program report for the initial preparation of early ... · this report covers two initial teacher...

Program Report for the Initial Preparation of Early Childhood TeachersNational Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC)

2010 Standards - Option A

NOTE: This form uses the NAEYC standards approved by NCATE in 2010. Programs have the option to use either the 2002 or 2010 programs submitting reports through Spring 2012. Beginning in Fall 2012 ALL programs must use the new standards. NATIONAL COUNCIL

FOR ACCREDITATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION

COVER SHEET

1. Institution NameNational Louis University

2. StateIllinois

3. Date submitted

MM DD YYYY

09 / 14 / 2016

4. Report Preparer's Information:

Name of Preparer:

Xiaoli Wen

Phone: Ext.

( ) -312 261 3160

E-mail:

[email protected]

5. NCATE Coordinator's Information:

Name:

Arlene BorthwickPhone: Ext.

( ) -847 947 5025

E-mail:

[email protected]

6. Name of institution's programEarly Childhood Education

7. NCATE CategoryEarly Childhood Education-First Teaching License

8. Grade levels(1) for which candidates are being prepared

(1) e.g. Birth to Grade 3, P-3

Birth to Grade 3

9. Program TypeFirst Teaching License

10. Degree or award levelBaccalaureatePost Baccalaureate

Conf

ident

ial

This program is designed for those who do not have a Professional Educator License. It provides candidates with a

comprehensive background for working with younger children in a variety of settings. Completion of this degree

program leads to licensure by entitlement for a Professional Educator License endorsed for early childhood and

self-contained general education (age 0 to grade 3).

In addition to National College of Education Graduate Admissions Requirements, applicants must:

Pass the Test of Academic Proficiency (TAP) or ISBE approved alternative

Program Details:

Requires 44 SH for completion

Requires student teaching

Required Courses

MAT Early Childhood Education Core - 6 SH

ECE 504 Human Development: Infancy and Childhood 3

ECE 523 Historical and Philosophical Foundations of Early Childhood

Education3

Program Requirements - 38 SH

CIL 531 Cross Cultural Education 3

ECE 502 Quality Child Care for Infants and Toddlers 3

ECE 503 Teaching & Learning in Early Childhood Settings:Language Arts,

Social Studies, Art, Music & Movement3

ECE 507 Teaching and Learning in ECE Settings: Science and Math 3

ECE 510 Child, Family and Community 3

ECE 580 Internship in Early Childhood Education Primary Setting 3

ECE 589 Internship in Early Childhood Education Preprimary Setting 3

ECE 590 Student Teaching 5

ESR 504 Assessment and Curriculum Differentiation in Early Childhood

Settings3

RLL 535 Foundations of Emergent Literacy 3

RLL 537 Early Literacy Methods PreK-3 3

SPE 500 Introduction to and Methods of Teaching Students with Disabilities 3

Note: ECE 590 has specific enrollment requirements. See below for details.

Early Childhood Education Student Teaching Enrollment Requirements

Admission to and continuance in student teaching are contingent on the following actions.

Candidates must:

Be accepted into the graduate program of National College of Education

File, by the designated deadline, the application form for student teaching

Submit to their advisor a report of a TB test taken within 90 days of the student teaching placement, results

of criminal background check and acknowledgement of Mandated Reporter status form

Turn in a signed log of all the pre-clinical hours specified in their pre-clinical hours required for the program

Pass the Early Childhood Content Test (107) before student teaching

Complete all of their licensure courses except for ECE 590 (Student Teaching)

Pass all methods courses at National Louis University with a grade no lower than a "B"

Participate in faculty assessment and receive approval of his or her portfolio (Livetext)

Provide evidence of emotional stability, adequate personality adjustment and competency as indicated by

licensure coursework and departmental assessments

For more information about this program, visit http://www.nl.edu/academics

/educationmastersadvanceded/curriculumandinstruction/

National Louis University - Early Childhood Education, M.A.T. (Tradi... http://nl.smartcatalogiq.com/en/Current/Undergraduate-and-Graduate-...

1 of 1 6/28/2016 12:06 AM

ECE MAT_Program of Study.pdf

The Early Childhood Education program is designed for those interested in teaching children in a pre-kindergarten

environment through age eight. Successful completion of the program enables students in Illinois to apply for a

Professional Educator License, endorsed for early childhood and self-contained general education (age 0 to grade 3).

Special Admissions Requirements:

Admission to the Early Childhood Education program is a two step process. Students must first be admitted to

National Louis University.

Applicants to the Early Childhood Education program must:

Pass the Test of Academic Proficiency (TAP) or ISBE approved alternative

Have completed all General Education courses except GEN 103, the Undergraduate Core and all

Foundational courses

Have a GPA of 2.5 or better on all previous coursework, with a grade of C or better in all courses

Have completed 70 pre-clinical observation hours

Program Details:

Requires 180 QH, including 61 QH of General Education, for completion

60 QH of coursework must be completed at NLU

Credit by examination is accepted for general education and elective credit

The Professional Education Sequence and ELL courses must be taken at NLU

A minimum grade of C or better in all courses in the program is required

A minimum GPA of 2.5 is required

Students must be admitted to NCE before taking the Professional Sequence and ELL Endorsement

Courses

Requires student teaching

Requires practicum

Requires observation hours

Requires the following courses to be completed within 6 years of degree completion: ECE 345, RLL 330,

ECE 337, ECE 351, ECE 350, ECE 324, RLL 478, MHE 480A, CIS 480A, SCE 480A, ECE 451, ECE 450,

and ECE 470

Required Courses

Student Success Seminar- 5 QH

GEN 103 Student Success Seminar 5

Communications- 15 QH

LAE 101 English Composition I 5

LAE 102 English Composition II 5

LAE 202 Effective Speaking 5

Humanities- 5 QH

RLL 220 Childrens Literature and the Literacy Learning Environment 5

Note: Students transferring credit from other institutions or applying coursework previously completed at NLU may

only use a course in Childrens Literature substantially equivalent to the National Louis Universitys course.

Fine Arts- 5 QH

LAA 101 Art Appreciation I 2

LAA 102 Art Appreciation II 3

Note: Students transferring coursework from other institutions or applying coursework previously completed at

NLU may use other coursework in Introductory Art, Music, or Theater including any Fine Arts History or

Appreciation. Studio Arts and Performance courses cannot be used to fulfill this requirement.

National Louis University - Early Childhood Education, B.A. http://nl.smartcatalogiq.com/en/current/undergraduate-and-graduate-ca...

1 of 3 6/28/2016 12:03 AM

Quantitative Reasoning- 10 QH

LAM 112 Math Content for Teachers I 5

LAM 213 Math Content for Teachers II 5

Physical and Life Sciences- 5 QH

One course must have a lab.

LAN 110 General Biology 5

or

LAN 150 Survey of Physical Science 5

LAN 110 Note: Students transferring coursework from other institutions or applying coursework previously completed

at NLU may use other coursework in Life Science in lieu of LAN 110.


at NLU may use other coursework in General Chemistry, Chemistry and Society, General Physics, Physics and

Society, or Earth Science (which covers at least four areas of physical science) in lieu of LAN 150.

Social Sciences- 10 QH

LAS 118 Introduction to Politics and U.S. Government 5

and

LAS 203 Survey of U.S. History 5

Notes: Students transferring coursework from other institutions or applying coursework previously completed at NLU

may use other coursework in Politics or Government and coursework in U.S. History.

Behavioral Science- 5 QH

LAP 100 General Psychology 5

Additional General Education Requirements - 5 QH

LAN 110 General Biology 5

or

LAN 150 Survey of Physical Science 5


at NLU may use other coursework in Life Science in lieu of LAN 110.


at NLU may use other coursework in General Chemistry, Chemistry and Society, General Physics, Physics and

Society, or Earth Science (which covers at least four areas of physical science) in lieu of LAN 150.

Undergraduate Core - 16 QH

ECE 210 History and Philosophy of Education 3

EPS 300 Educational Psychology: Theory in Classroom Practice 5

SPE 300 Introduction to Special Education and Methods of Teaching

Students with Disabilities5

TIE 300 Introduction to Technology in the Classroom 3

Foundational Coursework - 12 QH

ECE 205 Observation and Assessment: Infants, Toddlers, and Two Year Olds 4

ECE 215 Speech and Language Development 3

ECE 220 Child, Family, and Community 5

Professional Sequence - 55 QH

CIS 480A Methods of Teaching Social Studies 3

ECE 324 Integrated Preprimary Methodology in Early Childhood Education 5

ECE 337 Ethics and Professionalism in Early Childhood Education 5

ECE 345 Curriculum, Differentiation, and Assessment 5

ECE 350 Early Childhood Education: Pre-Primary Practicum Field Experience 2

ECE 351 Early Childhood Education: Pre-Primary Practicum Seminar 3

ECE 450 Early Childhood Education Primary Practicum Field Experience 2

ECE 451 Early Childhood Education Primary Practicum Seminar 3

ECE 470 Early Childhood Education: Student Teaching 12 TO 14

MHE 480A Methods of Teaching Mathematics 4

RLL 330 Foundations of Emergent Literacy 5

RLL 478 Literacy Methods I 3

SCE 480A Methods of Teaching Science 3

Note: Application to participate in ECE 470 must be made two quarters prior to the quarter of the student teaching

experience. ECE 470 must be taken for 12 QH.


2 of 3 6/28/2016 12:03 AM

ELL Endorsement Courses - 30 QH

CIL 300 Foundations of ESL and Bilingual Education 5

CIL 305 Methods and Materials for Teaching English as a Second Language 5

CIL 306 Methods and Materials for Teaching Bilingual Education 5

CIL 310 Assessment of ESL and Bilingual Education Students 5

CIL 312 Reading in a New Language: Linguistic Considerations 5

CIL 331 Cross Cultural Education 5

Note: 100 pre-clinical hours are required in ELL.

Electives - 2 QH

Choose elective courses to meet the minimum degree requirement of 180 QH

Early Childhood Education Student Teaching Enrollment Requirements

Admission to and continuance in student teaching are contingent on the following actions.

Candidates must:

Be accepted into the National College of Education

File, by the designated deadline, the application form for student teaching

Submit to their advisor a report of a TB test taken within 90 days of the student teaching placement, results

of criminal background check and acknowledgement of Mandated Reporter status form

Turn in a signed log of all the pre-clinical hours specified in their pre-clinical hours required for the program

Pass the Early Childhood Content Test (107) before student teaching

Complete all of their licensure courses except for ECE 470 (Student Teaching)

Pass all methods courses at National Louis University with a grade no lower than a B

Participate in faculty assessment and receive approval of his or her portfolio (Livetext)

Provide evidence of emotional stability, adequate personality adjustment and competency as indicated by

licensure coursework and departmental assessments

For more information about this program, visit http://www.nl.edu/academics/educationbachelors

/baearlychildhoodeducation/


3 of 3 6/28/2016 12:03 AM

Early Childhood Education BA Program of Study

Assessment #5: Lesson Plan Rubric

a. Description of the assessment and its use in the program:

Impact on student learning is assessed through evaluation of candidates lesson plans during practicum and student teaching. The lesson plan is the project that candidates designed and implemented with children in actual classrooms during their field practice. When candidates design their lesson, they will need to specify the teaching goal, and design a pre-assessment tool to measure childrens current knowledge (what they know and what they do not know in a specific topic). Based on the pre-assessment data, candidates refine their teaching goals, and eventually implement the lesson. When they are done with the implementation, candidates need to use the same assessment tool to perform a post-assessment. Childrens growth in pre- and post-assessments is used as the evidence of candidates impact on child learning.

The lesson evaluation includes several components, such as objectives, implementation, differentiation, child assessment, data collection, and analysis of impact on child learning. We specifically looked at candidates strategies in pre-assessing child performance, planning for instruction, and how they perform post-assessment, process data, and analyze impacts on child outcomes.

The evaluation rubric includes 14 items and each item is rated on a 5-point scale (1= below standard; 3=satisfactory; 5=excellent). Data were collected from candidates and university supervisors to establish the inter-rater reliability of the measure.

Starting from spring of 2015, we revised the lesson plan rubric to transition to the 3-point rubric scale adopted college wide (1=unsatisfactory; 2 =basic; 3=proficient). The new lesson plan is similar to the old template, but adds on components that are specifically aligned with edTPA requirement, such as multi-modality of learning, childrens engagement, and childrens use of feedback. This new lesson plan rubric is used throughout program courses (e.g., methods and practicum courses) to prepare students to be ready for edTPA assessment by student teaching, because the assessment has been adopted by the State of Illinois as a new teaching licensure requirement. This new rubric is similar to the old rubric in emphasizing assessment of teacher candidates impact on childrens learning.

Data from both OLD and NEW templates are presented. The internal consistency reliabilities for the old and new rubric were established at = .70 and .85, respectively.

The evaluation is used by the supervisors and mentor teachers to provide feedback to candidates. For candidates who received low ratings on lesson evaluation, they met with supervisors and mentor teachers to discuss the issues, identify the components that need to be revised, and re-implemented the lesson when it is necessary.

b. Alignment with SPA and NAEYC standards:

This assessment is aligned with the following standards:

SPA standard: Impact on student learning

NAEYC standard 2: Building family and community relationships

NAEYC standard 3: Observing, documenting, and assessing to support young children and families

NAEYC standard 4: Using developmentally effective approaches to connect with children and families

NAEYC standard 5: Using content knowledge to build meaningful curriculum

This assessment captures candidates content knowledge in building curriculum, their skills in developing effective teaching approaches to support childrens learning, their connection with childrens family background and parents through curriculum design and activity extension, and their use of assessment to inform teaching. Therefore, the assessment is well aligned with NAEYC standards of 2, 3, 4, and 5.

c & d . Analysis of data findings and evidence for meeting standards:

The data showed that for the BA and MAT programs, all ratings were above 3 or 4 out of 5 points of the old rubric or above 2 points out of the 3 points of the new rubric, suggesting satisfactory performance of the candidates in impacting childrens learning. Candidates did especially well in articulating the curriculum objectives, objectives in alignment with state standards, and specific curriculum implementations (e.g., materials, resources, main activities, and closing).

Although ratings were at a satisfactory level, the data indicated that teacher candidates had some challenges in designing pre-assessment strategies, specifying lesson assessment, differentiation, analysis of impact on learning, and defining next steps, ideas for future revisions to impact student learning (as shown in the old rubric data), and using the assessment data to provide feedback for children (as shown in the new rubric data). This finding is important in guiding our programs curriculum refinement. More discussions on program curriculum changes can be found in the next section of this report.

Lesson Plan Rubric -- OLD RUBRIC

Student Name:

Date:

Supervisor Name:

Name of Lesson:

Prepared by:

(Student or Supervisor)

Lesson Number:

(Please include comments under each section)

Items Being Assessed

Not Evident

0

Below Standard

1

Satisfactory

3

Excellent

5

Introduction

Did not include any information in the introduction

Left out one or two areas of the introduction

All areas of the intro are completed

All areas of the introduction are completed and developmentally appropriate

Score

Learning Objectives

Essential questions/learning objectives are missing

Essential question/learning objectives are not clearly stated

Essential questions/learning objectives are clearly stated

Essential questions/learning objectives are clearly stated and differentiated

Score

State Standards

No evidence of state standards are included in the lesson

State standards are inappropriate for the age group and state standards are not aligned with learning objectives

State standards are appropriate for the age group, but are not aligned with learning objectives

Identifies age appropriate state standards and aligns with learning objectives

Score

Comments:


Not Evident

0

Below Standard

1

Satisfactory

3

Excellent

5

Pre-Assessment Strategies

Evidence of pre-assessment strategies is missing

Pre-assessment strategies are not clearly stated

*Clearly identifies the knowledge and skills needed to participate in the lesson

*Pre-assessment strategy is explained clearly

*Modifications are clearly explained for those students lacking prior knowledge and skills

*Clearly identifies the knowledge and skills needed to participate in the lesson

*Pre-assessment strategy is explained clearly

*Modifications are clearly explained for those students lacking prior knowledge and skills

*An example of the pre-assessment tool is included with the plan

Score

Lesson Assessment

Evidence of an assessment strategy is missing

The assessment strategy is disconnected from the learning objectives

*The assessment strategy is explained clearly

*The assessment strategy correlates directly to the learning objectives

*The assessment strategy is explained clearly

*The assessment strategy correlates directly to the learning objectives

*An example of the assessment tool is included with the plan

Score

Comments:


Not Evident

0

Below Standard

1

Satisfactory

3

Excellent

5

Materials and Resources (Including Technology)

Materials for all parts of the lesson are missing

Materials for one or two parts of the lesson are missing

*Specific materials for all parts of the lesson are listed and directly relate to the learning objectives

*Materials and resources are age appropriate

*Specific materials for all parts of the lesson are listed and directly relate to the learning objectives

*Materials and resources are age appropriate

*The components and preparation of the learning environment are clearly described

Score

Differentiation

Modifications to meet the needs of various learners are not identified

Modifications to meet the needs of various learners are unclear

Modifications and strategies to meet the needs of various learners are clearly identified

*Modifications and strategies to meet the needs of various learners are clearly identified

*Materials and resources needed to support the needs of individual students are included

Score

Comments:


Not Evident

0

Below Standard

1

Satisfactory

3

Excellent

5

Anticipatory Set

Anticipatory set is missing

Anticipatory set is not focused or connected to prior knowledge

Anticipatory set:

*connects to prior knowledge

*focuses attention on the lesson

Anticipatory set:

*connects to prior knowledge

*focuses attention on the lesson

*engages learners in the content in a creative and age appropriate way

Score

Main Activity

Teaching strategies are missing

Teaching strategies are unclear and disconnected from the learning objectives

Teaching strategies are explained in detail and relate directly to the learning objectives

*Teaching strategies are explained in detail and relate directly to the learning objectives

*Teaching strategies engage the learners in the content in a creative and age appropriate way

Score

Closing

Closing is not included

Closing is unclear

Closing summarizes the lesson and connects to future learning

*Closing summarizes the lesson and connects to future learning

*Closing includes directions for clean up and transition

Score

Extended Experiences and/or Home-School Connections

Extended experiences or home-school connections are not included

Extended experiences or home-school experiences are not clearly stated

Extended experience or home school connection is summarized and connects to the lesson

*Extended experience or home school connection is summarized and connects to the lesson *Connects to future learning

Score

Comments:


Not Evident

0

Below Standard

1

Satisfactory

3

Excellent

5

Analysis of Pre-Assessment

Analysis of pre-assessment is missing.

Analysis of pre-assessment is not clear.

The reflection and analysis includes a discussion of how the pre-assessment connected to the learning objectives.

* The reflection and analysis includes a discussion of how the pre-assessment connected to the learning objectives

*The reflection and analysis highlights strengths and weaknesses of the pre-assessment.

Score

Comments:


Not Evident

0

Below Standard

1

Satisfactory

3

Excellent

5

Assessment Analysis(Interpretation of Assessment Data) for Impact on Student Learning

Analysis of assessment is missing.

Analysis of assessment is not clear.

*The reflection and analysis includes a discussion of how the assessment connected to the learning objectives

*The reflection includes a discussion of the impact on learning for all students based on the analysis of the data.

* The reflection and analysis includes a discussion of how the assessment connected to the learning objectives

* The reflection includes a discussion of the impact on learning for all students based on the analysis of the data.

*The reflection and analysis highlights strengths and weaknesses of the assessment.

Score

Comments:


Not Evident

0

Below Standard

1

Satisfactory

3

Excellent

5

Next Steps and Ideas for Future Revisions to Impact Student Learning (This may include changing upcoming lessons)

Next steps and ideas for future revisions to impact student learning are missing.

Next steps and ideas for future revisions to impact student learning are not clear.

*The next steps and ideas for future revisions demonstrate proof of impact on student learning.

*The next steps and ideas for future revisions demonstrate proof of impact on student learning.

*Discussion includes a reflection on the impact of the differentiation strategies.

Score

Comments:

Lesson Plan Rubric NEW RUBRIC

Student Name:

________________________________

Implementation Date:

___________________________

Evaluated by:

________________________________

Name of Lesson:

___________________________

Lesson Components

(enter score in this row)

Unsatisfactory (1)

Basic (2)

Proficient (3)

Context of the lesson

score_____________

No acknowledgement of childrens developmental context, status, and how this lesson fits the ongoing curriculum.

Demonstrates very basic understanding of the childrens developmental context, status, and the lesson is related to the ongoing curriculum at some level.

Demonstrates sufficient knowledge of target childrens developmental context, status, and the lesson well fits the ongoing curriculum.

Professional standards

score_____________

No alignment with any professional standards.

Listing of related but not fully aligned professional standards.

Listing of fully aligned professional standards.

Learning outcomes

score_____________

No articulation of specific, measurable core concepts, skills, and vocabularies that children will learn.

The targeted concepts, skills, and vocabularies are explained but not clear and specific enough.

The targeted concepts, skills, and vocabularies are specific and measurable.

Pre-assessment

score_____________

No assessment of childrens prior knowledge/skills is implemented, OR the assessed childrens prior concepts/skills/vocabularies have minimum connections with teaching goals.

The assessed childrens prior concepts/skills/vocabularies are related but not fully aligned with teaching goals, and therefore the pre-assessment has limited value in informing lesson design.

The assessed childrens prior concepts/skills/vocabularies are well aligned with teaching goals, and therefore the pre-assessment is meaningful in informing lesson design.

Multi-model learning

score_____________

The design shows no or minimum consideration of active and multi-model nature of childrens learning.

The design shows some level of considerations of active and multi-model nature of childrens learning by including different senses, activities, methods, and developmental domains.

The design shows clear considerations of active and multi-model nature of childrens learning by including different senses, activities, methods, and developmental domains.

Teaching materials

score_____________

Teaching materials are not developmentally appropriate, or do not support the teaching goals of the lesson, or are not connected with available community resources.

Teaching materials are generally appropriate and support the teaching goals of the lesson. However, available educational and technological community resources are not utilized.

Teaching materials are appropriate and sufficient in supporting the teaching goals of the lesson. The available educational and technological community resources are well utilized.

Child engagement

score_____________

Children generally lack interest in the lesson and central focus of the lesson is not introduced or summarized for children.

Children are mostly engaged with the lesson, however, its central focus is not clearly specified at the beginning or end of the lesson.

Children are highly engaged with the lesson and show clear understanding of its central focus.

Variety of learners

score_____________

The design shows no or minimum considerations of how to involve and accommodate a variety of learners.

The design shows some level of considerations in materials, activities, and procedures to accommodate a variety of learners.

The design shows clear intentions and considerations in materials, activities, and procedures to accommodate and engage a variety of learners.

Post-assessment

score_____________

Post-assessment is not implemented or it is not connected to the pre-assessment at all in demonstrating the candidates impact on childrens learning.

The same assessment is repeated after lesson implementation. However, data analysis is rough and not sufficient in demonstrating childrens growth and impact on learning.

The same assessment is repeated after lesson implementation. The pre- and post-assessment comparison and data analysis is efficient in demonstrating childrens growth and impact on learning through graphic presentations, narrative summary, and/or appropriate statistics.

Feedback for children

score_____________

Children are not provided with feedback based on their assessment results.

Children are provided with feedback, however, the process and methods are not clearly articulated.

Children are provided with feedback, and the process and methods are clearly articulated.

Childrens use of feedbackscore_____________

Childrens responses to feedback are not specified.

Childrens responses to feedback are mentioned, but in a relatively superficial way and without in-depth reflection.

Childrens responses to feedback are described in sufficient details and analyzed in depth.

Final reflection

Score_____________

The final reflection is superficial, not based on the assessment results (if the lesson is implemented), and has no or a rough plan on future activities.

The final reflection is relatively in depth, connects with the assessment results (if the lesson is implemented), and includes a plan for future activities.

The final reflection is in-depth, critical, well connects with the assessment results (if the lesson is implemented), and include a well-linked plan for future activities.

2014-2015 Academic Year: Lesson Plan Evaluation

BA Program (N = 8)

Student Teaching

Candidate Self

University Supervisor

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

1. Introduction

5.00 (.00)

5.00 (.00)

2. Learning objectives

5.00 (.00)

5.00 (.00)

3. State standards

5.00 (.00)

5.00 (.00)

4. Pre-assessment strategies

4.50 (1.00)

5.00 (.00)

5. Lesson assessment

5.00 (.00)

5.00 (.00)

6. Materials and resources

4.00 (1.15)

5.00 (.00)

7. Differentiation

5.00 (.00)

5.00 (.00)

8. Anticipatory set

4.50 (1.00)

5.00 (.00)

9. Main activity

4.50 (1.00)

5.00 (.00)

10. Closing

4.50 (1.00)

4.60 (.89)

11. Extended experiences

5.00 (.00)

5.00 (.00)

12. Analysis of pre-assessment

4.25 (.96)

3.80 (1.79)

13. Analysis for impact on child learning

4.25 (.96)

3.80 (1.79)

14. Ideas for future revisions

4.25 (.96)

4.60 (.89)

Note: Statistics in this table were based on the OLD rubric, 5-point scale.

BA Program (N = 7)

Practicum


Mean (SD)

1. Context of the lesson

2.93 (.26)

2. Professional standards

2.87 (.35)

3. Learning outcomes

2.67 (.49)

4. Pre-assessment

2.80 (.41)

5. Multi-model learning

2.87 (.52)

6. Teaching materials

2.93 (.26)

7. Child engagement

2.79 (.43)

8. Variety of learners

2.87 (.35)

9. Post-assessment

2.80 (.56)

10. Feedback for children

2.50 (.52)

11. Childrens use of feedback

2.42 (.51)

12. Final reflection

2.40 (.63)

Note: Statistics in this table were based on the NEW rubric, 3-point scale.

MAT Program (N = 7)

Student Teaching

Candidate Self


Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

1. Introduction

5.00 (.00)

4.80 (.45)

2. Learning objectives

5.00 (.00)

5.00 (.00)

3. State standards

5.00 (.00)

4.80 (.45)

4. Pre-assessment strategies

4.75 (.50)

4.80 (.45)

5. Lesson assessment

5.00 (.00)

5.00 (.00)

6. Materials and resources

5.00 (.00)

5.00 (.00)

7. Differentiation

5.00 (.00)

5.00 (.00)

8. Anticipatory set

5.00 (.00)

5.00 (.00)

9. Main activity

5.00 (.00)

4.80 (.45)

10. Closing

4.75 (.50)

4.80 (.45)

11. Extended experiences

5.00 (.00)

5.00 (.00)

12. Analysis of pre-assessment

4.00 (2.00)

4.40 (.89)

13. Analysis for impact on child learning

5.00 (.00)

4.80 (.45)

14. Ideas for future revisions

5.00 (.00)

4.80 (.45)

Note: Statistics in this table were based on the OLD rubric, 5-point scale. No practicum

was offered for MAT program in 2014-15.

2015-2016 Academic Year: Lesson Plan Evaluation

BA Program

Practicum (N = 20)

Student Teaching (N = 7)

Candidate Self

Mentor Teacher


Candidate Self

Mentor Teacher


Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)


3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)


3.00 (.00)

2.92 (.27)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)


2.93 (.26)

2.85 (.36)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

4. Pre-assessment

2.73 (.46)

2.71 (.46)

3.00 (.00)

2.88 (.35)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)


3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

2.89 (.32)

2.88 (.35)

3.00 (.00)

2.86 (.38)


3.00 (.00)

2.79 (.43)

2.94 (.24)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

2.86 (.38)

7. Child engagement

3.00 (.00)

2.86 (.36)

2.89 (.32)

2.88 (.35)

3.00 (.00)

2.86 (.38)


2.93 (.26)

2.79 (.43)

2.89 (.32)

2.88 (.35)

3.00 (.00)

2.86 (.38)

9. Post-assessment

2.73 (.46)

2.90 (.32)

2.94 (.24)

2.88 (.35)

2.86 (.38)

3.00 (.00)


2.93 (.26)

2.83 (.39)

2.94 (.24)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)


2.80 (.41)

3.00 (.00)

2.82 (.53)

2.88 (.35)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)


2.93 (.26)

3.00 (.00)

2.78 (.43)

3.00 (.00)

2.86 (.38)

3.00 (.00)

MAT Program

Practicum (N = 11)

Student Teaching (N = 8)

Candidate Self

Mentor Teacher


Candidate Self

Mentor Teacher


Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)


2.88 (.35)

2.88 (.35)

2.85 (.38)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

2.83 (.41)


3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)


2.88 (.35)

2.88 (.35)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

2.83 (.41)

4. Pre-assessment

2.88 (.35)

2.63 (.52)

3.00 (.00)

2.88 (.35)

3.00 (.00)

2.67 (.52)


3.00 (.00)

2.88 (.35)

2.85 (.38)

2.75 (.46)

3.00 (.00)

2.83 (.41)


3.00 (.00)

2.88 (.35)

2.77 (.44)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

2.67 (.52)

7. Child engagement

2.75 (.46)

2.88 (.35)

2.85 (.38)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

2.67 (.52)


2.75 (.46)

2.75 (.46)

2.92 (.29)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

2.83 (.41)

9. Post-assessment

2.75 (.46)

2.71 (.49)

2.92 (.29)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)


2.88 (.35)

2.86 (.38)

2.92 (.29)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

2.83 (.41)


2.50 (.76)

3.00 (.00)

2.85 (.38)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

2.60 (.55)


2.63 (.52)

3.00 (.00)

2.83 (.39)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

2.83 (.41)

Assessment #5_Lesson Plan Rubric

Assessment #6: Professional Dispositions


Promoting candidates professional dispositions is an important goal of our program. We utilize a disposition evaluation to measure candidates professional manners, taking initiatives in the classroom, communication skills, interactions with children, sensitivity towards childrens family backgrounds and diversity, collaboration with peers, openness to supervisor feedback, display of high motivation for learning, and sense of responsibilities. The tool focuses on candidates professional behaviors displayed during their field practice in child care settings.

The assessment is performed with candidates who take the practicum course (ECE451 for BA and ECE580 for MAT). The assessment consists of 19 items, and is rated on a 3-point scale (1 = Unsatisfactory; 2 = Basic; 3 = Proficient). The internal consistency reliability of the tool is established at = .81 for the 2015-2016 data.

In addition to this program-level disposition assessment, the Assessment Committee of the National College of Education (NCE) also implemented a new disposition tool to be used across the college. This new tool complements our program assessment by examining candidates professional dispositions displayed within the program courses, such as participation in group activities and attending class prepared. The tool consists of 6 items and each is rated on a 3-point Likert scale. Pilot data from three program benchmark courses of both undergraduate and graduate programs were provided in this report. But the data were available only in 2014-2015. In 2015-2016 AY, we are updating data collection system, and therefore, data are not collected consistently.

For candidates who received consistently low ratings on professional dispositions, they met with supervisors and mentor teachers to discuss the issues, identify the areas that need to be addressed, and revisited those dispositional areas in later practices to look for evidence of improvement. When extremely disturbing behaviors happened and when the candidates behaviors interfered with the classroom operation, the supervisors would inform program director. When it is necessary, the student would be pulled out from the practicum site.



SPA standard: Pedagogical and professional knowledge, skills and dispositions

NAEYC standard 1: Promoting child development and learning



NAEYC standard 6: Becoming a professional

The disposition assessment evaluate candidates understanding of child development and ability to design and implement lessons that are developmentally appropriate for the childrens ages and abilities and that fit within the classroom context. Therefore, it is aligned with NAEYC standards of 1, 2, and 4. In addition, it measures candidates sensitivity and respect toward children, families, and colleagues, and their professionalism demonstrated through classroom practice and interpersonal interactions, so it is aligned with NAEYC standard 6.


The data showed that for both BA and MAT programs, all disposition items had an average rating that was above 2 (out of a 3-point scale), except that BA program had one below 2-point rating in 2014-2015 on implementing appropriate assessments, suggesting satisfactory performance of the candidates.

Candidates self-ratings tended to be positively skewed (many full ratings), however, the ratings from supervisors and mentor teachers showed much more variations.

Candidates did well in arriving on time, following instructions by mentor teachers, demonstrating sensitivity and respect toward others, acting professionally with children and adults, being open to feedback by supervisors, and showing high motivation and taking responsibility in learning. However, candidates had relatively lower scoring in areas of: (a) implementing appropriate assessment and analyzing data, (b) reflecting on the lesson plan, childrens engagement, assessment tools, and data to make decisions about how to make changes to teaching, (c) completing all classroom duties assigned by the mentor teacher, including clean-up and assistance in daily classroom preparation, and (d) submitting lesson plans of professional quality to mentor teacher in a timely fashion. This is generally true in both programs and the pattern was more evident in ratings made by the mentor teachers and university supervisors. This finding is consistent with what we found in the lesson plan rubric evaluation.

The 2014-2015 data collected from the new NCE disposition tool developed by the Assessment Committee suggested that undergraduate and graduate students who were in one of the benchmark program courses achieved high ratings (all scores were 3 or close to 3, out of a 3-point scale) on all six items. However, the ratings were mostly made by students themselves, so this assessment was predominantly self- evaluations.

Early Childhood Practicum: Assessment of Professional Dispositions

Students name (first/last): _______________

This survey is completed by:

______ Student

______ University supervisor

______ Mentor teacher

Field placement setting:

______ Infant/Toddler class

______ Preschool

______ Kindergarten

______ 1-3rd grade

Todays date: ___________ MM/DD/YY

NLU program the student is enrolled:

______ BA in early childhood practice (ECE492/493)

______ BA in early childhood education (451)

______ MAT in early childhood education (ECE580)

______ SubCert early childhood education (ECE575)

Please rate based on the rubric: 1 = Unsatisfactory; 2 = Basic; 3 = Proficient; NA = Not observed

1 = Unsatisfactory; 2 = Basic; 3 = Proficient; NA = Not observed

1. The student demonstrates professionalism by arriving to placement on time and stays for the entire time as agreed upon by the student and mentor teacher

1

2

3

NA

2. The student comes to placement dressed appropriately for work

1

2

3

NA

3. The student completes all classroom duties assigned by the mentor teacher, including clean-up and assistance in daily classroom preparation

1

2

3

NA

4. The student demonstrates initiative in by being actively engaged with children and collaborating with mentor teacher

1

2

3

NA

5. The student acts in a mature and professional manner in in interactions with children

1

2

3

NA

6. The student demonstrates sensitivity and respect towards children

1

2

3

NA

7. The student uses appropriate communication skills with children (e.g., giving directions, asking questions, using an appropriate voice tone), and reflects on how children respond

1

2

3

NA

8. The student acts in a mature and professional manner in all interactions with colleagues and parents

1

2

3

NA

9. The student demonstrates sensitivity and respect towards colleagues and parents

1

2

3

NA

10. The student uses appropriate written and verbal communication skills with the mentor teacher and university supervisor

1

2

3

NA

11. The student submits lesson plans of professional quality to mentor teacher in a timely fashion

1

2

3

NA

12. The student plans lessons that are developmentally appropriate for the childrens ages and abilities and that fit within the classroom context

1

2

3

NA

13. The student implements lessons that engage the children

1

2

3

NA

14. The student implements appropriate assessments, (e.g., anecdotal data, checklists, rating scales), including pre-assessments, and analyzes the data from those assessments

1

2

3

NA

15. The student reflects on child engagement and assessment data to make decisions about how to refine teaching so that it will better impact childrens learning

1

2

3

NA

16. The student demonstrates openness and responsiveness to feedback

1

2

3

NA

17. The student follows through on recommendations made by mentor teacher and university supervisor

1

2

3

NA

18. The student shows high motivation and takes responsibility for learning

1

2

3

NA

19. The student demonstrates independence in thinking, planning, and learning

1

2

3

NA

Please write down any comments/concerns that you have about this student.

NCE Candidate Dispositions Assessment

Context:

The purpose of this NCE-wide assessment is to support NCE candidate growth in professional dispositions within the classroom (not field/clinical) as they relate to the NCE Conceptual Framework. Instructors in the identified courses should administer this assessment through D2L/Livetext before the end of the quarter by asking candidates to complete the assessment rubric. Instructors also complete the rubric for each candidate in the course. Candidates as well complete the assessment. The candidate is expected to score at the basic level at the first and second administration of the assessment within his/her program and demonstrate all NCE dispositions at the third and final administration/end of program by scoring at the proficient level.

Educator preparation providers establish and monitor attributes and dispositions beyond academic ability that candidates must demonstrate at admissions and during the program. The provider selects criteria, describes the measures used and evidence of the reliability and validity of those measures, and reports data that show how the academic and non-academic factors predict candidate performance in the program and effective teaching . (CAEP Standards 3.3)

Criteria/Rubric: See Below

PERFORMANCE LEVEL

Unsatisfactory (1)

Basic (2)

Proficient (3)

Distinguished (4)

Not Applicable for this Assessment

Performance

Description

Refers to candidate performance that does not yield sufficient evidence to make a determination or is consistently below standards.

Refers to candidate performance demonstrating necessary knowledge and skills but its application is inconsistent.

Refers to candidate demonstrating mastery of performance at a consistently professional level.

Refers to exemplary candidate performance that stands as a model for other candidates.

Criteria

1. Candidate cultivates an intellectual curiosity and excitement for learning in oneself.

Evidence of cultivating an intellectual curiosity and excitement for learning may include:

Referencing course materials and readings

Asking questions of others

Making connections to practice

Actively participating in group activities/discussions

Sharing ideas as a means for engaging others

Attending class prepared and ready to engage

1. Candidate demonstrates respectful learning from other cultures and points of view.

Evidence of demonstrating respect for people from other cultures and points of view may include:

Actively listening/inviting others ideas and perspectives

Asking questions about culture, and/or points of view that differ from ones own

Being open to learning from all peoples/perspectives

Welcoming differing opinions as a way to understand underlying beliefs and assumptions

Welcoming debate with alternative ideas

1. Candidate demonstrates a caring attitude by promoting growth in others.

Evidence of demonstrating a caring attitude in recognizing the needs of others may include:

Giving of him/herself to assist others (in class assignments, discussions, etc.)

Providing helpful feedback and support to others

Sharing knowledge and resources to enhance the education of other candidates

Promoting growth in other classmates and faculty by asking compelling questions and sharing relevant experiences

1. Candidate acts with confidence and self-knowledge to assume leadership roles and responsibilities.

Evidence of acting with confidence and self-knowledge to assume leadership roles and responsibilities may include:

Sharing ideas, learnings, lessons and activities with classmates and colleagues to help improve or assist others

Assuming leadership roles in ones professional context as evident in coursework and reflections

Seeking out professional development experiences

Participating in professional organizations

Additional evidence for candidates in advanced programs:

Assuming leadership roles in professional organizations

1. 5. Candidate uses information from others meaningfully for self-reflection and continuous improvement.

Evidence of using information from others meaningfully for self-reflection and continuous improvement may include:

Seeking out feedback, critiques and suggestions for improvement

Using self-assessment as a key learning tool

Applying new knowledge to practice, and/or policy and/or theory

1. Candidate engages in appropriate learner behavior.

Evidence of engaging in appropriate learner behavior may include:

Comes to class on time

Comes to class prepared and ready to learn

Completes assignments on time including online posting as required

Actively participates in class discussions and activities

Adheres to academic honest policies

Uses technology appropriately

2014-2015 Academic Year: Professional Disposition Assessment

BA Program (N = 5)

Candidate

Self

Mentor Teacher

/University Supervisor

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)


3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)


3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)


3.00 (.00)

2.40 (1.34)


3.00 (.00)

2.40 (.55)


3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)


3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)


3.00 (.00)

2.80 (.45)


3.00 (.00)

2.80 (.45)


3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)


3.00 (.00)

2.80 (.45)


2.75 (.50)

2.20 (1.30)


3.00 (.00)

2.20 (1.30)


3.00 (.00)

2.60 (.55)


1.00 (1.73)

1.60 (1.52)


2.50 (.58)

2.40 (.55)


3.00 (.00)

2.80 (.45)


3.00 (.00)

2.80 (.45)


3.00 (.00)

2.60 (.55)


3.00 (.00)

2.60 (.55)

Note. Since some mentor teachers and university supervisors did the assessment together, and therefore, the scores from two sources were combined and the average score was reported.

MAT Program (N = 6)

Candidate

Self

Mentor Teacher

/University Supervisor

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)


3.00 (.00)

2.88 (.35)


3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)


3.00 (.00)

2.75 (.46)


3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)


3.00 (.00)

2.63 (1.06)


3.00 (.00)

2.88 (.35)


3.00 (.00)

2.38 (1.06)


3.00 (.00)

2.75 (.46)


3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)


3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)


3.00 (.00)

2.50 (1.22)


3.00 (.00)

2.88 (.35)


3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)


3.00 (.00)

2.63 (.52)


3.00 (.00)

2.86 (.38)


3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)


3.00 (.00)

2.63 (1.06)


3.00 (.00)

2.75 (.46)


3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

Note. Since some mentor teachers and university supervisors did the assessment together, and therefore, the scores from two sources were combined and the average score was reported.

2015-2016 Academic Year: Professional Disposition Assessment

BA Program (N = 12)

Candidate

Self

Mentor

Teacher


Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD


3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)


3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)


3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

2.70 (.95)


2.90 (.32)

3.00 (.00)

2.90 (.32)


3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)


3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)


3.00 (.00)

2.92 (.29)

2.90 (.32)


3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)


3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)


3.00 (.00)

2.83 (.39)

2.80 (.42)


2.89 (.31)

2.83 (.39)

2.99 (.03)


2.90 (.32)

2.83 (.39)

2.99 (.02)


3.00 (.00)

2.83 (.39)

2.90 (.32)


2.68 (.47)

2.79 (.38)

2.78 (.42)


2.79 (.42)

2.83 (.39)

2.89 (.31)


3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)


3.00 (.00)

2.92 (.29)

2.90 (.32)


3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

2.90 (.32)


3.00 (.00)

2.92 (.29)

2.90 (.32)

MAT Program (N = 22)

Candidate

Self

Mentor

Teacher


Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD


3.00 (.00)

2.94 (.25)

2.58 (1.02)


3.00 (.00)

2.94 (.25)

3.00 (.00)


3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

2.33 (1.24)


3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

2.92 (.28)


3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)


3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)


2.95 (.22)

2.94 (.25)

2.92 (.28)


3.00 (.00)

2.94 (.25)

2.91 (.28)


3.00 (.00)

2.94 (.25)

2.90 (.28)


3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

2.92 (.28)


2.85 (.36)

2.94 (.25)

2.91 (.28)


2.90 (.30)

3.00 (.00)

2.92 (.28)


2.90 (.30)

3.00 (.00)

2.96 (.20)


2.71 (.46)

2.86 (.34)

2.72 (.43)


2.90 (.30)

2.87 (.34)

2.91 (.28)


3.00 (.00)

2.94 (.25)

3.00 (.00)


3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

2.96 (.20)


3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)


3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

3.00 (.00)

2014-2015 Academic Year: NCE Candidate Disposition Assessment

BA Program

(ECE451)

MAT Program

(FND503)

MAT Program

(ECE590)

Candidate Mean (N = 49)

Candidate Mean

(N = 49)

Candidate Mean

(N = 8)

1. Cultivates intellectual curiosity and excitement for learning in oneself

3.00

2.94

3.00

2. Demonstrates respect for people from other cultures and points of view

3.00

3.00

3.00

3. Demonstrates a caring attitude by promoting growth in others

3.00

2.94

3.00

4. Acts with confidence and self-knowledge to assume leadership roles and responsibilities

2.50

2.76

2.88

5. Uses information from others for self-reflection and continuous improvement

3.00

2.90

3.00

6. Engages in appropriate learner behavior

3.00

2.86

3.00

Overall Mean

2.92

2.90

2.98

Note: FND503 is a beginning course and ECE590 is an ending course of the MAT program. This college-level assessment examines candidates dispositions displayed within program courses. Pilot data were only available in 2014-2015 AY. The college is updating the data collection system, and therefore, data collection is not consistent in 2015-2016.

Assessment #6_Professional Disposition Evaluation

Assessment #2: LiveText Electronic Portfolio


In addition to the state tests, we use a local assessment, professional portfolio, to provide a more holistic and extensive measure of the candidates content knowledge. LiveText is an internet-based platform that allows students to create their professional portfolios. The portfolio template is designed and organized around all NAEYC standards and two additional institutional standards (i.e., Diversity and Technology). These standards represent all the expected content, pedagogical, and professional knowledge that ECE teacher candidates should master. The program offers a series of tutorial modules to orient students to the electronic portfolio as an assessment tool and facilitates any technical difficulties.

Candidates are required to submit at least four artifacts under each standard to demonstrate their knowledge in meeting each standard. For each submitted artifact, candidates need to provide a brief summary and rationale for why and how this artifact can demonstrate their knowledge in meeting a specific standard. Candidates are also required to write a reflection statement for each standard which includes a self-assessment relative to the components of the standard.

The types of artifacts that candidates submit include various course assignments, such as an essay, case study, field observation, self reflection, book review, lesson plan, curriculum project, newsletter to parents, child work sample, photo, video of teaching segments, evaluation from university supervisors, mentor teachers, or practicum seminar leaders, and etc. In addition, many of our candidates work in the field in various capacities, so any professional work they completed in their own classrooms can be used as artifacts/evidences for demonstration of their qualification in meeting the NAEYC standards.

Candidates professional portfolios are evaluated twice throughout the program (the first evaluation at the Practicum II, the middle of the program; the second at student teaching, the end of the program), based on a 4-point Likert scale. The evaluation looks at four aspects of the professional portfolios: (1) quality of the artifacts/evidences; (2) the rationale statements in explaining how and why the artifacts demonstrate candidates proficiency in meeting a specific NAEYC standard; (3) usage of academic language and overall quality of writing; (4) depth of self-reflection.

Livetext portfolio evaluation offers the programs direct information on the alignment between course work and professional standards and the quality of candidates course work. We use this piece of data for curriculum adjustment.



SPA standard: (a) content knowledge in ECE; (b) pedagogical and professional knowledge, skills and dispositions; (c) impact on learning







As described above, the livetext portfolio is clearly organized around the six NAEYC standards, and it represents a comprehensive, holistic, and straightforward system in demonstrating evidences that our students have attained the national standards. Although the LiveText portfolio is used here mainly as an assessment of candidates content knowledge, it does cover all aspects of NAEYC and SPA standards by collecting and evaluating many representative course assignments across the whole program period.


The portfolio evaluation data reported here were based on the final evaluation. Several key findings emerged based on the data of both BA and MAT candidates:

First, almost all ratings were above 3 points (out of a four-point rating scale), indicating that candidates overall performance was at the meeting expectations level. Very few ratings were below but close to 3 points. MAT candidates ratings in 2015-2016 academic year were even close to 4 points (at the exceeds expectations level).

Second, candidates in both programs had an overall balanced performance in meeting all NAEYC and institutional standards.

Third, candidates tended to receive relatively lower ratings on NAEYC standard 3 (Observing, documenting, and assessing to support young children and families), standard 4 (Using developmentally effective approaches), standard 5 (Using content knowledge to build meaningful curriculum), and institutional standard, diversity.

Fourth, among the four portfolio evaluation criteria, in general, candidates received lower ratings in the dimensions of rational statement and depth of self-reflection. This suggests that candidates might need more support on how to write a meaningful rationale that explains how their artifacts demonstrate their competence in meeting the standards. In addition, candidates need to strengthen their self-reflection on how well they have met the standards and the strengths and weaknesses of their content knowledge base.

LiveText Professional Portfolio Evaluation Rubric

Below Expectations

(1 point)

Minimal Expectations

(2 points)

Meeting Expectations

(3 points)

Exceeds Expectations

(4 points)

Artifact Quality

Artifacts show a weak degree of understanding and knowledge of the NAEYC standards; no description of what was read, prepared, completed and/or observed related to the artifacts/ assignments.

Artifacts show very basic understanding and knowledge of the NAEYC standards; include some but limited description of what was read, prepared, completed and/or observed related to the artifacts/ assignments.

Artifacts show a reasonable degree of understanding and knowledge of the NAEYC standards; include a detailed description of what was read, prepared, completed and/or observed related to the artifacts/ assignments.

Artifacts show an extensive degree of understanding and knowledge of the NAEYC standards; include a detailed description of what was read, prepared, completed and/or observed related to the artifacts/ assignments.

Rationale Statement

The connection between the artifacts and the standards to demonstrate the candidates proficiency in understanding the standards is not established or is illogically established.

The connection between the artifacts and the standards to demonstrate the candidates proficiency in understanding the standards is partly established, and lacks necessary details.

The connection between the artifacts and the standards to demonstrate the candidates proficiency in understanding the standards is established, with sufficient details.

The connection between the artifacts and the standards to demonstrate the candidates proficiency in understanding the standards is thoroughly established, with sufficient and convincing details.

Depth of Self-Reflection

No self-analysis of the candidates knowledge, strengths and areas for improvement in meeting the standards.

Brief self-analysis of the candidates knowledge, strengths and areas for improvement in meeting the standards, but lacks necessary specifics.

Sufficient self-analysis of the candidates knowledge, strengths and areas for improvement in meeting the standards, but lacks a plan for growth.

In-depth analysis of the candidates knowledge, strengths and areas for improvement in meeting the standards, and with a feasible plan for growth.

Usage of Academic Language

No or little usage of academic language; the overall writing is poor.

Some usage of academic language; the overall writing is understandable.

Sufficient usage of academic language; the overall writing is clear.

Exemplary usage of academic language; the writing is high quality.

2014-2015 Academic Year: LiveText Portfolio Evaluation

BA Program (N=13)

Artifact Quality

Rationale Statement

Self-Reflection

Academic Language

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

NAEYC STD1: Promoting Child Development and Learning

3.08 (.47)

3.08 (.47)

3.00 (.78)

3.00 (.62)

NAEYC STD2: Building Family and Community Relationships

3.23 (.42)

3.15 (.66)

3.08 (.62)

3.08 (.73)

NAEYC STD3: Observing, Documenting, and Assessing to support

Young Children and Families

3.15 (.53)

3.08 (.73)

3.23 (.58)

3.23 (.58)

NAEYC STD4: Using Developmentally Effective Approaches

3.15 (.53)

3.00 (.78)

3.00 (.68)

3.15 (.53)

NAEYC STD5: Using Content Knowledge to Build Meaningful Curriculum

3.15 (.53)

3.00 (.78)

3.00 (.68)

3.15 (.53)

NAEYC STD6: Becoming a Professional

3.23 (.58)

3.23 (.58)

3.00 (.78)

3.15 (.66)

INSTITUTIONAL STD: Diversity

2.85 (.66)

3.08 (.47)

3.08 (.73)

3.15 (.53)

INSTITUTIONAL STD: Technology

3.15 (.53)

3.15 (.53)

3.15 (.53)

3.08 (.62)

MAT Program (N=xx)

Artifact Quality

Rationale Statement

Self-Reflection

Use of Academic Language

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)


3.42 (.63)

3.36 (.73)

3.40 (.66)

3.47 (.54)


3.38 (.71)

3.42 (.69)

3.34 (.78)

3.49 (.57)



3.59 (.63)

3.45 (.79)

3.47 (.69)

3.60 (.53)


3.38 (.73)

3.47 (.63)

3.36 (.78)

3.47 (.63)


3.38 (.73)

3.47 (.63)

3.36 (.78)

3.47 (.63)


3.42 (.74)

3.34 (.80)

3.43 (.69)

3.47 (.63)


3.42 (.63)

3.38 (.76)

3.32 (.77)

3.47 (.63)


3.47 (.69)

3.42 (.74)

3.44 (.69)

3.45 (.63)

2015-2016 Academic Year: LiveText Portfolio Evaluation

BA Program (N=14)

Artifact Quality

Rationale Statement

Self-Reflection

Academic Language

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)


3.14 (.64)

2.79 (.77)

2.86 (.64)

3.00 (.66)


3.14 (.52)

3.00 (.66)

2.93 (.59)

3.07 (.59)



3.00 (.66)

2.93 (.80)

2.86 (.64)

3.00 (.76)


2.93 (.59)

2.00 (.76)

2.81 (.88)

3.07 (.70)


2.93 (.59)

2.00 (.76)

2.81 (.88)

3.07 (.70)


3.00 (.76)

3.14 (.74)

2.86 (.83)

3.23 (.42)


3.00 (.66)

2.93 (.96)

2.93 (.83)

3.14 (.52)


3.14 (.52)

3.07 (.70)

2.86 (.64)

3.14 (.52)

MAT Program (N=6)

Artifact Quality

Rationale Statement

Self-Reflection

Use of Academic Language

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)


3.67 (.47)

3.67 (.47)

3.67 (.47)

3.67 (.47)


3.67 (.47)

3.67 (.47)

3.67 (.47)

3.67 (.47)



3.83 (.37)

3.83 (.37)

3.83 (.37)

3.83 (.37)


3.83 (.37)

3.83 (.37)

3.83 (.37)

3.83 (.37)


3.83 (.37)

3.83 (.37)

3.83 (.37)

3.83 (.37)


3.50 (.50)

3.50 (.50)

3.67 (.47)

3.67 (.47)


3.50 (.50)

3.50 (.50)

3.50 (.50)

3.67 (.47)


3.50 (.50)

3.67 (.47)

3.67 (.47)

3.67 (.47)

Assessment #2_Livetext Electronic Portfolio

Assessment #3: Assessment of Professional Teaching Test & edTPA


The Early Childhood Education teacher candidates who seek a Type 04 teaching certification must pass the Assessment of Professional Teaching (APT) test. This state licensure test is used to assess student candidates pedagogical and professional knowledge, skills and dispositions, as specified by SPA standards. The test is administrated several times throughout the year and candidates can take the test at any time before the completion of their program. The content covered by the APT tests is organized into four subareas:

(1) Development and Learning

(2) Learning Environment

(3) Instruction and Assessment

(4) Professional Environment

The test examines candidates application of accurate, effective, and current professional knowledge and practices relevant to the specific performance assignment and to the appropriate subareas of the Assessment of Professional Teaching test framework. Application of professional knowledge involves the extent to which the content of the examinee's response to the assignment demonstrates a practical command of the professional knowledge and skills. The test also measures candidates appropriateness and quality of support/elaboration through the use of supporting details, examples, and rationales relevant to the specific performance assignment.

APT consists of 120 multiple-choice questions and 2 constructed-response assignments. Constructed-response assignments are scored on a four-point scoring scale. Each response is graded by two readers and the sum of the two readers' scores will be the examinee's total score for each constructed-response assignment. The test has established reliability and validity. Scores for the APT tests are reported on a scale from 100 to 300. A total test scaled score of 240 or above is required to pass these tests.

Starting from September of 2015, the State of Illinois required APT test to be replaced by a new teacher performance assessment, edTPA (this explains the small number of candidates who took the test in last two years). The edTPA is a nationally available assessment that aims to measure novice teachers readiness to teach young children. The assessment is composed of three tasks:

(1) Planning for instruction and assessment

(2) Instructing and engaging children in learning

(3) Assessing childrens learning

For this assessment, teacher candidates are asked to develop and teach 3-5 consecutive learning experiences that build on each other and are to be presented over the course of one week. Candidates use evidence of artifacts and commentaries to demonstrate their teaching performance, and 15 rubrics (5-point scales) are used to evaluate candidates performance (see attachment). In this report, we used some pilot data of EdTPA provided by Pearson (testing agency) to supplement the APT results to demonstrate our candidates performance.

Data from both evaluation systems are used to guide program improvement. For candidates who did not pass the test/assessment, several remediation strategies will be implemented.



SPA standard: (a) Pedagogical and professional knowledge, skills and dispositions; (b) ability to implement appropriate teaching and learning experience






As specified in the APT test objectives (see attachment), (a) the objectives of 1, 2, & 3 covered under subarea of child development and learning are aligned with NAEYC standard 1; (b) the objectives of 4-9 covered under subareas of learning environment, instruction, and assessment are aligned with NAEYC standard 3, 4, and 5; and (c) objectives of 10, 11 & 12 under subarea of professional environment are aligned with NAEYC standard 6. In addition, edTPA assesses candidates pedagogical and professional knowledge and skills.


We only have the APT data available from 10 candidates of MAT program in 2014-2015. Since APT test was replaced by edTPA starting from September of 2015, therefore, we had a small number of candidates who took the state test. The test results suggested that the MAT candidates had a satisfactory (averages were above the cutoff of 240) and balanced performance on each subarea, and the pass rate was 80%. The candidates achieved relatively higher scores in Learning Environment and Instruction and Assessment and relatively lower scores in Professional Environment.

Several key findings emerged from the pilot data of edTPA. First, the average total scores of the pilot cases were above the passing score of 35 set by the state. Also, the total scores tended to increase in the second pilot year, the year of 2015-2016. Second, in general, the candidates in both programs received ratings close to 3 (out of 5 points), indicating an acceptable level of performance. Third, the candidates had an overall balanced performance in the assessment domains, although there were occasional low ratings in one or two specific areas (e.g., subject-specific pedagogy for the MAT candidates in 2014-2015). Fourth, the candidates received overall lower ratings related to the third task Assessing Childrens Learning. Specifically, the candidates received lower scores in areas of analysis of childrens learning, providing feedback to guide learning, childrens understanding and use of feedback, and using assessment to inform instruction. Implications for program curriculum refinement will be discussed in the next section of the report.

Copyright 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliate(s). All rights reserved.

Evaluation Systems, Pearson, P.O. Box 226, Amherst, MA 01004

Illinois Certification Testing System

SCORE REPORT EXPLANATION

Assessment of Professional Teaching Tests

Fields: 101, 102, 103, and 104

Overview

Your score report provides information regarding the Assessment of Professional Teaching (APT) test you took at the recent administration of the Illinois Certification Testing System (ICTS). The report includes information regarding your Pass/Did Not Pass status for that test, your performance on the test as a whole, and your performance on the major subareas of the test. Your scores are reported to you, to the Illinois State Board of Education, and to the institution(s) you indicated during the registration process. The APT tests each contain 120 multiple-choice test questions as well as 2 constructed-response assignments.

Total Test Score

Scores for the APT tests are reported on a scale from 100 to 300. A total test scaled score of 240 or above is required to pass these tests. Candidates with a total test score below 240 do not pass the test. Your scaled total test score for the APT test that you took is based on your performance on the entire test, including the number of multiple-choice test questions you answered correctly and the scores you received on the two constructed response assignments. The multiple-choice section represents 80 percent of your total test score and the constructed-response assignments combined represent 20 percent of your total test score.

Subarea Scores

The scores listed in the "Subarea" section are also reported on a scale from 100 to 300 and are intended to provide you with feedback on your performance in the major subareas of the test. Performance Indicators for the two constructed-response assignments are also provided. This information is descriptive only and may help you assess your areas of strength and weakness. Generally a score at or above 240 on a given subarea or the constructed-response assignments indicates satisfactory performance within that subarea/assignment. You do no

program report for the initial preparation of early ... · this report covers two initial teacher...

Documents