). Some candidates (6-13%) received “partially met” ratings for flexibility, poise &

1. Continue to track ratings in the areas of weakness to identify trends.



confidence, initiative, enthusiasm, and collaborative practices. A small number of candidates (6%) received “not met” ratings for attendance, punctuality, dependability and attitude. Overall, the candidates demonstrated positive dispositions that reflect professionalism.

# 6 - Demonstrate an understanding of diversity and the ability to teach diverse populations effectively.

1., 2., & 3. Diversity assessments will be carried out in CRD 624, Literacy Instruction in Elementary Education. In CRD 624, data will be collected from a final exam essay question. Information pertaining to diversity is directly related to Standard II (Equity, Fairness, and Diversity) of the early childhood/generalist area of the NBPTS as well as Standard IV (Respect for Diversity) of the middle childhood/generalist area.

In CRD 624, candidates completed an essay item that evaluated their ability to meet accept and meet the diverse needs of students. Most candidates (86%) received acceptable ratings and while 14% received outstanding ratings. No candidates received marginal or unacceptable ratings. Results from 2007 were similar. All of the candidates were able to demonstrate their ability to accept and meet the needs of diverse learners during literacy instruction.



1The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards was established in 1987 to set high and rigorous standards for what accomplished teachers should know and be able to do. It is governed by a board of directors comprised of classroom teachers, school administrators, legislators and others from a cross-section of community, business, and government sectors.


Educational Specialist in Elementary Education Degree Program



A. Learning OutcomeWhat should a graduate in the Ed .S. Elementary Education major know, value, or be able to do at graduation and beyond

B. Data Collection and Analysis1. What assessment tools and/or methods will you use to determine achievement of the learning outcome? 2. Describe how the data from these tools and/or methods will be/have been collected. 3.Explain the procedure to analyze the data.


D. Use of Evaluation Results1.List any specific recommendations.2. Describe changes in curriculum, courses, or procedures that are proposed or were made/ are being made as a result of the program learning outcome assessment process

# 1 - Demonstrate an understanding of the knowledge and skills associated with the content of the Ed. S. degree program in Elementary Education.

1. & 2. A comprehensive examination will be administered each semester to candidates in the final course work of the Educational Specialist degree program.

3. A rubric will be used to evaluate the examinations and scores will be analyzed to assess strengths and weaknesses in the program. The assessment data are linked to both the National Board For Professional

A total of two Ed.S. candidates took the comprehensive exam. The pass rate was 100%.

1. Since the number of candidates taking the comps each semester is small, the faculty will continue to track candidate performance to note trends and make changes as warranted. No trends have been noted at this time.



Teaching Standards (NBPTS) 1 for the middle childhood/generalist (Standard II, knowledge of Content and Curriculum) and the early childhood generalist (Standard V, Knowledge of Integrated Curriculum). These standards relate directly to knowledge/skills elementary teachers need in order to understand what needs to be taught. Assessment data are also linked to Guiding Principle 1 of the Delta State University Conceptual Framework.

# 2 – Demonstrate the ability to plan and support planning at a level commensurate with the Educational Specialist level of expertise.

1. & 2. In order to show that candidates in the Educational Specialist degree program in Elementary Education can plan and support planning at an advanced level of expertise, candidates in CEL 705, Practicum in Early Childhood Education (K-3) will plan and teach lessons based on a modified Teacher Work Sample that incorporates a research component for this advanced level of preparation. CEL 705 is taught the first semester of each academic year.

Candidates in CEL 705 demonstrated the ability to accurately represent content (71% met indicator), develop lessons that moved students toward achieving learning goals (71% met indicator), and integrate the content (79% met indicator). Most (64%) were able to use a variety of instructional activities and use contextual factors to plan effective lessons. Weaknesses were noted in the candidates’ use of technology (29% met indicator) and modifications

1. The N increased for 2008. Trend data will continue to be developed with further implementation of the Teacher Work Sample.

2. Faculty will review the curriculum to determine the emphasis placed on meeting the needs of diverse learners and will make changes accordingly. Use of technology continues to be a weakness. Faculty will place more emphasis on instructional technology use by requiring its use for lesson


3. These sections of the Teacher Work Sample (TWS) will be used to show the ability to plan and support planning: Contextual Factors, Learning Goals, Assessment Plan, Design for Instruction, Instructional Decision Making, and Design for Instruction in Elementary Education. The assessment data in this area are related to the NBPTS Standards II (Knowledge of Content and Curriculum) and VI (Meaningful Applications of Knowledge) for the middle childhood/generalist and Standard VI (Multiple Teaching Strategies of Meaningful Learning) for the early childhood generalist. (See Appendix B, Scoring Guide/Rubric for the TWS.)

of lessons (57% indicator met). Though most of the candidates demonstrated the ability to plan effective lessons, weaknesses were noted that involved the use of technology and addressing the needs of diverse learners. The weakness in the use of technology was also identified in 2007.

planning and implementation.

# 3 - Demonstrate the ability to successfully teach in a field experience/clinical setting.

1. & 2. Candidates in CEL 705, Practicum in Early Childhood (K-3), will teach a lesson that will be videotaped and assessed using a scoring guide.

3. A modification of the TWS incorporating parts of the

All candidates in CEL 705 received either outstanding or acceptable ratings in all areas of the STAI except meeting the needs of diverse learners. Overall, the candidates demonstrated that they have the content and pedagogical

1. Special emphasis will be placed on differentiating instruction to meet the needs of diverse learners.


Student Teacher Assessment Instrument (STAI) will be used to collect data. (See Appendix A, Instrument 1 for the STAI instrument and Appendix B, Scoring Guide/Rubric 2 for the TWS.)

content knowledge to implement effective instruction.

# 4 - Demonstrate that candidate’s teaching has an impact on student learning and support of an environment that supports learning.

1. & 2. Candidates in CEL 705, Practicum in Early Childhood (K-3) will use student data from the TWS to demonstrate impact on student learning.

3. The Analysis of Student Learning sections of the TWS will be used to collect this data. This area is directly related to Standard III (Learning Environment) of the middle childhood/generalist standards for the NBPTS. (See Appendix B, Scoring Guide/Rubric for the TWS.)

Most candidates in CEL 705 demonstrated the ability to meaningfully interpret student data and draw appropriate conclusions (86% met indicator, while 7% did not meet indicator). Most (86% met indicator) were able to demonstrate evidence of the impact on student learning in terms of number of students who achieved and made progress toward each learning goal. Twenty-nine percent partially met the indicator demonstrating their ability to clearly present analysis of student data. Overall, the candidates demonstrated they were able to positively impact student learning and provide evidence of such impact.



# 5 - Demonstrate that 1., 2., & 3. Students in the Ed. Candidates (N=3) were rated 1. Due to the small number of


candidate teaching reflects appropriate dispositions necessary for effective teaching.

S. program in Elementary Education are rated on dispositions using the Dispositions Rating Scale. The information is filed in the student’s folder for advisement purposes. NBPTS Standard II (Equity, Fairness, and Diversity) of the middle childhood/generalist area is directly related to dispositions. (See Appendix A, Instrument 3 for the Dispositions Rating Scale.)

by faculty. All candidates (100%) either met or exceeded expectations for dispositions, which was also identified in 2007 and 2006.

candidates, the program coordinator will continue to review trend data related to professional dispositions.


1The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards was established in 1987 to set high and rigorous standards for what accomplished teachers should know and be able to do. It is governed by a board of directors comprised of classroom teachers, school administrators, legislators and others from a cross-section of community, business, and government sectors.

Master of Arts in Teaching Degree Program



A. Learning OutcomeWhat should a graduate in the Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) major know, value, or be able to do at graduation and beyond

B. Data Collection and Analysis1. What assessment tools and/or methods will you use to determine achievement of the learning outcome? 2. Describe how the data from these tools and/or methods will be/have been collected. 3. Explain the procedure to analyze the


D. Use of Evaluation Results1.List any specific recommendations.2. Describe changes in curriculum, courses, or procedures that are proposed or were made/ are being made as a result of the program learning outcome assessment process


data.#1 - Demonstrate proficiency in basic pre-professional and content knowledge the Mississippi Department of Education requires for Alternate - Route Teacher Education candidates through the Master of Arts in Teaching Degree Program.

1. a & 2.a Data will be collected prior to program admission through scores on PRAXIS I Pre-Professional Skills Assessment (PPST), a measure of basic skills in reading, writing, and mathematics, and PRAXIS II: Subject Assessments, measures of specific subjects that K-12 educators will teach, as well as general and subject-specific teaching skills and knowledge.

3.a. Applications to the MAT Program will be reviewed. All applicants must provide documentation of passing scores on PRAXIS I and II in order to be considered for admission.

1.b. & 2.b. All MAT teacher candidates will be required to pass an essay-type comprehensive examination. The examination focuses on the planning, implementation, and assessment of teaching and learning. The examination will be administered during the spring semester of each academic year. Teacher

All teacher candidates admitted to the MAT Program met or exceeded the Mississippi Department of Education minimum requirements. Passing scores on the PRAXIS I and II are requirements for admission to the program.

The comprehensive examination was administered to the nine teacher candidates in MAT Cohort IV during the Spring 2009 Semester. All MAT teacher candidates passed the comprehensive examination on the first attempt. This is the first time that comprehensive examinations were

1.a. None at this time.

2.a. The MAT application has been placed online for easier access.

1.b. None at this time.

2.b. None at this time.


candidates who do not pass all portions of the examination will be provided with study recommendations and will retake fall portions during the Summer I term of each academic year.

3.b. Score distributions will be analyzed.

administered in the MAT Program.

#2 - Demonstrate the ability to plan and implement instruction that meets the needs of diverse learners in the classroom setting.

1. During the CEL/CUR 650* fall and spring courses, candidates will be evaluated on their ability to plan instruction using Domain I: Planning and Preparation of the Student Teacher Assessment Instrument (STAI). The STAI is an instrument used statewide to measure teacher candidates’ abilities.

2. A 4-point rubric is used to assess STAI indicators.

3. TaskStream reports provide descriptive statistical analyses. (See Appendix A, Instrument 1 for the STAI.)

For STAI Domain I, mean scores fell between 3.0 (Acceptable) and 4.0 (Outstanding) on the final STAI evaluation. A trend is noted as the same results were identified in 2007 and 2006.

1. In the Fall 2009 Semester, the new Teacher Intern Assessment Instrument (TIAI) will replace the STAI. The program coordinator should closely monitor the implementation of the new TIAI. The program coordinator and department chair should consider moving the research course requirement to the first summer courses. It is currently taken last in the program of study.


#3 - Demonstrate the ability to complete a successful

1. & 2. The MAT Program includes a year-long internship

In reviewing the STAI observations, it was



internship. in the field. During the CEL/CUR 650* fall and spring courses candidates will be evaluated three times each semester by a university supervisor using the STAI Indicators 9 – 42. The following domains will be used to assess the internship: communication and interaction, teaching and learning, managing the learning environment, assessment of student learning.

3. Descriptive statistics will be calculated in TaskStream. (See Appendix A, Instrument 1 for the STAI.)

determined that the mean score for all indicators met expectations for the final STAI evaluation, a trend that was also identified in 2007 and 2006. It was determined that the areas of strengths the candidates were displaying included knowledge of subject, establishing relationships with parents, and maintaining records of student work. The areas of weakness displayed by the candidates, however, included classroom management and wait time in questioning. Weakness in the adequate use of wait time in questions was also noted in 2007 and 2006.

2. Include emphases on the importance of wait time in questioning. In addition, continue to reinforce the classroom management concepts presented in CEL/CUR 611*.

#4 - Demonstrate the ability to measure student achievement, employ classroom management, and adjust instruction for maximum impact on student learning.

1. & 2. During CEL/CUR 650*, MAT candidates complete a Teacher Work Sample (TWS) containing the following components: Contextual Factors, Learning Goals, Assessment Plan, Design for Instruction, Instructional Decision-Making, Analysis of Student Learning, Reflection and Self-Evaluation, Design for Instruction in

All MAT candidates met expectations on the final ratings of all indicators. This was also true in 2007 and 2006. In reviewing the submitted TWS assessments, it was determined that areas of strengths for candidates were: contextual factors, appropriateness for students, modes of approach, and

1. Discuss the importance and use of educational research during CEL/CUR 650*. The ability to research can be aided by consideration of moving the research course requirement to the first summer courses. It is currently taken last in the program of study.



Elementary/Secondary Education, and Research-Based Practice. 3. Descriptive statistics will be calculated in TaskStream. (See Appendix B, Scoring Guide/Rubric 2 for the TWS.)

alignment with learning goals and interpretation of data. The only area of weakness was in research-based practice.

#5 - Demonstrate the ability to identify and develop the professional dispositions of an effective educator.

1. & 2. The Dispositions Rating Scale (Domain VI of the Student Teacher Assessment Instrument: Professionalism and Partnerships) will be used to assess candidates’ professional dispositions. The version of the instrument used during the Spring 2008 Semester contained 16 professional dispositions; the rating scale was streamlined in the Fall 2008 Semester to include six professional dispositions.

3. TaskStream reports provided descriptive statistical analyses. (See Appendix A, Instrument 3 for the Dispositions Rating Scale).

Candidate ratings on all indicators were at the “Met Expectations” or “Exceeds Expectations” rating levels.

1. It is recommended that the program coordinator continue to review the results of the dispositions ratings with candidates in order to share concerns, questions, and comments. This should be done early in the internship so that candidates may make needed improvements/capitalize on strengths and should be revisited throughout the internship and resubmitted for review at the end of the experience.


* The following titles are provided for referenced courses.CSP 546 – Advanced Survey of Exceptional ChildrenCEL/CUR 611 – Classroom Management and OrganizationCEL/CUR 612 – Development, Assessment, and EvaluationCEL/CSD 614 – Methods of Instruction in Elementary/Secondary Schools


CEL/CUR 650 – Dimensions of Learning/Internship

Master of Education in Special Education Degree Program



A. Learning OutcomeWhat should a graduate in the Master’s in Special Education

major know, value, or be able to do at graduation and beyond?

B. Data Collection & Analysis1. What assessment tools and/or methods will you use to determine achievement of the learning outcome? 2. Describe how the data from these tools and/or methods

will be/have been collected. 3.Explain the procedure to analyze the

data.


D. Use of Evaluation Results1.List any specific recommendations.2. Describe changes in curriculum,

courses, or procedures that are proposed or were made/ are being made

as a result of the program learning outcome assessment process.

#1 - Demonstrate mastery of the content of the M.Ed. degree program in special education, including, but not limited to history, philosophy, theories, legal and ethical practices, service delivery, curriculum and instruction.

1. In the Master of Education Program in Special Education, content knowledge will be measured in two ways. All candidates will take the PRAXIS specialty area examination, Education of Exceptional Children (0353). All candidates will also take a written comprehensive examination. 2. Candidates entering the program may be divided into three categories. One subgroup includes individuals who have completed an undergraduate

Analysis of data for Assessment 1 (PRAXIS): Seven candidates submitted Praxis scores in spring 2008, seven in summer 2008 and 17 in fall 2008. All candidates passed with a range of scores from 153 to 177.

Analysis of data for assessment 2 (Comprehensive Examination): In spring 2008, six candidates took comprehensive examinations; 83% passed. In summer 2008, seven candidates took comprehensive examinations and 71% passed. In


2.a. Recommended Changes Based upon this Analysis:

a) Rework comps practice system

b) Develop a formal comps policy including how candidates are cleared to take comps, what actions are taken when a candidate fails comps, and how many times a candidate can retake comps

c) Formalize remedial


degree in special education. These candidates have already met the Praxis Specialty Area requirement. The second subgroup includes individuals with undergraduate degrees in other areas of education. These individuals are advised to take the Praxis exam upon completion of 15-18 hours of coursework. The last subgroup members have undergraduate degrees in areas other than education. Some have already passed the special education Praxis exam due to requirements for alternate licensure in Mississippi. Others are full time students and are advised to take the Praxis exam upon completion of 15-18 hours of coursework. The Praxis examination must be passed in order to register for comprehensive examinations. Candidates will take an essay-type comprehensive examination in the last semester of their program. This may be the semester in which the candidate is taking remaining coursework, or it may be the semester after

fall 2008, 17 candidates took comprehensive examinations and 59% passed. The range of scores was from 55-97%.

Program goals are set for a 70% pass rate. In spring and in summer the goal was reached. In the fall, the goal was not achieved. However, three of the candidates in the fall were taking comps for the second time. Seventy-one percent of first time takers in the fall passed. Question set A has generated the lowest scores in two of the last three administrations.

plans from a range of options specified in the written comps policy

2.b. Trends Noticed and Actions Based upon those Trends across the Year(s):

Question set A has generated the lowest scores in two of the last three administrations. In the spring 2009 faculty retreat, the faculty discussed changes to the newly developed CSP 651, Foundations of Special Education in Inclusive Settings. This course replaces CSP 546, Advanced Survey of Exceptional Children, which is required for non-majors.


course completion. Candidates are required to attend at least one comprehensive examination study session before taking comps. These sessions orient the candidates to the format of the exam; provide a study guide with prompts and a copy of the rubric, and suggestions on time management and editing during the test session. The examination consists

of four sets of questions covering: 1) Law and Practices, 2) Development and Characteristics of Learners 3) Individual Learning Differences, and 4) Professional and Ethical Practice. Each set includes two questions and a single set of prompts derived from the CEC standard(s) covered by that set. Candidates are given the prompts and related CEC standards in practice comprehensive exams administered throughout the program and in comps study and orientation sessions. On the exam, the candidates are given the questions and the prompts.


Prompts are provided to elicit parallel content regardless of the specific question. The exam is given in two three-hour sessions; each session covers two question sets. Candidates respond to one question from each question set.

3. Comprehensive exams will be graded using a 4-point rubric, which rates both content and writing. Candidates are rated on a) mechanics, b) content breadth, c) content depth; d) standards based content, e) organization, and f) clarity. Three faculty members read and score each candidate’s work. Candidates must score 70% or higher from at least two faculty members. Faculty members meet to discuss the results for each candidate to make the final determination. All decisions are made blind; candidate names are not revealed until the entire group has been processed. Comprehensive examinations are administered in candidates’ last semester enrolled in the program. (See


Appendix B, Scoring Guide/Rubric 6 for the comprehensive examination rubric.)

#2 - Demonstrate skills associated with the master’s level in special education in planning and implementing instruction for individuals with exceptional learning needs in a variety of classroom settings.

1. & 2. Undergraduate programs at Delta State University use the STAI (Student Teacher Assessment Instrument) to evaluate student teaching. Because our candidates are enrolled in an initial preparation program, even though it is a graduate program, we use a modified teacher work sample, the Special Education Unit Planner, to give an expanded assessment of planning and implementation of instruction. This is in response to criticism of our accrediting body (CEC) on the overuse of STAI. We will still use the STAI for observation of instruction. The Special Education Unit Planner has a total of five components which deal with teaching processes identified by research and best practices as fundamental to improving student learning. Each dimension (or teaching

In the Spring 2008 Semester, 15 candidates completed the assessment in internship/field research classes; 93% passed. In the Fall 2008 Semester, nine candidates completed the assessment in internship/field research classes with a 93% pass rate.

Analysis of Results: Internship and field research classes are only offered in spring and fall semesters. Program goals are set for a 70% pass rate. In spring and in fall the goal was reached. The goal was also reached in 2007.


2. Recommended Changes Based upon this Analysis:Although candidate pass rate was high, faculty members believe that quality is still an issue. Opportunities for field based formative evaluation are being extended into CSP 686*, 640*, and 643*.

Trends Noticed and Actions Based upon those Trends across the Year(s): Supervisors report the need for extensive support at the university level to achieve this level of performance. By requiring equivalent experiences in earlier classes, it is believed that candidates will need less support at this level.


process) of this teacher work sample is followed by a standard, the task, a prompt, and a rubric that defines various levels of performance on the standard. The standards and rubrics will be used to evaluate candidate work. The prompts help document the extent to which the candidate has met each standard. Candidates will be required to plan a comprehensive unit. Before teaching the unit, they will be asked to describe contextual factors; identify learning goals based on state or district content standards; create an assessment plan designed to measure student performance before, during, and after teaching; and plan for instruction. After teaching the unit, candidates will analyze student learning and then reflect upon and evaluate teaching as related to student learning in the Teacher Data Collection Project and Reflection. Candidates enrolled in CSP 643* will complete the assignment without the teaching component.


Hypothetical data will be used to address the prompts.

3. A 4-point rubric will be used to score the Special Education Unit Planner. Score distributions are calculated. (See Appendix B, Scoring Guide/Rubric 7 for the Special Education Unit Planner rubric and Appendix B, Scoring Guide/Rubric 8 for the Teacher Data Collection Project and Reflection.)

#3 - Demonstrate skills associated with the master’s level in special education in the measurement of student achievement and adjustment of instruction for maximum impact on student achievement.

1. & 2. The Teacher Data Collection and Reflection Project, a revised version of the equivalent section of the Teacher Work Sample is used to evaluate impact on student learning. A 4-point rubric will be used. The rubric contains nine indicators.

3. Score distributions will be calculated. (See Appendix A, Instrument 1 for the STAI and Appendix B, Scoring Guide/Rubric 8 for the Teacher Data Collection and Reflection Project.)

Summary of Results:In spring 2008, 15 candidates completed the assessment; 93% passed. In fall 2008, nine candidates completed the assessment; 89% passed.

Analysis of Results: Internship and field research classes are only offered in spring and fall semesters. Program goals are set for a 70% pass rate. In spring and in fall the goal was reached.The goal was also reached in 2007.


2. Recommended Changes Based upon this Analysis:Although candidate pass rate was high, faculty members believe that quality is still an issue. Opportunities for field based formative evaluation are being extended into CSP 686*, 640*, and 643. Trends Noticed and Actions Based upon those Trends across the Year(s): Supervisors report the need for extensive support at the university level to achieve this level of performance. By


requiring equivalent experiences in earlier classes, it is believed that candidates will need less support at this level.

#4 - Exhibit dispositions associated with the successful teaching of children and youth with disabilities.

1. The Dispositions Rating Scale will be used to assess candidate dispositions. The scale was developed by COE faculty and is based on dispositional characteristics identified in the STAI. For the Spring 2008 Semester, the graduate candidate version of the scale contained 16 dispositional characteristics. The instrument was reviewed for the Fall 2008, and contained six dispositional characteristics.

2. The data will be collected in CSP 547/647*as part of the Special Education Professional Folio. 3. Score distribution data will be analyzed to find relative strengths and weaknesses. (See Appendix A, Instrument 3 for the graduate version of the Dispositions Rating Scale.)

Analysis of Results: Results are reported in terms of strengths and weaknesses. Candidates averaged 3.0 (Meets Expectations) on dependability and professionalism in both semesters. Additionally, in fall candidates averaged 3.0 (Meets Expectations) on commitment to inquiry. Weak areas resulted from candidates missing deadlines, turning in incomplete work and requiring multiple conferences to bring work up to standards.


2. Recommended Changes Based upon this Analysis:Faculty members believe that quality is still an issue. Candidates lacked in confidence. Opportunities for field based formative evaluation are being extended into CSP 686*, 640*, and 643*.

Trends Noticed and Actions Based upon those Trends across the Year(s): Supervisors report the need for extensive support at the university level to achieve this level of performance. By requiring equivalent experiences in earlier classes, it is believed that candidates will need less support at this level.

*The following titles are provided for referenced courses.CSP 545, Special Education Assessment


CSP 547, Internship in Special EducationCSP 640, Education of Young Children with Exceptional Learning NeedsCSP 643, Programming for Individuals with Mild/Moderate Exceptional Learning NeedsCSP 647, Practicum in Special EducationCSP 686, Education of Individuals with Mild/Moderate Exceptional Learning Needs

Learning Outcomes Identified for General Education Competencies

General Education Course

A. Gen Ed Learning OutcomesWhat should a student in the gen ed course taught by this division know, value, or be able to do at graduation and beyond?

B. Data Collection & Analysis1. What assessment tools and/or methods will you use to determine achievement of the learning outcomes? 2. Describe how the data from these tools and/or methods will be/have been collected. 3. Explain the procedure to analyze the data.


D. Use of Evaluation Results 1. List any specific recommendations. 2. Describe changes in curriculum, courses, or procedures that are proposed or were made/are being made as a result of the program learning outcome assessment process.

CEL 300 Understand the concepts related to cognition, learning, information processing, and language development of diverse learners (GE 5)

Study various methods of collecting data (GE 4)

Explore the social contexts of child development (GE 6)

Examine contemporary concerns related to the intelligence, education

1. & 2. Each semester, test results, a case study, research projects, and a resource notebook will be used to determine the achievement of learning objectives.

3. Score distributions and final course grades will be analyzed.

A total of 75 students registered for the three sections of CEL 300 taught during the 2008 calendar year. Final grade distributions were as follows:

A – 15% B – 24% C – 20% D – 7% F – 17% Cut Outs – 9% Incomplete – 7% Withdraw – 1%




and achievement of children from early childhood through adolescence (GE 7)

III. Goals

-- For the Current Year

A. Goal # 1: Finalize elements of the candidate assessment system for all programs in the Division, in preparation for the collecting of data beginning in fall 2009 for the next NCATE visit.

1. Institutional Goal(s) Supported by This Goal:

SP Goal # 1: Enhanced academic programs will ensure that graduates are well prepared for successful careers and ready to contribute to the civic life of their communities.

QEP Goal #2: Delta State University will enhance student engagement through increased use of technology and web-based communication in classroom activities and assignments.

QEP Goal # 4: Student engagement in free-flowing, multi-directional communication with faculty and other students will increase. Communication related to current performance and its relationship to long-term student achievement and academic career decisions will improve through the increased use of departmental review boards.

2. Evaluation Procedure(s):

The faculty of the undergraduate elementary education program used ACEI requirements and NCATE standards to refine the elements of the initial program assessment system. The faculty of the graduate elementary education program used ACEI requirements, National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), and NCATE standards to refine the elements of the advanced program assessment system. The Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) faculty used the NCATE Standards to


refine the elements of the program assessment system. The special education faculty used CEC requirements and NCATE standards to refine the elements of the program assessment system.

3. Actual Results of Evaluation:

During the Spring 2009 Semester, all programs completed Assessment Data Summary and Analysis Reports on all program candidate performance assessments. These reports focused on data collected during the 2008 calendar year. The details of the summaries and analyses of candidate performance assessments may be found in the Educational Program Learning Outcome Assessment Plan (Academics) charts located in Section II of this document.

In addition, the special education program received national recognition from the Council for Exceptional Children.

4. Uses of Evaluation Results:

Data-driven decisions made during the Spring, Summer, and Fall 2008 Semesters included the following:

The undergraduate Elementary Education Program is adding integrated field experiences in order to teach an entire five-day integrated unit, as well as allow candidates to spend more time developing and implementing reading lessons.

The undergraduate Elementary Education faculty will set a cut score for the C-Base for admission to the Elementary Education Program.

More emphasis will be placed on the following content in the Ed.S. in Elementary Education Program: meeting the needs of diverse learners and effective use of instructional technology.

More emphasis will be placed on the following content in the MAT Program: wait time in questioning, classroom management, and research-based practice.

The Special Education Program will develop a comprehensive examination policy and formalized remediation plans. The Special Education Program is adding more opportunities for field-based formative evaluations.

In addition, results of individual teacher candidate assessments were used for advisement and were shared with internal and external stakeholders at advisory council meetings and other venues.

B. Goal # 2: The Division of Teacher Education will increase recruitment and retention efforts through the continued upgrading of the enhanced division website, including a link to the division newsletter. These efforts will be


coordinated with the university Office of Recruitment and the Office of Retention to aid the Division in implementing an effective strategy for recruitment and retention.


SP Goal # 2: Students will enroll in greater numbers and a larger percentage will persist to graduation.

SP Goal # 4: Friends of Delta State University, along with the general public, will become more aware and more supportive of the institution.


Prospective students accessed the division website for information on admission requirements and details of programs of study. The division newsletter was not developed because other recruitment and retention activities were implemented, which included the following: participating in statewide recruitment opportunities for high school and community college students, pursuing 2+2 partnership with community colleges, and partnering with the Office of Retention to intervene with struggling teacher candidates.


Evaluation information was used to target and guide recruitment and retention efforts. Data in Tables 1 – 4 indicate an overall drop in graduation numbers over the past four years. Specific program data indicate a drop in graduation numbers for

the BSE in Elementary Education and the MAT Programs, while graduate numbers have risen in the Special Education Program. A concern is noted in Special Education with an overall decrease in credit hour production, although enrollment numbers and graduate numbers have increased.

Table 1A

Goal Institutional Goal Baseline (AY 2007-08)

Year 1(08-09)

Year 2(09-10)

Year 3(10-11)

Year 4(11-12)

Year 5(12-13)

Year 6 (13-14)

Goal #2 – To increase graduation rates by 2%

SP 2, 5 103 97


4. Use of Evaluation Results:

The College of Education developed a partnership with Hinds Community College to provide a 2+2 program in Elementary Education, which was implemented in the Spring 2009 Semester. In time, the partnership is expected to increase the graduation rate in the BSE in Elementary Education. For the 2009-2010 Academic Year, the division chair will work with the new MAT Program Coordinator to identify ways to improve the graduation rate in the program.

C. Goal # 3: The Division of Teacher Education will successfully implement all requirements of the IHL Blue Ribbon Committee for the Redesign of Teacher Preparation



QEP Goal # 4: Student engagement in free-flowing, multi-directional communication with faculty and other students will increase. Communication related to current performance and its relationship to long-term student

achievement and academic career decisions will improve through the increased use of departmental review boards.


The Division used the benchmarks and timelines provided by the Blue Ribbon Committee as a means of evaluating progress toward the implementation of the recommendations.


Evaluators requested revisions of two parts of the College of Education Redesign proposal; all other parts of the proposal were accepted. These included the membership of the P-16 Council and clarification of the key subject areas related to content knowledge for teacher education candidates. Revisions were made and submitted to IHL. All standards were met in the Mississippi Department of Education Process Review conducted in spring 2009.


During the 2008-2009 Academic Year, faculty members reviewed research and visited the Elementary Education Program at Emporia State University to assist in developing a plan for implementing mandated Redesign changes. Curriculum changes necessary for implementation of the Redesign requirements were approved for implementation in the Fall 2009 Semester.


Curriculum changes for the Fall 2009 Semester focus on the implementation of two blocks, which will allow for a increase in integrated field experiences. (See details of the curriculum changes in the section VI of this document.)

D. Goal # 4: The Division of Teacher Education will implement the use of TaskStream as the sole information technology tool used to collect candidate assessment data in all programs within the Division.


QEP Goal # 2: Delta State University will enhance student engagement through increased use of technology and web-based communication in classroom activities and assignments.


Progress toward this goal was discussed and verified during faculty meetings/retreats.


With the exception of the College BASE scores, all undergraduate Elementary Education candidate performance data werecollected in TaskStream. Beginning in the Fall 2009 Semester, the College BASE results will be collected in TaskStream. All MAT teacher candidate performance data were collected in TaskStream. Plans were made for the collection of all graduate elementary education and special education data in TaskStream, beginning in the Fall 2009 Semester.

4. Used of Evaluation Results:


Each semester, data reports were run in TaskStream to provide means and score distributions for all assessment indicators. Copies of the reports were provided to appropriate faculty and were used to write the Assessment Data Summary and Analysis Reports and the Educational Program Learning Outcome Assessment Plan (Academics) charts located in Section II of this document.

E. Goal # 5: Encourage the development of a broad-based learning community made up of faculty and teacher education candidates through the development of Reading Circle opportunities.



QEP Goal # 1: Delta State University will enhance student engagement through increased student-student interaction and faculty- student interaction.


The Reading Circle was implemented with the Dean’s Scholars as a pilot. Data were gathered through surveys and discussions.


Books were discussed at regular luncheon meetings with the Dean’s Scholars. Based on feedback, some of the chosen books were more useful than others. Of particular use was Teach Like Your Hair is on Fire by Rafe Esquith. The book was studied prior to the group’s visit to Rafe’s classroom in Los Angeles, CA.


Some Dean’s Scholars were not able to participate with as much depth as hoped due to other important obligations, such as course requirements and work. The Reading Circle may be implemented in other venues in the future.

-- For Coming Year(s)


A. Goal # 1: Continue the refinement of the candidate performance assessment systems for all programs in the division for use with NCATE accreditation, as well as for advisement and improvement of courses and programs. This refinement should

include the collection of data in TaskStream.


SP Goal # 1: Increase Student Learning.QEP Goal #2: Delta State University will enhance student engagement through increased use of technology and web-based

communication in classroom activities and assignments.

QEP Goal #4 : Student engagement in free-flowing, multi-directional communication with faculty and other students will increase. Communication related to current performance and its relationship to long-term student achievement and academic career decisions will improve through the increased use of departmental review boards.


Program faculty will use the requirements of the appropriate specialized professional associations and NCATE standards to refine program candidate performance assessment systems. The graduate Elementary Education Program will also use National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) to guide refinement of the program’s candidate performance assessment system.

3. Expected Results:

Program faculty will use assessment data to identify strengths and needs in courses and in the program as a whole, as well as for accreditation purposes. Program faculty will complete Assessment Data Summary and Analysis Reports on all program candidate performance assessments to document the strengths and needs, as well as data-driven decisions resulting from the data analysis. Results of the data analysis and data-driven changes will be shared with teacher candidates, College of Education and University faculty, and other stakeholders.

4. Anticipated/Intended Uses of Evaluation Results:

Program faculty will analyze candidate performance data to use for advisement, as well as to make data-driven changes in courses and the program as a whole. Data-driven changes will be documented in meeting minutes, such as those of faculty

meetings, curriculum committees, the Teacher Education Council, and the Assessment Committee.


B. Goal #2: Increase number of graduates by an average of 2% per year.


SP Goal #1: Increase student learning.

SP Goal #2: Develop an engaged, diverse, high quality student population.

QEP Goal #4 : Student engagement in free-flowing, multi-directional communication with faculty and other students will increase. Communication related to current performance and its relationship to long-term student



Faculty members will review data on credit hour production, enrollment, and graduate rates to identify trends. Plans will be developed and implemented to attract, retain, and support undergraduate and graduate teacher candidates.


The number of graduates will increase by an average of 2% per year.

Table 1BGoal Institutional Goal Baseline

(AY 2007-08)Year 1(08-09)

Year 2(09-10)

Year 3(10-11)

Year 4(11-12)

Year 5(12-13)

Year 6 (13-14)

Goal #2 – Increase number of graduates by an average of 2% per year

SP 2, 5 (2008-09)SP 1, 2 (2009-2010)QEP 4

103 97



Use data to identify the effectiveness of recruitment and retention initiatives, and revise initiatives based upon the data analysis.

C. Goal # 3: The Division of Teacher Education will successfully implement all requirements of the IHL Blue Ribbon Committee for the Redesign of Teacher Education (Continued from 2008-2009).


SP Goal #1: Enhanced academic programs will ensure that graduates are well prepared for successful careers and ready to contribute to the civic life of their communities. (2008-2009)

SP Goal #1: Increase student learning. (2009-2010)

QEP Goal # 4: Student engagement in free-flowing, multi-directional communication with faculty and other students will increase. Communication related to current performance and its relationship to long-term student



Faculty will review course evaluations and candidate performance assessment data to analyze the effectiveness of the curriculum changes implemented during the Fall 2009 Semester. In addition, the results of the spring 2010 Mississippi

Department of Education (MDE) Process Review will be used to evaluate compliance with the Redesign requirements.


Needed changes in courses and programs will be based on the course evaluation and candidate performance assessment data analyses. In addition, it is expected that all standards will be met in the MDE Process Review to be conducted in spring

2010.



Evaluation results will be used to improve courses and programs.

D. Goal # 4: Infuse the eight components of the Healthy Schools curriculum throughout the undergraduate Elementary Education program of study.

1. Institutional Goal(s) supported by this goal:

SP Goal #1: Increase student learning.

SP Goal #5: Improve the quality of life for all constituents.

QEP Goal #4: Student engagement in free-flowing, multi-directional communication with faculty and other students will increase. Communication related to current performance and its relationship to long-term student



Faculty will infuse the eight components of the Healthy Schools curriculum in appropriate course syllabi during the Fall 2009 Semester. The components will be implemented within the curriculum of appropriate courses, beginning with the

Spring 2010 Semester. The effectiveness of the initiative will be assessed through the results of course evaluations and candidate performance assessments, in addition to the results obtained by evaluators of the College of Education Delta Health Alliance and Blue Cross-Blue Shield grants.


College of Education graduates will have the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to integrate the Healthy Schools components into the K-6 curriculum of the Delta area schools, thus, meeting goals associated with the College of Education Delta

Health Alliance and Blue Cross-Blue Shield grants. Indirect results will be improved health and wellness for Delta area children.



Needed course and program changes will be based on the evaluation results.

IV. Data and information for department:

Brief Description and/or Narrative of programmatic scope:

The Division of Teacher Education houses the following degree programs: Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education - This degree provides initial licensure in grades Kindergarten through Grade 6.

Supplemental endorsements for middle level grades lead to licensure in grades 7-8. The program is available at the Cleveland campus, with a few courses offered at the Greenville Higher Education Center. In the Spring 2009 Semester, a 2+2 Program with Hinds Community College was begun; beginning with the Summer I 2009 Term, the DSU/Hinds program will be totally online.

Master of Education Degree in Elementary Education – This program is available at the Cleveland campus, at the Coahoma County Higher Education Center, and online. The purpose of the program is to prepare quality teachers who can teach at all levels of the elementary school.

Educational Specialist Degree in Elementary Education – For fall 2008, this program was available only at the Cleveland campus. Beginning with the Spring 2009 Semester, the program went online. The purpose of the program is to prepare quality elementary teachers who can function effectively and provide leadership for fellow teachers at both the primary and intermediate levels.

Master of Education in Special Education – This program provides initial licensure in Special Education and is available at the Cleveland campus. The program mission is to train teachers to work with children and youth with mild/moderate disabilities.

Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) – The MAT is an alternate-route program designed for promising individuals with non-education degrees who want to become teachers. It leads to a Master’s Degree in Teaching and Mississippi AA licensure. The program is available at the Cleveland campus, with innovative course delivery methods, including weekend classes, online, intersession courses, and hybrid methods. The program offers an emphasis in Elementary (Grades 4 – 8) and Secondary Education.

Comparative Data (enrollment, CHP, majors, graduation rates, etc):

Table 2: Enrollment by Major for Spring 2006 – Fall 2008


Table 3: Credit Hour Production by Discipline for Spring 2006 – Fall 2008

Table 4: A Comparison of Graduates by Major for AY 2005-2006 – AY 2008-2009

Table 2

ENROLLMENT BY MAJOR

Spring 2006

Spring 2007

Spring 2008

Summer 2006

Summer 2007

Summer 2008

Fall2006

Fall 2007

Fall 2008

UG GR UG GR UG GR UG GR UG GR UG GR UG GR UG GR UG GR

Elementary Education 269 72 256 64 262 73 269 72 100 45 77 77 283 65 312 60 264 156

Master of Arts in Teaching

- 16 - 7 - 10 - 23 - 21 - 22 - 7 - 13 0 12

Special Education 27 54 14 68 4 72 27 54 4 51 3 46 17 91 5 75 1 61

Total296 142 270 139 266 155 296 149 104 117 80 145 300 163 317 148 265 229

The data displayed in Table 2 indicate that enrollment in the undergraduate Elementary Education Program has decreased, while enrollment in graduate programs has increased for both Special Education Programs and Elementary Education Programs.

Table 3

CREDIT HOUR PRODUCTION BY DISCIPLINE

Spring 2006

Spring 2007

Spring 2008

Summer 2006

Summer 2007

Summer 2008

Fall2006

Fall 2007

Fall 2008

UG GR UG GR UG GR UG GR UG GR UG GR UG GR UG GR UG GR

CEL 1176 183 1059 201 1116 153 183 231 204 276 132 474 1296 216 1266 213 1140 765CML 75 51 72 21 99 36 51 0 21 - 36 0 135 21 69 33 66 6CRD 204 102 318 75 150 78 156 123 192 90 90 224 390 0 351 - 336 0


CSP 582 339 546 297 519 303 279 345 261 321 225 270 420 387 441 288 402 315CSD - - - - - - - - - 27 0 33 0 15 - 27 0 24CUR 449 201 435 153 374 291 9 504 12 477 0 291 487 159 466 183 517 105Total 2486 876 2430 747 2258 861 678 1203 690 1191 483 1302 2728 798 2593 744 2461 1215

The data displayed in Table 3 indicate a decrease in credit hour production for the undergraduate Elementary Education Program,

including the coursework focused on a concentration/endorsement in Special Education. For graduate programs, there is a decrease in credit hour production in the Special Education Program, little variability in the Master of Arts in Teaching Program, and a marked increase in the Elementary Education Programs.

Table 4

A COMPARISON OF GRADUATES BY MAJOR

2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009BSE Elementary Education 58 39 51 41

M.Ed. Elementary Education 36 20 22 24Ed.S. Elementary Education 9 2 7 2Master of Arts in Teaching 0 17 7 9

BSE Special Education 0 3 2 (Program has closed)

M.Ed. Special Education 12 6 14 21Totals 115 87 103 97

The data displayed in Table 4 indicate an overall decrease in the number of graduates. Reviewing the data by program indicates variable numbers in the BSE in Elementary Education, an overall decrease in the M.Ed. in Elementary Education, variable numbers in the Ed.S. in Elementary Education, a decrease in the Master of

Arts in Teaching, and an overall increase in the M.Ed. in Special Education.

Grants, Contracts, Partnerships:

The Literacy Enhancement Clinic, funded by a Delta Health Alliance grant, provided clinical experiences and professional development opportunities for teacher candidates and diagnostic and remedial assistance to approximately 40 K – 9 students through the use of health-related nonfiction text. Dr. Corlis Snow coordinates the Literacy Enhancement Clinic program.


The Literacy Across the Curriculum: Institute for Teachers in Grades 6 – 12, funded by a $76,700 IHL grant, provided training for Delta area teachers in the incorporation of literacy skills in the content areas. Dr. Levenia Barnes is the director of the Institute.

The Connecting the Generations Through Untold Stories: A Visual and Oral History Portraying the People of the Delta project was a joint venture between the Delta State College of Education and the Sunflower County School District. The project was funded through grants from the Mississippi Humanities Council and the Delta Center for Learning and Culture. The project trained elementary and middle school students to complete visual and oral histories with citizens of Sunflower County who experienced the years of the Civil Rights Era. Dr. Jenetta Waddell coordinated the project for the College of Education.

The Delta Connection, a partnership with the Elementary Education Program at Blue Mountain College, provides an exchange of undergraduate elementary education candidates for the purpose of team-teaching literacy lessons to diverse elementary students at Bell Elementary in Boyle, MS, and New Albany Elementary in New Albany, MS. Dr. Cheryl Cummins and Mrs. Anjanette Powers coordinate this partnership.

The undergraduate Elementary Education Program partners with the administration and faculty at Bell Elementary School in Boyle, MS, to teach CRD 326 Diagnosis and Remediation of Reading Difficulties on site at Bell Elementary. Dr. Cheryl Cummins and Mrs. Anjanette Powers coordinate this partnership.

The Delta State University/Tishomingo County School District Partnership received a $180,000 grant from the Tri-State Educational Foundation to assist in funding tuition for 29 Tishomingo County School District teachers to receive a Master of Education in Elementary Education Degree from Delta State University. Dr. Jenetta Waddell coordinates this partnership.

The DSU/HCC Partnership Elementary Education Partnership is a 2+2 partnership between the Hinds Community College and the undergraduate Elementary Education Program. The program began in the Spring 2009 Semester and provides graduates of Hinds Community College and other residents of Hinds and surrounding counties the opportunity to complete a Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education Degree from Delta State University. Ms. Amanda Dickerson and Dr. Jenetta Waddell coordinate this partnership.

Bryce Griffis Presidential Endowment Fund awards were received by Dr. Corlis Snow, Dr. Dianne Thomas, and Dr. Jenetta Waddell.

Dr. Corlis Snow coordinates the Praxis Project for the People of Mississippi Partnership, which was formed to disseminate a publication that lists various Praxis preparation venues for unlicensed educators and pre-service teachers. A $5,000 grant was obtained to fund the project.

The undergraduate Elementary Education Program received the AT&T Early Educators Grant through the Mississippi Center for Education Innovation. The grant provides 30 Touch iPods and a MacBook for use in literacy courses. Dr. Dianne Thomas is coordinating the project.


Curriculum Program Review and Development, Program Support

The online Master of Education in Elementary Education program continues to grow, with approximately 160 students now enrolled. The first group of students graduated from the program in May 2009.

The Special Education Program was awarded National Recognition status by the Council for Exceptional Children. The Elementary Education Educational Specialist Program moved to a totally online delivery format in the Spring 2009

Semester, with approximately 50 students currently enrolled in the program. In response to the IHL Blue Ribbon Committee for the Redesign of Teacher Preparation initiative, plans for the redesign of

the undergraduate Elementary and Secondary Education Programs were developed, with implementation to begin in the Fall 2009 Semester. The delivery format for CEL 393 and CUR 393 was changed and the second - semester Junior and first - semester Senior courses were blocked to provide time for a variety of integrated field experiences. The student teacher internship semester was lengthened, and a second internship site was added to the experience.

A new course was added to the Elementary Education Educational Specialist Program: CEL 711/811 Instructional Strategies in Elementary Education is being taught during the Summer I and II 2009 Terms.

Economic Development initiatives and/or impact:

Faculty Service to Area SchoolsThe division provided ongoing professional development opportunities to area school district teachers and administrators. These focused on best practices for inclusive classrooms, including positive behavior management, co-teaching, and classroom intervention strategies; instructional planning; illiteracy and medication errors; and creating a high performance learning culture. Faculty also hosted events, such as reading fairs, and served as judges for events. These were done at nominal or no cost to area schools and school districts.

An online Master of Elementary Education Degree Program was implemented in the Spring 2008 Semester; enrollment in the program has grown from 50 to approximately 160 students. In the Spring 2009 Semester, the Educational Specialist in Elementary Education degree program went online, with approximately 50 students currently active in the program. Finally, a partnership with Hinds Community College enabled the development of a 2+2 program for a Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education Degree that began in the Spring 2009 Semester. These programs provide a convenient service delivery model, while maintaining academic rigor.

Faculty Service to the Community


Service to the immediate community continues through the Literacy Enhancement Clinic, which is funded by a Delta Health Alliance grant. The Clinic provided clinical experiences and professional development opportunities for teacher candidates and diagnostic and remedial assistance to 40 K-9 students, using health-related nonfiction text. Services were provided to the K-9 students free-of-charge.

One-Year Plan (July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2010)Continue efforts to maintain the quality of the graduate and undergraduate programs, to provide professional development opportunities to area school district teachers and administrators, and to provide services to the community through the Literacy Enhancement Clinic.

Five-Year Plan (July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2014)The long-term plan includes continuing to provide quality graduate and undergraduate programs, as well as providing professional development for educators and community services through the Literacy Enhancement Clinic. Division faculty also plan to investigate the possibility of establishing long-term partnerships with area school districts to train teacher leaders and provide degree programs at the Greenville Higher Education Center and the Mississippi Delta Community College.

Diversity Compliance Initiatives and Progress:

1. Describe the special efforts made in 2008-2009 to employ, train, and promote members of “other races.”* (The term “other race” is defined as indicated within the footnote below.)

A minority faculty member is the Coordinator of the graduate Elementary Education Program. The Senior Secretary for the Division is also a minority. One minority work-study student and three minority graduate assistants were employed to assist faculty in the Division.

2. Describe faculty exchange arrangement between “other race” institutions and indicate the number of faculty members involved.

None

3. Describe the special efforts made to assist incumbent “other race” personnel to upgrade credentials for promotions to higher ranked positions. Indicate the number of employees involved.

None


4. Identify distinguished professorships of “other race” personnel brought to the campus in 2008-2009.

None

5. Describe the cooperative programs involving both faculty and students between “other race” institutions and indicate the number of persons involved.

None

6. Identify new programs approved in 2008-2009 which will have potential of attracting “other race” students and faculty members.

The Masters of Arts in Teaching Degree Program has attracted “other race” students from across the Delta region. The online Master’s and Educational Specialist Degree Programs have attracted “other race” students from across the Delta region, the State of Mississippi, and adjoining states.

7. Identify and describe efforts and accomplishments in strengthening existing programs and thereby attracting “other race” students and faculty members.

The Division had alternative course offerings during the past academic year through intersession courses, online courses, video-conferenced courses, and institutes in an effort to accommodate nontraditional students, working students, or those with other encumbrances that might make traditional course offerings difficult to access. The online Master’s in Elementary Education Degree Program currently has approximately 160 students enrolled, while the online Educational Specialist Degree Program has approximately 50 students. These online programs have grown significantly in the past year.

* Since the majority of Delta State University’s faculty, staff and students are classified as “White,” the term “other race,” as used above, is to be defined as including those individuals classified by the U.S. Census Bureau as American Indian, Alaskan Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian, or other Pacific Islander.

Committees reporting to unit:

The Chair of the Division of Teacher Education is also chair of the Teacher Education Council (TEC). The TEC is the policy-making body for all Teacher Preparation Programs at Delta State University. Membership is made up of representatives from the Teacher Preparation Programs, P-12 teachers and administrators, community college faculty, community leaders and P- 12 parents,


and undergraduate and graduate teacher education candidates. Committee records are archived in the Office of the Chair of the Division of Teacher Education and on the College of Education NCATE shared drive.

The Division of Teacher Education Curriculum Committee is made up of the Chair of the Division of Teacher Education, who is chair of the committee; the Program Coordinators of the Elementary Education, Special Education, and MAT Programs; undergraduate and graduate teacher education candidates, and P-12 representatives. The committee reviews and approves all curriculum changes made to courses in the Division. Committee records are archived in the Office of the Chair of the Division of Teacher Education and on the College of Education NCATE shared drive.

The Assessment Committee for the unit is currently chaired by Chair of the Division of Teacher Education. This committee guides the development and refinement of candidate performance assessments and the Unit Assessment System used to collect, analyze, and disseminate data on candidate performance. Committee records are archived in the Office of the Chair of the Division of Teacher Education and on the College of Education NCATE shared drive.

V. Personnel:

Faculty, 2008 - 2009

Dr. Cheryl Cummins, Elementary Education (Part Time)Dr. Levenia Maxwell-Barnes, Elementary EducationDr. Joe Garrison, Elementary EducationDr. Sandy Rakes Pederson, Elementary EducationDr. Corlis Snow, Graduate Elementary Education Program Coordinator Dr. Dianne Thomas, Undergraduate Elementary Education Program CoordinatorMrs. Anjanette Powers, Elementary Education

Dr. Vicki Hartley, Special Education Program CoordinatorDr. Maud Kuykendall, Special EducationMs. Elaine Lambert, Special Education

Dr. Lindon Ratliff, Secondary Education and MAT Program Coordinator


Administrator, 2008 - 2009

Dr. Jenetta Waddell

Staff, 2008 - 2009

Ms. Camesha Benson, Senior Secretary for the Division

Summary:

10 full-time faculty1 part-time faculty1 administrator1 staff, senior secretary

Table 5Adjunct Faculty

Spring 2008 Summer 2008 Fall 20081. Ms. Susan Berryhill 1. Ms. Susan Berryhill 1. Ms. Lee Alyward2. Dr. E. E. Caston 2. Ms. Diana Hicks 2. Ms. Susan Berryhill3. Ms. Elizabeth Melton 3. Ms. Castlen Tindall King 3. Dr. E. E. Caston4. Dr. Dot Prestwich 4. Ms. Elizabeth Melton 4. Dr. Debbie Fioranelli5. Dr. Jimmy Smith 5. Ms. Yvette Robertson 5. Dr. Bob Fuller6. Dr. Carole White 6. Ms. Tiffanie Russell 6. Ms. Beverly Hardy

7. Dr. Jimmy Smith 7. Dr. Michael McNeece8. Ms. Sonya Swafford 8. Ms. Elizabeth Melton9. Dr. Carole White 9. Dr. Roma Morris

10. Ms. Yvette Robertson11. Ms. Tiffanie Russell12. Dr. Jimmy Smith13. Ms. Sharon Spragins


14. Dr. Gerry Sultan15. Dr. Timothy Watkins16. Dr. Carole White

Noteworthy activities and accomplishments:

Professional Growth and Development

Faculty attended the following training and informational sessions related to teaching practices: American Conference on Rural Special Education, Charleston, WV (Hartley, Lambert, Ratliff, Thomas ) American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, New Orleans, LA (Waddell) Blue Mountain College Summer Reading Conference for Teachers (Thomas) CELI Reading Conference, University of Mississippi (Powers) Council for Exceptional Children, Teacher Educational Division conference, Dallas, TX (Hartley, Kuykendall) Delta State University F.E. Woodall Spring Conference for Helping Professions (Lambert, Hartley) Delta State University Research and Scholarship Symposium (Powers, Waddell, Snow, Cummins, Pedersen, Thomas) Delta State University ROMEA Conference (Kuykendall, Waddell) Depth of Knowledge training, Delta State University (Powers) ePortfolio training, Delta State College of Education (Waddell, Thomas, Snow, Ratliff, Hartley) Future Educators of Mississippi conference, Jackson, MS (Thomas, Waddell, Powers) International Reading Association conference, Atlanta, GA (Powers, Barnes) Mississippi Association for Middle Level Education conference, Tupelo, MS (Barnes, Powers, Thomas) Mississippi Department of Education Understanding by Design/Mississippi Curriculum Framer training (Powers) Mississippi Geographic Alliance Pre-Service Conference, Tupelo, MS (Pedersen and 29 teacher candidates) Mississippi Language Arts Curriculum Framework training (Powers) National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education conference, Alexandria, VA (Waddell) Redesign Alliance Second Annual Conference, Orlando, FL (Waddell) Women in Educational Leadership Conference, University of Nebraska, Lincoln (Waddell)

Scholarship

Division faculty members completed four publications and 25 presentations during the 2008 calendar year:


Publications

Griffin, L. L., & Waddell, J. R. (2008). Delta blues historical intersections: A meeting of culture, place, events, and people - A series of lesson plans with teacher resources. In Live from the birthplace of American music: A portrait of the Blues as seen through the eyes of those living it. Cleveland, MS: DSU Center for Culture and Learning.

Kuykendall, M. , Cunningham, M, Hernandez-Speck, J., Nelson, R., Green, D., Seals, C., Sias, C., & Tillman, G. (2008). Strategies for cultural competence of teachers in training: An action research project. Unpublished manuscript. Cleveland, MS: Delta State University.

Ratliff, L. (2008). Mississippi teacher certification: A broken system. Journal of Planning and Changing, 39(1) 67-80.

Thomas, D. (2008). The digital divide: What schools in low socioeconomic areas must teach. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 74, 12-17.

Presentations

Cummins, C., Pedersen, S., & Thomas, D. (2008, April). Comparison between informal graded word list instructional levels and classroom teachers’ perceived instructional reading levels of second and third graders. Poster session presented at the annual Delta Research and Scholarship Symposium, Cleveland, Mississippi.

Griffin, L. & Pedersen, S. (2008, October) Civic engagement workshop. Session presented for DAAIS, Cleveland, MS.

Griffin, L., Powers, A., Snow, C., & Waddell, J. (2008, April). An instrument for assessing undergraduate elementary education candidate dispositions. Poster Presentation of Dispositions Rating Scale Instrument Presented at the DSU 4th Annual Research and Scholarship Symposium, Cleveland, MS.

Griffin, L. L., & Waddell, J. R. (2008, October). The Dispositions Rating Scale: A tool for educational leaders charged with identifying and developing appropriate professional educator candidate values, commitments, and professional ethics. Paper presented at the twenty-second annual Women in Educational Leadership conference, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Hartley, V. & Garrison, R. (2008, March). Inclusion practices in Mississippi delta schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting Of the American Conference on Rural Special Education, Charleston, WV.


Hartley, V. & Kuykendall, M. (2008, April). Aligning special education comprehensive exams to CEC common core and standards. Presented at the Annual Conference of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, Dallas, TX.

Hartley, V. J., Garrison, J., & Lambert, E. (2008, March). Inclusion: Reality or illusion. Presentation at the American Council of Rural Special Education, Charleston, WV.

Kuykendall, M. (2008, April). Instructional implications in context. Poster session presented at the Annual Conference of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, Dallas, TX.

Kuykendall, M., Daniels, J., Fairley, V., Johnson, T., Killibrew, T., Pieralisi, E., Robinson, C., & Stapleton, E. Contextual factors in teacher research. (2008). Presented at the 26th annual Delta State University F.E. Woodall Spring Conference for Helping Professions, Cleveland, MS.

Kuykendall, M. & Lambert, E. (2008, April). Delta parents and teachers recommend best educational practices for students with exceptional learning needs. Presentation at the 4th Annual Delta Research and Scholarship Symposium, Delta State University, Cleveland, MS.

Kuykendall, M., Lambert, E., & Hartley, V. (2008, March). What do parents and teachers want us to know about working with children with special needs? Presentation the American Council of Rural Special Education, Charleston, WV.

Lambert, E. & Hartley, V. (2008, April). I have a kid who…: Positive classroom behavior intervention techniques for school counselors. Presentation at the 27th Annual F. E. Woodall Spring Conference for Helping Professions, Cleveland, MS.

Lambert, E., Hartley, V., & Kuykendall, M. (2008, March). Comprehensive examinations as a tool for program assessment: Aligning special education comprehensive exams to CEC common core and standards. Presentation at the meeting of the American Council of Rural Special Education, Charleston, WV.

Manning, T., McFall, D., & Thomas, D. (2008, October). Math blaster effect on student achievement in the Delta. Poster session presented at the Annual meeting of Education in Action Faculty Development Conference on Teaching in Higher Education, Delta State University, Cleveland, Mississippi.

Pedersen, S. (2008, September). Themes of Geography. Session presented at the annual meeting of the Mississippi Geographic Alliance Pre Service Conference, Tupelo, MS.


Powers, A. (2008, June). Engaging learners in literacy. Presentation at Literacy Across the Institute (LACI) on the International Reading Association’s 53rd Annual Convention, Cleveland, MS.

Powers, A., Snow, C., Griffin, L., & Waddell, J. (2008, April). An instrument for assessing undergraduate elementary education candidate dispositions. Poster session presented at the Delta Research and Scholarship Symposium, Delta State University, Cleveland, MS.

Ratliff, L. (2008, March). Emergency special education teacher certification in the Mississippi Delta: A rural region in crisis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Council on Rural Special Education, Charleston, West Virginia.

Sheperis, D. & Kuykendall, M. (2008, September). Embedding diversity in university coursework. Workshop presented at the Reaching Out Mississippi Education in Action Conference, Delta State University, Cleveland, MS.

Snow, C., (2008, April). The Impact of Literacy Coaches on the Instructional Leadership Role of Elementary Principals: Perceptions of Elementary Principals in the Mississippi Delta. Presentation at the Delta Research and Scholarship Symposium, Delta State University, Cleveland, MS.

Thomas, D. (2008, March). Inclusion in a rural Mississippi setting: What worked for a general education teacher, what future general education teachers must know. Paper presented at the 28th Annual American Council on Rural Special Education, Charlotte, West Virginia.

Thomas, D. (2008, April). Differences in technology access, use, and skills among third grade students in the Mississippi Delta region served by the Delta Area Association for the Improvement of Schools. Poster session presented at the annual Delta Research and Scholarship Symposium, Cleveland, Mississippi.

Thomas, D. (2008, June). Authentic reading and writing activities for young children through scrapbooking. Presentation at the Blue Mountain Summer Reading Conference for Teachers, Blue Mountain, Mississippi.

Waddell, J. R., & Schultz, M. K. (2008, February). The use of autobiographical life histories to promote self-efficacy in teacher candidates. Roundtable session presented at the sixtieth annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, New Orleans, LA.


Wojcik, J. & Kuykendall, M. (2008, September). Writing across the curriculum: Improving the writing skills of our students. Workshop presented at the Reaching Out Mississippi Education in Action Conference, Delta State University, Cleveland, MS.

Service and Collaboration

American Council for Rural Special Education board of directors (Hartley) Cleveland Career Development and Technology Center Advisory/Craft Committee (Powers) Cleveland Neighborhood Children’s Program board members (Pedersen, Lambert, Waddell) Delta Reading Council, Delta State University, advisor (Pedersen) Delta State Wesley Foundation, Chair of the Board of Directors (Waddell) Dissertation committee chair (Waddell, Kuykendall, Hartley, Snow, Pedersen) Dissertation committee member (Waddell, Snow, Pedersen) Educational Leadership Cohort Seminar, IDEIA and Other Special Education Issues (Hartley) Faculty Senate senator and proxy (Hartley, Snow) Future Educators of America, Delta State University Chapter Advisor (Thomas) IHL representative to Mississippi Professional Educators (Barnes) IHL representative to Mississippi Association for Middle Level Education (Barnes) IHL Strategic Initiative Summit participant (Snow) Kappa Delta Pi, Delta State University Chapter counselor (Waddell) Literacy Across the Curriculum Institute, seminar on Differentiated Instruction (Lambert) Mississippi Department of Education Social Studies Curriculum Framework Revision Committee (Pedersen) Mississippi Early Childhood Association, Delta State University Chapter Advisor (Thomas) Mississippi Private Schools Regional Spelling Bee pronouncer (Garrison) Mississippi Teacher Fellowship Program chat moderator (Ratliff) Participated in College and Recruitment Days (Powers, Ratliff, Waddell) Phi Mu, Delta State University, chapter advisor (Powers) Presbyterian Day School Spelling Bee pronouncer (Garrison, Pedersen) Reviewer, Delta Education Journal (Kuykendall) Reviewer of children’s books, Southern Early Childhood Association (Thomas) ROMEA conference moderator (Ratliff, Barnes) ROMEA conference site manager (Lambert) Second Congressional District Reading Fair judge (Snow, Powers, Kuykendall, Barnes, Pedersen, Waddell, Garrison,

Lambert)


Student Mississippi Professional Educators Association, Delta State University, chapter advisor (Barnes, Powers) Student Mississippi Association for Middle Level Education, Delta State University, chapter advisors (Barnes, Powers) Student Teacher Seminar, Behavioral Management (Hartley) Student Teacher Seminar, Mississippi Three-Tier Model (Kuykendall) Student Teacher Seminar, Response to Intervention (Kuykendall) Student Teacher Seminar, Differentiated Instruction (Kuykendall, Lambert) Student Teacher Seminar, Co-Teaching Models and Collaboration (Lambert)

Technical Assistance/Professional Development Services Rendered to Area Schools

Beginning Teacher Retention Initiative Project, Teacher Supervisor (Garrison) Professional Development Workshop, Behavior Management, Greenville School District (Hartley) Professional Development Workshop, Civic Engagement, Delta Area Association for the Improvement of Schools

(Pedersen) Professional Development Workshop, Co-Teaching with Special Education Students, Humphreys County School District

(Waddell) Professional Development Workshop, Creating a High Performance Learning Culture, Humphreys County School District

(Waddell) Professional Development Workshop, Illiteracy and Medication Errors, COE Literacy Enhancement Clinic (Snow) Professional Development Workshop, Inclusive Practices, Delta Area Association for the Improvement of Schools (Hartley,

Lambert, Kuykendall) Professional Development Workshop, Instructional Planning, West Bolivar School District (Snow) Professional Development Workshop, Intervention Strategies in the Classroom, Greenville School District (Lambert,

Pedersen) Professional Development Workshop, Positive Behavior Management Strategies in Inclusive Classrooms, Delta Area

Association for the Improvement of Schools (Kuykendall, Lambert, Hartley) Professional Development Workshop, Using the Math Frameworks, Greenville School District (Thomas) Proposal Consultant, Leflore County Public School District’s School Improvement and Professional Development Initiative

(Ratliff)

Summary of Division Scholarly and Professional Service Activities for 2008

Activity *Elementary Education

*Special Education

*MAT *Division Chair Total


Advisors to student organizations/Recruitment activities

11 1 3 15

Dissertation chairs 2 2 1 5Dissertation committee members 2 1 3

Editorial board positions held 1 1 2

Faculty-mentored student professional paper presentations

1 1

Poster Presentations at professional conferences

4 4

Presentations at professional conferences

5 8 1 3 17

Presentations in workshops or other public forums

4 10 14

Professional appointed/elected board positions held 4 2 2 8

Professional conferences attended 22 8 2 8 40

Professional publications 1 1 1 1 4


Technical assistance/professional development services to P-12 schools/educators

13 10 2 3 28

*Elementary Education (6 faculty), Special Education (3 faculty), MAT (1 faculty), Division Chair (1) (Note: Publications and presentations with two or more division faculty listed as authors are just counted once.)

Affiliation with/Support of Professional Organizations, University, College, and Division Committees

Faculty members provide service as sponsors, officers, committee members, and/or members in the following organizations:

American Association for the Advancement of Curriculum StudiesAmerican Association for Colleges of Teacher EducationAmerican Council for Rural Special EducationAssociation for Supervision and Curriculum DevelopmentAssociation on Higher Education and Disability Council for Exceptional ChildrenDelta Kappa GammaDelta Reading CouncilInternational Reading AssociationKappa Delta PiMid-South Educational Research AssociationMississippi Association for Middle Level EducationMississippi Early Childhood AssociationMississippi Professional EducatorsNational Popular Culture Association National Board of Professional Teaching StandardsPhi Delta Kappa

Faculty members are involved in committee work at the University, College, and Division levels. During the past year, the Division had representation on each of the following:


University Alumni AssociationAssociate Provost Search CommitteeAttendance CommitteeDean of the Graduate School Search CommitteeDistance Learning CommitteeDiversity Advisory CommitteeFoundations of Excellence CommitteesGeneral Education CommitteeGraduate Appeals CommitteeGraduate CouncilHealth and Wellness CommitteeLibrary CommitteeMarketing Advisory BoardMerit Pay Appeals CommitteePromotion and Tenure Appeals CommitteeROMEA Planning CommitteeStudent Organizations CommitteeStudent Publications Committee Taskforce on Faculty Course Evaluations Teaching Excellence CommitteeWriting Across the Curriculum Committee

CollegeAssessment Committee College of Education Academic CouncilCommittee for Redesign of Undergraduate Teacher Preparation ProgramsConceptual Framework CommitteeCourtesy Committee Diversity Committee Doctoral Admissions and Curriculum CouncilFaculty Committee


Field Experiences CommitteeFundraising CommitteeGovernance CommitteeHonors Day CommitteePrograms Committee Teacher Education Council Tenure and Promotion Committee

Division Courtesy CommitteeCurriculum CommitteeNew Faculty MentorsNumerous Ad Hoc CommitteesTenure Committee Student Advisory Council

New position(s) requested, with justification: Dr. Lindon Ratliff, MAT Program Coordinator, resigned at the end of the Spring 2009 Semester. A job search for this position

is currently being conducted. A job search for the Healthy Schools Coordinator is currently being conducted. This position is funded through the College of

Education DHA Grant FY10. The person holding this non-tenure staff position will work with the College of Education faculty to infuse components of the CDC Healthy Schools Curriculum throughout degree programs and will be a liaison with local school districts to promote health and wellness. The person will also teach coursework in the Elementary Education Program.

Recommended change of status: Dr. Corlis Snow is the Program Coordinator for the graduate Elementary Education Programs. Dr. Dianne Thomas is the Program Coordinator for the undergraduate Elementary Education Program. Dr. Jenetta Waddell received tenure and Associate Professor rank (to begin with the 2009 - 2010 Academic Year)

VI. Degree Program Addition/Deletions and/or Major Curriculum Changes:

Changes made in the past year:


Course number changes were made for CEL 811: Instructional Strategies in Elementary Education and CEL 812: Leadership Roles in Elementary Education. The course numbers were changed to CEL 711/811 and CEL 712/812 to allow students in the Educational Specialist in Elementary Education Degree Program to take these courses, in addition to them being available to doctoral students.

The following changes were made to the Educational Specialist in Elementary Education Degree Program as the program moves to a fully online format:

o Core Education Hours – ELR 701: Educational Research for the Elementary Educator is recommended rather than ELR 702: Educational Research Design.

o Required Elementary Education Courses – CEL 711: Instructional Strategies in Elementary Education, CEL 712: Leadership Roles in Elementary Education, CSP 616: Behavioral Management, and CED 716: Introduction to Counseling for Teachers were added. There are no electives in the program for students who are not writing a thesis.

The course number for CSP 646: Foundations of Special Education in Inclusive Settings was replaced by the Registrar with CSP 651 because the 646 number had been used in the past.

Recommended changes for the coming year(s):

The following courses in the undergraduate Elementary Education Program will be taught as block so that a variety of integrated field experiences may be implemented:

Junior Year, Second Semester – CEL 312: Language Arts for the Elementary School, CEL 315: Early Literacy Instruction II, CML 332: Children’s Literature, CRD 325: Reading in the Intermediate and Secondary Schools.

Senior Year, First Semester – CEL 317: Principles and Techniques of Teaching in Early Childhood, CEL 318: Principles and Techniques of Teaching in the Middle Grades, CEL 393: Classroom Management, CEL 497: Diagnosis and Evaluation of Student Achievement in the Elementary School, CRD 326: Diagnosis and Remediation of Reading Difficulties.

All co-requisites for CEL 312, CEL 315, CEL 317, CEL 318, and CEL 497 were changed to prerequisites in order to support the movement of these courses into blocked semesters.


DIVISION OF TEACHER EDUCATION

2008-2009 ANNUAL REPORT APPENDICES


Appendix A – Candidate Performance Assessment Instruments

Instrument 1 - Student Teacher Assessment Instrument (STAI) Linked to INTASC (IN) Standards

I. PLANNING AND PREPARATION (PORTFOLIO)*

1. Specifies or selects learner objectives for lessons. (IN 1, 7)Well-planned objectives guide student learning and are aligned with curriculum goals. Objectives should be written in specific behavioral terms. One purpose for writing objectives in specific behavioral terms is to be able to assess with precision whether the instruction has resulted in the desired behavior. Effective teaching reflects careful planning. The objectives should be appropriate for the lessons.

1. No objectives are present or are not stated as performance outcomes.2. Objectives are stated as performance outcomes, but are out of sequence.3. Objectives are stated in performance outcomes and are properly sequenced.4. In addition to 3, objectives are planned for different instructional levels (knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation).

2. Specifies or selects procedures for lessons. (IN 1, 7)


Instructional procedures are the various ways in which teachers can structure learning activities. These activities can involve students in large groups, small groups, or individually, and are designed to foster student involvement and enhance the learning experience. Activities range from teacher directed to student initiated.

1. No procedures are included, or procedures are not referenced to objectives.2. Procedures are referenced to objectives, but are inappropriate for learners.3. Procedures are referenced to objectives and are appropriate for learners.4. In addition to 3, procedures are both learner-centered and student teacher-centered.

3. Specifies or selects content materials and media for lessons. (IN 1, 7)

Instructional materials are concrete resources that students use to learn the content of the lesson. Materials need not be elaborate or expensive. Teachers should be able to incorporate into their lessons relevant materials that students may bring to class. Materials and resources must be appropriate to the students. In a diverse classroom, this will require the use of a variety of types of materials.

1. No supplementary material is specified or is limited to textbooks and worksheets.2. Supplementary materials (two or more) other than textbooks and worksheets are specified and

are related to procedures. 3. Extensive use of materials (four or more instances in a plan) other than textbooks and worksheets

is specified and related to procedures. 4. In addition to 3, student teacher shows initiative and creativity in developing original materials.

4. Specifies or selects materials and procedures for assessing learner progress. (IN 1, 7)

Assessment is an integral part of an ongoing educational process. In order to effectively assess how students are progressing, teachers must plan the means of assessment. The teachers may create evaluation strategies or select them from instructional materials. For certain objectives, tests may be less appropriate than other strategies such as observation of student performance. Whatever the strategy, the evaluation must provide the teachers with useful information about the extent to which the instructional goals have been met.

1. No assessment procedures are specified in the plans or are inappropriate for learners or not matched to objective.

2. Assessment procedures are included which are related to the objectives and appropriate for learners.

3. Multiple assessment procedures are included (four or more).4. In addition to 3, attitudes of learners toward content and method of instruction are assessed.


5. Uses information about students to plan and organize instruction to accommodate differences in developmental and individual needs. (IN 2, 7)

The teacher plans instruction and activities at multiple levels to meet the developmental and individual needs of diverse learners. A variety of teaching techniques and learning experiences accommodates differences such as learning styles, multiple intelligences, and special education/gifted education needs.

1. Planning does not address developmental or individual needs.2. Planning addresses the developmental and individual needs of some students.3. Planning addresses the developmental and individual needs of most students.4. Planning addresses the developmental and individual needs of all students in the classroom.

6. Uses knowledge of students' needs, interests, and experiences. (IN 2, 5) Teachers need to be aware of student interests and experiences based on information they gather by talking with students, listening to student discussions, and using interest surveys. This acknowledgment should be evident in the presentation of lessons.

1. Student teacher lacks familiarity with the students' background interests and experiences.2. Student teacher demonstrates some understanding of students' background experiences,

interests, and needs, but does not use this knowledge in developing learning experiences.3. Student teacher demonstrates some understanding of students' background experiences,

interests, and needs, and sometimes uses this knowledge in developing learning experiences.4. Student teacher demonstrates a thorough understanding of students' background experiences, interests, and needs, and consistently uses this knowledge in developing learning experiences.

7. Plans lessons that integrate knowledge from several subject areas. (INTASC 1, 7)

Teachers develop instruction to engage students and enhance learning. When lessons integrate knowledge from several subject areas, the information presented gains a sense of cohesiveness and provides structure to student learning, avoiding the piece-meal approach that might otherwise occur. Instruction that integrates knowledge from several subject areas may take the form of thematic units, integrated units, or interdisciplinary units.

1. Student teacher provides instruction that relates only to one subject and focuses on specific skills.2. Student teacher maintains a discipline-centered focus and offers limited assistance in


helping students make connections across disciplines.3. Student teacher maintains a discipline-centered focus and frequently attempts to help students to make connections across disciplines.4. Student teacher designs discipline-centered tasks which require students to integrate multiple disciplines where possible (e.g., primary level). Student teacher assumes responsibility for more than one discipline and assists students in realizing the natural connections across disciplines.

8. Incorporates multiculturalism and diversity in lessons. (IN 3)

Cultural differences present both opportunities and challenges for teachers. To maximize learning opportunities, teachers must learn about the cultures represented in their classrooms, then translate this knowledge into instructional practice. Teachers who lack sensitivity to cultural differences may misinterpret the behavior of minority students in ways that may lead to underestimating the academic potential of these pupils. To work successfully and effectively with children of diverse backgrounds, teachers must develop special skills that include the following:

Promoting cross-cultural competency and inter-group understanding and collegiality in the classroom and in the larger community Communicating positively with each student and parent/guardian Establishing a classroom climate in which each student feels he or she can learn and wants to learn Maintaining high expectations for each student Involving students in a democratic classroom environment in which they are encouraged to understand and make important

decisions about their own learning Personalizing learning and assessment for each student, and using knowledge about the culture and family background of each to

develop a culturally relevant learning environment Teaching using a variety of strategies which match the students' strengths, interests, cultures, and learning styles Using techniques that emphasize cooperative learning and de-emphasize competitive learning Integrating multicultural content into the curriculum so that the experiences, beliefs, and perspectives of various cultural groups

are represented1. Student teacher seldom incorporates an awareness of cultural differences in lessons.2. Student teacher superficially acknowledges differences within the class.3. Student teacher often plans opportunities for students to share their diversities and cultural heritage.4. In addition to 3, sensitivity and awareness are consistently evident.


* These items may be assessed by interviewing and reviewing data.

II. COMMUNICATION AND INTERACTION

9. Uses acceptable written, oral, and nonverbal communication with students. (IN 6)

The teacher appropriately models verbal and nonverbal communication. This includes the use of correct grammatical structures, subject-verb agreement, and proper tense, etc. Spelling is correct in written work. Written materials are easily read, including work on chalkboards, handouts, transparencies, and comments on student work. Nonverbal communications are appropriate and meaningful.

1. Student teacher frequently demonstrates inappropriate use of written and/or oral language. Appropriate nonverbal communication is not apparent.2. Student teacher usually demonstrates appropriate use of written and oral language. Appropriate nonverbal communication is limited.3. Student teacher frequently demonstrates appropriate use of written and oral language. Nonverbal communication occurs frequently and is appropriate. 4. Student teacher consistently demonstrates high levels of proficiency in written and oral language. Nonverbal communication is consistent and appropriate.

10. Communicates high expectations for learning to all students. (IN 3)

Research substantiates that student achievement and behavior conform closely to the teacher’s expectations. Students for whom teachers hold high expectations give more correct answers and achieve higher average scores on year-end standardized tests than do students for whom the teacher holds low expectations. If students feel their efforts will produce results in schools, and if the teachers and school are supportive of their efforts, they are more likely to succeed.

1. Student teacher communicates to individuals, groups, or the class as a whole that they are incapable of learning.2. Student teacher communicates to a few students that they are capable of meeting learning expectations.3. Student teacher encourages most students to meet challenging learning expectations.4. Student teacher actively encourages all students to meet challenging learning expectations.


11. Demonstrates communication skills which show sensitivity to diversity. (IN 3, 6)

Teachers should seek to gain an understanding of the various cultural, ethnic, socio-economic, gender, and special population groups represented in the classroom. They should become familiar with and sensitive to the background experiences of their students, and demonstrate, through words and actions, their respect for a range of student diversity. To work successfully with students of diverse backgrounds, teachers must build the learning around the students' individual learning styles, communicate positively with students, establish a classroom climate in which students want to learn, hold and maintain high expectations for each student, involve students in understanding and in making important decisions about their own learning, personalize learning for each student, provide learning activities adapted to individual students' skill levels, teach to individuals by using a variety of strategies, and use techniques that emphasize cooperative learning and that de-emphasize competitive learning.

1. Student teacher seldom recognizes diversity within the classroom.2 Student teacher is aware of diversity within the classroom, but seldom adjusts communications and actions.3. Student teacher is aware of diversity within the classroom and often adjusts communications and actions to demonstrate sensitivity to the various cultures.4. Student teacher is aware of and celebrates diversity, encourages appreciation of diversity, and demonstrates sensitivity through communications and actions.

12. Listens to students and demonstrates interest in what they are saying by responding appropriately. (IN 2, 6)

Listening is an important aspect of the learning environment. Effective teachers make time to listen to individual students and show a sincere interest in what they are saying. They also demonstrate active listening skills, listening carefully and attentively to gain information that students share.

1. Student teacher does not respond to student comments.2. Student teacher is inconsistent in responding to what students are saying.3. Student teacher looks at students and acknowledges with brief verbal and nonverbal feedback what they are sharing.4. Student teacher responds to students with appropriate nonverbal feedback and by summarizing what students have shared.

13. Builds and sustains a classroom climate of acceptance, encouraging creativity, inquisitiveness, and risk-taking. (IN 6)


Without a classroom climate that encourages inquiry and risk-taking, little critical, creative, or higher-level thinking can take place. The effective teacher builds a climate of openness where students feel free to express and try out ideas. Such a climate promotes mutual respect and acceptance and is free of ridicule and sarcasm. Students' efforts are recognized and encouraged.

1. Student teacher has limited rapport with students, rarely encourages inquisitiveness, and discourages interaction and questioning.2. Student teacher establishes rapport with students, or develops an atmosphere of limited inquiry.3. Student teacher establishes rapport with students and often encourages inquiry.4. In addition to 3, the student teacher accepts students' ideas and fosters academic risk- taking.

14. Provides opportunities for students to cooperate, communicate, and interact with each other to enhance learning. (IN 2, 5, 6)

Student-to-student communication promotes achievement. It can be effectively used to allow students to practice and extend language skills, share ideas, feel part of the classroom community, and think responsibly and independently. Effective teachers encourage such communications by allotting time for student interaction, making physical arrangements which promote communication among students, planning appropriate group tasks, and facilitating the sharing of group results.

1. Student teacher does not involve the students in any type of interactive activities.2. Student teacher provides occasional opportunities for student-to-student communication.3. Students regularly participate in interactive activities planned by the student teacher.4. Students frequently work together, not only on student teacher planned activities, but also on self-selected projects.

15. Establishes relationships with parents and guardians. * (IN 10)

Research strongly supports the significance of involving families in their children's education because such involvement affects student achievement, attitudes, and behavior. Developing a successful school-home partnership can best be accomplished by increasing communications with parents and guardians, helping them to assist their children in learning at home, and encouraging their participation at school.

1. Student teacher does not communicate with parents and guardians or attempt to establish relationships. 2. Relationships are established only in response to problems that occur or to parental and guardian requests.


3. Student teacher initiates communication and relationships with parents and guardians.4. In addition to 3, student teacher builds and sustains relationships with parents and guardians for a variety of purposes.

* These items may be assessed interviewing and reviewing data.

III. TEACHING FOR LEARNING

16. Displays knowledge of the subject being taught. (IN 1)

Knowledge of the subject being taught is the foundation of effective teaching.1. Student teacher does not demonstrate basic knowledge of the subject being taught.2. Student teacher demonstrates limited knowledge of the subject being taught.3. Student teacher displays an adequate knowledge base of the subject being taught.4. Student teacher displays extensive knowledge of the subject being taught.

17. Projects enthusiasm for teaching and learning. (IN 5)

Teachers who excel in this area create an atmosphere of enthusiasm about the importance of learning and the significance of the content. They care deeply about their subjects and invite students to share the journey of learning. Students are intrinsically motivated due to the way teachers organize and present the content, the roles they encourage students to assume, and the student initiative they expect. The work is real and significant and becomes important to students as well as to teachers.

This indicator includes verbal and nonverbal teacher behaviors that stimulate students' attention, interaction, and participation. Skills include physical movement, voice, pacing, and body language (i.e., gestures, posture, facial expression, and eye contact).

1. Student teacher does not exhibit enthusiasm about the topic being taught.2. Student teacher shows limited enthusiasm for the topic being taught.3. Student teacher usually conveys enthusiasm for the topic being taught.4. Student teacher consistently shows enthusiasm for teaching and learning in a variety of ways.

18. Uses knowledge of students' prior understandings and experiences to make instruction relevant and meaningful. * (IN 1, 3, 7)


For any topic of study, students have prior knowledge that provides a foundation for new learning. Teachers assess and value this knowledge, select and use instructional materials that are relevant to students' cultural experiences, and facilitate students' sharing through a variety of communication modes. Teachers build students' motivation and achievement by gaining knowledge of their interests, experiences, and characteristics to make instruction meaningful.

1. Student teacher makes little effort to assess, or seldom connects, learning to students' interests and experiences.2. Student teacher attempts to make learning relevant, but is unsure of students' interests and understandings, or student

teacher assesses but does not use information in lesson preparation.3. Student teacher assesses the students' interests and knowledge, often connecting assessment results to instruction.4. Student teacher assesses students' interest, characteristics, and knowledge, consistently connecting the lesson to students' interests.

19. Uses a variety of appropriate teaching strategies. (IN 4)

To accommodate student diversity and differences in subject matter, a variety of teaching strategies is necessary. Teaching strategies may include, but are not limited to, cooperative learning, direct instruction, discovery learning, demonstration, discussion, inquiry, simulation, independent study, and student research.

1. Student teacher varies teaching strategies, but none are used effectively.2. Student teacher uses one strategy effectively.3. Student teacher uses a limited number (2 or 3) of teaching strategies effectively.4. Student teacher uses a variety (4+) of teaching strategies effectively.

20. Provides learning experiences that accommodate differences in developmental and individual needs. (IN 2, 3, 4)

The effective teacher plans and conducts activities at multiple levels to meet the developmental and individual needs of diverse students. A variety of teaching techniques and learning experiences accommodate different learning styles and performance modes, multiple intelligences, and special education/gifted education needs.

1. Instruction does not accommodate developmental or individual needs.2. Instruction accommodates the developmental and individual needs of some students.3. Instruction accommodates the developmental and individual needs of most students.4. Instruction accommodates the developmental and individual needs of all students.

21. Relates concepts using language that is understood by the students. (IN 4, 6)


Effective teachers use appropriate expressions, demonstrations, vocabulary, and illustrations to communicate concepts. 1. Student teacher communicates using language that is developmentally inappropriate.2. Student teacher communicates using language that students seldom understand, and rarely adjusts concept presentation when students misunderstand. 3. Student teacher communicates using language that students understand and adjusts communication to enhance learning.4. Student teacher consistently communicates using language students understand, is aware of students' misunderstandings, and skillfully adjusts language.

22. Gives directions appropriate for carrying out instructional activities and uses concrete examples to clarify when necessary. (IN 4)

This indicator focuses on the initial directions and explanations given at the beginning of the lesson and/or each activity within the lesson. The teacher should give clear, direct instructions. Additional clarifications that are needed by individuals should be handled separately so the entire group is not delayed. The teacher should also model the task when appropriate.

1. Student teacher's instructions are seldom understood by students.2. Student teacher provides incomplete or vague instructions, occasionally attempting to clarify or provide examples. 3. Student teacher usually provides complete instructions for carrying out instructional activities.4. Student teacher consistently provides complete instructions for carrying out instructional activities and uses concrete examples for clarification when necessary.

23. Incorporates a variety of technology and resources into instruction. * (IN 6)

When teachers efficiently and appropriately incorporate technology and other appropriate resources into instruction, students' motivation, understandings, and skills improve.

1. Student teacher seldom uses available technology or resources.2. Student teacher sometimes ineffectively uses available technology or resources, or technology or resources do not fit the planned lessons.3. Student teacher uses lesson-appropriate technology or resources.4. Student teacher demonstrates skillful and creative use of technology or resources at appropriate times, and effectively uses available resources and student teacher made


and other original materials.

24. Provides opportunities for students to apply concepts in problem-solving and critical thinking. (IN 4, 6)

Critical thinking refers to students' abilities to recognize, identify, and understand problems and discrepancies, to propose and test solutions, to arrive at tentative conclusions based on the data collected, and to evaluate conclusions. Problem solving is not a teaching strategy, but a high-order intellectual behavior that facilitates learning. In order to ensure that this process is effective, students' must complete the entire cycle. The cycle includes a step-by-step process: recognizing, identifying, and understanding problems, proposing solutions, testing solutions, and arriving at tentative conclusions.

1. Student teacher seldom provides opportunities for students to apply concepts in problem-solving and critical thinking, or student teacher provides solution. 2. Students are given opportunities to recognize and identify problems and to propose, test, or evaluate solutions.3. Students are given opportunities to recognize and identify problems and to propose solutions. However, students never actually test solutions, arrive at tentative conclusions, or evaluate solutions.4. Students are given opportunities to complete the critical thinking/problem solving cycle.

25. Uses questioning to identify misconceptions or confusion and to monitor student work. (IN 6)

Questioning is a vital part of classroom interactions. Teachers' questions are used to explore and build student understanding, identify student confusion, and monitor students' work. Sometimes a series of related questions are needed to clarify student misconceptions. Teachers assess student understanding by asking specific questions related to the topic.

1. Student teacher seldom uses questioning.2. Student teacher asks questions to check for understanding, but does not attempt to clarify misconceptions. 3. Student teacher uses questioning to check for misconceptions and sometimes uses this information to clarify concepts.4. Student teacher consistently uses questioning to clarify misconceptions and monitor student work.

26. Uses higher-order questions to engage students in original, creative, and evaluative thinking. (IN 4, 6)


Independent, life-long learners use higher-level thinking to solve problems, analyze components of situations, synthesize or bring together ideas, create and refine new ideas, and make and support judgments. Teachers should structure and sequence questions in a way that is designed to guide students to higher levels of thinking. Appropriate and purposeful questions at a variety of levels should be used.

1. Student teacher seldom uses questioning.2. Student teacher asks questions at the lowest level – gathering and recalling information. (knowledge, comprehension)3. Student teacher asks intermediate level questions which are designed to apply knowledge of cause and effect, analyze, summarize, compare/contrast, or classify data. (application, analysis)4. Student teacher asks high level questions which encourage students to think intuitively, creatively, and hypothetically; to use their imaginations; to identify a value system; or to evaluate judgments. (synthesis, evaluation)

27. Uses community resources to enhance student learning. (IN 10)

Any community has resources that teachers may use to enhance learning. Settings as diverse as city halls, fire stations, parks, businesses, and service agencies enhance students' understanding and appreciation of local resources and the knowledge and skills of people in the community. Persons representing a variety of professions, trades, and avocations might visit the classroom to share their expertise, enthusiasm, and values. Students' family members are often positive resource persons who can build appreciation of diverse talents and interests.

1. Student teacher does not use community resources.2. Student teacher has limited use of community resources.3. Student teacher effectively uses community resources.4. In addition to 3, students use community resources.

28. Adjusts strategies in response to learner feedback and encourages students to expand on and support their responses. (IN 4, 6)

Feedback facilitates learning because it guides students and expresses recognition/ appreciation for their efforts. Feedback may include praise as well as guidance about incorrect and incomplete responses. It may also prompt students to extend or support their responses or to react to others' answers.


1. Student teacher seldom makes an attempt to determine whether students are understanding and gives little or no feedback. Or, student teacher uses negative words or actions to discourage students from giving responses or asking questions.

2. Student teacher passively accepts student responses. Or, student teacher does not call on students in an equitable manner.3. Student teacher asks for and responds to student input during the lesson. Student teacher seeks to have student extend their answers or explanations by asking probing questions.4. Student teacher incorporates student responses in current and/or subsequent lessons or activities.

29. Uses adequate wait time for responses in order to encourage high-level, reflective thinking. (IN 2, 4)

Research has shown the effectiveness of wait time in terms of gaining more learning, longer student responses, high-level responses, and student-to-student responses. After asking thought-provoking higher-level questions, teachers should provide students with adequate time to think.

1. Student teacher gives inappropriate wait time.2. Student teacher allows appropriate wait time of 3 to 5 seconds.3. In addition to 2, student teacher elicits higher-level, reflective thinking.4. In addition to 3, student teacher allows appropriate wait time after student responses.

30. Gives timely feedback on academic performance and discusses corrective procedures to be taken. * (IN 8)

Effective feedback based on informal assessment addresses standards of academic or cognitive performance, students' progress, and corrective procedures. The feedback should be immediate and ongoing. Reinforcement, praise, and criticism are purposeful. Students' metacognitive abilities should be developed so they can provide their own feedback.

1. Student teacher seldom provides timely feedback on performance. 2. Student teacher provides limited use of feedback, reinforcement, and praise.3. Student teacher demonstrates adequate feedback and purposefully uses reinforcement and praise. 4. In addition to 3, students use metacognitive strategies to provide their own feedback.



IV. MANAGING THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

31. Demonstrates fairness and supportiveness in order to achieve a positive, interactive learning environment. (IN 5)

Effective teachers are usually perceived by students as being fair and supportive. They are consistent and equitable in their treatment of and interactions with students. Such teachers relate well to each student and create a classroom climate that motivates and facilitates learning.

1. Student teacher is not always fair in the treatment of students.2. Student teacher is fair in the treatment of students, but does not promote a positive and interactive learning environment.3. Student teacher is fair in the treatment of students and actively encourages fairness among students.4. Student teacher successfully creates a positive, interactive environment and establishes rapport in ways that are appropriate to students' diverse backgrounds and needs.

32. Uses instructional time effectively. (IN 5)

An important aspect of using time effectively is pacing the lesson in ways that are appropriate for the students. Using time effectively also implies making sure that time spent on necessary, but non-instructional processes, is minimized. Students should be engaged in meaningful learning experiences throughout the class period. Transitions from one method or lesson to another should be smooth.

1. Substantial instructional time is spent in non-instructional activities or time is wasted during transitions.2. There are some unnecessary delays, undesirable digressions from the topic, or ineffective transitions between activities.

3. Overall pacing and transitions are smooth; however, there are minor problems with effective use of instructional time.4. Pacing is appropriate, transactions are smooth, and there are no unnecessary delays or undesirable digressions.

33. Monitors students' participation and interpersonal interactions in learning activities. (IN 5)


The teacher must monitor participation in learning activities while teaching and as students work. The teacher should observe and support student interaction in learning activities and refocus students to tasks if necessary. Clear, established procedures will help keep students on task.

1. Student teacher seldom monitors students' interactions.2. Student teacher passively monitors students' interactions, but makes no attempt to redirect student learning.3. Student teacher monitors student learning by moving among the students and refocusing students to tasks as necessary.4. In addition to 3, students are given opportunities to self-monitor.

34. Establishes efficient routines for procedural tasks and delegates to students. (IN 5) To maximize learning time, routine procedural tasks are handled smoothly in the classroom. These procedural matters may or may not be directly related to instruction (bookkeeping, distribution and collection of materials, collecting lunch money, etc.). When students are involved in handling routine tasks, the teachers are able to attend to other matters and student responsibility is enhanced.

1. Student teacher seldom attends to or delegates routine tasks.2. Student teacher or students attend to routine tasks in a disruptive or inefficient manner.3. Student teacher and students jointly handle routine tasks efficiently.4. In addition to 3, the student teacher delegates appropriate responsibilities to students who consistently complete these tasks efficiently.

35. Applies the principles of effective classroom management using a range of strategies to promote cooperation and learning. (IN 5)

Without rules and standards for behavior, learning seldom takes place. Effective teachers establish and consistently enforce classroom rules and standards so that possibilities for learning are maximized. Teachers foster respect and develop self-respect in students by modeling and positively reinforcing appropriate classroom behavior.

1. Student teacher does not apply the principles of effective classroom management.2. Student teacher attempts to apply the principles of effective classroom management.3. Student teacher consistently applies the principles of effective classroom management.4. Student teacher consistently applies the principles of effective classroom management and uses a range of strategies to promote cooperation and learning.


36. Analyzes the classroom environment and makes adjustments to enhance social relationships, student motivation, and learning. * (IN 5, 6, 7)

Drawing on knowledge of psychology and sociology, the teacher should study and analyze classroom interactions/environment to develop strategies for organizing and supporting individual and group learning. The teacher should promote students' intrinsic motivation, positive attitudes toward school, cooperation in the classroom, and learning.

1. Student teacher seldom uses knowledge of social relationships and motivational strategies within the classroom to affect learning.2. Student teacher demonstrates an awareness of the social relationships and motivational strategies within the classroom, but is unable to make adjustments to enhance learning.3. Student teacher makes adjustments that are usually effective in enhancing student motivation and learning. 4. Student teacher continually makes adjustments that are effective in enhancing student motivation and learning.

37. Utilizes individual and group responses to pace learning, proceed with new work, or reteach unclear parts of the lesson. (IN 2, 4)

Effective teachers constantly take cues from students. They use these cues to adjust and determine the pace of lessons. They recognize the level of students' understanding, the need for clarification and reteaching, and the direction for subsequent lessons.

1. Student teacher seldom utilizes students' responses to adjust lessons.2. Student teacher occasionally utilizes students' responses to adjust lessons.3. Student teacher usually uses students' responses to adjust lessons.4. Student teacher consistently uses students' responses to adjust lessons and takes advantage of teachable moments.

38. Attends to organizing time, space, activities, and materials to provide equitable engagement of students in productive tasks. (IN 5)

Learning is facilitated and maximized in well-organized classrooms. Teachers must make numerous decisions concerning the organization of time to provide for efficient use of classroom time and space (arrangement of desks, tables, displays, learning centers, etc.). They must develop procedures for easy access to materials and equipment so that lessons flow smoothly with few interruptions.


1. Student teacher demonstrates no evidence of organization.2. Student teacher demonstrates limited organization.3. Student teacher demonstrates organization. Materials are easily accessible so that there are no interruptions in the flow of instruction.4. Student teacher consistently demonstrates exemplary organization, and students are engaged in productive tasks.


V. ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING*

39. Communicates assessment criteria and performance standards to the students. (IN 8)Evaluating students is critical to the learning process. Effective teachers inform students of standards and assessment criteria before they begin assignments and tasks. Teachers clarify these criteria and standards with examples, models, verbal clarifications, and other means.

1. Student teacher seldom informs students of performance standards or assessment criteria.2. Student teacher informs students they will be assessed on the information presented in class, but does not elaborate on details of assessment.3. Student teacher verbally informs students about performance standards and assessment criteria.4. Student teacher assures student understanding of assessment criteria and performance standards through the use of examples and models.

40. Develops and uses a variety of formal and informal performance assessments. (IN 8)

Assessment, the process of gathering information about student progress, should be multifaceted. Teachers must use a variety of methods to evaluate students, especially in cross-cultural classroom settings. When a variety of assessment approaches is used, students have opportunities to display and document their knowledge and skills in different ways. Thus, a broad picture of students' diverse needs, strengths, and interests is developed. Assessment should be appropriate for students' levels and styles, as well as for content subject matter. Assessments may include, but are not limited to, portfolios, performance tasks, written work and tests, journals, videotapes, anecdotal records, teacher narratives, artistic products, analysis, simulations, rubrics, student self-assessments, observations, and checklists.


1. Student teacher seldom uses assessment.2. Student teacher uses only one type of assessment.3. Student teacher develops and uses more than one type of assessment appropriately.4. Student teacher develops and uses a variety of assessments appropriately.

41. Encourages students to assume responsibility for learning and to engage in self-evaluation. (IN 8)

The teacher should use assessment strategies to involve students in self-assessment activities, to help them become aware of their strengths and needs, and to encourage them to set personal goals for learning.

1. Student teacher does not expect students to take the initiative in their learning and does not help students develop self-evaluation processes.2. Student teacher offers limited opportunities for students to expand their learning.3. Student teacher provides numerous opportunities for students to expand their learning and engage in self-evaluation. 4. Student teacher consistently provides opportunities for students to expand their learning and engage in self-evaluation.

42. Maintains records of student work and performance and communicates student progress to students, parents, guardians, and colleagues. (IN 8)

The teacher should develop and use appropriate methods for recording students' work and performance.1. Student teacher does not maintain samples of student work or performance.2. Student teacher maintains a limited amount of student work samples and performance.3. Student teacher maintains adequate records of student progress.4. In addition to 3, the student teacher communicates student progress to students, parents, guardians, and colleagues.

Instrument 2 - Dispositions Rating Scale (Undergraduate Programs Version)

The following version was used during the Spring 2008 Semester.

Directions: Use the Appraisal Scale to rate each Characteristic (Disposition). The explanations of the Characteristics (e.g., 1.1, 1.2) provide clarification.


Appraisal Scale:1 – Does not meet expectations 2 – Meets a few expectations but not sufficient3 – Meets expectations 4 – Exceeds expectation

Characteristic (Disposition)

Rating Evidence for 1 or 2 Rating

Flexibility:1.1 responds promptly

and effectively to unexpected occurrences in the classroom and to the needs of colleagues and administrators

1.2 adapts willingly to change and contributes positively to the needs of the workplace

Poise and Confidence:2.1 handles self professionally in actions and speech2.2 carries self with self- assurance without feeling threatened by others’ accomplishments or abilities 2.3 realistically appraises own abilities and the ability to risk despite perceived weaknessesMaturity and Judgment:3.1 accurately assesses the context of complex situations in the workplace and


responds appropriately3.2 consults with colleagues and administrators as needed and acts independently within the scope of training3.3 avoids personalizing conflict in emotionally charged situations3.4 knows safety measures and how to handle emergenciesAttendance and Participation:4.1 attends all expected classes, meetings, and trainings required4.2 contributes meaningfully to meetings and doesn’t just “show up”Punctuality:5.1 arrives to all expected classes, meetings, and trainings required on or before expected start time5.2 completes assignments on/before due date(s)Dependability:6.1 behaves in a consistent and professional manner that contributes positively to the environment


6.2 shows responsibility in all aspects of professional functioningSensitivity:

Enthusiasm:8.1 generates excitement,

passion, and interest within students and colleagues

8.2 motivates self to perform well in spite of circumstances that are not optimal

Grooming and Appearance:9.1 appears well groomed,


attending to both neatness and personal hygiene

9.2 selects attire that does not detract from professional functioning and is consistent with other professionals within the workplace

Attitude:10.1 conveys a positive (helpful, upbeat) disposition in the workplace10.2 takes responsibility for emotional states and behavior and adjusts when needed10.3 hears and responds

appropriately to feedback from peers and supervisors without becoming

defensive

Initiative:11.1 is proactive and

anticipates what a situation calls for and responds appropriately

11.2 consults with others when necessary

11.3 asks for feedback about the impact of work

Creativity:12.1 is inventive


recognizes and uses personal talents to facilitate professional functioning12.2 recognizes and uses personal talents to

facilitate professional functioningResourcefulness:13.1 uses materials

appropriately in the classroom and other professional settings

13.2 employs multiple technologies to aid the teaching process

13.3 responds with flexibility

Professional Growth:14.1 demonstrates value

of lifelong learning14.2 engages in self-

reflection for continuous improvement

14.3 takes advantage of opportunities for professional development

Collaboration:15.1 engages in successful

home-school partnerships

15.2 works effectively with community and social services agencies

15.3 collaborates


appropriately with professional colleagues, as appropriate

The following version was used during the Fall 2008 Semester.

Directions: Use the Appraisal Scale to rate each of the five Dispositions. The Indicators (e.g., 1.1, 1.2) provide clarification. Provide evidence in the last column for ratings of 1, 2, or 4.

Appraisal Scale:1 – Does not meet expectations 2 – Meets a few expectations but not sufficient3 – Meets expectations 4 – Exceeds expectations

Characteristic (Disposition) Rating of Disposition Evidence for 1,2, or 4 Rating1. Fairness1.1 Strives to meet the educational needs of all students in a caring, non-discriminatory, and equitable manner

1.2 Treats students, families, community members, and colleagues with dignity and respect, regardless of background, ethnicity/race, capabilities, or beliefs

1. Fairness_____

2. The Belief That All Students Can Learn2.1 Establishes a classroom climate that supports the learning, development, emotional well-being, and physical well-being of a diverse student population

2. The Belief That All Students Can Learn _____


2.2 Effectively plans and implements teaching and assessment strategies that address the experiences; academic, emotional, and physical needs; developmental levels; and interests of a diverse student population

3. Professionalism3.1 Engages in ongoing self-reflection and participates in professional development opportunities

3.2 Displays professional appearance and actions, including effective oral and written communication

3.3 Collaborates with professors, students, colleagues, families, and/or community members

3. Professionalism _____

4. Resourcefulness4.1 Motivates self and others to perform well

4.2 Anticipates what a situation calls for and responds appropriately

4.3 Uses personal talents to enhance professional functioning

4.4 Adapts willingly to change

4. Resourcefulness _____


5. Dependability 5.1 Attends all expected classes and meetings, and arrives on time

5.2 Participates meaningfully in classes and meetings

5.3 Fulfills responsibilities in the college classroom and in P-12 settings

5. Dependability _____

Instrument 3 – Dispositions Rating Scale (Graduate Programs Version)

The following version was used during the Spring 2008 Semester.

Directions: Use the Appraisal Scale to rate each Characteristic (Disposition). The explanations of the Characteristics (e.g., 1.1, 1.2) provide clarification.

Appraisal Scale:1 – Does not meet expectations 2 – Meets a few expectations but not sufficient3 – Meets expectations 4 – Exceeds expectation

Characteristic (Disposition)

Rating Evidence for 1 or 2 Rating

Flexibility:1.1 responds promptly and

effectively to unexpected occurrences in the classroom and to the needs of colleagues and administrators

1.2 adapts willingly to change and contributes positively to the needs of the workplace


Attendance and Participation:2.1 attends all expected classes, meetings, and trainings required

2.2 contributes meaningfully to meetings and doesn’t just “show up”

Punctuality:3.1 arrives to all expected classes, meetings, and trainings required on or before expected start time

3.2 completes assignments on/before due date(s)

Dependability:4.1 behaves in a consistent ad professional manner that

contributes positively to the environment

4.2 shows responsibility in all aspects of professional

functioningPoise and Confidence:


5.1 handles self professionally in actions and speech

5.2 carries self with self- assurance without feeling threatened by others’ accomplishments or abilities

5.3 realistically appraises own abilities and the ability to risk despite perceived weaknesses

Maturity and Judgment:6.1 accurately assesses the context of complex situations in the workplace and responds appropriately

6.2 consults with colleagues and administrators as needed and acts independently within the scope of training

6.3 avoids personalizing conflict in emotionally charged situations

6.4 knows safety measures and how to handle emergencies

Grooming and Appearance:


7.1 appears well groomed, attending to both neatness and personal hygiene

7.2 selects attire that does not detract from professional functioning and is consistent with other professionals within the workplace

Sensitivity:8.1 effectively demonstrates empathy and

compassion toward others within the professional context while maintaining learning expectations

8.2 maintains confidentiality of sensitive student and colleague information

8.3 effectively demonstrates acceptance of diversity (e.g., ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, gender, exceptionalities, language, religion, sexual orientation, geographical area) is different from my own is an essential part of my college education.

Attitude:


9.1 conveys a positive (helpful, upbeat) disposition in the workplace9.2 takes responsibility for emotional states and behavior and adjusts when needed9.3 hears and responds appropriately to feedback from peers and supervisors without becoming defensive

Initiative:10.1 is proactive and anticipates

what a situation calls for and responds appropriately

10.2 consults with others when necessary

10.3 asks for feedback about the impact of workResourcefulness:11.1 uses materials appropriately in

the classroom and other professional settings

11.2 employs multiple technologies to aid the teaching process

11.3 responds with flexibilityEnthusiasm:12.1 generates excitement, passion,

and interest within students and colleagues

12.2 motivates self to perform well in spite of circumstances that are not optimalCreativity:


13.1 is inventive recognizes and uses personal talents to facilitate professional functioning13.2 recognizes and uses personal

talents to facilitate professional functioningCollaboration:14.1 engages in successful home-

school partnerships14.2 works effectively with

community and social services agencies

14.3 collaborates appropriately with professional colleagues, as appropriateProfessional Growth:15.1 demonstrates value of lifelong

learning15.2 engages in self-reflection for

continuous improvement 15.3 takes advantage of

opportunities for professional development

Ethics:

16.1 fulfills legal and contractual obligations while

applying laws and procedures fairly

16.2 expects school community to demonstrate integrity

and exercise ethical behavior16.3 protects the rights of faculty,

staff, and students16.4 treats people fairly, equitably,

and with dignity and


respect16.5 accepts responsibility for

school operations and recognizes the impact of administrative decisions of

others16.6 models strong values, beliefs,

and a professional code of ethics

The following version was used during the Fall 2008 Semester.

Directions: Use the Appraisal Scale to rate each of the six Dispositions. The Disposition Indicators (e.g., 1.1, 1.2) provide clarification. Provide evidence in the last column for ratings of 1, 2, or 4.

Appraisal Scale:1 – Does not meet expectations 2 – Meets a few expectations, but not sufficient3 – Meets expectations 4 – Exceeds expectations

Characteristic (Disposition) Rating of Disposition Evidence for 1,2, or 4 Rating1. Fairness1.1 Strives to meet the educational needs of all students in a caring, non-discriminatory, and equitable manner

1.2 Treats students, families, community members, and colleagues with dignity and respect, regardless of background, ethnicity/race, capabilities, or beliefs

1. Fairness _____

2. The Belief That All Students Can Learn

2. The Belief That All Students Can Learn _____


2.1 Establishes a classroom, school, and/or school district climate that supports the learning, development, emotional well-being, and physical well-being of a diverse student population

2.2 Effectively plans and implements teaching and assessment strategies that address the experiences; academic, emotional, and physical needs; developmental levels; and interests of a diverse student population; or effectively participates in this process as an administrator 3. Professionalism3.1 Engages in ongoing self-reflection and professional development

3.2 Consistently displays professional appearance and actions, including effective oral and written communication

3.3 Collaborates with professors, students, colleagues, families, and/or community members

3 Professionalism _____

4. Resourcefulness4.1 Motivates self and others to perform well

4.2 Acts in a proactive manner by anticipating what a situation calls

4 Resourcefulness _____


for and responding appropriately

4.3 Uses personal talents to enhance professional functioning

4.4 Adapts willingly to change 5. Dependability 5.1 Attends all expected classes and meetings, and arrives punctually

5.2 Participates meaningfully in classes and meetings

5.3 Fulfills responsibilities in the college classroom and in P-12 settings

5. Dependability _____

6. Commitment to Inquiry 6.1 Is knowledgeable of the professional literature in his/her field of study

6.2 Implements research-based strategies in his/her practice

6.3 Uses data to make decisions regarding learning and teaching

6. Commitment to Inquiry _____

Appendix B – Scoring Guides/Rubrics

Scoring Guide/Rubric 1 – Elementary Education Integrated Unit Plan

Contextual Factors and Class DescriptionTWS Standard: The teacher uses information about the learning/teaching context and student individual differences to set learning goals, plan instruction and assess learning.


RatingIndicator

0Indicator Not Met

(Unacceptable)

1/2Indicator Partially Met

(Acceptable)

1Indicator Met

(Target)Score

Knowledge of Community, School and classroom Factors

Teacher displays minimal, irrelevant, or biased knowledge of the characteristics of the community, school, and classroom.

Teacher displays some knowledge of the characteristics of the community, school, and classroom that may affect learning.

Teacher displays a comprehensive understanding of the characteristics of the community, school, and classroom that may affect learning.

Knowledge of Characteristics of Students

Teacher displays minimal, stereotypical, or irrelevant knowledge of student differences (e.g., development, interests, culture, abilities/disabilities).

Teacher displays general knowledge of student differences (e.g., development, interests, culture, abilities/disabilities) that may affect learning.

Teacher displays general and specific understanding of student differences (e.g., development, interests, culture, abilities/disabilities) that may affect learning.

Knowledge of Students' Skills and Prior Learning

Teacher displays little or irrelevant knowledge of students' skills and prior learning.

Teacher displays general knowledge of students' skills and prior learning that may affect learning.

Teacher displays general and specific understanding of students' skills and prior learning that may affect learning.

Implications for Instructional Planning and Assessment

Teacher does not provide implications for instruction and assessment based on student individual differences and community, school, and classroom characteristics OR provides inappropriate implications.

Teacher provides general implications for instruction and assessment based on student individual differences and community, school, and classroom characteristics.

Teacher provides specific implications for instruction and assessment based on student individual differences and community, school, and classroom characteristics.

Total

Learning Goals: Objectives, Concepts, and SkillsRatingIndicator

0Indicator Not Met

(Unacceptable)


(Acceptable)

1Indicator Met

(Target)Score

Clarity and Appropriateness for

Less than 60% of the goals are not stated clearly and are activities rather than learning

60-94% of the goals are clearly stated as learning outcomes. 60-94% of the

95% or more of the goals are clearly stated as learning outcomes. 95% or more of


Students outcomes. Less than 60% of the goals are not appropriate for the development, prerequisite knowledge, skills, experiences, and other student needs.

goals are appropriate for the development, prerequisite knowledge, skills, experiences, and other student needs.

the goals are appropriate for the development, prerequisite knowledge, skills, experiences, and other student needs.

Alignment with National, State, or Local Standards

Less than 60% of the goals are not aligned with national, state, or local standards.

60-94% of the goals arealigned with national, state, or local standards.

95% or more of the goals are alignedwith national, state, or local standards.

Facilitates Acquisition of Appropriate Concepts and Skills

Less than 60% of the goals facilitate the acquisition of appropriate concepts and skills.

60-94% of the goals facilitate the acquisition of appropriate concepts and skills.

95% or more of the goals facilitate the acquisition of appropriate concepts and skills.

Total

Lesson Plan Rubric

Unacceptable1

Marginal 2

Acceptable 3

Outstanding 4

Objectives Objectives are missing, unclear, or are unrelated to standards.

Objectives do not provide a clear sense of what students will know and be able to do as a result of the lesson. Some of the objectives are related to standards.

Objectives provide some sense of what students will know and be able to do as a result of the lesson. Most of the objectives are related to standards.

Objectives provide a clear sense of what students will know and be able to do as a result of the lesson. All objectives are clearly and closely related to standards.

Grade Level Appropriateness Objectives and activities are inappropriate for the intended grade level.

Some, but not all, objectives and activities are appropriate for the intended grade level.

Most objectives and activities are appropriate for the intended grade level.

All objectives and activities are appropriate for the intended grade level.

Instructional Activities Activities are unrelated to objectives. Many activities are extraneous and irrelevant. No attempt is made to individualize activities for learning styles or strengths.

Activities relate peripherally to objectives. Some activities are extraneous or irrelevant. Activities are not accessible to students with different learning styles and strengths.

Activities relate to objectives. A few activities may be extraneous or irrelevant. Activities are accessible to students of more than one learning style of strength.

Activities provide a logical path to meeting objectives. No activities are extraneous or irrelevant. Students of many learning styles and strengths can benefit from activities.

Differentiated Instruction No differentiation of instruction is mentioned.

Lesson plan includes minimal differentiated instruction, limited to

Lesson includes some differentiated instruction for gifted students and

Lesson clearly offers appropriate, creative, and well-integrated


either gifted students OR students with special needs.

students with special needs. challenges for students of all levels, including gifted students and students with special needs.

Teacher-Created Supporting Materials

No supporting materials are included.

Supporting materials and student handouts are messy, incomplete, and/or unappealing to students. Materials do not enhance lesson.

Supporting materials and student handouts are clear and complete. Materials enhance lesson.

Supporting materials and student handouts are clear, complete, and appealing to students. Materials enhance lesson significantly.

Assessment Assessment is unrelated to objectives and standards.

Assessment is somewhat related to objectives and standards. Assessment is not appropriate for all students' learning styles and strengths.

Assessment is related to objectives and standards. Assessment is less accessible for students with certain learning styles and strengths.

Assessment is directly related to objectives and standards. Assessment provides opportunities for students with varying learning styles and strengths to excel.

Mechanics Spelling and grammar are unacceptable.

The lesson plan contains many spelling and grammar errors.

The lesson plan contains few spelling and grammar errors.

Spelling and grammar in lesson plan are flawless.

Integrated Unit Lesson Plan RubricUnacceptable

1Marginal 2

Acceptable 3

Outstanding 4

Language Arts / Reading Lessons do not reflect balanced reading instruction and inappropriately address the language arts modes.

Lessons inaccurately reflect balanced reading instruction and address no more than two language arts modes.

Lessons accurately reflect balanced reading instruction and address three to four language arts modes.

Lessons accurately reflect balanced reading instruction and address all language arts modes.

Mathematics Lessons do not reflect instruction regarding major concepts, procedures, and reasoning processes for mathematics and do not facilitate students’ abilities to represent phenomena, problem solve, and manage data.

Lessons reflect inappropriate or poorly developed instruction regarding major concepts, procedures, and reasoning processes for mathematics and inappropriately facilitate students’ abilities to represent phenomena, problem solve, and manage data.

Lessons reflect appropriate use of major concepts, procedures, and reasoning processes for math instruction and facilitate students’ abilities to represent phenomena, problem solve, and manage data.

Lessons reflect outstanding use of major concepts, procedures, and reasoning processes for math instruction and facilitate students’ abilities to represent phenomena, problem solve, and manage data.

Social Studies Lessons do not reflect application of major concepts and modes of inquiry to promote students’ social understanding and civic efficacy.

Lessons reflect inappropriate application of major concepts and modes of inquiry to promote students’ social understanding and civic efficacy.

Lessons reflect appropriate application of major concepts and modes of inquiry to promote students’ social understanding and civic efficacy.

Lessons reflect outstanding application of major concepts and modes of inquiry to promote students’ social understanding and civic efficacy.


Science Lessons do not reflect application of fundamental concepts and do not incorporate the inquiry process.

Lessons inappropriately reflect application of fundamental concepts and inappropriately incorporate the inquiry process.

Lessons reflect application of fundamental concepts and appropriately incorporate the inquiry process.

Lessons reflect outstanding application of fundamental concepts and incorporation of the inquiry process.

The Arts Lessons do not reflect knowledge and understanding of the content, function, and achievements of the visual and performance arts as primary media of communication, inquiry and insight among students.

Lessons inappropriately reflect knowledge and understanding of the content, function, and achievements of the visual and performance arts as primary media of communication, inquiry and insight among students.

Lessons reflect knowledge and understanding of the content, function, and achievements of the visual and performance arts as primary media of communication, inquiry and insight among students.

Lessons reflect outstanding knowledge and understanding of the content, function, and achievements of the visual and performance arts as primary media of communication, inquiry and insight among students.

Health/Physical Education Lessons do not reflect experiences that promote health and physical movement.

Lessons reflect inappropriate experiences that promote health and physical movement.

Lessons reflect experiences that promote health and physical movement.

Lessons reflect outstanding experiences that promote health and physical movement.

Assessment Plan RubricRatingIndicator

0Indicator Not Met

(Unacceptable)


(Acceptable)

1Indicator Met

(Target)Score

Alignment with Learning Goals and Instruction with Clarity of Criteria and Standards for Performance

Less than 60% of the content and methods of assessment lack cognitive complexity and congruence with learning goals and/or less than 60% of the assessments contain no clear criteria for measuring student performance relative to the learning goals.

60-94% of the content and methods of assessment include cognitive complexity and congruence with learning goals and 60-94% of the assessments contain clear criteria for measuring student performance relative to the learning goals.

95% or more of the content and methods of assessment include cognitive complexity and congruence with learning goals and 95% of the assessments contain clear criteria that are explicitly linked to the learning goals.

Multiple Modes and Approaches and Technical Soundness

The assessment plan includes only one mode and does not assess students before, during, and after instruction and/or the assessments are not valid due to inaccurate scoring procedures, poorly written prompts, and confusing directions and procedures.

The assessment plan includes some valid measures and multiple modes but all are either pencil/paper based (i.e. they are not performance assessments) and/or do not require the integration of knowledge skills and reasoning ability.

The assessment plan includes valid, multiple modes of assessments (including performance assessments, reports, research projects, etc.) and assesses student performance throughout the instructional sequence.


Adaptations Based on the Individual Needs of Students

Teacher does not adapt assessments to meet the individual needs of students or these assessments are inappropriate.

Teacher makes adaptations to assessments but some of the adaptations are inappropriate for meeting the individual needs of some students.

Teacher makes adaptations to assessments that are appropriate for meeting the individual needs of most students,

Total

Home-School-Community Connection RubricRatingIndicator

0Indicator Not Met

(Unacceptable)


(Acceptable)

1Indicator Met

(Target)Score

Builds Family and Community Relationships

Inappropriate or no evidence of attempts to foster and utilize family and community support to facilitate achievement of learning goals.

Evidence of attempts to foster and utilize family and community support to facilitate achievement of learning goals noted but characterized by stereotypical and/or biased assumptions.

Evidence of attempts to foster and utilize family and community support to facilitate achievement of learning goals reveal clear understanding of the value of family and community relationships.

Collaborates with Families Ineffective or no attempts to inform or involve families in student learning.

Attempts to inform or involve families in student learning are characterized by lack of understanding about the intellectual, social, emotional, and physical growth of children.

Attempts to inform or involve families in student learning are characterized by full understanding about the intellectual, social, emotional, and physical growth of children.

Total

Field Experience Individual Teaching Evaluation Unacceptable Marginal Acceptable Outstanding POINTS

Organization 1Audience cannot understand lesson because there is no

sequence of

2Audience has

difficulty following presentation

because student

3 4 Student presents information in

logical sequence which audience can

5Student presents information in

logical, interesting sequence which

_____


information. jumps around. follow. audience can follow.

Teaching of Individual Lesson

1DSU student does

not exhibit knowledge of the

objective; offers no or inappropriate

elaboration.

2 3 DSU student exhibits little

knowledge of the objective; offers little elaboration.

4 5 6 DSU student

exhibits adequate knowledge of the objective; offers

adequate elaboration.

7 8 9 10DSU student

exhibits outstanding knowledge of the objective; offers

outstanding explanations and

elaboration.

_____

Visuals 1Student used no visuals or visuals

were of poor quality.

2 Student

occasionally used visuals that rarely support text and

skills. Visuals were of minimal,

acceptable quality.

3 4 Visuals related to

text and skills. Visuals were of good quality.

5Student used visuals to reinforce text and skills. Visuals were

of high quality. _____

Oral Communication

1Student’s verbal

communication was incoherent. Student

incorrectly pronounced 3 or

more terms. Student used inappropriate

language, facial expressions, gestures, and

personal interactions.

2Student mumbled,

incorrectly pronounced 1 – 2

terms, and communicated with

inappropriate language, facial

expressions, gestures, and


3 4Student spoke

coherently most of the time with

accurate pronunciation of terms. Student

communicated with appropriate

language, facial expressions, gestures, and


5Student used learn voice, appropriate

intonation, and correct

pronunciation of terms. _____

TOTAL _____


Comments:

Reflection and Self-Evaluation RubricRatingIndicator

0Indicator Not Met

(Unacceptable)

1 2Indicator Partially Met

(Acceptable)

3 4Indicator Met

(Target)

Score

Development and Implementation through Collaboration

No evidence supports the collaborative development and implementation of the unit.

Provides evidence of collaboration but offers no explanation of its effect on the development and implementation of the unit.

Uses evidence to support the collaboration of the team in development and implementation of the unit and expounds on the effects of the collaborative efforts on the outcome of the unit implementation.

Interpretation of Student Learning

No evidence or reasons provided to support conclusions drawn in "Analysis of Student Learning" section.

Provides evidence but no (or simplistic, superficial) reasons or hypotheses to support conclusions drawn in "Analysis of Student Learning" section.

Uses evidence to support conclusions drawn in "Analysis of Student Learning" section. Explores multiple hypotheses for why some students did not meet learning goals.

Insights on Effective Instruction and Assessment

Provides no rationale for why some activities or assessments were more successful than others.

Identifies successful and unsuccessful activities or assessments and superficially explores reasons for their success or lack thereof (no use of theory or research).

Identifies successful and unsuccessful activities or assessments and provides plausible reasons (based on theory or research) for their success or lack thereof.

Alignment along Goals, Instruction and Assessment

Does not connect learning goals, instruction, and assessment results in the discussion of student learning and effective instruction and/or the connections are irrelevant or inaccurate.

Connects learning goals, instruction, and assessment results in the discussion of student learning and effective instruction but misunderstandings or conceptual gaps are present.

Logically connects learning goals, instruction, and assessment results in the discussion of student learning and effective instruction.


Implications for Future Teaching

Provides no ideas or inappropriate ideas for redesigning learning goals, instruction, and assessment.

Provides ideas for redesigning learning goals, instruction, and assessment but offers no rationale for why these changes would improve student learning.

Provides ideas for redesigning learning goals, instruction, and assessment and explains why these changes would improve student learning.

Implications for Professional Development

Provides no professional learning goals or goals that are not related to the insights and experiences described in this section.

Presents professional learning goals that are not strongly related to the insights and experiences described in this section and/or provides a vague plan for meeting the goals.

Presents a small number of professional learning goals that clearly emerge from the insights and experiences described in this section. Describes specific steps to meet these goals.

Total

Scoring Guide/Rubric 2 – Elementary Education Teacher Work Sample

TWS Rating Guide Unacceptable Acceptable TargetIndicator Not Met = 1 Indicator Partially Met = 2 Indicator Met = 3

Contextual Factors TWS Standard: The teacher uses information about the learning/teaching context and student individual differences to set learning goals, plan instruction and assess learning.

Rating →Indicator ↓

1Indicator Not Met

2Indicator Partially Met

3Indicator Met

Score

1.a. Knowledge of Community, School and

Classroom Factors

Teacher displays minimal, irrelevant, or biased

knowledge of the characteristics of the

community, school, and classroom.

Teacher displays some knowledge of the

characteristics of the community, school, and

classroom that may affect learning.

Teacher displays a comprehensive understanding

of the characteristics of the community, school, and

classroom that may affect learning.

1.b. Knowledge of Teacher displays minimal, Teacher displays general Teacher displays general &


Characteristics of Students stereotypical, or irrelevant knowledge of student

differences (e.g. development, interests,

culture, abilities/disabilities).

knowledge of student differences (e.g.,

development, interests, culture, abilities/

disabilities) that may affect learning.

specific understanding of student differences (e.g., development, interests,

culture, abilities/disabilities) that may affect

learning.1.c. Knowledge of Students’

Varied Approaches to Learning

Teacher displays minimal, stereotypical, or irrelevant

knowledge about the different ways students learn (e.g., learning styles, learning

modalities).

Teacher displays general knowledge about the different

ways students learn (e.g., learning styles, learning

modalities).

Teacher displays general & specific understanding of the different ways students learn (e.g., learning styles, learning

modalities) that may affect learning.

1.d. Knowledge of Students’ Skills

and Prior Learning

Teacher displays little or irrelevant knowledge of students’ skills and prior

learning.

Teacher displays general knowledge of students’ skills and prior learning that may

affect learning.

Teacher displays general & specific understanding of students’ skills and prior learning that may affect

learning.

1.e. Implications for Instructional Planning and

Assessment

Teacher does not provide implications for instruction and assessment based on

student individual differences and community, school, and classroom characteristics OR

provides inappropriate implications.

Teacher provides general implications for instruction and assessment based on

student individual differences and community, school, and

classroom characteristics.

Teacher provides specific implications for instruction and assessment based on

student individual differences and community, school, and

classroom characteristics.

Learning GoalsTWS Standard: The teacher sets significant, challenging, varied and appropriate learning goals.


1Indicator Not Met


3Indicator Met

Score


2.a. Significance, Challenge and Variety

Goals reflect only one type or level of learning.

Goals reflect several types or levels of learning but lack significance or challenge.

Goals reflect several types or levels of learning and are

significant and challenging.

2.b. Clarity Goals are not stated clearly and are activities rather than

learning outcomes.

Some of the goals are clearly stated as learning outcomes.

Most of the goals are clearly stated as learning outcomes.

2.c. Appropriate-ness for Students

Goals are not appropriate for the development; pre-

requisite knowledge, skills, experiences; or other student

needs.

Some goals are appropriate for the development; pre-

requisite knowledge, skills, experiences; and other

student needs

Most goals are appropriate for the development; pre-

requisite knowledge, skills, experiences; and other

student needs.

2.d. Alignment with National, State or Local

Standards

Goals are not aligned with national, state or local

standards.

Some goals are aligned with national, state or local

standards.

Most of the goals are explicitly aligned with national, state or local

standards.

Assessment PlanTWS Standard: The teacher uses multiple assessment modes and approaches aligned with learning goals to assess student

learning before, during and after instruction.Rating →

Indicator ↓1

Indicator Not Met2

Indicator Partially Met3

Indicator MetScore

3.a. Alignment with Learning Goals and

Instruction

Content and methods of assessment lack congruence with learning goals or lack

cognitive complexity.

Some of the learning goals are assessed through the

assessment plan, but many are not congruent with

learning goals in content and cognitive complexity.

Each of the learning goals is assessed through the

assessment plan; assessments are congruent with the

learning goals in content and cognitive complexity.


3.b. Clarity of Criteria and Standards for Performance

The assessments contain no clear criteria for measuring

student performance relative to the learning goals.

Assessment criteria have been developed, but they are not clear or are not explicitly linked to the learning goals.

Assessment criteria are clear and are explicitly linked to

the learning goals.

3.c. Multiple Modes and Approaches

The assessment plan includes only one assessment mode

and does not assess students before, during, and after

instruction.

The assessment plan includes multiple modes but all are

either pencil/paper based (i.e. they are not performance

assessments) and/or do not require the integration of

knowledge, skills and reasoning ability.

The assessment plan includes multiple assessment modes

(including performance assessments, lab reports,

research projects, etc.) and assesses student performance throughout the instructional

sequence.

3.d. Technical Soundness Assessments are not valid; scoring procedures are absent

or inaccurate; items or prompts are poorly written;

directions and procedures are confusing to students.

Assessments appear to have some validity. Some scoring

procedures are explained; some items or prompts are

clearly written; some directions and procedures are

clear to students.

Assessments appear to be valid; scoring procedures are

explained; most items or prompts are clearly written;

directions and procedures are clear to students.

3.e. Adaptations Based on the Individual Needs of

Students

Teacher does not adapt assessments to meet the

individual needs of students or these assessments are

inappropriate.

Teacher makes adaptations to assessments that are

appropriate to meet the individual needs of some

students.

Teacher makes adaptations to assessments that are

appropriate to meet the individual needs of most

students.

Design for InstructionTWS Standard: The teacher designs instruction for specific learning goals, student characteristics and needs, and learning

contexts.Rating →

Indicator↓1

Indicator Not Met2


Indicator MetScore

4.a. Alignment with Few lessons are explicitly Most lessons are explicitly All lessons are explicitly


Learning Goals linked to learning goals. Few learning activities,

assignments and resources are aligned with learning

goals. Not all learning goals are covered in the design.

linked to learning goals. Most learning activities,


goals. Most learning goals are covered in the design.

linked to learning goals. All learning activities,


goals. All learning goals are covered in the design.

4.b. Accurate Representation of Content

Teacher’s use of content appears to contain numerous inaccuracies. Content seems

to be viewed more as isolated skills and facts rather than as

part of a larger conceptual structure.

Teacher’s use of content appears to be mostly

accurate. Shows some awareness of the big ideas or

structure of the discipline.

Teacher’s use of content appears to be accurate. Focus

of the content is congruent with the big ideas or structure

of the discipline.

4.c. Lesson and Unit Structure

The lessons within the unit are not logically organized

organization (e.g., sequenced).

The lessons within the unit have some logical

organization and appear to be somewhat useful in moving

students toward achieving the learning goals.

All lessons within the unit are logically organized and

appear to be useful in moving students toward achieving the

learning goals.

4.d. Use of a Variety of Instructional Strategies,

Activities, Assignments and Resources

Little variety in instructional strategies, activities,

assignments, and resources. Heavy reliance on textbook

or single resource (e.g., work sheets).

Some variety in instructional strategies, activities,

assignments, or resources but with limited contribution to

learning.

Significant variety in instructional strategies across

instruction, activities, assignments, and/or

resources. This variety makes a clear contribution to

learning.4.e. Use of Contextual

Information and Data to Select Appropriate and

Relevant Activities, Assignments and Resources

Instruction has not been designed with reference to contextual factors and pre-assessment data. Activities

and assignments do not appear productive and

appropriate for each student.

Some instruction has been designed with reference to contextual factors and pre-

assessment data. Some activities and assignments

appear productive and appropriate for each student.

Most instruction has been designed with reference to contextual factors and pre-

assessment data. Most activities and assignments


4.f. Use of Technology Technology is inappropriately used OR teacher does not use

technology, and no (or inappropriate) rationale is

provided.

Teacher uses technology but it does not make a significant contribution to teaching and learning OR teacher provides limited rationale for not using

Teacher integrates appropriate technology that

makes a significant contribution to teaching and

learning OR provides a strong


technology. rationale for not using technology.

Instructional Decision-MakingTWS Standard: The teacher uses on-going analysis of student learning to make instructional decisions.


1Indicator Not Met


3Indicator Met

Score

5.a. Sound Professional Practice

Many instructional decisions are inappropriate and not

pedagogically sound.

Instructional decisions are mostly appropriate, but some

decisions are not pedagogically sound.

Most instructional decisions are pedagogically sound (i.e.,

they are likely to lead to student learning).

5.b. Modifications Based on Analysis of Student

Learning

Teacher treats class as “one plan fits all” with no

modifications.

Some modifications of the instructional plan are made to

address individual student needs, but these are not based

on the analysis of student learning, best practice, or

contextual factors.

Appropriate modifications of the instructional plan are

made to address individual student needs. These

modifications are informed by the analysis of student

learning/performance, best practice, or contextual

factors. Include explanation of why the modifications would improve student

progress.

5.c. Congruence Between Modifications and Learning

Goals

Modifications in instruction lack congruence with

learning goals.

Modifications in instruction are somewhat congruent with

learning goals.

Modifications in instruction are congruent with learning

goals.

Analysis of Student LearningTWS Standard: The teacher uses assessment data to profile student learning and communicate information about student

progress and achievement.



1Indicator Not Met


3Indicator Met

Score

6.a. Clarity and Accuracy of Presentation

Presentation is not clear and accurate; it does not

accurately reflect the data.

Presentation is understandable and contains

few errors.

Presentation is easy to understand and contains no

errors of representation.

6.b. Alignment withLearning Goals

Analysis of student learning is not aligned with learning

goals.

Analysis of student learning is partially aligned with

learning goals and/or fails to provide a comprehensive profile of student learning relative to the goals for the whole class, subgroups, and

two individuals.

Analysis is fully aligned with learning goals and provides a

comprehensive profile of student learning for the whole

class, subgroups, and two individuals.

6.c. Interpretation of Data Interpretation is inaccurate, and conclusions are missing

or unsupported by data.

Interpretation is technically accurate, but conclusions are missing or not fully supported

by data.

Interpretation is meaningful, and appropriate conclusions

are drawn from the data.

6.d. Evidence of Impact on Student Learning

Analysis of student learning fails to include evidence of

impact on student learning in terms of numbers of students

who achieved and made progress toward learning

goals.

Analysis of student learning includes incomplete evidence

of the impact on student learning in terms of numbers of students who achieved and

made progress toward learning goals.

Analysis of student learning includes evidence of the

impact on student learning in terms of number of students

who achieved and made progress toward each learning

goal.

Reflection and Self-EvaluationTWS Standard: The teacher analyzes the relationship between his or her instruction and student learning in order to improve

teaching practice.Rating →

Indicator ↓1

Indicator Not Met2


Indicator MetScore


7.a. Interpretation of Student Learning

No evidence or reasons provided to support

conclusions drawn in “Analysis of Student Learning” section.

Provides evidence but no (or simplistic, superficial)

reasons or hypotheses to support conclusions drawn in

“Analysis of Student Learning” section.

Uses evidence to support conclusions drawn in “Analysis of Student

Learning” section. Explores multiple hypotheses for why some students did not meet

earning goals. l

7.b. Insights on Effective Instruction and Assessment

Provides no rationale for why some activities or

assessments were more successful than others.

Identifies successful and unsuccessful activities or

assessments and superficially explores reasons for their

success or lack thereof (no use of theory or research).

Identifies successful and unsuccessful activities and assessments and provides

plausible reasons (based on theory or research) for their

success or lack thereof.

7.c. Alignment Among Goals, Instruction and

Assessment

Does not connect learning goals, instruction, and

assessment results in the discussion of student learning

and effective instruction and/or the connections are irrelevant or inaccurate.

Connects learning goals, instruction, and assessment results in the discussion of

student learning and effective instruction, but

misunderstandings or conceptual gaps are present.

Logically connects learning goals, instruction, and


and effective instruction.

7.d. Implications for Future Teaching

Provides no ideas or inappropriate ideas for

redesigning learning goals, instruction, and assessment.

Provides ideas for redesigning learning goals, instruction, and assessment but offers no rationale for why these changes would improve student learning.

Provides ideas for redesigning learning goals, instruction, and assessment

and explains why these modifications would improve

student learning.

7.e. Implications for Professional Development

Provides no professional learning goals or goals that

are not related to the insights and experiences described in

this section.

Presents professional learning goals that are not strongly related to the insights and

experiences described in this section and/or provides a

vague plan for meeting the goals.

Presents a small number of professional learning goals

that clearly emerge from the insights and experiences described in this section.

Describes specific steps to meet these goals.


Design for Instruction in Elementary/Secondary Education TWS Standard: The teacher designs instruction for specific learning goals, student characteristics and needs, and learning contexts in

elementary education.Rating Indicator 1

Indicator Not Met2


IndicatorMet

Score

8.a. Alignment with Mississippi Curricular

Standards

Few lessons are explicitly linked to the Mississippi

Curricular Standards.

Most lessons are explicitly linked to the Mississippi

Curricular Standards.

All lessons are explicitly linked to the Mississippi

Curricular Standards.8.b. Selection and

Integration of ContentThe plans for the unit are generic to the grade level, with little or no connection between the various content

areas. Goals for IEPS are absent from the plans.

The plans for the unit are generic to the grade level, with partial integration of

language arts/reading, mathematics, science, social studies, the arts, and physical education. Goals from IEPs are minimal or absent from

the plans.

The teacher creates plans where all children can learn, integrating the content areas

of elementary education (language arts/reading,

mathematics, science, social studies, the arts, physical education) and goals from

IEPs into daily activities and routines.

8.c. Language Artsand Reading

The language arts and reading lesson are separate from the other subjects and isolated from other learning

experiences.

The lessons provide a limited focus on the various types of

language arts and reading purposes and activities.

The lessons provide specific activities that help students

identify the various purposes of reading and writing (narrative, expository,

technical, and persuasive) and speaking, listening, and

viewing.8.d. Mathematics and

ScienceMath and science are taught at the knowledge level with

primary focus on memorization of facts.

Memorization of facts is supplemented with isolated problems and application of

knowledge.

Describe the use of inquiry in mathematics and science

lessons, connecting both to real life situations allowing for discover and application

of knowledge.8.e. The Social Sciences The social sciences are taught

incidentally or add on to the classroom activities.

The social sciences are taught as separate aspects of culture with the use of single sources

to study relevant events, processes, people, and

regions.

Describe how the social sciences connect various

elements of culture and the use of resources, data,

sources, and tools are used to interpret information.


8.f. The Arts The arts activities are left to the special area teacher.

The arts activities seem contrived and an add-on to

the regular classroom.

The teacher describes the strategies that actively

engage students in creating, performing and responding to

the arts.8.g. Physical Education and

HealthThe P.E. and movement activities are left to the

special area teacher.

The teacher provides for outdoor play and P.E., but

doesn’t incorporate information about health and

lifestyle.

The teacher describes the activities and strategies for

healthy lifestyles that include play and physical activity.

8.h. Selection of Instructional Materials

Little or no information is provided on how and why

reading and curriculum materials were selected.

The teacher describes how they evaluated or why they

selected the reading and curriculum materials used in

the lesson.

The teacher describes the evaluation procedure and

selected the appropriateness of the reading and curriculum materials used in the lessons.

Research-based Practice RubricTWS standard: The teacher relates teacher work sample methodology to current scientific research and practice.

RatingIndicator

1Indicator Not

Met

2Indicator

Partially Met

3Indicator Met Score

Contextual Factors

Learning GoalsAssessment

PlanDesign for Instruction

Instructional Decision Making

Analysis of Student

Learning


Design for Instruction in Elementary Education

Reflection and Self-Evaluation

All annotated articles will be evaluated according to the following criteria:

1 Indicator Not Met 2 Indicator Partially Met 3 Indicator MetCandidate provides

minimal, irrelevant, or biased research in support of

the component; research base does not support each of the linkages to NPTBS or

are minimal, trivial, or inappropriate; research base is not properly cited and/or

does not constitute a scientific source.

Candidate provides some research in support of the

component and links research to some of the

elements of the component, research base partially

supports linkage of components to NPTBS;

research base is sometimes properly cited and/or

sometimes constitutes a scientific source.

Candidate provides relevant research base in support of

the component and links research to all elements of the component, research

base fully supports linkage to NPTBS and is always

properly cited and constitutes a scientific

source.

Scoring Guide/Rubric 3 – Elementary Education Reading Case Study Reading Case Study

Set-up and Appearance of Teaching Station Pointsa. Backboard ___(5)

1) Skills represented accurately2) Objectives3) Progress chart maintained


b. Teacher-made materials ___(5)1) Accurate, neat2) Range of appropriate materials provided[ACEI 1, 3.1 – 3.5, 4]

II. Behavioral Objective ___(5)a. Specific and appropriateb. Contains appropriate performance, condition, criterionc.

III. Proceduresa. Introduction/Motivation ___(5)

1) Purpose and importance of lesson2) Introductory activity[ACEI 1]

b. Teaching ___(5)1) Content with definitions, examples, etc. 2) Trade book or other reading material incorporated[ACEI 1, 2.1, 3.1 – 3.5]

c. Activities ___(5)1) Skills development2) Appropriateness for student – age, interest, etc.3) Culmination that summarizes learning[ACEI 1, 2.1, 3.1 – 3.5, 4]

d. Follow-up ___(5)1) Evaluate objective2) Chart progress

IV. Teaching Reflection ___(5)a. What I didb. Why I did itc. What I learned/what I would do differently

[ACEI 4, 5.2]


V. Teaching of Lesson ___(10)a. Necessary materials on handb. Lesson transitions handled smoothlyc. Lesson began/ended on timed. Teaching focused on objectivee. Balance of teacher- and learner-centered activities

[ACEI 3.1] Total Points Earned ___(50)

Scoring Guide/Rubric 4 – Elementary Education Philosophy Statement

This rubric was used in the Spring 2008 semester.

Unacceptable -1 Marginal - 2 Acceptable - 3 Outstanding - 4

Teaching Rationale: Purpose of education

Explanation is unclear or inappropriate, and lacks appropriate examples

Explanation is basic in nature; lacks cohesiveness, clarity and/or example(s) are weak

Clear explanation with rational examples

Detailed and honed explanation with superior examples

Teaching Rationale: Influences on education (e.g., societal, political, economic, cultural)





Teaching Rationale: Personal goals (as an educator)





Appropriate Teaching/Learning

Explanation is unclear or inappropriate, and

Explanation is basic in nature; lacks


Detailed and honed explanation with


Climate: Developmental stages of learner

lacks appropriate examples

cohesiveness, clarity and/or example(s) are weak

superior examples

Appropriate Teaching/Learning Climate: • Student diversity (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, learning styles)





Appropriate Teaching/Learning Climate: Teacher's role/Student's role





Content: Curricular content areas





Content: Standards (national, state, district)





Content: Other influences on curriculum (e.g., programs, textbooks, media, resources)






Professionalism: Professional Growth





Professionalism: Reflection





Professionalism: Collaboration (e.g., parents, colleagues, community agencies)





Composition/Mechanics:Formal standard English used throughout philosophy

Excessive deficiencies noted related to descriptors

Deficiencies related to indicators are distracting, though not at an unacceptable level

Deficiency is noted for one or more indicators, but meaning is intact

All descriptors met at a high level of proficiency

Composition/Mechanics:Paragraphs organized around main ideas and supporting details





Composition/Mechanics:Varied sentences transition and flow to form a cohesive philosophy





*Entry level philosophies are evaluated in light of beginning candidate experiences.


This rubric was used in the Fall 2008 Semester.

0 - Unacceptable 1 - Emerging 2 – Acceptable 3 – Target Teaching Rationale Explanation is

unclear or inappropriate, and lacks appropriate examples


Clear explanation with rational example


Appropriate Teaching/Learning Climate





Content Explanation is unclear or inappropriate, and lacks appropriate examples




Professionalism Explanation is unclear or inappropriate, and lacks appropriate examples




Composition/Mechanics Excessive deficiencies noted related to indicators



All indicators met at a high level of proficiency

Scoring Guide/Rubric 5 – Elementary Education Comprehensive Examination Rubric

3 -Target 2 - Acceptable 1 - Unacceptable All components of the prompt are addressed; the response indicates thorough understanding of specific bodies of knowledge and

All components of the prompt are addressed; the response indicates adequate understanding of specific bodies of knowledge and content while demonstrating adequate

One or more components of the prompt is not addressed; the response does not indicate understanding of specific bodies of knowledge and


content while demonstrating clear understanding of instructional practices that reflect the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS); the response contains accurate and appropriate citations; the response is organized and developed in a scholarly manner; and the response demonstrates accurate use of standard English.

understanding of instructional practices that reflect the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS); the response contains acceptable citations; the response is organized and developed in a scholarly manner; and the response demonstrates use of standard English.

content or understanding of instructional practices that reflect the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS); the response does not contain acceptable elaborations and citations; the response is not organized and developed in a scholarly manner; and the response does not demonstrate use of standard English.

Question # _________ Score ________Comments:








*Composite Score (Total # points earned Total # of questions) ___________________

* Candidates must earn a composite score of at least 2 to pass the exam.


Scoring Guide Rubric 6 – Special Education Comprehensive Examination Rubric

Levels:Criteria:

Achieving adequacy 4 Developing Adequacy 3 Emerging Adequacy 2 Inadequate 1

MECHANICS

Guiding question for reviewer: Do grammatical, punctuation, usage errors interfere with content?

Few, if any spelling, grammar, punctuation or usage errors, none interfere with content, style or clarity

Some errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation and usage, obvious efforts at editing present, errors interfere only slightly with content, style and clarity

Major errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation and usage with no evidence of effort to edit, errors interfere some but not greatly with content, style and clarity

Spelling, grammar, punctuation or usage errors are frequent and interfere measurably with content, style and clarity

CONTENT: BREADTH

Guiding question for reviewer: Is the question answered in its entirety? Are all relevant issues addressed?

Addressed all or most aspects of the question, extended topics to areas indirectly stated but clearly relevant

Addressed all or most aspects of the question to some extent, did not extend topic to areas indirectly stated, yet relevant

Attempted to address most aspects of question, but gaps in information exist

Addressed only one or two aspects of question, did not address one or more significant aspect directly stated in question

CONTENT: DEPTH

Guiding question for reviewer: Is there sufficient detail on parts of the question answered? For each relevant point made is there elaboration?

Adequate detail, terms clearly defined, relevant examples given, concepts thoroughly explored, terminology specific to the discipline used consistently and well, specific theories and theorists named

Adequate detail, terms clearly defined, relevant examples given, concepts thoroughly explored

Some effort at detail, but inconsistent in defining terms, giving examples or elaborating on concepts

Insufficient detail, did not define terms, give examples, elaborate on concepts

CONTENT: Standards based

Guiding question for reviewer: Does the content cover the relevant CEC core content? (See CEC standards addressed by this question to assist in rating)

Outdated, irrelevant, inaccurate information rare, thoroughly addressed relevant CEC knowledge and skill competencies

Outdated, irrelevant, inaccurate information in some few instances, but other information essentially correct, addressed most relevant CEC knowledge and skill competencies

Some of information outdated, irrelevant, inaccurate, addressed some relevant CEC knowledge and skill competencies

Most of information outdated, irrelevant, inaccurate, did not directly address relevant CEC knowledge and skill competencies

ORGANIZATION (SENTENCE LEVEL, PARAGRAPH LEVEL, and ESSAY LEVEL)

Guiding question for the reviewer: Is this essay well organized? Can you follow the outline on a paragraph by paragraph level and in the essay as a whole?

Clear outline within paragraphs and within essay, strong introduction and conclusion, obvious main idea and supporting detail throughout

Organization within paragraphs and within essay, adequate introduction and conclusion

Some effort at organization within paragraphs or within essay, introduction and/or conclusion missing or inadequate

No clear outline within paragraphs or within essay, no introduction or conclusion


CLARITY

Guiding question for reviewer: Is this graduate level writing? Is the style professional, crisp and clear? Do not use this indicator for grammatical problems; this section is for overall impression of mature writing.

Sentences clear, word choice precise, variety of sentence structure, few, if any, misplaced modifiers, redundancies, colloquialisms, and/or slang, overall impression of mature, professional writing

Sentences clear, variety of sentence structure, few, if any, misplaced modifiers, redundancies, colloquialisms, and/or slang, overall impression of adequate writing

Stale vocabulary, simplistic sentences or some mangled sentences, some misplaced modifiers, redundancies, colloquialisms, and/or slang, overall impression of informal or immature writing

Imprecise word choices, mangled sentence structure, frequent misplaced modifiers, redundancies, colloquialisms, and/or slang

Scoring Guide/Rubric 7 – Special Education Unit Planner

Special Education Unit Planner: Contextual Factors RubricTWS Standard: The teacher uses information about the learning/teaching context and student individual differences to set learning goals, plan instruction and assess learning.


1Indicator Not Met

2Indicator Partially

Met

3Indicator Met

4CEC

Standard Met

Score

Knowledge of Community, School

and Classroom Factors

CC2K3, CC3K3 CC3K4, GC4S8 CC5K1, GC5K1

Teacher displays minimal, irrelevant, or biased knowledge of the characteristics of

the community, school, and classroom.

Teacher displays some knowledge of the characteristics of

the community, school, and classroom

that may affect learning.

Teacher displays a comprehensive

understanding of the characteristics of the

community, school, and classroom that may

affect learning.Teacher references most

CEC standards

In addition to

requirements for a rating of 3, teacher references and meets

most relevant CEC

standards Knowledge of

Characteristics of Students

CC2K1, CC2K3, CC2K4, GC2K3, CC3K1, CC3K3, CC3K4

Teacher displays minimal, stereotypical, or irrelevant knowledge of student differences

(e.g. development, interests, culture,

abilities/disabilities).

Teacher displays general knowledge of

student differences (e.g., development, interests, culture,

abilities/disabilities) that may

affect learning.

Teacher displays general & specific understanding

of student differences (e.g., development, interests, culture,

abilities/disabilities) that may affect learning.

Teacher references most CEC standards

In addition to


most relevant CEC



Students’ Varied Approaches to

LearningCC2K5, CC2K6

Teacher displays minimal, stereotypical, or irrelevant knowledge

about the different ways students learn (e.g., learning styles, learning modalities).

Teacher displays general knowledge about the different ways students learn (e.g., learning styles, learning modalities).


of the different ways students learn (e.g.,

learning styles, learning modalities) that may


CEC standards

In addition to


most relevant CEC


Students’ SkillsAnd Prior Learning

CC3K2, CC3K5

Teacher displays little or irrelevant knowledge of students’ skills and

prior learning.

Teacher displays general knowledge of students’ skills and prior learning that

may affect learning.


of students’ skills and prior learning that may


CEC standards

In addition to


most relevant CEC

standards Implications for

Instructional Planning and Assessment

CC2K2

Teacher does not provide implications for instruction and

assessment based on student individual

differences and community, school,

and classroom characteristics OR

provides inappropriate implications.

Teacher provides general implications for instruction and

assessment based on student individual

differences and community, school,

and classroom characteristics.

Teacher provides specific implications for

instruction and assessment based on

student individual differences and

community, school, and classroom

characteristics.Teacher references most

CEC standards

In addition to


most relevant CEC

standards

Special Education Unit Planner Learning Goals RubricTWS Standard: The teacher sets significant, challenging, varied and appropriate learning goals.


1Indicator Not Met


3Indicator Met

4CEC Standard

Score


Met Met Significance, Challenge and

VarietyCC7S7, CC7S8

Goals reflect only one type or level of

learning.

Goals reflect several types or levels of learning but lack significance or

challenge.

Goals reflect several types or levels of learning and are significant and

challenging. Teacher references most CEC

standards

In addition to requirements

for a rating of 3, teacher

references and meets most relevant CEC

standards Clarity

CC7S5, CC7S4Goals are not stated

clearly and are activities rather than learning outcomes.

Some of the goals are clearly stated as

learning outcomes.

Most of the goals are clearly stated as

learning outcomes. Teacher references

most CEC standards




standards Appropriate-

ness for StudentsCC7S6, CC7S2, GC7S2, GC7S3, GC7S6, GC7S8

Goals are not appropriate for the development; pre-

requisite knowledge, skills, experiences; or other student needs.

Some goals are appropriate for the development; pre-

requisite knowledge, skills, experiences; and

other student needs

Most goals are appropriate for the development; pre-

requisite knowledge, skills, experiences; and

other student needs.Teacher references

most CEC standards




standards Alignment with

National, State or Local Standards

CC7K1, CC7K2, CC7K3, CC7S1

Goals are not aligned with national, state or

local standards.

Some goals are aligned with national, state or

local standards.

Most of the goals are explicitly aligned with national, state or local

standards.Teacher references

most CEC standards




standards

Special Education Unit Planner: Design for Instruction RubricTWS Standard: The teacher designs instruction for specific learning goals, student characteristics and needs, and learning contexts.

Rating →Indicator↓

1Indicator Not Met


Met

3Indicator Met

4CEC Standard

Met

Score


Alignment with Learning GoalsGC4S1, GC4S2,

GC4S13, GC4S16

Few lessons are explicitly linked to learning goals. Few learning activities, assignments and

resources are aligned with learning goals.

Not all learning goals are covered in the

design.

Most lessons are explicitly linked to

learning goals. Most learning activities, assignments and

resources are aligned with learning goals.

Most learning goals are covered in the design.

All lessons are explicitly linked to learning goals. All

learning activities, assignments and resources are aligned with learning

goals. All learning goals are covered in the design.


In addition to requirements for

a rating of 3, teacher

references and meets most

relevant CEC standards

Accurate Representation of

ContentGC4S10, GC4K7, CC7K1, CC7K3

Teacher’s use of content appears to contain numerous

inaccuracies. Content seems to be viewed

more as isolated skills and facts rather than as

part of a larger conceptual structure.

Teacher’s use of content appears to be

mostly accurate. Shows some awareness of the big ideas or structure of

the discipline.

Teacher’s use of content appears to be accurate. Focus of the content is

congruent with the big ideas or structure of the discipline.






Lesson and Unit Structure

CC7K2, CC4S4, GC4K5, GC4S6, CC7S11, CC7S12

The lessons within the unit are not logically

organized organization (e.g., sequenced).

The lessons within the unit have some logical

organization and appear to be somewhat useful

in moving students toward achieving the

learning goals.

All lessons within the unit are logically organized and

appear to be useful in moving students toward

achieving the learning goals.Teacher references most

CEC standards





Use of a Variety of Instruction, Activities,

Assignments and Resources

CC4S5, GC4K3, GC4K6, GC4S3, GC4S4, GC4S5, GC4S14, GC4S15

Little variety of instruction, activities,

assignments, and resources. Heavy

reliance on textbook or single resource (e.g.,

work sheets).

Some variety in instruction, activities,

assignments, or resources but with

limited contribution to learning.

Significant variety across instruction, activities, assignments, and/or

resources. This variety makes a clear contribution to

learning.Teacher references most

CEC standards





Use of Contextual Information and Data to Select Appropriate

Instruction has not been designed with reference

to contextual factors

Some instruction has been designed with

reference to contextual

Most instruction has been designed with reference to contextual factors and pre-


a rating of 3,


and Relevant Activities,

Assignments and Resources

CC4S1, CC4S2, CC4S3, GC4K4,

GC4S11, GC4S12, CC7S7, CC7S8,

CC7S14

and pre-assessment data. Activities and assignments do not

appear productive and appropriate for each

student.

factors and pre-assessment data. Some

activities and assignments appear

productive and appropriate for each

student.

assessment data. Most activities and assignments



teacher references and

meets most relevant CEC

standards

Use of TechnologyGC4K1, GC4S7, CC7S9

Technology is inappropriately used OR teacher does not

use technology, and no (or inappropriate)

rationale is provided.

Teacher uses technology but it does not make a significant

contribution to teaching and learning OR teacher provides

limited rationale for not using technology.

Teacher integrates appropriate technology that

makes a significant contribution to teaching and

learning OR provides a strong rationale for not using

technology.Teacher references most

CEC standards





Special Education Unit Plan Assessment Plan RubricTWS Standard: The teacher uses multiple assessment modes and approaches aligned with learning goals to assess student learning before, during and after

instruction.Rating →

Indicator ↓1

Indicator Not Met2

Indicator Partially Met

3Indicator Met

4CEC

Standard Met

Score

Alignment with Learning Goals and

InstructionCC8S8

Content and methods of assessment lack congruence with

learning goals or lack cognitive complexity.

Some of the learning goals are assessed

through the assessment plan, but many are not

congruent with learning goals in content and

cognitive complexity.

Each of the learning goals is assessed through the

assessment plan; assessments are congruent with the learning goals in

content and cognitive complexity.


In addition to requirements for a rating of

3, teacher references and meets

most relevant CEC

standards


Clarity of Criteria and Standards for

PerformanceCC8S9

The assessments contain no clear criteria for measuring student

performance relative to the learning goals.

Assessment criteria have been developed,

but they are not clear or are not explicitly linked

to the learning goals.

Assessment criteria are clear and are explicitly linked to the learning

goals.Teacher references most

CEC standards



most relevant CEC

standards Multiple Modes and

ApproachesCC8S3

The assessment plan includes only one

assessment mode and does not assess

students before, during, and after instruction.

The assessment plan includes multiple

modes but all are either pencil/paper based (i.e.

they are not performance

assessments) and/or do not require the integration of

knowledge, skills and reasoning ability.

The assessment plan includes multiple assessment modes

(including performance assessments, lab reports,

research projects, etc.) and assesses student

performance throughout the instructional sequence.Teacher references most

CEC standards



most relevant CEC

standards

Technical SoundnessCC8K1, CC8K2, CC8K4, CC8K5

Assessments are not valid; scoring

procedures are absent or inaccurate; items or

prompts are poorly written; directions and

procedures are confusing to students.

Assessments appear to have some validity.

Some scoring procedures are

explained; some items or prompts are clearly

written; some directions and

procedures are clear to students.

Assessments appear to be valid; scoring procedures are explained; most items

or prompts are clearly written; directions and procedures are clear to

students.Teacher references most

CEC standards



most relevant CEC

standards

Adaptations Based on the Individual Needs of Students

CC8S4, GC8S3, GC8S4

Teacher does not adapt assessments to meet the

individual needs of students or these assessments are inappropriate.

Teacher makes adaptations to

assessments that are appropriate to meet the

individual needs of some students.

Teacher makes adaptations to assessments that are appropriate to meet the

individual needs of most students.




most relevant CEC

standards


Special Education Unit Planner: Instructional Decision-Making RubricTWS Standard: The teacher uses on-going analysis of student learning to make instructional decisions.Rating →

Indicator ↓1

Indicator Not Met2

Indicator Partially Met

3Indicator Met

4CEC Standard

Met

Score

Sound Professional Practice

CC9K4, CC9S2, CC9S7, CC9S8, CC9S9, CC9S10, CC9S11

Many instructional decisions are

inappropriate and not pedagogically sound.

Instructional decisions are mostly appropriate, but some decisions are

not pedagogically sound.

Most instructional decisions are

pedagogically sound (i.e., they are likely to

lead to student learning).





standards Modifications Based

on Analysis of Student Learning

GC4S12, CC5S6, GC5K3, CC7S13, GC4K3

Teacher treats class as “one plan fits all” with

no modifications.

Some modifications of the instructional plan are made to address individual student

needs, but these are not based on the analysis of student learning,

best practice, or contextual factors.

Appropriate modifications of the instructional plan are

made to address individual student

needs. These modifications are informed by the

analysis of student learning/performance,

best practice, or contextual factors.

Include explanation of why the modifications would improve student

progress.Teacher references

most CEC standards




standards


Congruence Between Modifications and

Learning GoalsGC4S1, GC4S2

Modifications in instruction lack congruence with learning goals.

Modifications in instruction are

somewhat congruent with learning goals.

Modifications in instruction are congruent with learning goals.





standards

Scoring Guide/Rubric 10 - Teacher Data Collection Project and Reflection

Teacher Data Collection Project and Reflection: Analysis of Student Learning RubricTWS Standard: The teacher uses assessment data to profile student learning and communicate information about student progress and achievement.


1Indicator Not Met


Met

3Indicator Met

4CEC Standard

Met

Score

Clarity and Accuracy of Presentation

CC9S8, CC10S1, CC8S7

Presentation is not clear and accurate; it does not accurately reflect

the data.

Presentation is understandable and contains few errors.

Presentation is easy to understand and contains no errors of

representation.Teacher references most CEC

standards




standards Alignment withLearning Goals

GC5K3, CC7S6

Analysis of student learning is not aligned with learning goals.

Analysis of student learning is partially

aligned with learning goals and/or fails to

provide a comprehensive profile

of student learning relative to the goals for

the whole class, subgroups, and two

individuals.

Analysis is fully aligned with learning goals and provides a

comprehensive profile of student learning for the whole class,

subgroups, and two individuals.Teacher references most CEC

standards




standards

Interpretation of Data

Interpretation is inaccurate, and

Interpretation is technically accurate,

Interpretation is meaningful, and appropriate conclusions are



CC8S5 conclusions are missing or unsupported by data.

but conclusions are missing or not fully supported by data.

drawn from the data.Teacher references most CEC

standards



standards Evidence of Impact on Student Learning

CC5S6

Analysis of student learning fails to include evidence of impact on

student learning in terms of numbers of

students who achieved and made progress

toward learning goals.

Analysis of student learning includes

incomplete evidence of the impact on student learning in terms of numbers of students who achieved and

made progress toward learning goals.

Analysis of student learning includes evidence of the impact on student learning in terms of

number of students who achieved and made progress toward each

learning goal.Teacher references most CEC

standards




standards

Teacher Data Collection Project and Reflection: Reflection and Self-Evaluation RubricTWS Standard: The teacher analyzes the relationship between his or her instruction and student learning in order to improve teaching practice.


1Indicator Not Met


3Indicator Met

4CEC Standard Met

Score

Interpretation of Student Learning

CC8S8

No evidence or reasons provided to support

conclusions drawn in “Analysis of Student Learning” section.

Provides evidence but no (or simplistic, superficial) reasons or

hypotheses to support conclusions drawn in “Analysis of Student Learning” section.

Uses evidence to support conclusions drawn in “Analysis of Student Learning” section.

Explores multiple hypotheses for why some students did not meet

earning goals.Teacher references most CEC

standards

In addition to requirements for a rating of 3, teacher

references and meets most relevant

CEC standards

Insights on Effective Instruction and

Assessment

CC8S8, CC5S6

Provides no rationale for why some activities

or assessments were more successful than

others.

Identifies successful and unsuccessful activities or

assessments and superficially explores reasons for their success or lack thereof (no use of theory

or research).

Identifies successful and unsuccessful activities and assessments and provides

plausible reasons (based on theory or research) for their

success or lack thereof.Teacher references most CEC

standards



CEC standards


Alignment Among Goals, Instruction and

AssessmentGC5K3, CC7S6

Does not connect learning goals, instruction, and

assessment results in the discussion of

student learning and effective instruction

and/or the connections are irrelevant or

inaccurate.

Connects learning goals, instruction, and assessment results in the discussion of

student learning and effective instruction, but

misunderstandings or conceptual gaps are present.

Logically connects learning goals, instruction, and


and effective instruction.Teacher references most CEC

standards



CEC standards

Implications for Future Teaching

CC9S9, CC9S11

Provides no ideas or inappropriate ideas for redesigning learning

goals, instruction, and assessment.

Provides ideas for redesigning learning goals, instruction, and

assessment but offers no rationale for why these changes would improve student learning.

Provides ideas for redesigning learning goals, instruction, and assessment and explains why

these modifications would improve student learning.




CEC standards

Implications for Professional Development

CC9K3, CC9K4

Provides no professional learning goals or goals that are

not related to the insights and

experiences described in this section.

Presents professional learning goals that are not strongly related

to the insights and experiences described in this section and/or

provides a vague plan for meeting the goals.

Presents a small number of professional learning goals that clearly emerge from the insights and experiences described in this section. Describes specific steps

to meet these goals.Teacher references most CEC

standards



CEC standards


division/department goals - home - delta state … and report_0809.doc · web viewtrends noticed...

Documents