program report for the initial preparation of early ... › docs › ncate › early... · program...

Program Report for the Initial Preparation of Early Childhood Teachers

National Association for the Education for Young Children (NAEYC)

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR ACCREDITATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION

COVER SHEET

1. Institution NamePeabody College of Vanderbilt Univeristy

2. StateTennessee

3. Date submitted

MM DD YYYY

01 / 31 / 2008

4. Report Preparer's Information:

Name of Preparer:

Amy Palmeri

Phone: Ext.

( ) -615 322 8100

E-mail:

[email protected]

5. NCATE Coordinator's Information:

Name:

Kim Paulsen

Phone: Ext.

( ) -615 322 8170

E-mail:

[email protected]

6. Name of institution's programEarly Childhood Education

SECTION IV ASSESSMENT 2: CONTENT-BASED ASSESSMENT

Evidence for Meeting Standards

CORE CONTENT ASSESSMENT Description of assessment This assessment requires teacher candidates to demonstrate their understanding of both specific content knowledge and the application of that knowledge, in developmentally appropriate ways, to their teaching. The assessment is currently situated in the spring semester of the junior year. ECE teacher candidates analyze student work samples in 5 content areas (the arts, literacy, mathematics, science, and social studies). Through the evaluation of student thinking, teacher candidates make use of and demonstrate their ability to bring knowledge of child development and subject matter to bear on instructional planning. Because specific content areas include a wide range of standards, multiple work samples will be selected to reflect the key standards in a given content area, with samples alternated from year to year. Thus, no teacher candidate will be asked to analyze every standard of each subject-matter area, but over the course of multiple years all standards will be represented. Big ideas reflected in the first administration of the assessment in the 2006/2007 academic year were: The arts: Representational drawings; Language and literacy: Writing development; Mathematics: Operations and problem solving; Science: Living things; and Social Studies: Historical time. Given the small number of students in the cohort that completed this assessment in 2006/2007 we decided to use the same items for the 2007/2008 administration of the assessment scheduled for March 2008. This will enable us to better understand the nature of the items, our candidates’ performance, and inform the refinement of future items and program development. NAEYC standards addressed in this assessment This assessment is fundamentally grounded in what teacher candidates understand about the intersection between children’s development and content knowledge (Standard 1a, and c). The structuring of the questions teacher candidates respond to in relation to each work sample rely on a fundamental ability to evaluate the work samples, seek to validate assumptions they are making about their judgments, and then use this information to inform future instructional decisions (Standard 3 a, b, and c). The nature of the assessment taps directly into teacher candidates developing pedagogical content knowledge which is dependent upon a deep and robust understanding of content in early childhood and is a necessary first step in building meaningful curriculum (Standard 4 b, c, and d). Finally, the entire assessment requires teacher candidates to apply critical perspectives as they analyze student work samples, validate assumptions and articulate next instructional steps (Standard 5 c and d).

Summary of data findings Table 2a reflects the overall performance of the early childhood teacher candidates. It shows mixed performance with 50% performing at an emergent level and 50% performing at a proficient level. We believe tables 2b and 2c provide a more useful glimpse into candidate

understanding and ability as these tables enable us to look at performance by content area and by question type. Table 2b shows that our teacher candidates demonstrate the strongest performance in the Arts with all candidates performing at a proficient level or above and the weakest performance in Literacy with 75% of the candidates performing at an emergent level. Performance in the areas of mathematics, science, and social studies reflect greater differentiation in candidate performance, but as shown in table 2b, half (50%) of the teacher candidates demonstrate proficient (or better) performance in these content areas. Table 2c, shows that our teacher candidates tend to be better at diagnosing student understanding than they are at articulating strategies for validating their assumptions or in using their diagnosis to articulate next instructional steps. In the case of diagnosing student understanding 50% of the teacher candidates demonstrate proficiency, with the other 50% moving toward proficiency. In contrast, in the areas of validating assumptions and articulating next instructional steps 50% of the teacher candidate perform at an emergent level with only 25% performing at a level of proficiency.

Interpretation of how the data provides evidence that NAEYC Standards have been met This program assessment focuses on the intersections between the various NAEYC standards and it mirrors the complexity of teaching where the teacher candidate brings all their knowledge and skill together in completing assessment. Our analysis, as it ties back to NAEYC standards, will focus on content (Standards 1a and 4c), pedagogy – teaching and assessment (standards 1c, 3 a-c and 4b and d), and reflective and critical thinking (standard 5c and d). As mentioned in the summary of the data, candidate performance varied across content areas. We expected performance across content areas to be solidly moving toward proficiency if not proficient. In the Arts all candidates met our expectations and 75% met our expectations in mathematics and science. Thus, we feel that our teacher candidates demonstrate sufficient understanding in these content areas and have sufficient understanding of children’s developing conceptions and abilities in these content areas (standards 1a and 4 c). We are less satisfied with candidate performance in the areas of social studies (where 50% of the candidates met our expectations) and literacy (where only 25% met our expectations). The raw data indicate that each candidate presented a unique profile of performance by content – the candidate who was emergent in mathematics was not the same individual who was emergent in science. Such differential profiles are to be expected. We noted that candidates tended to perform better in the content areas reflected in the methods courses they were concurrently enrolled in. Thus, performance is likely influenced by a recency effect. In making sense of the data we also noted that the nature of the various questions varied – with the literacy and the social studies being comparative in nature, the arts including a video, and the mathematics and science including student work from a single “snapshot” in time. Candidate performance by question type focuses more closely on candidates’ understanding and use of pedagogical strategies (standards 1c, 3 a-c and 4b and d). Before the first administration of this assessment, we anticipated candidate performance to be strongest in relation to diagnosing

student understanding and progressively weaker in relation to the other two questions (validating assumptions and next instructional steps). We viewed the questions as building on one another in the sense that one’s response to the second question would be dependent upon the response to the first question and that one’s response to the third question would be dependent upon responses to the first and second questions. Somewhat consistent with our expectation, 75% of teacher candidates demonstrated greater proficiency in diagnosing student understanding than in validating their assumptions and articulating next instructional steps. However rather than showing progressively weaker performance, candidates performed equally well on the second and third question (albeit at a lower level of proficiency than the diagnosis question). Thus, we feel reasonably assured that our candidates understand and can use evaluative strategies to make sense of student work and use these insights to make judgments about student understanding (standards 3a, 3b, and 3c). The weaker yet similar performance in relation to validating evaluative assumptions and articulating next instructional steps seems to suggest that for the most part our candidates still hold a somewhat simplistic view of the intersection between teaching and assessment. Candidates seemed to consider the act of validating their initial assumptions as distinct from planning next instructional steps. In reality we believe that accomplished teachers design next instructional steps to both validate their current interpretations of children’s understanding and to deepen and further their understanding. Responses to questions of validating assumptions tended to reflect difficulty in the candidates ability to consider other possible interpretations of the student work. Next instructional steps were general and not closely tied to further developing the key issues identified in their analysis of the work sample. Thus rather than viewing these issues in interaction with one another the candidates seem to consider them separately. Thus we conclude, candidates understand assessment but they haven’t fully internalized the tentativeness of assessment or the need to draw from multiple types of assessments in making evaluative judgments. Additionally, while the next instructional steps tended to be general – the general ideas were not off target, thus we feel that our candidates are beginning to make use to assessment information and their knowledge of children and content to promote development and learning (standard 4 b and d). An overarching aspect of this entire assessment is the teacher candidates’ ability to think reflectively and critically (standard 5c and d). While responses were at times simplistic and lacked awareness of the complex interaction of assessment and ongoing curricular planning, candidates approached the assessment thoughtfully, reflectively, and professionally, indicating their active engagement in the profession of teaching and their ability to engage in reflective and critical thinking.

ASSESSMENT 2: CONTENT-BASED ASSESSMENT Detailed Description

CORE CONTENT ASSESSMENT

NAEYC defines Early Childhood content as follows: Content knowledge in early childhood education incorporates more than simply subject-area knowledge, although knowledge of the content of various academic areas (literacy, mathematics, science, social studies, the visual and performing arts, and movement/physical education) is essential for early childhood professional preparation. Early childhood content knowledge also includes knowledge of child development and family processes. While focusing primarily on subject-area knowledge (4c), completion of the Core Content Assessment is reliant upon an application of knowledge of child development (1a, c) as well as subject-area knowledge (4c). Knowledge of family processes is more fully documented in Program Assessment 6, the Family/Community Involvement Resource Notebook. The Core Content Assessment is designed to allow teacher candidates to demonstrate their understanding of both specific content knowledge (4c) and the application of that knowledge, in developmentally appropriate ways, to their teaching (4 b). Specifically the Core Content Assessment requires ECE teacher candidates to analyze student work samples (3b) in 5 content areas (literacy, mathematics, science, social studies, and the arts). Through the evaluation of student thinking (3c), teacher candidates make use of and demonstrate their ability to bring their knowledge of child development (1a) and subject matter (4c) to bear on instructional planning (1c, 3a, 4b, d). A given Core Content Assessment will include 5 samples of children’s work (each sample representing a different content area). Because specific content areas include a wide range of standards, multiple work samples will be selected to reflect the key standards in a given content area, with samples alternated from year to year. That is to say, no teacher candidate will be asked to analyze every standard of each subject-matter area, but over the course of multiple years all standards will be represented. For each work sample, teacher candidates will be asked to identify:

1. What assumptions can be made about the student’s understanding of discipline specific core concepts? (1a, 3c, 4c)

2. What steps can the teacher take to validate those assumptions? (3c, 5c, d) 3. Acting on the belief that one’s assumptions are accurate, what implications are present

for future learning design? (4d) For each work sample, teacher candidates will be asked to respond to the three questions above in no more than 2 pages. The work samples are selected to represent key subject matter concepts (4c) and key developmental understandings (1a) of the subject matter. It is expected that teacher candidates will need no more than 30 minutes to evaluate and respond to each work sample. The Core Content Assessment will be administered once per academic year (offered toward the end of March), primarily to teacher candidates with junior class standing or above. The spring 2007 Core Content Assessment is included as an example.

The Arts

In the video clip, the kindergarten-aged girl has already built a block structure. You will see the girl utilizing a marker, paper, and a clipboard to draw. The teacher enters the scene to talk with the girl about her drawing. Watch the video clip, then answer the questions below. Given the information in the video clip:

1. What assumptions can be made about the girl’s drawing or art development? 2. What steps did the teacher take to validate her own assumptions within the video clip?

What would you have done similarly or differently to validate your assumptions of the girl’s drawing or art development?

3. Acting on the belief that your assumptions about the girl’s drawing are accurate, what experiences would you provide next to support the young girl in her artistic development?

Double Click on the black rectangle below to play the video.

QuickTime™ and aH.263 decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Literacy

This sample was written in orange crayon on a piece of 8 ½ by 11’’ paper by Ashley (age 2 yrs. 10 months). Ashley brought the note to her mother. As Ashley pointed to the paper, she spoke the following words aloud. “To Mommy. Thank you for taking me to the pumpkin patch on your birthday. Love Ashley. To Mommy.”

This sample was written on a Monday morning, as a kindergarten class was writing letters back to their University pen pals. Carter wrote this letter back to his pen pal. “I went to a hockey game with my cousin it was Commandoes 3 and the Fogs 2 and I went for the Commandoes Love Carter

Mathematics

Given the above: 1. What assumptions can be made about each child’s understanding of literacy? 2. Specifically, what stages of writing and spelling would best describe these products?

a. Provide 3 examples from each sample to support your judgment. b. Compare and contrast the two samples so that you describe the developmental nature

of literacy. 3. Acting on the belief that your assumptions are accurate, what experiences would you provide

next for these children to support their development as literacy learners?

Mathematics Ms. Greene is working with David, one of her first grade students. Ms. Greene poses each problem by setting up a physical model that includes a small “circus tent” and several small, plastic circus clowns. After you have read through the description of the interaction between Ms. Greene and David, please answer the questions that follow. A B

(ex: Arts Palmeri Amy)

Teacher: Ringmaster John has 4 clowns (places 4 clowns before David and gestures toward the circus tent). Two more clowns are hiding in the tent. How many clowns are there all together?

David: Five. Teacher: How do you know that? David: (After a long pause, during which he mutters to himself): Or, it could be 6. 1,2,3,4,5,6. It’s six.

Teacher: Now Ringmaster John has 5 clowns (placing 5 clowns directly in front of David). There are 2 more hiding in the tent (points to the circus tent). How many clowns are there altogether? David: Seven. Teacher: How do you know that?

David: Because 7 is one more than 6. I counted them. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

C D

Teacher (After placing 4 clowns before David): This time how many clowns do you see? David: Four. Teacher: There are 6 clowns altogether. How many are hiding in the tent? David: Four? Two—5 and 6 come right after 4.

Teacher (Who has placed 6 clowns in front of David): How many clowns do you see? David: Six. Teacher: Four more are hiding in the tent. How many clowns are there altogether? David: Twelve?

Teacher: How did you know? David: I counted: 7,8,9,10,11, 12. (Points to the visible clowns.) It was 12.

E F

Teacher (After placing 7 clowns before David): Now how many clowns do you see? David: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Seven. Teacher: There are 10 clowns altogether. How many are hiding in the tent? David: Seven?

Teacher: Now all the clowns are in the tent. There are 5 of them. Now some of them come out of the tent (removes 2 clowns and places them before david). How many came out? David: Two. Teacher: How many are still in the tent?

David: Three more.

Given Ms. Greene’s interaction with David:

1. How would you, as Ms. Greene, explain why David was able to solve some of these problems, but not others? Point to specific features of the problems in providing specific and convincing insight into David’s mathematical understanding.

2. What steps would you, as Ms. Greene, take to validate your explanation? 3. Acting on the belief that your assumptions about David’s understanding are accurate,

what would you suggest Ms. Greene do next in relation to future learning design?

Science Ms. Stark’s kindergarteners were preparing to study living things. As an introductory activity, Ms. Stark gave each child a collection of color images (photographs or detailed artistic renderings) and asked them to sort the items using a sorting mat, with three columns. The columns were labeled as follows: Living, Not Living, Unsure. The images sorted included (in alphabetical order): carrots, clouds, dinosaur, dog, feather, fire, rabbit, river, rocks, and tree. Devon’s sorting mat is represented below She placed the following pictures in the LIVING column: dog, clouds, fire, rabbit, and river. She placed the following pictures in the NOT LIVING column: dinosaur, rocks, tree, feather, and carrots. She did not place any items in the UNSURE column. Given this information:

1. What assumptions can be made about Devon’s current understanding of living things? 2. What steps would you, as Ms. Stark, take to validate these assumptions? 3. Acting on the belief that your assumptions about Devon’s understanding are accurate,

what would you suggest Ms. Stark do next in relation to future learning design?

LIVING

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor










NON-LIVING

QuickTime™ and a(Uncompressed) decompressore needed to see this picture.





QuickTime™ and aF (Uncompressed) decompressorre needed to see this picture.



UNSURE

Social Studies Mr. Matthews’ second grade students have been discussing concepts of historical time. Mr. Matthews was reviewing some of Ian’s work. On the next page you will see three of Ian’s products:

• Ian’s daily time line - students were asked to construct a timeline of a typical school day on a time line given to them by Mr. Matthews with “wake-up” and “go to bed” already written on the time line.

• Ian’s personal time line – students were asked to construct a timeline of their life on a time line given to them by Mr. Matthews with the year of their birth and the current year already written on the time line.

• Ian’s global time line – students were asks to place world events identified by Mr. Matthews (many of which reflected previous topics of study), on a time line, without any labels.

Given Ian’s work:

1. What assumptions can be made about Ian’s current understanding of historical time? 2. What steps would you, as Mr. Matthews, take to validate these assumptions? 3. Acting on the belief that your assumptions about Ian’s understanding are accurate, what

would you suggest Mr. Matthews do next in relation to future learning design?

ASSESSMENT 2: CONTENT-BASED ASSESSMENT Developmental Rubric

Rubrics for each content area used the rubric below as a starting point. Details for each content area were added to this rubric to reflect relevant subject matter understandings and key understandings of developmental learning trajectories used to inform ways of validating assumptions and articulating next instructional steps. These details must be unique to each question both within and across content areas. Core Content Assessment:

Emergent – 1 A singular or simplistic focus

Proficient – 2 May consider multiple ideas and

includes greater explanation

Accomplished – 3 Considers multiple ideas and uses

explanation to justify ideas

Dia

gnos

ing

Chi

ldre

n’s T

hink

ing

and

Und

erst

andi

ng

[1a,

3b,

3c,

4 c

, 5d]

(x2

for

cont

ent &

ove

rall

ratin

g on

ly) The TC identifies 1 or 2 key

features of the work sample that are relevant to diagnosing student understanding. Explanation of the importance of the key features identified is general without elaboration regarding the significance of the feature(s). The TC may simply identify the “errors” without making meaning of the errors.

The TC identifies at least 2 key features of the work sample that are relevant to diagnosing student understanding. The explanation extends beyond the identification of “errors” and provides insight into the significance of those errors. The analysis may make connections and articulate patterns in the “errors.” Focus of analysis is limited to the level of the individual child.

The TC identifies & elaborates on the significance of at least 2 key features of the work sample relevant to diagnosing student understanding. The analysis identifies patterns and connections that emerge from considering the performance in a holistic manner (“errors” and accurate ideas). The analysis may make reference to acknowledged developmental continua – comparing and contrasting this work sample with “typical” products likely generated by children of a particular age (e.g., these reflect the kind of errors one would expect in children of this age.).

Val

idat

ing

Ass

umpt

ions

[3b,

3c,

5c,

5d]

The TC lists 1 or 2 ways in which they would validate their assumptions. There is little elaboration on how these strategies relate to the key features focused on in the analysis of student work.

The TC lists at least 2 ways they would seek to validate their assumptions. The TC explicitly articulates how such strategies would provide additional information to inform the validity of their initial analysis. Individual strategies identified are likely to focus on a single dimension identified in the analysis. The TC may focus on “confirming” information and not consider the possibility of “disconfirming” information.

The TC explains at least 2 ways they would seek to validate assumptions and can speak directly to anticipated “results” of such attempts. The justification considers the additive nature of the validation strategies (e.g., If my analysis is accurate I would expect the following and that would tell me…). The TC considers that outcomes of validation attempts could confirm or refute their initial analysis. Validation strategies may consider multiple dimensions at the same time.

Emergent – 1

A singular or simplistic focus Proficient – 2

May consider multiple ideas and includes greater explanation

Accomplished – 3 Considers multiple ideas and uses

explanation to justify ideas

Nex

t Ins

truc

tiona

l Ste

ps [1

a, 1

c, 3

a, 3

b,

3c, 4

b, 4

c, 4

d, 5

c, 5

d]

The TC identifies the next instructional step but it lacks details and is not clearly related to addressing the “errors” identified in the initial analysis. The next instructional step may skip several instructional imperatives given the analysis. The TC may describe multiple next steps that all seem to be focused on the same ideas (e.g. multiple ideas for the one next step). There is little justification for the next instructional steps.

The next instructional steps articulated are explicitly linked to the “errors” identified in the initial analysis. The TC sees beyond the immediate next instructional step, but may provide greater detail to the NEXT step and less detail regarding further steps. The TC begins to offer a justification for why the next steps selected are appropriate given their analysis.

The next instructional steps articulated are explicitly linked to the “errors” identified in the initial analysis. The TC develops ideas beyond a single next step. The TC offers critique and support for their choice of next steps by explicitly explaining how the next steps connects to the work sample, their analysis, and seeks to extend the child’s inferred level of understanding.

The structure of this program assessment, the parallel structuring of the questions across content areas, and the use of the same general rubric for all content questions allows us to use data from this assessment in three ways: (1) to provide an overall picture of our candidates subject matter knowledge for teaching (an overall rating), (2) to provide an image of differential understandings across subject matter areas (performance by subject matter area), and (3) to provide a picture of our candidates ability to bring subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge to bear on instructional decisions that are linked back to NAEYC standards. (performance by question type). Each response was evaluated separately to provide a rating by content (scale 0-12). An overall rating was calculated by summing candidate performance for each of the 5 content area questions (scale 0-60). A rating for question type was determined by summing candidate responses for a given question across all 5 content areas (scale 0-15). The following scale was used to determine performance. Rating for Content Rating by Question Rating for Overall

Performance Not Yet Evident 0-2 0-2 0-12 Emergent 3-5 3-6 13-27 Emergent moving toward Proficiency

6 7-8 28-33

Proficient 7-9 9-11 34-47 Proficient moving to Accomplishment

10-11 12-13 48-53

Accomplished 12 14-15 54-60

ASSESSMENT 2: CONTENT-BASED ASSESSMENT Data Tables

Table 2a: Overall Performance

Academic Year

Emergent Moving to Proficiency

Proficient Moving to Accomplished

Accomplished

2006/2007 (N=4)

2 50%

0 2 50%

0 0

2007/2008

2008/2009

Table 2b: Performance by Content Area [linked to NAEYC standards 2a, 4c]

AY Emergent Moving to Proficiency


Accomplished

06/07 (N=4)

0 0 3 75%

1 25%

0

07/08

Art

s

08/09

06/07 (N=4)

3 75%

0 1 25%

0 0

07/08

Lite

racy

08/09

06/07 (N=4)

1 25%

1 25%

2 50%

0 0

07/08

Mat

hem

atic

s

08/09

06/07 (N=4)

1 25%

1 25%

1 25%

1 25%

0

07/08

Scie

nce

08/09

06/07 (N=4)

2 50%

0 1 25%

1 25%

0

07/08

Soci

al

Stud

ies

08/09

Table 2c: Performance by Question Type [Linked to NAEYC Standards 3a, 3b, 3c, 4d, 5d] AY Emergent Moving to

Proficiency Proficient Moving to

Accomplished Accomplished

06/07 (N=4)

0 2 50%

1 25%

1 25%

0

07/08

Dia

gnos

ing

Und

erst

andi

ng

08/09

06/07 (N=4)

2 50%

1 25%

1 25%

0 0

07/08

Val

idat

ing

Ass

umpt

ions

08/09

06/07 (N=4)

2 50%

1 25%

1 25%

0 0

07/08

Nex

t Ste

ps

08/09

The Arts

ASSESSMENT 2.pdf

SECTION IV ASSESSMENT 4: STUDENT TEACHING EVALUATION


PROFESSIONAL GROWTH PROFILE

Description of assessment Our teacher candidate performance evaluation is based on a developmental model characterized by on-going and continuous evaluative feedback. Throughout one’s licensure program, the same criteria are used to measure growth and development in a formative manner as well as to judge performance at set intervals throughout the program in a summative manner. The criteria used in all these evaluations come directly from our Teacher Education Framework that articulates criteria for excellence in candidate performance and focus on: (1) subject matter knowledge for teaching; (2) understanding of learners and learning; (3) conceptions of the practice and profession of teaching; and (4) initial repertoire in curriculum, instruction, management, and assessment. For this assessment we present data from the final licensure report which is based upon numerous “snapshots” of performance across the student teaching experience. NAEYC standards addressed in this assessment After aligning the professional growth profile used to document candidate performance with the NAEYC standards we find that candidates abilities to promote child development and learning is thoroughly evaluated in relation to the professional growth profile element focused on learners and learning and by application in the other three strands of the professional growth profile (standard 1elements a, b, and c). Candidates’ knowledge and skill in relation to assessment is fully addressed in relation to the professional growth profile element of the initial repertoire in curriculum, instruction, management, and assessment (standard 3 elements a, b, and c). Candidates’ proficiencies related to teaching and learning are considered in relation to all four strands of the professional growth profile (standard 4 elements a, b, c, and d). Candidates’ professionalism is primarily evaluated in relation to strand three of the professional growth profile – conceptions of the practice and profession of teaching (standard 5 elements a, b, c, and d). Finally, although limited, candidates’ ability to create respectful relationships with families is evaluated as part of one’s conceptions of the practice and profession of teaching (standard 2 element b). Thus the professional growth profile is a robust assessment.

Summary of data findings By the end of student teaching we expect candidates to demonstrate an overall level proficiency for a beginning teacher. Tables 4a and 4b summarize data from the final licensure reports. As reflected in Table 4a, all of our candidates perform at the level of proficiency in their overall performance as beginning teachers. Additionally, Table 4b reflects overall performance relative to each element of the professional growth profile, and demonstrates that candidate performance on each dimension (subject matter knowledge, learners and learning, conceptions of the practice, and initial repertoire) is at the level of proficiency or above. Data from the end of student teaching reports are reported in Tables 4c, 4d, 4e, and 4f. Data reported in these tables allow a more fine-grained analysis of candidate performance focused on the subcomponents of the elements of the professional growth profile. This also allows us to

consider the impact context may have had on performance as it is at the level of placement (ECE candidate have two placements both in ECE contexts unless a candidate is seeking additional licensure in special education – such an individual would have one ECE placement and the other in a special education context). We would expect candidate performance in each subcomponent and in each placement to be at the level of proficient, but acknowledge that we may see development across student teaching where performance might be emergent in the first placement and proficient in the second placement. While this is likely to be the predominant trend, we might also expect a more complex or difficult context for a second placement might cause a candidates performance to shift from proficient to emergent. Overall, data presented in these tables document the majority of candidates perform at the expected level of proficiency on each given element of the professional growth profile with percentage of candidates performing proficient or better ranging from 100% (on all three components of conceptions of the practice and profession of teaching to 68% (uses a variety of assessment strategies).

Interpretation of how the data provides evidence that NAEYC Standards have been met Our candidates strong performance related to the professional growth profile element of understanding learners and learning provide evidence that our candidates have met NAEYC’s first standard: Promoting child development and learning. Additionally candidates strong performance related to making content accessible to students (86% proficient), ability to modify materials and subject matter for students (92% proficient), and ability to create an optimal learning environment (88% proficient) provide additional evidence regarding their ability to promote child development and learning. While our candidates weakest performance was in the area of using a variety of assessment strategies (a subcomponent of the initial repertoire in curriculum, instruction, management, and assessment), still 68% of the candidates performed at a level of proficiency or above. Comments from the narrative reports suggest that candidate have knowledge of various assessment strategies and make use of this knowledge in their practice but that it remains the weakest and least integrated component of their initial repertoire. We conclude that this is an area for programmatic improvement, but feel that candidate performance suggests we are meeting aspects of the assessment standard (standard 3). Elements of Standard 4 (Teaching and learning) are interwoven in all aspects of the professional growth profile. Our candidates demonstrate competence in connecting with children as evidence in the kinds of opportunities they make available to children (100% proficient) and their ability to create an optimal learning environment (88% proficient) (standard 4d). Their ability to teach with sensitivity to children in their classroom as documented in the data just presented and their ability to implement plans based on knowledge of learner and learning (88% proficient) show that they make regular use of developmentally appropriate approaches (standard 4b). Strong performance in the area of subject matter knowledge for teaching provides evidence that they understand (80% proficient) and can adapt content appropriately for young children (88% proficient) (standard 4c). With 100% of the candidates demonstrating proficiency in all three components of the conceptions of the practice and profession of teaching, candidates clearly demonstrate their professionalism both within and beyond the classroom (standard 5).

ASSESSMENT 4: STUDENT TEACHING EVALUATION Detailed Description

PROFESSIONAL GROWTH PROFILE

Our teacher candidate performance evaluation is based on a developmental model characterized by on-going and continuous evaluative feedback. Throughout one’s licensure program, the same criteria are used to measure growth and development in a formative manner as well as to judge performance at set intervals throughout the program in a summative manner. The use of a standard model for evaluating candidate performance as it develops across the licensure program is essential as the knowledge, skills, attitudes, dispositions, and habits of mind that serve as the indicators of competent beginning teacher performance develop slowly overtime. The criteria used in all these evaluations come directly from our Teacher Education Framework that articulates criteria for excellence in candidate performance. In very abbreviated form, these criteria are:

1) Subject matter knowledge for teaching – including both deep understanding of the content areas to be taught (core conceptual structures, flexibly organized factual knowledge, forms of reasoning) and how this content can be made accessible to students.

2) Understandings of learners and learning – recognition of the ways in which learners’ academic, behavioral, cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic histories and repertoires inform learning and so also teaching;

3) Conceptions of the practice and profession of teaching – how teachers construe their roles and relationships within their classrooms, schools, communities and the profession;

4) Initial repertoire in curriculum, instruction, management, and assessment – the understanding of and ability to use appropriately a well-chosen set of tools and techniques, as well as to transform materials (e.g., given by the school or district) to support student learning.

Since we utilize the same criteria to measure performance across the teacher licensure program, we expect candidates to enter the program with superficial understandings and application to practice may not yet be evident. As one develops toward proficiency we look for a beginning understanding that over time is reflected in an emergent ability to enact understanding in practice. By the end of one’s program we expect teacher candidates to have developed a deep and sound understanding of these ideas and that they are proficient in translating these ideas to practice. In this model we recognize that even very experienced teachers can from time to time struggle with translating ideals and understandings into daily practice. Overtime, however, teachers can become quite accomplished in their ability to do so. Because we recognize that the path toward becoming an accomplished teacher is academically rigorous and professionally demanding we acknowledge that the pathway of development varies from candidate to candidate. Thus the language of Professional Growth Profile is meant to reiterate our belief that every observation represents candidate performance at a given point in time - a “snapshot” of development - and that this performance is shaped both by developing proficiency and various contextual constraints. It is only through the collection of a sufficient number of “snapshots” that a profile – a Professional Growth Profile – of candidate proficiency

begins to emerge. In this program assessment we present only the summative – end of student teaching or the final licensure report – Professional Growth Profile. As suggested above, the single, simple, straightforward licensure report is grounded in the professional sense-making of numerous “snapshots.” Within student teaching alone a candidate receives professional growth profile feedback following each observation (at least 12 times) and as part of two team meetings to discuss candidate performance in each student teaching placement (a total of 4 team meetings). What follow are the documents we use, over the course of a student teaching semester, to inform final ratings on the licensure report. The flow diagram below is meant to give an image of the quantity and sequence of the “profile points.” Student Teaching Placement 1 Post-Observation Conference Reports (4)

⇓ Mid-placement Narrative Team Report*

⇓ Post-Observation Conference Reports (2)

⇓ End-of-placement Narrative Team Report*

⇓ End-of-placement Summative Report Student Teaching Placement 2 Post-Observation Conference Reports (4)

⇓ Mid-placement Narrative Team Report*

⇓ Post-Observation Conference Reports (2)

⇓ End-of-placement Narrative Team Report*

⇓ End-of-placement Summative Report Final Licensure Report *These reports are completed on the same form

Post-Observation Conferencing Form

Teacher Candidate: _______________________ School:____________________________________ Grade/Subject:_______________________ Conference Facilitator: ___________________________ Summary of lesson discussed:

Ratings for Professional Growth Profile: NE = Not Evident E= Emergent P = Proficient A = Accomplished

Professional Growth Profile

SUBJECT MATTER KNOWLEDGE FOR TEACHING: _____ Possesses a solid command of the subject matter, focuses on the big ideas, core conceptual structures and their interrelationships, and makes connections across subject matter knowledge _____ Designs and organizes subject matter knowledge to make it accessible to students, recognizes landmarks in the development of student understanding and scaffolds subject matter knowledge as it relates to students’ trajectories of development UNDERSTANDING OF LEARNERS AND LEARNING: _____ Plans for learners unique strengths, resources, goals and motivations; envisions developmental learning trajectories and plans learning experiences that support students’ progress along these trajectories; understands and draws appropriately on learning theory to support their investigations and analyses of student learning and planning for instruction; identifies and seeks to learn about students’ linguistic, social and cultural histories and repertoires _____ Enters into the learners’ thinking/reasoning as reflected in learners’ talk and work and uses these insights into learners to inform planning and instruction; focuses on engaging students in understanding big ideas; aims to utilize student strengths as resources for teaching and learning CONCEPTIONS OF THE PRACTICE AND PROFESSION OF TEACHING: _____ Recognizes role in supporting and/or constraining learning through the conditions and opportunities he or she makes available to students _____ Recognizes that teaching and learning are nested within a broader education system _____ Recognizes that learning involves an ongoing critical analysis and revision of one’s own practice, and pursuit of other opportunities for learning and renewal, are central of one’s role as a teacher INITIAL REPERTOIRE IN CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION AND ASSESSMENT: _____ Uses a carefully chosen set of research-based instructional and assessment strategies, curriculum materials, and classroom management techniques to support work with all students _____ Demonstrates abilities to both modify existing materials to support students’ learning of subject matter and to develop new materials _____ Uses a variety of assessment techniques (formal and informal) to collect data on student progress and can interpret these data to informal-setting, planning and instruction for all students _____ Can plan simultaneously for instruction, management and assessment to create an optimal learning environment for all students

Commendations: Recommendations: Goals and Strategies for Continued Growth:

Peabody College of Vanderbilt University Teacher Candidate Professional Growth Profile Student Teaching Team Conference Report

Teacher Candidate: __________________________ University Mentor: __________________________ Mentor Teacher: __________________________ School: __________________________ Grade/Subjects: __________________________

Conference 1 Conference 2 Date: Date:

Directions: Each team member will prepare for a team conference by considering the Teacher Candidate’s capabilities in the main areas of teaching as outlined on the professional growth profile. In preparing narrative comments consider the specific items listed within each category as a guide and considering both areas of strength and challenge demonstrated by the Teacher Candidate. Recommend a level of competency according to the indicators listed below. During the team conference, recommendations will be discussed and evidence shared in support of each recommendation. The team will reach a consensus rating and evidence will be noted. During the first team conference underline the agreed upon level of competency. During the second team conference circle the agreed upon level of competency. At the conclusion of each team conference, the teacher candidate should articulate goals for the future. The Mentors can offer suggestions and supports in relation to the goals identified. Additionally, all team members should review the written report and indicate that each team member agrees that the comments written on the form accurately reflect the ideas discussed in the team meeting, by writing their initials in the appropriate space in the chart above. Descriptive Criteria for Rating Teacher Candidates:

Not Evident: The candidates demonstrate limited and surface understanding of the content as exemplified in their performances as teachers. This level performance provides limited or no evidence that the candidate has knowledge of content, has the proficiencies to apply that knowledge to teaching, or can have a positive impact on the learning of all his/her students.

Emergent: The emergent level of performance provides evidence that teacher candidates’ proficiencies are developing with opportunities for ongoing practice. The teacher candidate has knowledge of content, has the proficiencies to apply that knowledge to teaching, or can have a positive impact on the learning of all his/her students. The candidates have enthusiasm and attitudes appropriate to successful teaching and are willing to create with their mentor teacher, university mentor, and other relevant professionals a plan to remove any weaknesses and raise their performance to a proficient level.

Proficient: The candidates demonstrate an accurate understanding of the content, as exemplified in their performances as teachers. The proficient performance provides clear evidence that the teacher candidate has knowledge of the content, has the proficiencies to apply that knowledge to teaching situations, has enthusiasm and attitudes appropriate to successful teaching, and can have a positive impact on the learning of all his/her students. The candidate is open to constructive feedback from mentor teachers, university mentors, and other members of the profession and modifies their teaching accordingly.

Accomplished: The candidates have an accurate and deep understanding of the content as exemplified in their performances as teachers. The level of accomplished performance provides clear, convincing, and consistent evidence that the teacher candidate has knowledge of the content, has the proficiencies to apply that knowledge to teaching situations, has enthusiasm and attitudes appropriate to successful teaching, and has a consistent positive impact on learning of all his/her students. The candidate is a reflective practitioner. He or she examines his or her practice and is open to constructive feedback from mentor teachers, university mentors, and other members of the profession.

Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching:

I. Candidates who are accomplished have a deep understanding of the content areas to be taught. They:

- possess a solid command of the subject matter - focus on the big ideas (core conceptual structures) and their interrelationships - make connections across subject matter knowledge - create opportunities to teach for interdisciplinary study

Team Conference 1 Team Conference 2 Evidence:

Competency Level (Underline at team conference 1 and Circle at team conference 2):

In Planning Not Evident Emergent Proficient Accomplished In Teaching Not Evident Emergent Proficient Accomplished II. Candidates who are accomplished make content accessible to students through an ability to:

- design and organization of subject matter knowledge - recognize landmarks in the development of student understanding - scaffold subject matter knowledge as related to students’ trajectories of development

Team Conference 1 Team Conference 2 Evidence: Competency Level (Underline at team conference 1 and Circle at team conference 2):

In Planning Not Evident Emergent Proficient Accomplished In Teaching Not Evident Emergent Proficient Accomplished

Understanding of Learners and Learning I. Candidates who are accomplished in planning as it reflects their understanding of learners and learning:

- plan for learners’ unique strengths, resources, goals and motivations - envision developmental learning trajectories and plan learning experiences that support students profess

along these trajectories - understand and draw appropriately on learning theory to support their investigations and analyses of

student learning and planning for instruction and - identify and seek to learn about students’ linguistic, social and cultural histories and repertoires


Not Evident Emergent Proficient Accomplished II. Candidates who are accomplished in implementing their plans as they reflect their understanding of learners and learning:

- enter into the learners’ thinking/reasoning as reflected in learners’ talk and work and use these insights into learners to inform planning and instruction

- focus on engaging students in understanding big ideas and - aim to utilize student strengths as resources for teaching and learning


Not Evident Emergent Proficient Accomplished

Conceptions of the Practice and Profession of Teaching I. Candidates recognize their role in supporting and/or constraining learning through the conditions and opportunities they make available to students. Candidate who are accomplished:

- demonstrate enthusiasm for teaching and learning - develop rapport with all students - encourage student attendance - support students in developing a positive self-identity - demonstrate respect for all cultures, learners and families through collaborative relationships with parents

and members of the broader community and - attend to individual differences, interests and capabilities as reflected in differentiated planning, teaching

and/or assessment Team Conference 1 Team Conference 2

Evidence: Competency Level (Underline at team conference 1 and Circle at team conference 2):


Conceptions of the Practice and Profession of Teaching II. Candidates recognize that teaching and learning are nested within a broader education system. Candidates who are accomplished:

- exhibit professional poise and confidence - demonstrate respect for their teaching colleagues - align teaching and learning practices with professional standards - comply with school, district, state and federal guidelines for professional conduct - adhere to the Professional Code of Ethics - cooperate with school staff and administration


In Planning Not Evident Emergent Proficient Accomplished In Teaching Not Evident Emergent Proficient Accomplished III. Candidates recognize that learning involves an ongoing critical analysis and revision of one’s practice and pursuit of other opportunities for learning and renewal, are central to one’s role as a teacher. Candidates who are accomplished:

- accept and act on constructive feedback - engage in self-assessment - initiate opportunities to extend their understanding of teaching and learning - displays resourcefulness and creativity in constructing a rich learning experience within the context of the

student teaching experienceTeam Conference 1 Team Conference 2

Evidence: Competency Level (Underline at team conference 1 and Circle at team conference 2):


Initial Repertoire in Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment I. Candidates use a carefully chosen set of research-based instructional and assessment strategies, curriculum materials, and classroom management techniques to support their work with all students. Candidates who are accomplished

- develop a full complement of planning, preparation, and teaching practice that reflects their solid command of subject matter knowledge for teaching and their ability to understand and learners and learning

- plan curricular and instructional tools based on their deeper function in supporting learning by matching tools and approach to a variety of learning goals and needs


Not Evident Emergent Proficient Accomplished II. Candidates demonstrate abilities to both modify existing materials to support students’ learning of subject matter and to develop new materials. Candidates possess skills to create modifications and accommodations for students who require them. Candidates who are accomplished:

- give clear sequences, directions, and/or explanations - implement effective questioning techniques - include appropriate wait time following questions - facilitate group discussion relevant to and supporting learning goals - monitor learners’ responses and adjust teaching accordingly



Initial Repertoire in Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment III. Candidates use a variety of assessment techniques (formal and informal) to collect data on student progress and can interpret these data to informal-setting, planning and instruction for all students. Candidates who are accomplished:

- use a variety of formal and informal assessment strategies to inform specific procedures for reteaching, if necessary, and to refine future lessons

- align assessment strategies with state and national standards - allow for alternative means of achieving learning goal


In Planning Not Evident Emergent Proficient Accomplished In Teaching Not Evident Emergent Proficient Accomplished IV. Candidates can plan simultaneously for instruction, management and assessment to create an optimal learning environment for all students. Candidates who are accomplished:

- create a classroom environment that optimizes learning activities - develop relationships with students that motivate and engage them in the learning - conduct instruction and maintains teaching momentum - manages student work as a measure of accountability



ACTION PLAN FOR SUSTAINING GROWTH

Strategies Available Resources and other Supports

Immediate Action

Long-term Goal

Student Teaching End of Placement Report

Teacher Candidate University Mentor Mentor Teacher School Grade/Subject Circle One: First Placement Second Placement

Use the following ratings: NE = Not yet evident E = Emergent P = Proficient A = Accomplished

SUBJECT MATTER KNOWLEDGE FOR TEACHING

Deep Understanding Makes Content Accessible to Students

UNDERSTANDING OF LEARNERS AND LEARNING Planning Reflects Understanding of Learners and Learning Implementation Reflects Understanding of Learners and Learning

CONCEPTIONS OF THE PRACTICE AND PROFESSION OF TEACHING Supports Learning through Opportunities Available to Students Situates Teaching and Learning within Broader Context Engages in On-going Critical Analysis of Own Practice

INITIAL REPERTOIRE IN CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION, MANAGEMENT AND ASSESSMENT Selects Research-Based Strategies Modification of Materials and Subject Matter for Students Uses Variety of Assessment Strategies Creates an Optimal Learning Environment Comments: I have read the completed Professional Growth Profile and have had the opportunity to discuss it with my University Mentor. ________________________________ ________________________________ Teacher Candidate Date University Mentor Date

Final Licensure Report Teacher Candidate University Mentor

Placement 1 Placement 2 Mentor Teacher School Grade Directions for the University Mentor. Review documentation from both student teaching placements, consider the challenges posed by each placement, the performance within each placement, as well as the development across placements. Provide a summative rating of the Teacher Candidate’s performance in relation to the 4 strands comprising Peabody’s conceptual framework NE = Not Yet Evident E = Emergent P = Proficient A = Accomplished Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching Understanding of Learners and Learning Conceptions of the Practice and Profession of Teaching Initial Repertoire in Curriculum, Instruction, Management and Assessment Use the space below to comment on the teacher candidate’s overall performance:

Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching Understanding Learning and Learning Conceptions of the Practice and Profession of Teaching Initial Repertoire in Curriculum, Instruction, Management, and Assessment

ASSESSMENT 4: STUDENT TEACHING EVALUATION Developmental Rubric

Professional Growth Profile Element: Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching Emergent - 1 Proficient - 2 Accomplished - 3

Dee

p U

nder

stan

ding

[4

c, 4

d]

Emergent candidates have accurate understanding of the content areas being taught. They focus on facts and skills with little connection to core conceptual structures. They may make superficial connections across content areas.

Proficient candidates have a deep understanding of the content areas being taught (4c). They seek to focus on big ideas but may not highlight connections across ideas or subject matter areas (4d). They attempt to create opportunities for interdisciplinary study (4d).

Accomplished candidates have a deep and flexible understanding of the content areas to be taught. They successfully focus on the big ideas, conceptual structures, and their inter-relationships. They make connections across subject matter and create opportunities to teach for interdisciplinary study.

Mak

es C

onte

nt A

cces

sibl

e

[1a,

1c,

4c,

4d]

Emergent candidates often teach content as it is presented in curricula with limited attempts to consider the accessibility of the content for students. They have limited knowledge of landmarks in the development of student understanding. They have difficulty scaffolding subject matter knowledge to support students’ trajectories of development.

Proficient candidates occasionally make content accessible to students through the ability to design and organize subject matter knowledge meaningfully (1a, 4c). They have knowledge of landmarks in the development of student understanding. (1c) They may be successful in scaffolding subject matter knowledge as related to students’ trajectories of development (1a, 1c, 4d).

Accomplished candidates consistently make content accessible to students through the ability to design and organize subject matter knowledge meaningfully. They recognize landmarks in the development of student understanding They are frequently successful in scaffolding subject matter knowledge as related to students’ trajectories of development.

Rating for Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching: /6

Professional Growth Profile Element: Learners and Learning Emergent - 1 Proficient - 2 Accomplished - 3

In P

lann

ing

[1a,

1b,

1c]

The planning of emergent candidates demonstrates a limited understanding of learners and learning in that the students are invisible in planning. Learning goals are not consistently mapped onto developmental learning trajectories and a link between the goals and learning activities is not always evident. They may be aware of learning theory but inconsistently use this knowledge to support or analyze student learning. They are aware of student’s linguistic, social, and cultural histories, but rarely apply this knowledge to their planning.

The planning of proficient candidates demonstrates an understanding of learners and learning in their effort to plan for group strengths, goals, and motivations (1a). They envision developmental learning trajectories and plan learning experiences supporting group progress along these trajectories (1a, 1c). With a focus on the group of learners they draw appropriately on learning theory to support and analyze student learning (1a). They actively learn about students’ linguistic, social, and cultural histories and repertoires but may not apply this knowledge to their planning (1b, 1c).

The planning of accomplished candidates’ reflects their understanding of learners and learning by planning for all learners’ unique strengths, resources, goals and motivations. They envision developmental learning trajectories and plan learning experiences that support individual and collective student progress along these trajectories. They understand and draw appropriately on learning theory to support their investigations and analyses of individual student learning. They actively learn about students’ linguistic, social and cultural histories and repertoires and regularly apply this knowledge to planning.

In T

each

ing

[ 1

a, 1

c, 3

b, 4

b, 4

d]

Emergent candidates implement their plans with an awareness of learners’ thinking and reasoning as reflected in student products. They make use of insights to evaluate learning, but tend not to use such information to shape future planning and instruction. Such candidates tend to focus on facts and skill development to engage student in the content. They focus on the group as a whole rather than individuals.

Proficient candidates implement their plans in ways that show attentiveness to learners’ thinking and reasoning as reflected in learners’ talk and work (1a, 1c, 4b, 4d). They make use of these insights to evaluate learning and occasionally use them to inform future planning and instruction. Such candidates attempt to engage students in exploring content (but not necessarily the big ideas) (1c, 4d). They recognize student strengths but may not utilized them as resources for teaching and learning (3b).

Accomplished candidates implement their plans by successfully entering into the learners’ thinking/reasoning as reflected in learners’ talk and work. In addition to using insight to evaluate learning, they make frequent use of them in informing future planning and instruction. Such candidates focus on engaging students in exploring and understanding big ideas. They recognize and utilize student strengths as resources for teaching and learning.

Rating for Learners and Learning: /6

Professional Growth Profile Element: Conceptions of the Practice and Profession of Teaching Emergent - 1 Proficient - 2 Accomplished - 3

Supp

orts

Lea

rnin

g th

roug

h O

ppor

tuni

ties

[1c,

2b,

4a,

4b,

4d]

Emergent candidates demonstrate interest in teaching. They build rapport with most students. They seek to engage students in learning tasks. They support students in developing a positive self-identity and generally demonstrate respect for children. They are aware of individual difference, but don’t always plan with these differences in mind.

Proficient candidates demonstrate an enthusiasm for teaching. They establish rapport with students (1c, 4a). They encourage student engagement in learning tasks (1c, 4d). They support students in developing a positive self-identity and demonstrate respect for children and families (2b, 4b). They attend to individual differences in planning (4d).

Accomplished candidates are enthusiastic about teaching & learning. This enthusiasm helps them establish rapport with all students. They encourage student motivation, engagement, and perseverance with learning tasks. They support students in developing a positive self-identity and demonstrate respect for all cultures, learners and families through collaborative relationships with parents and members of the broader community. They thoughtfully and effectively attend to individual differences, interests and capabilities as reflected in differentiated planning, teaching and/or assessment.

Situ

ates

Tea

chin

g w

ithin

Bro

ader

Sys

tem

[4

c, 5

a, 5

b, 5

d]

Emergent candidates often appear unsure or self-conscious in talking on professional demands within the classroom. They may have difficulty collaborating appropriately with their mentor. Candidates make an effort to know other professionals at the site, but tend not to interact with them professionally during the placement. Teaching and learning practices infrequently align with professional standards or the candidate seems unaware of professional standards that guide the work of teachers. Candidates seem unaware of school, district, state and other policies that should guide their professional conduct.

Proficient candidates are usually confident and poised when handling professional demands in classroom situations (5b). They collaborate with their field mentor, but may be likely to wait for direction from the mentor rather than taking initiative (5a). Interaction with other school staff and administration is limited but professional in nature and usually initiated by the mentor teacher (5a). Teaching and learning practices are generally aligned with professional standards although such alignment might be implicit or as an outcome of “following” the mentors lead (4c, 5b). They rely on their mentors directives regarding school and district policies (5b, 5d).

Candidates who are accomplished exhibit professional poise and confidence in all situations. They collaborate easily and appropriately with their field mentor and easily acts on their own initiative. They easily and appropriately collaborate with a range of professionals in the setting. Teaching and learning practices are routinely aligned with professional standards and they are explicitly aware of this alignment. They make themselves aware of and comply with school, district, state and federal guidelines for professional conduct.

Cri

tical

Ana

lysi

s [5

a, 5

b, 5

c, 5

d]

Emergent candidates may be resistant to constructive feedback as demonstrated in body language, failure to implement suggestions, or rationalizing performance without taking ownership. Reflection may focus on surface and irrelevant aspects of practice without a clear emphasis on self-assessment of their own practice. Their critique of the site and mentor is often judgmental, lacking appropriate perspective reflecting an understanding of different professional opinions and how those opinions are shaped by the context.

Proficient candidates are open to constructive feedback when it is given and they seek to incorporate this feedback into their practice (5c). They regularly reflect, but the focus may not routinely be on their own self-assessment (5c, 5d). Their critique of their field site and mentor is typically professional, but may lack perspective enabling them to frame their critique within the particulars of the context (5a, 5b).

Accomplished candidates actively seek, accept, and act on constructive feedback. They engage in continual self-assessment and initiate opportunities to extend their understanding of teaching and learning. Their critique of their field site and mentor is professional and situated in the particulars of the context.

Rating for Conceptions of the Practice: /9

Professional Growth Profile Element: Initial Repertoire in Curriculum, Instruction, Management, and Assessment Emergent - 1 Proficient - 2 Accomplished - 3

Res

earc

h-B

ased

Str

ateg

ies

[1c,

3a,

3c,

4c,

4d]

Emergent candidates primarily use a limited range of planning, preparation, and teaching strategies. Strategies are often selected for reasons other than those emerging from knowledge of subject matter or an understanding of learners and learning – for example familiarity, comfort, and control. Justifications for selecting particular strategies are global and not tied to learning goals. They make use of a limited range of curricular and instructional tools based more on availability rather than alignment with goals or attention to varied learning needs.

Proficient candidates develop a complement of planning, preparation, and teaching strategies (4d). However, these practices do not necessarily emerge from or may not be explicitly linked to their subject matter knowledge or an understanding of learners and learning (1c, 4c). Their justification for selecting particular strategies may not be consistently grounded in learning goals (3a). They make use of a wide range of curricular and instructional tools with limited attention to matching strategies with a range of learning goals and needs (1c, 3c, 4d).

Accomplished candidates develop a robust and flexible set of planning, preparation, and teaching strategies. These practices reflect their solid command of subject matter knowledge for teaching and their ability to understand and learners and learning. They articulate thoughtful justifications for selecting strategies in support of their learning goals. They plan making use of curricular and instructional tools based on their deeper function in supporting learning by matching tools and approach to a variety of learning goals and needs.

Abi

lity

to M

odify

Mat

eria

ls

1 c, 3

b, 4

d, 5

c]

Emergent candidates are likely to use available curricular materials as presented. They may develop their own materials (e.g., data sheets, journal prompts) for lessons without substantially changing the published lesson. Modifications are often stylistic and not made with a focus on learning goals or outcomes or a particular learning need. Emergent candidates rely heavily on the prepared learning plan in the act of teaching. They are aware of modifications that need to be made from one lesson to the next, but may have difficulty “pulling” this realization through to the next lesson.

Proficient candidates are able to modify existing curricular materials and develop new materials to create thoughtful and innovative learning experiences (1c, 4d). Modifications are sometimes made with the intent of supporting students’ learning of particular subject matter or the attainment of stated learning goals (3b). Proficient candidates rely on written learning plans, but enact them with greater flexibility, able to respond group or individual challenges, but probably not both (1c). They are capable of making modifications from one lesson to the next and are beginning to make modifications in the act of teaching (5c).

Accomplished candidates show an ability to both modify existing materials and to develop new materials to support students’ learning of subject matter. Modifications tend to be made to explicitly address particular learning goals. They make flexible use of the quality and purposefully selected curricular tools to adapt to meet both individual and group learning needs. They possess skills to create modifications for students who require them – in advance of teaching, but also often in the act of teaching.

Var

iety

of A

sses

smen

t [3

a, 3

b, 3

c]

Emergent candidates use a limited range of formal or informal assessment strategies and are likely to use the same strategies repeatedly. They seek to use both formative and summative assessments but often misalign the purpose of these forms of assessment with what is being evaluated. They can often identify how they intend to assess student understanding but they have not fully conceptualized effective ways of recording assessment information, making it difficult to use the information in ways that can inform future teaching. Assessment strategies may not fully align with instructional goals and learning activities. Assessments used typically have a very limited number of ways (often predetermined) for being “correct.”

Proficient candidates who use a range of formal and informal assessment strategies and may be likely to emphasize one type of assessment over others (3b). They make appropriate use of both formative and summative assessment, but may not link particular formative and summative assessment strategies together in relation to particular learning goals (3a). They have likely developed effective ways of recording certain kinds of assessment information, but may still be figuring out efficient ways of organizing and using other types of assessment information to inform teaching (3c). Assessment strategies are most likely to be aligned at the level of “activity” rather than state and national standards (3b). While a variety of assessment strategies are used, individual assessments might have a primary means for achieving stated learning goals and may not be attentive to a variety of learning needs (3a).

Accomplished candidates use a variety of formal and informal assessment strategies and do so in a balanced manner with attention to aligning assessment with learning goals. They use assessment information appropriately to inform future teaching (formative assessment) and to compare student performance against stated learning outcomes (summative). They have developed effective and efficient ways of documenting, organizing, and using a wide range of assessment information, to support student learning. They explicitly align assessment strategies with state and national standards. They use assessment strategies and tools that allow for alternative means of achieving stated learning goals and support a variety of learning needs.

Cre

ates

Opt

imal

Lea

rnin

g [1

c, 3

b, 3

c, 4

a, 4

b, 4

d]

Emergent candidates know the importance of: developing well planned and sequenced learning experiences, providing clear directions and/or explanations; implementing effective questioning techniques, including appropriate wait time; facilitating group discussion relevant to and supporting learning goals, etc. but they are inconsistent in their attempts to put these principles into practice and when they do they do so with inconsistent effectiveness. Their actions and the learning environment created may lack internal consistency hindering the development of relationships that motivate and engage students in learning. They use a limited set of organizational and management strategies that frequently limits their ability to maintain teaching momentum. Feedback provided to students focuses on how well they are doing rather than providing feedback that gives insight and support to continued growth and learning.

Proficient candidates create classroom environments that seek to optimize learning activities through efforts to: develop well planned and sequenced learning experiences, provide clear directions and/or explanations; implement effective questioning techniques, including appropriate wait time; facilitate group discussion relevant to and supporting learning goals, etc., their regular attempts to do so are characterized by some but intermittent effectiveness (1c, 4a, 4b, 4d). Their actions and the learning environment created generally support the development of relationships with students that motivate and engage them in learning (1c, 4a, 4d). They utilize a range of organization and management strategies that typically enables them to conduct instruction and maintain teaching momentum to support learning (4d). They provide feedback to students geared to let them know how they are doing and to further support student learning (3b, 3c).

Accomplished candidates create classroom environments that optimize learning activities through the regular and effective use of the following: developing well planned and sequenced learning experiences, providing clear directions and/or explanations; implementing effective questioning techniques, including appropriate wait time; facilitating group discussion relevant to and supporting learning goals, etc.. Their actions and the learning environment created support the development of relationships with students that motivate and engage them in meaningful learning. They utilize a wide range of organization and management strategies that enables them to conduct instruction and maintain teaching momentum to support learning. They manage student work and provide timely and critical feedback that reinforces student motivation to take ownership in their learning.

Rating for Initial Repertoire: /12

OVERALL RATING: /33 Scoring: 0-6 Not Yet Evident 7-15 Emergent 16-18 Emergent moving toward Proficiency 19-26 Proficient 27-29 Proficient moving toward Accomplishment 30-33 Accomplished

ASSESSMENT 4: STUDENT TEACHING EVALUATION Data Tables

Table 4a: Overall Performance

Academic Year

Emergent Moving to Proficiency


Accomplished

Summative (N=13)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

13 (100%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

2006/2007 (N=10)

0 0 10 0 0

2007/2008 (N=3)*

0 0 3 0 0

2008/2009 Table 4b: Performance on Key Elements Linked to NAEYC Standards

Key Element Academic Year Emergent Proficient Accomplished Summative

(N=13) 0

(0%) 12

(92%) 1

(8%) 06/07

(N = 10) 0 9 1

07/08 (N=3)*

0 3 0

Subject Matter Knowledge for

Teaching

[1a, 1c, 4c, 4d]

08/09 Summative

(N=13) 0

(0%) 13

(100%) 0

(0%) 06/07

(N = 10) 0 10 0

07/08 (N=3)*

0 3 0

Learners and Learning

[1a, 1b, 1c, 3b,

4b, 4d]

08/09 Summative

(N=13) 0

(0%) 7

(54%) 6

(46%) 06/07

(N = 10) 0 5 5

07/08 (N=3)*

0 2 1

Conceptions of the Practice and

Profession of Teaching

[1c, 2b, 4b, 4c, 4d, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d]

08/09 Summative

(N=13) 0

(0%) 13

(100%) 0

(0%) 06/07

(N = 10) 0 10 0

07/08 (N=3)*

0 3 0

Initial Repertoire in Curriculum,

Instruction, Management and

Assessment [1c, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a,

4b, 4d, 5c]

08/09 *Through Fall 2007

The number of “data points” for the next 4 tables is greater than the number of student teachers, as these tables reflect performance at the conclusion of each student teaching placement. Most, but not all, ECE teacher candidates complete two ECE placements. Those seeking a second endorsement in special education complete one ECE placement and the second is in an appropriate special education context. Table 4c Performance related to Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching

Element AY Emergent Proficient Accomplished Total

(N=25) 5

(20%) 18

(72%) 2

(8%) 06/07

(N=19) 2 16 1

07/08 (N=6)

3 2 1

Deep Understanding of Content [4c, 4d]

08/09

Total (N=25)

3 (12%)

18 (72%)

4 (16%)

06/07 (N=19)

1 14 4

07/08 (N=6)

2 4 0

Makes content accessible to students [1a, 1c, 4c, 4d]

08/09

Table 4d Performance related to Understanding of Learners and Learning


(N=25) 2

(8%) 19

(76%) 4

(16%) 06/07

(N=19) 0 15 4

07/08 (N=6)

2 4 0

Planning reflects understanding of learners and learning [1a, 1b, 1c]

08/09

Total (N=25)

3 (12%)

19 (76%)

3 (12%)

06/07 (N=19)

1 15 3

07/08 (N=6)

2 4 0

Implementation reflects understanding of learners & learning [1a, 1c, 3b, 4b, 4d]

08/09

Table 4e Performance related to Conceptions of the Practice and Profession of Teaching Element AY Emergent Proficient Accomplished

Total (N=25)

0 (0%)

16 (64%)

9 (36%)

06/07 (N=19)

0 12 7

07/08 (N=6)

0 4 2

Supports learning through opportunities available to students [1c, 2b, 4a, 4b, 4d]

08/09

Total (N=25)

0 (0%)

14 (56%)

11 (44%)

06/07 (N=19)

0 11 8

07/08 (N=6)

0 3 3

Situates teaching and learning within broader context [4c, 5a, 5b, 5d]

08/09

Total (N=25)

0 (0%)

14 (56%)

11 (44%)

06/07 (N=19)

0 11 8

07/08 (N=6)

0 3 3

Engages in on-going critical analysis of own practice [5a, 5c]

08/09

Table 4f Performance related to Initial Repertoire in Curriculum, Instruction, Management, and Assessment


(N=25) 2

(8%) 23

(92%) 0

(0%) 06/07

(N=19) 2 17 0

07/08 (N=6)

0 6 0

Selects research based strategies [1c, 3a, 3c, 4d]

08/09

Total (N=25)

2 (8%)

22 (88%)

1 (4%)

06/07 (N=19)

2 16 1

07/08 (N=6)

0 6 0

Modification of materials and subject matter for students [1c, 3b, 4d, 5c]

08/09

Total (N=25)

8 (32%)

16 (64%)

1 (4%)

06/07 (N=19)

4 15 0

07/08 (N=6)

4 1 1

Uses a variety of assessment strategies [3a, 3b, 3c]

08/09

Total (N=25)

3 (12%)

19 (76%)

3 (12%)

06/07 (N=19)

1 15 3

07/08 (N=6)

2 4 0

Creates an optimal learning environment [1c, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4b, 4d]

08/09

NE = Not Evident E= Emergent P = Proficient A = Accomplished

Professional Growth Profile






Initial Repertoire in Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment




SUBJECT MATTER KNOWLEDGE FOR TEACHING

UNDERSTANDING OF LEARNERS AND LEARNING

CONCEPTIONS OF THE PRACTICE AND PROFESSION OF TEACHING

INITIAL REPERTOIRE IN CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION, MANAGEMENT AND ASSESSMENT

Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching

ASSESSMENT 4.pdf

SECTION IV ASSESSMENT 7: ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT MEETING STANDARDS


APPLIED LITERACY PROJECT Description of assessment The Applied Literacy Project is a program assessment embedded within a required course titled Language and Literacy Learning in Young Children (EDUC 2115) taken by early childhood teacher candidates in the fall of their sophomore year. This program assessment is a semester long course assignment designed to enable teacher candidates to internalize, enact, and reflect upon the theories of literacy development and instructional practices to support the literacy development of young children. The comprehensive nature of the project requires a level of synthesis and analysis as teacher candidates make sense of intersections between the context, the child, their planning and teaching, their development as professionals, and the child’s learning as a result of the educational interactions between the teacher candidate and the preschool child they work with. Given the placement of this program assessment, at a relatively early stage of the teacher preparation program, we expect performance to be at an emergent to an emergent moving toward proficient level relate

program report for the initial preparation of early ... › docs › ncate › early... · program...

Documents