ipfw b.s. in elementary education with concentration in ...€¦ · ipfw b.s. in elementary...
TRANSCRIPT
IPFW B.S. in Elementary Education with Concentration in
Early Childhood - preschool (Generalists)
Program Review Document #2: Content Program Specifics
A. Content Curriculum Section
1. Program Advising Sheet
a. EC Generalist i. http://www.ipfw.edu/edst/assets/documents/pdfs/EC07-25-06.pdf
2. Course Descriptions of EDUCATION courses from IPFW website
a. http://www.ipfw.edu/academics/courses/undergraduate/e/education.shtml
B. Content Standards Matrix Section1. Content-Course Matrix
IPFW Early Childhood-preschool Generalist
Standard 1. Core Knowledge. The teacher of early childhood (preschool focus) possesses core knowledge that is extensive and comprehensive and goes well beyond common knowledge.
Fine ArtsFINA T255 MUS Z241 M323 M333 E337*2,4,10 (present-ation, portfolio)
2,3,4,10 (playing instrument) 1,3,4,7
1,3,4,7,8,10 (present-ation) 7
English/Language Arts
ENG W131 ENG W232
ENG L101/102 ENG L390 E339 E340 E337*
1,6,10 (Oral Present-ation)
1,4,6,10 (discussion, research, oral pres-entation
L101 - 1, 3; L102 3 1,2,3,4,6,7
1,6,7,10 (Discuss-ions, Poems 1,4,7 7
Mathematics MA 101 MA 102 MA 103 E333 E337*3,4,6,9 3,4,6,9 3,4,6,9 4, 6, 7 7
Science and Technology Biology
Chem or Phy
Geol or Ast Q200 E333 W200
E339/ E340 E337*
Bio 100 - 1,2,3,4,5,10 (Ethics interview, group discuss-ions, video analysis)
CHM 104 - 2,4; CHM 111 - 2,5,6; PHY 105 - 1,3,4,5; PHY 120 - 1,3,4,5; PHY 125 - 2,3,4,10 (homework
AST A100 2,3; GEOL G100 - 1,2,3
-1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10 (Service Learning) 4,6,7 1,4,5,6,7
10 (home-work) 7
Social Studies Soc or Psy Amer HisEcon or Pol Sci
World His or Hum E325 E337*
Soc 161 - 1,2,3,4; Psy 120 - 1,2,5,8
H105 - 1,2,3,9; H106 - 1,2,3
Econ 201 - 2,3; Pol Sci - 3
Hist H232 -1,3,10 (discuss-ion, part. and reading comp); FWAS 201 - 3; FWAS 202 - 3, 10 (poems, visual reps.)
1,6,7,10 (create questions for discuss-ion) 7
* EDUC E337 requires that students plan and implement 3 lessons which integrate content areas.
Standard 2. Child Growth and Development. The teacher of early childhood (preschool focus) understands typical and atypical growth and development within each developmental domain and possesses the knowledge to faciliate healthy growth and development in all young children.
P249 K201 K2061 (paper for each area of dev); 6,10 (panel doc) 1,2,3 2,3,7
Standard 3. Foundations of Education and Learning. The teacher of early childhood (preschool focus) understands the roles of history, philosophy, and educational learning theories as being fundamental to planning curricula that are developmentally appropriate for each of the individual children in a group.
P250 P251 H340 E333 E336 E337
1,4,7 1,6
1,10 (discuss-ions) 6,7 4,6 6,7
Standard 4. Curriculum and Instruction. The teacher of early childhood (preschool focus) understands developmentally appropriate practices and can develop curriculum and implement instruction for all young children.
E333 E336 E337 K206 E339 E340 W2004,6,7 4,6 6,7 2,3,7 4 7 7
Standard 5. Family, Culture, and Community. The teacher of early childhood (preschool focus) understands the influence of the family, community, and culture on the learning and development of the young child.
P249 P251 K206 Q200
1,4,6 1,6 710 (Service Learning)
Standard 6. Observation and Assessment. The teacher of early childhood (preschool focus) is knowledgable about methods of assessment and evaluation and uses assessment information to plan appropriate curriculum and to provide feedback for families.
P249 E333 E336 E3371,4,6 4,7 4 4,7
Standard 7. Professionalism. The teacher of early childhood (preschool focus) embraces and actively models professionalism, ethical behavior, and commitment to lifelong learning.
P249 E337 K206 E3401,6 6,7 2,3 4,7
Standard 8. Learning Environments. The teacher of early childhood (preschool focus) promotes an environment that nurtures and encourages the physical, emotional, social, moral, aesthetic, language, and cognitive growth and development of all young children.
E333 E336 E337 K2067 4 7 7
Professors used the following Performance Assessment Categories when reporting the types of assessments in their courses: 1. Paper; 2. Exam/Quiz: Multiple choice, T/F; 3. Exam/Quiz: Short answer, essay; 4. Project; 5. Lab/Report; 6. Journal Reflection; 7. Lesson Plan; 8. Teaching; 9. Math talk, math listening, or teacher math talk; 10. Other (specify)
2. INTASC - IN Standards Overlap Matrix
Matrix Demonstrating the Overlap in INTASC Standardsand Indiana State Standards for Early Childhood-preschool Generalists
Indiana Standards for EC-preschool GeneralistsINTASC Standard
1 Core Knowledge
2 Child Growth and
Dev
3 Found. of Ed and
Learning
4 Curr and Instruction
5 Family, Culture, and
Comm
6 Obs and As'ment
7 Profession
8 Learning Environments
1 Knowledge of Subject
X X
2 CD and Learning
X X XX
3 Adapting Instruction
X X
4 Instructional Strategies
X
5 Learning Environment
X XX
6 Comm. Skills
X
7 Planning X X X8 Assessment
X X9 Ref/Prof Practices X10 Rel with Community
XX
C. Assessment Data Section
Assessment Data Document
Program Name: IPFW – EC-preschool Generalist
Element Assessed
Describe the
Assessment Activity
When is it
assessed?
Title of the Instrument or Rubric (Attach copies)
Aggregated Summary Data for
last 3 years
Curriculum/Program/Unit operations
modifications made based on this data
Content Standards addressed by this
Assessment Activity
(Be consistent with #B Standards
Matrix) Content
Knowledge for Teacher Candidates
1) Praxis II (required of programs where state requires test)
See Appendix 1: EC-preschool Content Knowledge 1
2) One other content assessment required:
See Appendix 2: EC-preschool Content Knowledge 2
Pedagogical
Content knowledge
for Teachers
One assessment activity required:
See Appendix 3: EC-preschool Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Professional and
Pedagogical knowledge
and skills for teacher
candidates
One Assessment
activity required:
See Appendix 4: EC-preschool Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge & Skills
Student Learning for
teacher candidates
One Assessment
activity required:
See Appendix 5: EC-preschool Student Learning
D. Faculty Section Faculty outside of the School of Education (i.e., General Education content) are listed by Academic Units (i.e., content areas) on pages 296-298 (of 332) of the Undergraduate Bulletin. Then, each faculty is listed alphabetically with her title and dates of degrees (see pages 298-318 [of 332]). We did not work to uncover whether or not these faculty have p-12 teaching experience as this is not an expectation of their employment. http://www.ipfw.edu/academics/bulletins/undergraduate/2006-08-ipfw-undergrad-bulletin.pdf Education Faculty who may teach EC-preschool Generalist students: Faculty Member Highest
Degree Specialty Course taught
in program Additional Responsibility in Program
Yrs Exp p-12
Full-time Faculty Phyllis Agness Ed.D. Special Education K206 5 Nancy Bangel Ph.D. Educ Psychology P251 12 Sheena Choi Ph.D. Educ Foundations H340 1+ Janet Jordan M.S. Educ Computers W200 Dir. Curriculum
Lab 5
Il-Hee Kim ABD Literacy E341 >1 Stephanie Kromer M.Ed. Secondary Ed. F300 Transition to
Teaching Coordinator
7
Jane Leatherman Ph.D. Special Education K206 Spec. Ed. Program Director
7
Chue-Jey Lee Ph.D. Literacy E339 3 David Lindquist Ph.D. SS Methods E325 30 Alice Merz Ph.D. Math Methods E333, N343 <1 Kathleen Murphey Ed.D. Educ Foundations H340 Associate Dean 6 Joe Nichols Ph.D. Math, Ed Psych Chair, Ed Studies 15 Jeffrey Nowak Ph.D. Sci Methods E328, Q200 Team II Leader 4
Sharon Parnin Ed.D. Educ Psychology P250, Q200 8* LeeAnn Sinclair Literacy E340 Team I Leader 15 Terri Swim Ph.D. Early Childhood E337, P249 EC Program
Director 3
Bobbi Weikle Ed.D. Special Education K206 33 Part-time Faculty
Jeffrey Barney M.S. Literacy E341 11 Christine Broni M.S. Math/Sci Methods E333 12 Carolyn Cole M.S. Art Methods M333 25 Gena Hastings M.S. Music Methods M323 34 Carol Sebastian M.S. Special Education K201 22 Mary Widenhofer M.S. Early Childhood E336 34 Kirsten Ziembo M.S. Special Education K201 and K206 6 * This experience was in informal science education settings, such as hands-on science museums.
Appendix 1: Content Knowledge 1 Praxis II Scores
EC-preschool Generalist Description: Praxis II is a national, standardized test produced by Educational Testing Services (ETS). The Early Childhood Education test is based on a teaching approach that emphasizes the involvement of young children in a variety of play and child-centered activities and on a curriculum that reflects a concern for the development of the whole child, including the child’s physical, cognitive, social, and language development. The state of Indiana regulations enable candidates to complete either the Early Childhood Education (0020) exam or the Elementary Education: Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment (0011) exam and qualify for a primary license. Because our program covers two educational settings (preschool and primary), the majority of the candidates elect to take the 0011 exam. The state of Indiana also requires that all candidates take and pass the Reading Specialist (0300) exam. When assessed: Candidates can take these tests before, during, or after student teaching. However, we strongly encourage them to take the tests during student teaching. They must have a passing score on the appropriate tests before being eligible to apply for a teaching license through the state of Indiana. Rubric: Information about the tests, including number of questions for each subcategory, can be found at: http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/PRAXIS/pdf/0011.pdf (0011) http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/PRAXIS/pdf/0020.pdf (0020) http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/PRAXIS/taag/0300/glance.htm (0300) Aggregated Summary Data: Elementary Education: Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment (0011) Cut-off score = 165 9/1/04 – 8/31/05 9/1/05 – 8/31/06 9/1/06 – 8/31/07 Total 141/164 (87% pass)
High Score = 196 Low Score = 134 Median = 175
101/115 (88% pass) High Score = 198 Low Score = 143 Median = 177
85/89 (96% pass) High Score = 198 Low Score = 145 Median = 180
Average % Correct Average % Correct Average % Correct Subcategory IPFW National IPFW National IPFW National Reading & LA 78 77 77 77 79 77 Mathematics 78 75 76 75 78 73
Science 79 79 79 79 82 80 Social Studies 79 77 77 77 78 76 Arts/Phy Educ 76 73 77 75 74 68 General Info 77 76 74 73 78 76 Early Childhood Education (0020) Cut-off score = 510 9/1/04 – 8/31/05 9/1/05 – 8/31/06 9/1/06 – 8/31/07 Total 7/7 (100% pass)
High Score = 750 Low Score = 540 Median = 690
Average % Correct Subcategory IPFW National Grow/Develop 75 72 Factors G/D 71 72 Apply theory 81 63 Plan/Implem Curr 80 76 Eval/Recording 79 76 Prof/Legal Resp 86 74 Reading Specialist (0300) Cut-off score = 370 9/1/04 – 8/31/05 9/1/05 – 8/31/06 9/1/06 – 8/31/07 Total 149/149 (100% pass)
High Score = 680 Low Score = 380 Median = 520
102/102 (100% pass) High Score = 660 Low Score = 400 Median = 520
90/90 (100% pass) High Score = 640 Low Score = 400 Median = 550
Average % Correct Average % Correct Average % Correct Subcategory IPFW National IPFW National IPFW National Theoretical 62 69 59 68 66 67 Apply in Inst 65 70 62 69 67 69 Apply Diagnosis 58 65 58 65 63 65 Reading Ldship 65 70 66 70 63 68 Data Analyses: The majority of candidates elect to take the Elementary test and they perform well on it (between 87% and 96% pass rate). This test provides evidence of our candidate’s core
knowledge, ability to create appropriate curriculum, and use authentic assessments. Those who took the Early Childhood Education test passed it at 100%. The scores exceeded the national average on 5 of the 6 subcategories. Taking these results together leads us to conclude that our candidates are well prepared for teaching in preschool and primary settings. Curriculum Modifications: The data from these tests have been used in a number of ways to improve the curriculum and instruction in our program.
• The pass rates on the Elementary Education test have consistently improved over the past 3 years (87 to 88 to 96%). We attribute those changes to our self-study of our content and increased collaboration between faculty members. Regarding our self-study, we overlapped course content with the content areas described in the Test-At-A-Glance booklet provided by ETS. This process facilitated conversation and highlighted ways for colleagues to collaborate in delivering courses.
• Because of the lower scores on the Early Childhood Education subcategory of Factors that Influence Individual Growth and Development, we have placed greater emphasis on family, school, cultural, and community variables in P249 Growth and Development in Early Childhood course as we highlight, for example, Bronfenbrenner’s and Vygotsky’s theories.
• While our candidates have consistently passed the Reading Specialist test, they have scored below the national average on the subcategories. During the past three years, we have experienced turn-over in reading faculty. New hires are placing greater emphasis on theory, assessment/diagnosis, and applying diagnosis. These subcategories have demonstrated improvement.
Unit Modifications: Please see Summary of Unit Reflection for unit modifications. Content Standards: The Praxis II Early Childhood Education exam covers all 8 IN State Standards for EC-preschool Generalists. The Praxis II Elementary exam places particular emphasis on Standards 1, 4, and 6.
Appendix 2: Content Knowledge #2 Physical Development Documentation
P249 Growth and Development in Early Childhood
Description: This assessment was implemented for the first time during the Fall 2007 semester. It was created to provide candidates with an opportunity, early in their educational career, to be introduced to an authentic assessment technique. It also was designed to assist them in analyzing the development progression of one physical skill for at least three children. Assignment directions and Grading Rubric: You are to do a cross-sectional study that investigates the development of a gross or fine motor skill during the infant, toddler, preschool, and primary years. At least one child must be below the age of five. You are to document this development with artifacts (photographs, work samples, or other examples of capabilities). Then, you are to analyze how your cross-sectional study does or does not demonstrate the typical patterns of development discussed in your textbook for this skill. You must communicate what you have learned to others via written and verbal mechanisms being mindful of previous discussions regarding confidentiality. Your documentation panel MUST be mounted on a white foam board or cardboard. If you want to mount photos or your narrative on a background, use black construction paper. There should be no emphasis placed on making this cute. You are communicating important information about child development. Your performance on this project will be evaluated using the following Rubric.
Criteria Mastery Level 1 Mastery Level II Below Mastery Analysis Respectfully tells an important
story that exceeds “common knowledge” about the skill development. Discussed typical and atypical patterns of development for your children. Utilizes outside resources (e.g, research, scholarship) to analyze developmental pattern.
Importance of story is evidence, yet analysis of the skill development is less clearly articulated or weakly grounded in outside resources. Focus of analysis is on typical patterns of development.
Story is based on “common knowledge” (e.g, children use fine motor skills to cut with scissors) rather than the developmental progress of skills. May be weakly, or not at all, grounded in outside resources.
Artifacts Evidence (photographs, work samples) respectfully shows each child’s skill development.
Evidence less clearly highlights the development of each child’s skill development; focus may be on small group of children, rather than individuals.
Photographs tend to be from a distance with many children in each photo. Photos may even be posed or contrived, thus demonstrating a disrespect for the children’s work (i.e., interrupted it to document)
Cohesion Narrative and photographs conspire to tell one primary story
Some overlap between narrative and photographs, but not entirely consistent
Narrative and photographs are minimally related; tell two different stories.
Grammar and Mechanics
E
The report uses formal professional English and is free of grammatical, mechanical, and usage errors. Uses APA correctly to cite sources.
Generally reflects professional English, but has a few grammatical, mechanical or usage errors; these errors do not seriously interfere with comprehension. Minimal errors in using APA style.
Numerous errors (sentence structure or surface level) that are distracting and impede comprehension. Significant errors in using APA style.
Assessed: This assessment happens in EDUC P249, which is part of the first block of courses taken when admitted to the School of Education. Thus, the students are typically second-semester sophomores or first-semester juniors in our program. Grading Rubric for Reflection: See above. Aggregated Summary data for Reflection:
Final Evaluation* Fall 2007 Mastery 1 Mastery 2
Section 1 n = 29
22 7
Section 2 n = 30
23 7
* No category on the grading rubric can be evaluated as being below mastery in order to receive a passing score (Mastery 1 or 2) as the Final Evaluation. Hence, all candidates passed all of the criteria on the assignment. Curriculum modifications: As the table shows, the data were collected and stored as an overall category (i.e., Mastery 1 or Mastery 2). These data provide evidence that the candidates were strong in their abilities to gather developmental data and analyze it using information in the textbook regarding typical and atypical patterns. While the data limited the conclusions possible because it lacked specificity regarding the rubric categories, the professor noted that the candidates needed additional assistance in grounding their analysis in their observations. They tended to stray from the actual data presented and use other information or impressions gathered while working with the children. Although that may not always be problematic in a classroom setting, it is important to build within the candidates a value for concrete evidence when making judgments about children’s performance or abilities. Otherwise, teachers run the risk of not maintaining “useful records of young children’s work” and not committing “to identifying young children’s strength through systematic, continuous, assessment in order to create optimal learning environments” (Standard 6).
Unit Modifications: Please see Summary of Unit Reflection for unit modifications. Content Standards: This panel documentation emphasizes Standards 2, 6, and 7 (disposition-confidentiality).
Appendix 3: Pedagogical Content Knowledge INTASC and
Philosophy Statement Scores
Description: Students complete a graduation portfolio which has two sections: Part 1 (resume, letters of recommendations, evaluations from field experiences, performance-based lesson reflection, and philosophy of education) and Part 2 (3 artifacts and reflections connecting their work for each of the 10 INTASC standards). The data reported here are for the Philosophy of Education and the INTASC Standards. When assessed: Candidates submit their portfolio towards the end of their student teaching semester, typically in November and April. Candidates must earn a passing score on the portfolio as a whole before being eligible to graduate from our program. Rubric: See attached grading rubric, which is provided to each student upon enrollment in EDUA F300 – Invitation to Teaching, at the end of this document. Aggregated Summary Data: You may want to refer to the Matrix that overlaps INTASC standards and IN State Standards for EC-preschool Generalists in the Program Report.
INTASC Standards – Average score (scale = 0 to 5, with five being exemplary)
Year n Std1
Knowledge of Subject
Std2 CD and
Learning
Std3 Adapting
Instruction
Std4 Instructional
Strategies
Std5 Learning
Environment
Std6 Comm. Skills
Std7 Planning
Std8 Assess-
ment
Std9 Ref/Prof Practices
Std10 Relation w/ Community
2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008
127 78 33
4.36 4.54 4.41
4.25 4.5 4.3
4.26 4.35 4.38
4.43 4.54 4.36
4.41 4.29 4.23
4.3 4.29 4.12
4.57 4.59 4.62
4.34 4.38 4.34
4.07 4.31 4.14
4.23 4.34
4
Year n Philosophy Statement
Average_score (scale = 0 to 5, with five being
exemplary) 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008
127 78 33
4.39 4.69 4.49
NB: Year 2007-2008 only contains scores for Fall 2007.
Data Analyses: The data demonstrate the EC-preschool Generalists are performing well on the portfolio assessment. They are able to connect their work in college classrooms (e.g., knowledge) and preschool/primary classrooms (e.g., performance) to bigger ideas in the profession (e.g., standards). The Philosophy Statement scores indicate that our candidates are able to connect their beliefs to established educational philosophies. In this way, they also situate their beliefs within a historical context. Curriculum Modifications: The data from these assessments have been used to improve the curriculum, instruction, and support to candidates in our EC-preschool Generalist program. The lowest averages appear most consistently for Standards 6 and 9. Candidates experience a great deal of challenge connecting their work (artifacts) to the various components of these standards. Candidates, for example, can explain how they have used media communications in the classroom or how they have reflected on their educational practices, yet they forget to explain how they fostered active inquiry, collaboration, and supportive interaction in the classroom and evaluated the effects of their choices and actions on others (students, parents, and other professionals in the learning community), respectively. Faculty who evaluate portfolios at the four checkpoints prior to the submission of the graduation portfolio discussed ways to assist candidates with making such links. We have been more systematic in delivering strategies for addressing all components of the standards, rather than just each one’s gestalt. In 2005-2006, the average score on the philosophy statements decreased from previous years. During that year, we had hired an Adjunct Faculty member to teach one to two sections of the course. It was discovered that he had created different requirements for this assignment. Other Educational Foundations faculty members shared their assignment descriptions and explained how the philosophy statements were assessed in the graduation portfolio. This increased communication was beneficial as the scores demonstrated an increase the next year.
Unit Modifications: Please see Summary of Unit Reflection for unit modifications. Content Standards: The Portfolio covers all 10 INTASC Standards and, thus, all 8 IN State Standards for EC-preschool Generalists. The Philosophy Statement covers #3 of the IN Standards for EC-preschool Generalists.
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
260-481-6441
Student Name __________________________________________________________________________________ Student ID ____________________________________________________________________________________ Semester _____________________________________________________________________________________
Grand Total from evaluation (0-68 points) Total from boxes on other side of this page
_____59-68 points-Exemplary. Demonstrates proficiency in all areas. _____49-58 points-Satisfactory. Demonstrates proficiency in most areas, but needs
improvement in at least one area. _____ 0-48 points-Needs major improvements. Proficiency not sufficiently demonstrated.
Overall Comments
Examiner’s signature _____________________________________________ Date __________________ Examiner’s name (Print) __________________________________________ Examiner’s ID ___________
2101 E. COLISEUM BLVD. FORT WAYNE, INDIANA 46805-1499 WWW.IPFW.EDU
PORTFOLIO FINAL EVALUATION SHEET
Part I—Required Basic EntriesPlace a checkmark next to each item satisfied. (each worth 1 point) _____ Presentation or Cover Pager _____ Table of Contents for Entire Portfolio _____ Table of Contents for each INTASC standard, placed to introduce each standard _____ Resume _____ Three professional letters of recommendation _____ Evaluations from all field experiences _____ Mid-Term student teaching evaluation required; other completed student teaching evaluations encouraged _____ Certificates of completion or participation in workshops Total number of basic entries checked above (0-8 points) _____ Philosophy of Education: Theory-based statement developed in Social Foundations course, H340 (maximum 5 points) Performance-based assessment of student teaching (maximum 5 points)
1) Lesson plan __yes__no. 2) Assessment from supervisor or cooperating teacher (on the official Student Teaching assessment form) __yes__no. 3) Your reflection about your own performance and effectiveness related to P-12 student learning. Tie your
performance and specific examples of student learning (at least 3 examples of student work) to the Habits of Mind and Knowledge categories of the Conceptual Framework and at least one other category. a) Habits of Mind ___ (0-2) b) Knowledge ___ (0-2) c) Other CF Category:_____________ ___ (0-1)
______ Performance-based total (0-5)
Total Philosophy and Performance (0-10 points) INTASC Standards AssessmentsWrite the score for each of the INTASC standards: (maximum 5 points each) The pre-service teacher: ___ 1. Knowledge of subject: Understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry and structures of the disciplines(s) he or
she teaches, and can create learning experiences that make these aspects of subject matter meaningful for students. ___ 2. Learning and Human Development: Understands how children learn and develop, and can provide learning
opportunities that support their intellectual, social and personal development. ___ 3. Adapting instruction: Understands how students differ in their approaches to learning and creates instructional
opportunities that are adapted to diverse learners. (P-12 work included: __yes __no) ___ 4. Instructional Strategies: Understands a variety of instructional strategies to encourage students’ development of
critical thinking, problem solving and performance skills. (P-12 work included: __yes __no) ___ 5. Motivation and Learning Environment: Uses an understanding of individual and group motivation and behavior
to create a learning environment that encourages positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation.
___ 6. Communication Skills: Models effective verbal, nonverbal, and media communication techniques to foster active inquiry, collaboration, and supportive interaction in the classroom. (technology work included: __yes __ no)
___ 7. Planning: Understands and can plan instruction based upon knowledge of subject matter, students, the community, and curriculum goals.
___ 8. Assessment: Understands how to use formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate and ensure the continuous intellectual, social, and physical development of the learner. (P-12 work included: __yes __no)
___ 9. Reflection and professional growth: Understands how to be a reflective practitioner who continually evaluates the effects of his or her choices and actions on others (students, parents, and other professionals in the learning community) and who actively seeks out opportunities to grow professionally.
___ 10. Relationship with school and community: Fosters relationships with school colleagues, parents, and agencies in the larger community to support students’ learning and well-being.
Total INTASC standards (0-50 points)
P-12 work needs to be included in artifacts for two INTASC Standards; use of technology needs to be included in one artifact to receive full credit for a Standard.
Appendix 4: Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge & Skills Student Teaching Lesson Evaluation by Supervisor
EC-preschool Generalist Description: Using the 10 INTASC Standards as a framework (see Matrix that overlaps INTASC standards and IN State Standards for EC-preschool Generalists), this evaluation tool examines how well student teachers put into practice, during individual lessons, knowledge, skills, and dispositions that are valued by faculty in the School of Education. Behaviors are rated by the University Supervisor during each of their three observations conducted during Student Teaching. When assessed: Individual lessons are evaluated by University Supervisors three times during each Student Teaching placement. Rubric: See Rubric at the end of this document. The student teaching handbook can be accessed on-line at http://www.ipfw.edu/educ/assets/documents/studentteachinghandbook.pdf Aggregated Summary Data: You may want to refer to the Matrix that overlaps INTASC standards and IN State Standards for EC-preschool Generalists in the Program Report. INTASC Standards – Average score (scale = 1 to 4, with four being distinguished)
Year n Std1
Knowledge of Subject
Std2 CD and
Learning
Std3 Adapting
Instruction
Std4 Instructional
Strategies
Std5 Learning
Environment
Std6 Comm. Skills
Std7 Planning
Std8 Assessment
Std9 Ref/Prof Practices
Std10 Relation w/ Community
2006-2007 2007-2008
51 32
3.54 3.58
3.26 3.49
3.09 3.18
3.51 3.69
3.45 3.72
3.63 3.71
3.64 3.66
3.12 3.55
3.82 3.82
3.86 3.51
NB: Year 2006-2007 only contains scores for Spring 2007 while Year 2006-2007 only contains scores for Fall 2007. Curriculum Modifications: The data suggest that our candidates are performing quite well on important behaviors during their Student Teaching experiences. They are able to transfer knowledge, skills, and
dispositions gained in previous coursework and internships to their capstone experience. For example, the candidates demonstrated engaging in reflective practices and creating positive relationships with community members (2006-2007). Standard 3, Adapting Instruction, however, was consistently rated the lowest on this evaluation. These courses come at the very beginning of their educational program. We have recognized the limitations of the placement of our special education courses and the necessity to link this content with other method courses. It was the belief of Special Education faculty that students cannot learn to adapt lessons before they have a firm grounding in how to plan curriculum. As such, we have, during our extensive curricular changes prompted by the Ivy Tech – IU System Articulation process, increased the number of credits in special education from 4 to 6 and we will now require that these courses be taken after being admitted to the School of Education. We anticipate these changes will have a positive effect on this evaluation. Unit Modifications: Please see Summary of Unit Reflection for unit modifications.
Content Standards: The Student Teaching Lesson Evaluation covers all 10 INTASC Standards which are directly overlapped with all of the 8 IN State Standards for EC-preschool Generalists.
Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne University Supervisor
Evaluating a Single Teaching Experiencewww.ipfw.edu/adlc/fielddownload.htm
Student Teacher: Lesson Observed: Date Observed:
School Name: Teacher: Observation #
Rubric Levels Defined:
Distinguished (4)–The student teacher has demonstrated an exemplary ability to create a community of learners that has studentshighly motivated and engaged and assuming considerable responsibility for their own learning.
Proficient (3)–The student teacher clearly understands the concepts and implements them well. This implementation is consistentand effective.
Basic (2)– The student teacher appears to understand the underlying concepts and attempts to implement those elements.Implementation is intermittent and/or not entirely successful. Additional reading, observation, and experience (particularlysupported by a mentor) may enable the teacher to become proficient in this area.
Unsatisfactory (1)–The student teacher does not appear to understand the concepts underlying the component. Work on thefundamental practices associated with the elements is required to enable growth in this area.
NE–This does not apply at this time.
4=Distinguished 3=Proficient 2=Basic 1=Unsatisfactory NE=Not Evident
Standard 1 Knowledge of Subject Level Evidence/Comments
Demonstrates knowledge of subject matter
Uses questions that compare, interpret, analyze, synthesize
States directions/objectives clearly
Standard 2 Learning and Human Development Level Evidence/Comments
Appreciates individual learning styles
Shows respect for individual abilities/diverse learners
Responds to questions in a developmentally appropriate manner
Standard 3 Adapting Instruction Level Evidence/Comments
Adapts lesson for diverse learners
Modifies lesson as needed during instruction
Provides instruction sensitive to community and cultural norms
Standard 4 Instructional Strategies Level Evidence/Comments
Models expectations when necessary
Provides explicit directions for instruction/students
Connects student prior knowledge
Checks for understanding frequently
Clarifies and summarizes concepts for lesson closure
Uses effective instructional time and pace
Creates smooth transitions between lessons/activities
4=Distinguished 3=Proficient 2=Basic 1=Unsatisfactory NE=Not Evident
Standard 5 Motivation and Learning Environment Level Evidence/Comments
Maintains positive learning climate
Manages scheduled instructional time/use of physical space
Uses appropriate discipline and classroom management strategies
Standard 6 Communication Skills Level Evidence/Comments
Speaks clearly and effectively
Demonstrates correct use of language (grammar, slang)
Provides critical thinking/problem-solving questions
Standard 7 Planning Instruction Level Evidence/Comments
States student learning objectives clearly
Uses multiple resources
Prepares materials in advance
Standard 8 Assessment Level Evidence/Comments
Uses appropriate teaching strategies
Is aware of the learning objectives
Plans student learning and varied assessment strategies
Standard 9 Reflection and Professional Growth Level Evidence/Comments
Reflects to refine practices (teaching/student learning)
Accepts constructive criticism and acts on suggestions
Is appropriately attired
Standard 10 Relationship with the School and Community Level Evidence/Comments
Cooperates with school administration, staff, and teachers
Follows school policies
Maintains appropriate relationships with students
Student Teacher _____________________________________ Date: _________________________ (Signature)
University Supervisor________________________________ Date: _________________________ (Signature)
Student teaching office (White) Student copy (Yellow) University Supervisor (Pink)
2) Student Teacher Reflections: Student Teacher: ___________________Date:
a)What were the strong points of your lesson? b) How do you know that you have met your teaching objectives for this lesson? c) How could/did you assess student learning in this lesson? d) What might you do differently if teaching this lesson again?
3) Student Teacher Reflection on Critique of Evaluator:
4) Lesson plan attached: ____ Yes ____ No
Student teaching office (White) Student copy (Yellow) University Supervisor (Pink)
Appendix 5: Student Learning EC-preschool Generalists
EDUC E337 Classroom Learning Environments Description: During this course, candidates plan, implement, and reflect on three learning experiences for young children. The data reported here are from the last experience plan. This lesson reflection focuses on reporting specific examples of student development and learning as well as connecting that learning to the IN foundations or the kindergarten standards, as appropriate. The focus of this assignment is on preparing “the physical, social, and intellectual environments of early childhood classrooms” by designing “developmentally appropriate, constructivist curriculum (e.g., projects) that reflects universal and unique characteristics, cultural variations, and IN state standards” (quoted from course syllabus). Great care is placed on locating and using high-quality field experiences for this course. The professor has utilized both public school preschools and private child care centers. It has never been possible to place all candidates (typically 36 a semester) in such settings. To not compromise quality, a fraction of the candidates plan curriculum for kindergarten children. The candidates are provided the following questions to guide their writing of experience plans:
Reflections before conducting Experience Evidence-based Instruction/Justification: 1. What do you know about the children’s developmental and learning abilities, needs,
and/or interests? Provide specific examples using descriptive language (think P249) which directly link to your planned experience (next question). For example, what are the children interested in; what knowledge do they possess; what are their misconceptions; what are their learning styles; where are they socially, emotionally, morally, etc?
Planned experience:
1. What experience are you planning? Provide a very brief (2-3 sentence) overview of the experience.
2. Physical Environment1: What materials will you need? How will you set up and use
space? What provocation will you provide to engage the learners?
3. Intellectual Environment: What developmental skills (e.g., perspective taking or emotional regulation) and learning (e.g., content knowledge related to math, science, literacy) are you planning to help the children construct knowledge about given your answers in the justification section above?
1 Recall the first learning objective for this course involves preparing “the physical, social, and intellectual environments of early childhood classrooms.” I have highlighted these terms to assist you in thinking about these three aspects of environments when planning curriculum.
1
4. What open-ended questions will you ask to provoke the children to construct knowledge,
challenge their current thinking, and help them engage in theory building?
5. Social Environment: How will you assist or facilitate positive interactions between the children? Link, as appropriate, to Justification and Question 3.
6. List at least three children and explain their individual, unique personal or developmental
characteristics (e.g., personality characteristics, cultural background, developmentally delayed in speech) or learning needs (e.g., identified special needs, ESL). How will you modify this learning experience to match their characteristics or needs?
Child 1: __________ Characteristics: Modifications: Child 2: __________ Characteristics: Modifications: Child 3: __________ Characteristics: Modifications:
7. How will you bring closure to the experience and prepare them for the next learning experience?
8. How are you going to assess and document the learning and development that occurs
during this experience? Attach the specific tool you will use for assessing and/or documenting learning (e.g., rating scale, Rubric).
Reflection after conducting Experience
1. Was the learning experience an authentic task for the children? What evidence do you have to support your conclusion?
2. How did you use what you were learning about the students’ thinking to inform your
teaching while you were teaching the current lesson? If you implemented the experience more than one time, what changes did you make on the second or third teaching? Why?
3. How did your teaching and your learning experience intentionally impact the children’s
development and learning (i.e., answer to Planning Q 3)?
a. Provide 3-5 specific examples of individual children’s development and learning to support your statement(s).
b. How do these examples relate to the Indiana standards?
2
4. What unintended development and learning (e.g., something that you did not anticipate)
did the children demonstrate? a. Provide 2-3 specific examples of individual children to support your statement(s). b. How do these examples relate to the Indiana standards?
5. Briefly describe a follow-up experience that reflects what you learned about the students’
development and learning. When assessed: This assessment is part of the course, E337 Classroom Learning Environments. This course may be taken during Block 1, Block 2, or Block 3. Thus, candidates come to the course with differing background knowledge. They must earn a C or better in the course to continue with their program. Rubric: See attached grading rubric, which is provided to each candidate upon enrollment in the course via their course syllabus. Aggregated Summary Data: It is important to note that this course utilizes Mastery Learning. As such, candidates must redo any portion of their experience that is evaluated as Below Mastery in the initial grading. Candidates who earn a Mastery 2 on any section may also choose to redo it. They have one opportunity to adjust their work to better meet the predetermined criteria (e.g., rubric descriptions). The data are reported here by first draft and final draft, so that you can determine the number of candidates who were experiencing continued challenges with portions of the experience plan or reflection. First Draft Final Draft (those who did a
redo) Fall 2006 (2 sections; data are combined; n=32)
Mastery 1 = 20 Mastery 2 = 4 Below Mastery = 8
Mastery 1 = 7 Mastery 2 = 3 Below Mastery = 0
Spring 2007 (2 sections; N=36)
Section 1 (n=18) Mastery 1 = 9 Mastery 2 = 4 Below Mastery = 5
Section 2 (n=18) Mastery 1 = 11 Mastery 2 = 1 Below Mastery = 6
Section 1 Mastery 1 = 5 Mastery 2 = 1 Below Mastery = 0
Section 2 Mastery 1 = 1 Mastery 2 = 2 Below Mastery = 3
Fall 2007 (2 sections; data are combined; n = 37)
Mastery 1 = 22 Mastery 2 = 10 Below Mastery = 5
Mastery 1 = 4 Mastery 2 = 1 Below Mastery = 2
Spring 2008 (1 section; n = 21)
Mastery 1 = 12 Mastery 2 = 2
Mastery 1 = 4 Mastery 2 = 2
3
Below Mastery = 7 Below Mastery = 2 Curriculum Modifications: The data provide evidence of candidates’ strong abilities to plan curriculum that is developmentally appropriate, responsive, and meaningful. Again, the lack of specificity obscures some evidence of strengths and weaknesses. Yet, the professor was able to report that she is responsive to candidate performance and routinely rewords the questions on the experience plan guide as a way to facilitate candidates’ thinking about important issues such as strategies for modifying the experience in response to specific child characteristics, abilities, or needs. In addition, she has added notes in the experience plan to spark their memory of skills gained in other courses. For example, during Fall 2007 the justification question read: “What do you know about the children’s developmental levels from your observations? Provide specific examples from your observations of their developmental interests and abilities.” In Spring 2008, it was changed to read: “What do you know about the children’s developmental and learning abilities, needs, and/or interests? Provide specific examples using descriptive language (think P249) which directly link to your planned experience (next question).” The program faculty believe that candidates needed additional practice with using specific observations of individual children to justify their experience and to provide evidence of development and learning during the experience. These sections are why most students receive a “Below Mastery” rating on their experience plans. It became obvious that some students were not using data to inform their reflections. This confirms that student data must be collected and turned-in so it can be used when grading. In addition, an in-class experience has been created which require candidates to evaluate a justification section from previous candidates’ papers using specific components of the grading rubric. This is to be implemented with the second section of students during Spring 2008 and so the impact of this experience has not been evaluated. In general, Candidates can appropriately evaluate the impact of their teaching on the students’ learning, as demonstrated by the high number of M1 experience plans and reflections. Most all candidates are able to connect their developmental and learning observations (whether general or specific) with the IN foundations or standards. They are able to discern the foundations/ standards and how they connect to individual children’s behavior in the classroom. The program faculty place great emphasis, especially in E337, on using the foundations/standards to analyze the children’s learning rather than to describe the teachers’ behaviors/intentions. As such, we continue to work as a faculty to assist them with observing, recording, and analyzing specific child behaviors for evidence of learning and development. Unit Modifications: Please see Summary of Unit Reflection for unit modifications. Content Standards: This assessment covers curriculum planning and reflecting on student learning, thus, covering elements of Standards 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 (see grading rubric). Primary focus is placed on
4
Standards 4, 6, and 8. Rubric for Experience Plans
Criteria Mastery 1* Master 2* Below Master Emergent Curriculum IN Standard 2, 3 and 6
Clear justification for experience based on specific, reported observations of the children’s learning and development.
Justification provides two or more examples of specific observations of learning or development, yet uses some general language (e.g., the children asked questions about the guest speaker’s harp).
Global statements are primarily used as reasons for planning experience (e.g., children like books) based on either development and/or learning.
Adaptations IN Standard 3
Unique characteristics of individual children are noted and experience is adapted to meet those needs, abilities
Adaptations are listed, but not clearly in response to specific children’s unique characteristics
Children are all treated the same; no adaptations are explained or so global in nature that they would fit about any child
Best practices IN Standard 3, 4, and 8
Experience follows key principles of a constructivist approach to education and guidelines for developmentally appropriate practices. Careful attention is given to planning environment, selecting materials, & allowing enough time/space for multiple uses of materials.
Experience weakly adheres to principles of constructivist approach or guidelines for developmentally appropriate practices.
Experience violates one or more key principles of the constructivist approach and/or guidelines for developmentally appropriate practices. Plan focuses on telling or showing or used close-ended materials.
Provokes learning IN Standard 3 and 4
Focuses on using constructivist instructional strategies to provoke learning (e.g., authentic exp., open-ended questions throughout plan).
Some evidence of using open-ended questions but not used consistently throughout plan.
The plan is comprised of primarily close-ended questions, uses worksheets in close-ended manner, or is not authentic.
Evaluation of learning and use of standards IN Standard 2, 6, and 7
Specific observations about development AND learning are gathered during/or immediately after experience and reported using descriptive language. Examples are used to explain how experience relates to state standards about content learning (e.g., literacy, math) AND development.
Specific observations about learning are gathered during/or immediately after experience and reported. Performance is related to state standards about content learning (e.g., science).
Observational data is NOT used as basis for reflection on experience; global statements are used instead. References to meeting state standards (e.g., social studies and art) may be unclear or unsupported by data.
Consistency/ Report Mechanics
Plan is internally consistent and flows from one section to another. The report uses formal professional English and is free of grammatical, mechanical, and usage errors.
One or two examples of inconsistencies, but do not distract from the overall plan. Generally reflects professional English, but has a few grammatical, mechanical or usage errors; these errors do not seriously
Plan is internally inconsistent. Ideas are not carried from one section into another; ideas in one section may contradict those in another. Numerous errors that are distracting and impede
5
interfere with comprehension.
comprehension.
6
Appendix 6: Summary of Unit Reflection Initial Programs Unit-Wide Changes Over the course of the last three years the School of Education (SOE) has been impacted by changes external and internal to it. The Indiana University Purdue University Fort Wayne (IPFW) Faculty Senate’s Education Policy Committee (EPC) has articulated a pedagogical framework for the Baccalaureate degree (Senate Document 05-8) and the EPC General Education Subcommittee has articulated performance outcomes for the General Education requirements of all Baccalaureate degrees (Senate Document 98-22). This affects mainly our Initial programs. As a school we have been required to align our Conceptual Framework with that of the Baccalaureate Framework. At the same time, with an impending North Central Association accreditation of the University in Spring of 2010, and with the thrust from the Report of the Commission on the Future of Higher Education (2006) under Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings to assess the learning of students in institutions of higher education, the University is in the process of inaugurating an electronic data assessment system, eLumen, that would allow for data to be gathered at the course level, but used at the school level and the University level for assessment purposes. While we in the SOE have developed our own Data Management System, we will soon be in the process of migrating some of our DMS data to eLumen.. The Indiana General Assembly has required Indiana University to reach articulation agreements with Ivy Tech Community College, effective with the freshman 2008 class. The mandated articulation with Ivy Tech Community College requires curricular changes in selected programs. This has mainly affected our Initial programs. During the 2007 calendar year SOE faculty in the Educational Studies Department revised the programs in the Early and Middle Childhood concentrations to be in alignment with the articulation agreement. Currently, in Spring 2008, faculty are working on the details of implementing these changes. We anticipate having to make adjustments in our secondary programs, as well. We have worked together with other Indiana University (IU) campuses through the Indiana University Education Council, with faculty representatives from all IU campuses, to coordinate a joint response to the articulation agreement. The School of Education formed two departments, Educational Studies and Professional Studies, in 2000. The Faculty Affairs Committee of the SOE is in the process of rewriting the Governance Document to reflect those changes, and the departments are developing their own governance documents. At the same time the University is promoting an initiative to have Chairs take additional decision-making responsibility for decisions currently made by Deans. Thus, the Governance Document will reflect a more clearly articulated division of rights and responsibilities between departments and the SOE, as well as, overall, more powers to departments than previously. This means that curricular authority is moving from the school level to the departmental level. We are currently, Spring 2008, reviewing all of our programs through the State, two years before our next NCATE Visit in 2010. Our Initial programs under review are Early and Middle Generalist, Computer Education, Mild Intervention, Visual Arts Music, Theater, World Languages, Language Arts, Mathematics, Life Sciences, Earth/Space Sciences, Chemistry, Physics, and Social Studies. We have been preparing for these reviews for the past two years. SOE Faculty members have all been involved in the process, and we have had opportunities to work more closely with colleagues in the Arts & Sciences. Further collaboration is planned. Preparation of the reviews has helped us look candidly at our programs and given us renewed understanding of and focus on meeting content standards. We also meet regularly with the Dean’s Community Advisory Council to give us feedback and recommendations for possible changes to
our programs, or the introduction of new programs. We convene our Teacher Education Council to facilitate communication between the SOE faculty and faculty in the Arts & Sciences about all of our teacher education programs for which we have joint responsibility. During the last three years we have been in the process of introducing electronic portfolios to our candidates. We chose TaskStream as our e-portfolio provider. While undergraduate candidates have had the e-portfolio as an option since we piloted it in 2005, as of Fall 2007 all candidates in the introductory course, EDUC F300, Invitation to Teaching, are required to use TaskStream. Because of the University’s impending use of eLumen for assessment purposes, we are not sure how, or if, TaskStream data can be migrated into it. In the course of the last three years the grades in certain courses (W131, COM 114 and EDUC W200) have been raised to a B for admission to the Initial programs. In the Exit Portfolio student work has been required in some artifacts to show competency in meeting the INTASC Standards, and use of technology has, also, been required. In Fall 2007 we initiated the inclusion of student work in the Performance-Based Assessment assignment in the Exit Portfolio. The candidate reflects on how his/her teaching of a lesson, and the student work that resulted from it, relate to two elements of the SOE Conceptual Framework, Habits of Mind and Knowledge, and one other category of the Conceptual Framework. In 2005 we revised the SOE Undergraduate Handbook which more clearly articulated the rights and responsibilities of Initial Licensure candidates. The Behavior Review Policy set firm guidelines in the area of professional dispositions. We have been continually responding to mandates from external agencies—the Secretary of Education, NCATE, the Indiana Department of Education—as well as IU, the IPFW senate, the IPFW Office of Academic Affairs, the IPFW Assessment Council, SOE colleagues, our program colleagues, our candidates, and our stakeholders, all with the purpose of improving our programs. The aggregated content program assessment data gives as valuable feedback about the strengths and weaknesses of our programs as we make changes within the context of the multiple mandates that frame all of our work.