program report for the preparation of english language ... · €€€€5.€€ncate...

Program Report for the Preparation of English Language Arts Teachers

National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE)Option C

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR ACCREDITATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION

COVER SHEET

1. Institution NameEdinboro University of PA

2. StatePA

3. Date submitted

MM DD YYYY

09 / 15 / 2012

4. Report Preparer's Information:

Name of Preparer:

Dr. Kathleen Benson

Phone: Ext.

( ) -814 732 2788

E-mail:

[email protected]

5. NCATE Coordinator's Information:

Name:

Dr. Gwyneth Price

Phone: Ext.

( ) -814 732 1542

E-mail:

[email protected]

6. Name of institution's programSecondary - Comprehensive English

ASSESSMENT 4

Assessment 4: Discipline Specific Competency Form

Description:

This is a revised assessment based on the comments in the National Recognition Report. Data is reported for the last 2 cycles: Fall 2011 and Spring 2012.

Assessment 4 uses the Discipline Specific Competency form to assess the English teacher candidates performance. The teacher candidate, cooperating teacher, and university supervisor all respond to the same instrument provided below. Though only university supervisor responses have been reported in the past, cooperating teacher data has been reported below for the past 2 cycles (as suggested in the final report from 2/1/12).

The tables below indicate the scores for secondary education English majors in SEDU 495 - Student Teaching on 3 major aspects Ability to Plan, Performance, and Impact on Student Learning.

Directions for the completion of the Discipline Specific Competencies as they appear in the Live Text Resource Center are: Click on the best response for each of the following statements listed below. Please note that each statement is repeated three times in order to assess each of these areas; planning, performance, and student impact.

Discipline Specific Competency Form

Teacher Candidate's First Name

EDIT: , VIEW: , REQR:

2

Teacher Candidate's Last Name


3

Please indicate the appropriate clinical experience


4

Student Identification Number

Be sure to include the @ sign with the number.


5

Person Completing the Form is the


6

Click on the best response for each of the following statements listed below. Please note that each statement is repeated three times in order to assess each of these areas; planning, performance and student impact.

Please enter the name of the person completing this form.


7

1.0 Structure of the Basic Program - Candidates follow a specific curriculum and are expected to meet appropriate performance assessments for pre-service English language arts teachers

TEACHER CANDIDATE'S ABILITY TO PLAN


8


PERFORMANCE OF TEACHER CANDIDATE


9


TEACHER CANDIDATE'S IMPACT ON STUDENT LEARNING


10

2.0 Attitudes for English Language Arts - Through modeling, advisement, instruction, field experiences, assessment of performance, and involvement in professional organizations, candidates adopt and strengthen professional attitudes needed by English language arts teachers



11




12




13

2.1 Candidates create an inclusive and supportive learning environment in which all students can engage in learning



14




15




16

2.2 Candidates use ELA to help their students become familiar with their own and others' cultures



17




18




19

2.3 Candidates demonstrate reflective practice, involvement in professional organizations, and collaboration with both faculty and other candidates



20




21




22

2.4 Candidates use practices and assessments designed to assist students in developing habits of critical thinking and judgment



23




24




25

2.5 Candidates make meaningful and creative connections between ELA curriculum and developments in culture, society, and education



26




27




28

3.0 Knowledge of English Language Arts- Candidates are knowledgeable about language; literature; oral, visual, and written literacy; print and non-print media; technology; and research theory and findings



29




30




31

3.1 Candidates demonstrate knowledge of, and skills in the use of, the English language



32




33




34

3.2 Candidates demonstrate knowledge of the practices of oral, visual, and written literacy



35




36




37

3.3 Candidates demonstrate their knowledge of reading processes



38




39




40

3.4 Candidates demonstrate their knowledge of different composing processes



41




42




43

3.5 Candidates demonstrate knowledge of, and uses for, an extensive range of literature



44




45




46

3.6 Candidates demonstrate knowledge of the range and influences of print and nonprint media and technology in contemporary culture



47




48




49

3.7 Candidates demonstrate knowledge of research theory and findings in the English language arts



50




51




52

4.0 Pedagogy for English Language Arts- Candidates acquire and demonstrate the dispositions and skills needed to integrate knowledge of English language arts, students, and teaching



53




54




55

4.1 Candidates examine and select resources for instruction such as textbooks, other print materials, videos, films, records, and software, appropriate for supporting the teaching of English language arts



56




57




58

4.2 Candidates align curriculum goals and teaching strategies with the organization of classroom environments and learning experiences to promote whole-class, small-group, and individual work



59




60




61

4.3 Candidates integrate interdisciplinary teaching strategies and materials into the teaching and learning process for students



62




63




64

4.4 Candidates create and sustain learning environments that promote respect for, and support of, individual differences of ethnicity, race, language, culture, gender, and ability



65




66




67

4.5 Candidates engage students often in meaningful discussions for the purposes of interpreting and evaluating ideas presented through oral, written, and/or visual forms



68




69




70

4.6 Candidates engage students in critical analysis of different media and communications technologies



71




72




73

4.7 Candidates engage students in learning experiences that consistently emphasize varied uses and purposes for language in communication



74




75




76

4.8 Candidates engage students in making meaning of texts through personal response



77




78




79

4.9 Candidates demonstrate that their students can select appropriate reading strategies



80




81




82

4.10 Candidates integrate assessment consistently into instruction by using a variety of formal and informal assessment activities and instruments to evaluate processes and products, and creating regular opportunities to use and a variety of ways to interpret and report assessment methods and results to students, parents, administrators, and other audiences



83

Date

(MM/DD/YYYY)

The following scores represent students in

SEDU 495 - Student Teaching.

Ability to Plan

Spring 2012 Secondary Education Competency Data for 12 Completers

Item

Responder

#

%

Target

3

%

Acceptable

2

%

Developing

1

%

Unacceptable

0

nr

Standard 2.5 Candidates make meaningful connections between the ELA curriculum and developments in culture, society, and education.

University

Supervisor

12

100

0

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

12

75

25

0

0

0

Standard 4.1 Candidates examine and select resources for instruction . . . appropriate for supporting the teaching of English language Arts.

University

Supervisor

12

100

0

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

12

50

25

25

0

0

Standard 4.2 Candidates align curriculum goals and teaching strategies with the organization of classroom environments and learning experiences to promote whole-class, small group, and individual work.

University

Supervisor

12

50

50

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

12

100

0

0

0

0

Ability to Plan

Fall 2011 Secondary Education Competency Data for 1 Completer

Item

Responder

#

%

Target

3

%

Acceptable

2

%

Developing

1

%

Unacceptable

0

nr

Standard 2.5 Candidates make meaningful connections between the ELA curriculum and developments in culture, society, and education.

University

Supervisor

1

100

0

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

1

100

0

0

0

0

Standard 4.1 Candidates examine and select resources for instruction . . . appropriate for supporting the teaching of English language Arts.

University

Supervisor

1

0

100

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

1

100

0

0

0

0

Standard 4.2 Candidates align curriculum goals and teaching strategies with the organization of classroom environments and learning experiences to promote whole-class, small group, and individual work.

University

Supervisor

1

100

0

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

1

100

0

0

0

0

Performance


Item

Responder

#

%

Target

3

%

Acceptable

2

%

Developing 1

%

Unacceptable

0

nr

Standard 2.1 Candidates create an inclusive and supportive learning environment in which all students can engage in learning.

University

Supervisor

12

100

0

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

12

83.4

16.6

0

0

0

Standard 2.3 Candidates demonstrate reflective practice, involvement in professional organizations, and collaboration with both faculty and other candidates.

University

Supervisor

12

83.4

8.3

8.3

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

12

100

0

0

0

0

Standard 2.6 Candidates engage their students in activities that demonstrate the role of arts and humanities in learning.

University

Supervisor

12

91.7

8.3

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

12

83.4

16.6

0

0

0

Standard 3.1 Candidates demonstrate knowledge of, and skills in the use of, the English language.

University

Supervisor

12

100

0

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

12

100

0

0

0

0

Standard 3.2 Candidates demonstrate knowledge of the practices of oral, visual, and written literacy.

University

Supervisor

12

100

0

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

12

100

0

0

0

0

Standard 3.3 Candidates demonstrate knowledge of reading processes

University

Supervisor

12

0

50

50

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

12

50

50

0

0

0

Standard 3.4 Candidates demonstrate knowledge of different composing processes.

University

Supervisor

12

75

25

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

12

75

16.6

8.3

0

0

Standard 3.5 Candidates demonstrate knowledge of, and uses for, an extensive range of literature

University

Supervisor

12

25

50

25

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

12

25

50

25

0

0

Standard 3.6 Candidates demonstrate knowledge of the range and influences of print and non-print media and technology in contemporary culture.

University

Supervisor

12

25

50

25

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

12

50

25

25

0

0

Standard 3.7 Candidates demonstrate knowledge of research theory and findings in English language arts.

University

Supervisor

12

0

100

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

12

91.7

8.3

0

0

0

Standard 4.3 Candidates integrate interdisciplinary teaching strategies and materials into the teaching and learning process for students

University

Supervisor

12

75

25

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

12

91.7

8.3

0

0

0

Standard 4.4 Candidates create and sustain learning environments that promote respect for, and support of, individual differences of ethnicity, race, language, culture, gender, and ability.

University

Supervisor

12

75

25

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

12

100

0

0

0

0

Standard 4.7 Candidates engage students in learning experiences that consistently emphasize varied uses and purposes for language in communication.

University

Supervisor

12

75

8.3

16.6

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

12

75

8.3

16.6

0

0

Standard 4.8 Candidates engage students in making meaning of texts through personal response.

University

Supervisor

12

75

8.3

16.6

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

12

75

16.6

8.3

0

0

Standard 4.10 Candidates integrate assessment consistently into instruction by using a variety of formal and informal assessment activities.

University

Supervisor

12

100

0

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

12

100

0

0

0

0

Performance


Item

Responder

#

%

Target

3

%

Acceptable

2

%

Developing

1

%

Unacceptable

0

nr

Standard 2.1 Candidates create an inclusive and supportive learning environment in which all students can engage in learning.

University

Supervisor

1

0

100

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

1

100

0

0

0

0

Standard 2.3 Candidates demonstrate reflective practice, involvement in professional organizations, and collaboration with both faculty and other candidates.

University

Supervisor

1

100

0

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

1

100

0

0

0

0

Standard 2.6 Candidates engage their students in activities that demonstrate the role of arts and humanities in learning.

University

Supervisor

1

100

0

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

1

100

0

0

0

0

Standard 3.1 Candidates demonstrate knowledge of, and skills in the use of, the English language.

University

Supervisor

1

100

0

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

1

100

0

0

0

0

Standard 3.2 Candidates demonstrate knowledge of the practices of oral, visual, and written literacy.

University

Supervisor

1

100

0

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

1

100

0

0

0

0

Standard 3.3 Candidates demonstrate knowledge of reading processes

University

Supervisor

1

100

0

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

1

100

0

0

0

0

Standard 3.4 Candidates demonstrate knowledge of different composing processes.

University

Supervisor

1

100

0

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

1

100

0

0

0

0

Standard 3.5 Candidates demonstrate knowledge of, and uses for, an extensive range of literature

University

Supervisor

1

100

0

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

1

100

0

0

0

0

Standard 3.6 Candidates demonstrate knowledge of the range and influences of print and non-print media and technology in contemporary culture.

University

Supervisor

1

0

100

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

1

100

0

0

0

0

Standard 3.7 Candidates demonstrate knowledge of research theory and findings in English language arts.

University

Supervisor

1

100

0

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

1

100

0

0

0

0

Standard 4.3 Candidates integrate interdisciplinary teaching strategies and materials into the teaching and learning process for students

University

Supervisor

1

100

0

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

1

100

0

0

0

0

Standard 4.4 Candidates create and sustain learning environments that promote respect for, and support of, individual differences of ethnicity, race, language, culture, gender, and ability.

University

Supervisor

1

100

0

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

1

100

0

0

0

0

Standard 4.7 Candidates engage students in learning experiences that consistently emphasize varied uses and purposes for language in communication.

University

Supervisor

1

100

0

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

1

100

0

0

0

0

Standard 4.8 Candidates engage students in making meaning of texts through personal response.

University

Supervisor

1

100

0

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

1

100

0

0

0

0

Standard 4.10 Candidates integrate assessment consistently into instruction by using a variety of formal and informal assessment activities. . .

University

Supervisor

1

100

0

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

1

100

0

0

0

0

Impact on Student Learning


Item

Responder

#

%

Target

3

%

Acceptable

2

%

Developing

1

%

Unacceptable

0

nr

Standard 2.2 Candidates use ELA to help students become familiar with their own and others cultures.

University

Supervisor

12

25

50

25

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

12

75

0

25

0

0

Standard 2.4 Candidates use practices designed to assist students in developing habits of critical thinking and judgment.

University

Supervisor

12

75

16.6

8.3

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

12

75

25

0

0

0

Standard 4.5 Candidates engage students often in meaningful discussions for the purposes of interpreting and evaluating ideas presented through oral, written, and/or visual forms

University

Supervisor

12

75

16.6

8.3

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

12

75

16.6

8.3

0

0

Standard 4.6 Candidates engage students in critical analysis of different media and communication technologies.

University

Supervisor

12

75

16.6

8.3

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

12

75

16.6

8.3

0

0

Standard 4.9 Candidates demonstrate that their students can select appropriate reading strategies

University

Supervisor

12

100

0

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

12

100

0

0

0

0



Item

Responder

#

%

Target

3

%

Acceptable

2

%

Developing

1

%

Unacceptable

0

nr

Standard 2.2 Candidates use ELA to help students become familiar with their own and others cultures.

University

Supervisor

1

100

0

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

1

100

0

0

0

0

Standard 2.4 Candidates use practices designed to assist students in developing habits of critical thinking and judgment.

University

Supervisor

1

0

100

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

1

100

0

0

0

0

Standard 4.5 Candidates engage students often in meaningful discussions for the purposes of interpreting and evaluating ideas presented through oral, written, and/or visual forms

University

Supervisor

1

0

100

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

1

100

0

0

0

0

Standard 4.6 Candidates engage students in critical analysis of different media and communication technologies.

University

Supervisor

1

100

0

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

1

100

0

0

0

0

Standard 4.9 Candidates demonstrate that their students can select appropriate reading strategies

University

Supervisor

1

100

0

0

0

0

Cooperating Teacher

1

100

0

0

0

0

Interpretation of Data:

Ability to Plan

Spring 2012 data show that the university supervisors and the cooperating teachers rated all candidates at the target or acceptable level in regards to their ability to examine and select resources for instruction . . . appropriate for supporting the teaching of English language Arts (Standard 2.5) and in their ability to align curriculum goals and teaching strategies with the organization of classroom environments and learning experiences to promote whole-class, small group, and individual work (Standard 4.2). A discrepancy in the candidates evaluation is evident in Standard 4.1, Candidates examine and select resources for instruction . . . appropriate for supporting the teaching of English language Arts. The university supervisors evaluated all candidates at the target level; however, the cooperating teachers evaluated 25% of the candidates at the developing level. To address this discrepancy, it will be important for the cooperating teaching and university supervisors to have a clearer understanding of the expected expectations and outcomes for the candidate.

The data for Fall 2011 represent scores from one English teacher candidate. He/she scored at the target or acceptable level on all standards regarding ability to plan.

Performance

The Spring 2012 data show that the university supervisors and the cooperating teachers rated all candidates at the target level in regards to their knowledge of, and skills in the use of, the English language (Standard 3.1), their knowledge of the practices of oral, visual, and written literacy (Standard 3.2), and their ability to integrate assessment consistently into instruction by using a variety of formal and informal assessment activities. . .(Standards 4.10). In addition, all candidates were rated at the target or acceptable level in five areas. The candidates performance was rated as developing in seven areas: Candidates demonstrate reflective practice, involvement in professional organizations, and collaboration with both faculty and other candidates (Standard 2.3), and in their ability to demonstrate knowledge of reading process (Standard 3.3), composing processes (Standard 3.4), extensive range of literature (Standard 3.5), range and influences of print and non-print media and technology in contemporary literature (Standard 3.6), and in their ability to engage students in learning experiences that consistently emphasize varied uses and purposes for language in communication (Standard 4.7) and making meaning of texts through personal experience (Standard 4.8). It is important that faculty members collaborate on ways to improve upon these performance areas.

The data for Fall 2011 represent scores from one English teacher candidate. He/she scored at the target or acceptable level on all standards regarding performance.


The Spring 2012 data show that the university supervisors and the cooperating teachers rated all candidates at the target level in regards to their ability to demonstrate that their students can select appropriate reading strategies (Standard 4.9). The university supervisors and cooperating teachers consistently rated 75% of the candidates at the target level in regards to their ability to use practices designed to assist students in developing habits of critical thinking and judgment (Standards 2.4), their ability to engage students often in meaningful discussions for the purpose of interpreting and evaluating ideas presented through oral, written, and/or visual forms (Standard 4.5), and their ability to engage students in critical analysis of different media and communication technologies (Standard 4.6). However, within these same three standards, 8.6% of the students were rated at the developing level. In addition, there is a large discrepancy in the evaluation of the candidates ability to use ELA strategies to help students become familiar with their own and others culture. Although the university supervisors and the cooperating teachers rated 25% of the candidates as developing on this standard, the university supervisors rated 25% of the candidates at the target level whereas the cooperating teachers rated 75% of the candidates at the target level on this standard. To address this discrepancy, it will be important for the cooperating teaching and university supervisors to have a clearer understanding of the expected expectations and outcomes for the candidate.

The data for Fall 2011 represent scores from one English teacher candidate. He/she scored at the target or acceptable level on all standards regarding performance.

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Choose One

Discipline Specific Form

Assessment 3

Instructional Techniques Unit Plan

Description:

Assessment 3 is a new assessment based on the comments in the National Recognition Report indicating that although the previous assessment separated out data for instructional planning, this assessment was part of a larger package that focuses across multiple aspects of the candidates preparation for teaching. This assessment focuses entirely on a candidates ability to plan.

Assessment 3 includes candidates writing an Interdisciplinary Unit Plan designed to assess the English teacher candidates ability to plan. The unit requirements include teacher candidates from different disciplines working as partners to create lessons around a common theme or topic. Specifically candidates in English must address literacy standards in reading, writing, listening and speaking while their partner must address competencies specific to their discipline. Candidates choose lesson formats and instructional practices to meet their unit standards and objectives from the models learned in their instructional methods classes including: lecture/discussion; direct instruction, guided discovery, concept attainment, problem-based, and integrative.

The unit plan requirements must integrate advanced technology as well as the unique needs of secondary students who may need accommodations including for example: struggling readers, English Language Learners, gifted students, and students with specific learning needs. Assessment 3 is required when candidates are enrolled in their required special education course that addresses adaptations and accommodations for students with special needs.

Faculty who has strong professional backgrounds in English content as well as P-12 teaching experience, using with the rubric below, evaluates candidates Instructional Techniques Unit Plans. This data is provided below.

Interdisciplinary/ English Unit Plan Rubric (New Spring 2012)

NCTE Standards

Interdisciplinary Unit/ Portfolio Element

Target

9-10 points

Acceptable

8-6 points

Developing

5-3 points

Unacceptable

2-0 points

3.1; 3.2; 3.3; 3.5; 3.6; 4.7; 4.8; 4.9; 4.10.

1. Met reading needs of students

Consistent evidence of lesson plans and instruction that integrate reading strategies promoting meta- cognition for learning content and methods for differentiating instruction in the ELA classroom.

Adequate evidence of lesson plans and instruction that integrate reading strategies promoting meta- cognition for learning content and methods for differentiating instruction in the ELA classroom.

Limited evidence of lesson plans and instruction that integrate reading strategies promoting meta- cognition for learning content and methods for differentiating instruction in the ELA classroom.

No evidence of lesson plans and instruction that integrate reading strategies promoting meta- cognition for learning content and methods for differentiating instruction in the ELA classroom.

4.1; 4.3; 4.5, 4.10

2. Assessments Used or Designed

Consistent and clear evidence of assessments to correlate with the ELA Pennsylvania objectives and NCTE standards. There is a large variety of assessments.

Adequate evidence of assessments to correlate with the ELA Pennsylvania objectives and NCTE standards. There is some variety of assessments.

Limited evidence of assessments to correlate with the ELA Pennsylvania objectives and NCTE standards. Lacks a variety of assessments.

No evidence of assessments to correlate with the ELA Pennsylvania objectives and NCTE standards. There are no assessments provided.

3.2; 3.6; 4.1; 4.3; 4.6.

3. Integration of technology

Consistent samples of how print and non-print media and technology were integrated with the ELA classroom. Consistent evidence of a variety of resources in lesson plans.

Technology used:

Technology used:

Technology used:

Adequate samples of how print and non-print media and technology were integrated with the ELA classroom. Adequate evidence of a variety of resources in lesson plans.

Technology used:

Technology used:

Limited samples of how print and non-print media and technology were integrated with the ELA classroom. Limited evidence of a variety of resources in lesson plans.

Technology used:

No samples of how print and non-print media and technology were integrated with the ELA classroom. No evidence of a variety of resources in lesson plans.

2.1; 2.3; 2.4; 4.2; 4.4.

4. Classroom management

Consistent evidence of lesson plans to reinforce intrinsic motivation and build a classroom community.

Adequate evidence of lesson plans to reinforce intrinsic motivation and build a classroom community.

Limited evidence of lesson plans to reinforce intrinsic motivation and build a classroom community.

No evidence of lesson plans to reinforce intrinsic motivation and build a classroom community.

2.1; 2.2; 2.4; 2.5; 3.4; 4.1; 4.2; 4.3; 4.4; 4.5; 4.7; 4.8.

5.0 Adaptations.

5.1 Supportive learning environment.

5.2 Higher Order Thinking skills.

Consistent evidence of planning for an inclusive and supportive learning environment in which all students engage in learning.

ELLs:

Struggling readers:

Gifted students:

Students w/ physical needs:

Students w/ mental needs:

Behavioral accommodations:

Consistently aligns curriculum goals and teaching strategies to promote whole-class, small group, and individual work.

Consistent evidence of plans designed to assist students to develop habits of critical thinking and judgment in oral, written, and / or visual form.

Adequate evidence of planning for an inclusive and supportive learning environment in which some students engage in learning.

Adequately aligns curriculum goals and teaching strategies to promote whole-class, small group, and individual work.

Adequate evidence of plans designed to assist students to develop habits of critical thinking and judgment in oral, written, and / or visual form.

Limited evidence of planning for an inclusive and supportive learning environment in which some students engage in learning.

Limitedly aligns curriculum goals and teaching strategies to promote whole-class, small group, and individual work.

Limited evidence of plans designed to assist students to develop habits of critical thinking and judgment in oral, written, and / or visual form.

No evidence of planning for an inclusive and supportive learning environment in which all students engage in learning.

There are no curriculum goals aligned with teaching strategies to promote whole-class, small group, and individual work.

No evidence of plans designed to assist students to develop habits of critical thinking and judgment in oral, written, and / or visual form.

2.5; 2.6; 4.1; 4.3; 4.8.

TOTAL

6.0

Interdisciplinary lessons.

6.1 English Disciplines.

6.2 Interdisciplinary Content

/100

Consistent evidence of interdisciplinary teaching strategies and materials.

The Interdisciplinary Unit contained a lesson plan using each of the 6 Methods (lecture discussion, direct instruction, guided discovery, concept attainment, problem based, and integrative).

The Interdisciplinary Unit contains a lesson plan for each of the 6 English Disciplines (reading comprehension, word study, listening, speaking, writing, and writing research).

Consistent evidence of interdisciplinary teaching using more than one content area.

Adequate evidence of interdisciplinary teaching strategies and materials.

The Interdisciplinary Unit contained a lesson plan using 4 of the 6 Methods (lecture discussion, direct instruction, guided discovery, concept attainment, problem based, and integrative).

The Interdisciplinary Unit contains a lesson plan for 5 of the English Disciplines (reading comprehension, word study, listening, speaking, writing, and writing research).

Adequate evidence of interdisciplinary teaching using more than one content area.

Limited evidence of inter-disciplinary teaching strategies and materials.

The Interdisciplinary Unit contained a lesson plan using 3 of the 6 Methods (lecture discussion, direct instruction, guided discovery, concept attainment, problem based, and integrative).

The Interdisciplinary Unit contains a lesson plan for 4 of the English Disciplines (reading comprehension, word study, listening, speaking, writing, and writing research).

Limited evidence of inter-disciplinary teaching using more than one content area.

No evidence of interdisciplinary teaching strategies and materials.

The Interdisciplinary Unit contained a lesson plan using 2 or less of the 6 Methods (lecture discussion, direct instruction, guided discovery, concept attainment, problem based, and integrative).

The Interdisciplinary Unit contains a lesson plan for 3 or less of the English Disciplines (reading comprehension, word study, listening, speaking, writing, and writing research).

No evidence of interdisciplinary teaching using more than one content area.

Interdisciplinary/ English Unit Plan Data - Spring 2012

NCTE Standards

Interdisciplinary Unit/ Portfolio Element

Student 1

Student 2

Student 3

Student 4

Student 5

Student 6

3.1; 3.2; 3.3; 3.5; 3.6; 4.7; 4.8; 4.9; 4.10.

1. Met Reading needs

10

10

10

10

10

10

4.1; 4.3; 4.5.

2. Assessments used and designed

8

10

10

10

8

8

3.2; 3.6; 4.1; 4.3; 4.6.

3. Integration of technology

10

10

10

10

10

10

2.1; 2.3; 2.4; 4.2; 4.4.

4. Classroom management

9

10

10

8

9

9

2.1; 2.2; 2.4; 2.5; 3.4; 4.1; 4.2; 4.3; 4.4; 4.5; 4.7; 4.8.

5.0 Adaptations.

5.1 Supportive learning environment.

5.2 Higher-order thinking.

9

10

10

9

8

9

2.5; 2.6; 4.1; 4.3; 4.8.

6.0

Interdisciplinary lessons.

6.1 English Disciplines.

6.2 Interdisciplinary Content.

10

10

10

10

10

10

Interpretation of Data:

The data from the Assessment 3: Interdisciplinary Unit Plan rubric indicates that 100% of the six English teacher candidates scored Target on Met Reading Needs. When data from Assessment Used or Designed was analyzed, 50% of the English teacher candidates scored Target and 50% scored Acceptable. Further analysis of scores related to this area will be reviewed for future modifications in the area of assessment. One hundred percent of the English teacher candidates scored Target on the Integration of technology into their Interdisciplinary Unit Plans. When evaluated on Classroom Management 5 out of 6 teacher candidates performed in the Target Range. The rubric for Assessment 3 also shows that 5 of the 6 English teacher candidates scored Target on Adaptations, Supportive learning environment, and Critical Thinking skills. Finally, 100% of the English teacher candidates scored Target on Interdisciplinary lessons, English Disciplines, and Interdisciplinary Content. Based on these percentages, the program appears to be successful at instructing students how to create a cohesive Interdisciplinary Unit Plan however, following our continuous improvement model each semester data will be analyzed to make modifications and improvements to our program.

Instructional Techniques Unit Plan

Assessment 5

Instructional Assessment Plan

This is a new assessment focusing on impact on student learning. This assessment was added based on the comments in the February 2012 final report.

Description: The Instructional Assessment Plan (IAP) is an assessment that addresses many standards including planning; skills, knowledge, and disposition; and most importantly, impact on student learning. The pre and post assessment portion of the IAP definitively demonstrates the impact that the candidates have on the learning of their students.

The following is the description that the students are able to see as directions for completing the IAP:

General Directions

During your student teaching placement, you will create, teach, and evaluate an instructional plan. You must first conference with your cooperating teacher as to an appropriate concept of study. A decision about the concept for your plan must be emailed to your university supervisor as soon as possible. (The instructional plan must run for at least one week. The instructional plan must include at least 5 lessons. All documentation for the instructional plan should be submitted via LiveText and divided by appropriate sections as defined below. You may use this document as a template. You will need to make a copy of this document in order to be able to edit each section. Once you have made a copy of it, simply click on the edit option for each section and make the necessary changes. Once you have inserted your information, delete the directions as they are no longer needed, and share the instructional plan with your university supervisor as a REVIEWER.

Title

Instructions: The title should reflect the central concept of the instructional plan. This instructional plan is simply a week of instruction. For example, it may be a week long instructional plan for math. This would mean you would plan instruction for math following the regular classroom curriculum.The title reflects the instruction for the week.For example, if you were going to introduce geometry, the plancould be entitled "Exploring Geometric Shapes". Insert the title of the plan below and then delete these instructions. Be sure to Save this section and click on Finish to view the changes.

Contextual Factors

Instructions for Contextual Factors: In this section, you should explain why you chose the concept. Discuss relevant factors and how they may affect the teaching-instructional process. In your discussion include:

School Factors

i. Address school population- identify social-economic profile and race/ethnicity

ii. Describe the school environment-departmentalized, self contained, number of classroom per grade level

Classroom Factors

i. Address physical features, availability of technology, equipment, and resources, and the extent of parental involvement You might also discuss other relevant factors such as classroom roles and routines, grouping patterns, scheduling and classroom arrangement

Student Characteristics

i. Address student characteristics you might consider as you address instruction and assess learning include factors such as: age, gender, race, ethnicity, special needs, achievement, developmental levels, culture, language, interests, learning styles, modalities, or student skill levels. In your narrative, make sure you address student skills and prior learning that may influence the development of your learning objectives, instruction and assessment.

Instructional Implications

i. Address how contextual characteristics of the classroom and students have implications for instructional planning and assessment. Include specific instructional implications for at least two characteristics and any other factors that will influence how you plan and implement the instructional plan.

Based on the characteristics of your students and the classroom describe two instructional limitations or considerations that you will need to address as you plan and implement your instructional plan. (i.e. whole group- how to modify- departmentalized- homogeneous grouping, students with special needs)

Learning Objectives

Instructions for the Learning Objectives:

Provide and justify the learning objectives for the instructional plan.

List the learning objectives (not the activities) that will guide the planning, delivery and assessment of your instructional plan. These objectives should define what you expect students to know and be able to do at the end of the instructional plan. The objectives should be significant, challenging, varied and appropriate. Number or code each learning objective to reference later. (no more than 3)

Show how the objectives are aligned to Pa. Academic Standards

Describe the type and level of your learning objectives (Domains of learning- Cognitive, Affective, Psychomotor) Blooms taxonomy include higher order thinking)

Discuss why your learning objectives are important in terms of development, prerequisite knowledge, skills and other student needs. This should reflect back to the contextual factors.

Assessment

Instructions forAssessment: Design an assessment plan to monitor student progress toward learning objectives. Use multiple assessment modes and approaches aligned with learning objectives to assess student learning: before, during, and after instruction. These assessments should authentically measure student learning and may include: performance based tasks, paper and pencils tasks, or personal communication. Describe why your assessments are appropriate for measuring learning

Provide an overview of the assessment plan

o Using a table, chart, diagram or other visual organizer and align each learning objective with an appropriate assessment and show adaptations to meet the individual needs

Describe the pre and post assessments aligned to your learning objectives

o Each item on your pre/posttest needs to be numbered and aligned to that particular learning objective

o Include criteria you will use to determine if the students performance meets the learning objective

o Include copies of the assessment, criteria for judging student performance (scoring rubric, checklists, test blueprint, answer key

Discuss your plan for formative assessment that will help you determine student progress during the instructional plan

Describe the assessments you plan to use to check students progress and comment on the importance of collecting that information. This evidence may include such things as: worksheets, journal entries, student work samples

Keep all assessments student work samples for evidence.

Example of Assessment Plan: Grade 5

Learning Objectives

Assessments

Format of Assessment

Adaptations

Objective 1

Students will be able to identify a goodbeginning, middle and end when writing a sonnet and will implement all three into a writing sample.

Pre-Assessment

Formative Assessment

Post-Assessment

Informal discussion, analyze samples to identify beginning, middle, end

Small group meetings, rough draft

Rubric to evaluate writing sample

Encourage students to participate, highlight beginning, middle, end

Provide student with visuals of rough draft to follow during discussion. Discuss components one-on-one

Materials, Resources, Technology

Instructions for Materials

List the materials and resources that will be used to plan and teach this instructional plan as well as any technology used (e.g. calculators, web site, software applications, etc.

Vocabulary/Word Bank

Instructions for VocabularyIdentify the important words that students will need to know to facilitate understanding. (For younger students it is important to create visuals of these words for reference, older students might record the words in a vocabulary journal)

Scope of the Instructional Plan

Instructions for Scope of the Instructional Plan:

The instructional plan should include multiple lesson plans that address the objectives for a period of at least one week.If writing samples or project work is to be done, a rubric will need to be designed to fully evaluate their work.

Analysis of Student Learning

Instructions for Analysis of Student Learning:

Analyze the assessment data to explain progress and achievement toward learning objectives demonstrated by your whole class.

To analyze the progress of the class, create a table that shows pre and post assessment results on every student on every learning goal. Be sure to code each student by using a number or letter system to identify each student. DO NOT use student names to display and report the data collected. All samples collected for evidence should also use the same coding system and not the student name for identification.

Create a graphic summary that shows the extent to which your students made progress from pre to post toward the learning criterion that you identified for each learning goal in the assessment plan section.

Summarize what the graph tells you about your students learning in this instructional plan. (i.e. The number of students that met the criterion)

Reflection and Self Evaluation

Instructions for Reflection and Self-Evaluation:

Reflect on your performance as a teacher and link your performance to student learning results. Evaluate your performance and identify future actions for improved practice and professional growth Self-reflections should be written after each lesson and also at the end of the instructional plan. Identify the strengths and weaknesses, areas for future modification, and student achievement.

Select the learning goal where your students were most successful. Provide 2 or more possible reasons for this success, consider your objectives, instruction, and assessment along with student characteristics under your control

Select the learning goal where your students were least successful. Provide 2 or more possible reasons for this success; consider your objectives, instruction, and assessment along with student characteristics under your control. Discuss what you could do differently or better in the future to improve your students performance.

Identify two specific teaching/instructional strategies that you would modify or revise to effect student achievement. (i.e. loss of instructional time, limited visuals, organization of lesson) Then describe two specific steps you will take to improve performance in the critical areas you have identified.

Student Teaching Instructional Assessment Plan Rubric

Student Teaching Instructional Assessment Plan Rubric

Instr. Plan Element

Target (3pts)

Acceptable (2pts)

Developing (1pt)

Unacceptable

Knowledge of School and Classroom Factors (1, 3%) INTASC-3.D INTASC-3.E INTASC-7.B

NCTE 4.4

Contextual Factors

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

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

Teacher candidate displays limited knowledge of the characteristics of the school and classroom that may affect learning.

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

Knowledge of Characteristics of Students (1, 3%) INTASC-3.D INTASC-3.O INTASC-5.J

NCTE 2.1, 2.2

Contextual Factors

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

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

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

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

Knowledge of Students' Varied Approaches to Learning (1, 3%) INTASC-2.D

NCTE 4.4, 4.8, 4.9

Contextual Factors

Teacher candidate displays general and specific undertanding of the different ways students learn (e.g. learning styles, learning modalities) that may affect learning.

Teacher candidate displays general knowledge about the different ways students learn (e.g. learning styles, learning modalities).

Teacher candidate displays limited knowledge about the different ways students learn (e.g. learning styles, learning modalities).

Teacher candidate displays minimal, stereotypcial, or irrelevant knowledge about the different ways students learn.

Implications for Instructional Planning and Assessment (1, 3%) INTASC-2 INTASC-2.G INTASC-3.F INTASC-3.G INTASC-7.A INTASC-7.G

NCTE 2.3

Contextual Factors

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

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

Teacher candidate provides mininal implications for instruction and assessment based on student individual differences and school and classroom characteristics.

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

Significance, Challenge and Variety (1, 3%) INTASC-4.A INTASC-4.G

Learning Objectives

Objectives reflect several types of levels of learning and are significant and challenging.

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

Objectives reflect one type of levels of learning or lack significance and challenge.

Objectives reflect only one type or level of learning.

Clarity (1, 3%) INTASC-4.F

NCTE 4.2

Learning Objectives

All of the objectives are clearly stated as learning outcomes.

Most of the objectives are clearly stated as learning outcomes.

Some of the objectives are clearly stated as learning outcomes.

The objectives are not stated clearly and are activities rather than learning outcomes.

Appropriateness for Students (1, 3%) INTASC-2.A INTASC-2.B INTASC-2.C INTASC-3.K

NCTE 4.1

Learning Objectives

All of the objectives are appropriate for the development; pre-requisite knowledge, skills, experiences; and other student needs.

Most of the objectives are appropriate for the development; pre-requisite knowledge, skills, experiences; and other student needs.

Some of the objectives are appropriate for the development; pre-requisite knowledge, skills, experiences; and other student needs.

Objectives are not appropriate for the development; pre-requisite knowledge, skills, experiences; or other student needs

Alignment with State Standards (1, 3%)

NCTE 4.2

Learning Objectives

All of the objectives are aligned with state standards.

Most of the objectives are aligned with state standards.

Some of the objectives are aligned with state standards.

Objectives are not aligned with state standards.

Alignment with Learning Objectives and Instruction (1, 3%) INTASC-2.F

NCTE 4.2, 4.10

Assessment Plan

Each of the learning objectives is assessed through the assessment plan; assessments are congruent with the learning objectives in content and cognitive complexity.

Most of the learning objectives are assessed through the assessment plan; assessments are congruent with the learning objectives in content and cognitive complexity.

Some of the learning objectives are assessed through the assessment plan; assessments are congruent with the learning objectives in content and cognitive complexity.

Content and methods of assessment lack congruence with learning goals or lack cognitive complexity.

Clarity of Criteria and Standards for Performance (1, 3%) INTASC-8.B

NCTE 4.10

Assessment Plan

Assessment criteria are clear and are explicitly linked to the learning objectives.

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

Assessment criteria have been developed are but they are not clear and are not explicitly linked to the learning objectives.

The assessments contain unclear criteria for measuring student performance relative to the learning goals.

Multiple Modes and Approaches (1, 3%) INTASC-2.F INTASC-2.H

NCTE 4.10

Assessment Plan

The assessment plan includes multiple assessment modes (including performance assessments, projects, journal entries, etc.) and assesses student performance throughout the instructional sequence.

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

The assessment plan includes two assessment modes but are all paper/pencil based (i.e. they are not performance assessments) and they do not require the integration of knowledge, skills and reasoning ability.

The assessment plan includes only one assessment mode and does not assess students before, during, and after instruction.

Technical Soundness (1, 3%) INTASC-8.B

NCTE 4.10

Assessment Plan

Assessments appear to be valid; scoring procedures are explained; all items or prompts are clearly written; directions and procedures are clear to students.

Assessments appear to be valid; most scoring procedures are explained; most items or prompts are clearly written; most directions and procedures are clear to students.

Assessments appear to have some validity. Some scoring procedures are explained; some items or prompts are clearly written; some directions and procedures are clear to students.

Assessments are not valid; scoring procedures are absent or inaccurate; items or prompts are poorly written; directions and procedures are confusing to students

Adaptations Based on Individual Needs of Students (1, 3%) INTASC-1.B INTASC-3.L INTASC-3.M

NCTE 2.1, 4.4

Assessment Plan

Teacher candidate makes adaptations to assessment that are appropriate to meet the needs of all students.

Teacher candidate makes adaptations to assessment that are appropriate to meet the needs of most students.

Teacher candidate makes adaptations to assessment that are appropriate to meet the needs of some of the students.

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

Alignment with Learning Objectives (1, 3%) INTASC-1.H

Design for Instruction

All lessons are explicitly linked to learning objectives. All learning activities, assignments and resouces are aligned with learning goals. All learning goals are covered in the design.

Most of the lessons are explicitly linked to learning objectives. Most learning activities, assignments and resouces are aligned with learning goals. Most of the learning goals are covered in the design.

Some of the lessons are explicitly linked to learning objectives. Some learning activities, assignments and resouces are aligned with learning goals. Some of the learning goals are covered in the design.

Few lessons are explicitly linked to learning objectives. Few learning activities, assignments and resouces are aligned with learning goals. Few of the learning goals are covered in the design.

Accurate Representation of Content (1, 3%) INTASC-1.A INTASC-1.B INTASC-1.C

NCTE 3.1-3.6


Teacher candidate's use of content appears to be accurate. Focus of the content is congruent with the big ideas or structure of the discipline.

Teacher candidate's use of content appears to be mostly accurate. Shows some awareness of the big ideas or structure of the discipline.

Teacher candidate's use of content appears to be somewhat accurate. Shows a beginning awareness of the big ideas or structure of the discipline.

Teacher candidate's use of content appears to contain numerous inaccuracies. Content seems to be viewed more as isolated skills and facts rather than as part of a larger conceptual structure.

Lesson Structure (1, 3%) INTASC-1.J INTASC-4.I

NCTE 4.2


All lessons within the instructional plan are logically organized and appear to be useful in moving students toward achieving the learning objectives.

Most of the lessons within the instructional plan are logically organized and appear to be useful in moving students toward achieving the learning objectives.

The lessons within the instructional plan have some logical organization and appear to be be somewhat useful in moving students toward achieving the learning objectives.

The lessons within the instructional plan are not logically organized or sequenced.

Use of a Variety of Instruction, Activities, Assignments and Resources (1, 3%) INTASC-1.D INTASC-1.H INTASC-1.I INTASC-1.K INTASC-4 INTASC-4.B INTASC-4.C INTASC-4.G INTASC-5.M

NCTE 4.3, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7


Significant variety across instruction, activities, assignments, and/or resources. This variety makes a clear contribution to learning.

Some variety in instruction, activities, assignments, or resources but with limited contribution to learning.

Limited variety in instruction, activities, assignments, or resources with limited contribution to learning.

Little variety of instruction, activities, assignments, and resources. Heavy reliance on textbook or single resource (e.g. worksheets).

Use of Contextual Information and Data to Select Appropriate and Relevant Activities, Assignments and Resources (1, 3%) INTASC-1.G INTASC-1.K INTASC-3.A INTASC-3.K INTASC-3.L INTASC-3.P INTASC-4.G

NCTE 2.4, 4.9


All instuction has been designed with reference to contextual factors and preassessment data. All activities and assignments appear productive and appropriate for each student.

Most instuction has been designed with reference to contextual factors and preassessment data. Most activities and assignments appear productive and appropriate for each student.

Some instuction has been designed with reference to contextual factors and preassessment data. Some activities and assignments appear productive and appropriate for each student.

Instuction has not been designed with reference to contextual factors and preassessment data. Activities and assignments do not appear productive and appropriate for each student.

Clarity and Accuracy of Presentation (1, 3%)

NCTE 3.1 3.6


Presentation is very easy to understand and contains no errors of representation.

Presentation is easy to understand and contains few errors of representation.

Presentation is somewhat easy to understand and contains some errors of representation.

Presentation is not clear and accurate; it does not accurately reflect the data.

Alignment with Learning Objectives (1, 3%) INTASC-4.F

NCTE 1 (impact), 4.10


Analysis is fully aligned with learning objectives and provides a comprehensive profile of student learning for the whole class.

Analysis is partially aligned with learning objectives and provides a comprehensive profile of student learning for the whole class.

Analysis is partially aligned with learning objectives and/or fails to provide a comprehensive profile of student learning for the whole class.

Analysis of student learning is not aligned with the learning objectives.

Interpretation of Data (1, 3%) INTASC-2.E INTASC-4.F

NCTE 1 (impact), 4.10


Interpretation is meaningful, and appropriate conclusions are drawn from the data.

Interpretation is somewhat meaningful, and some appropriate conclusions are drawn from the data.

Interpretation is technically accurate, but conclusions are missing or not supported by data.

Interpretation is inaccurate, and conclusions are missing or unsupported by data.

Evidence of Impact on Student Learning (1, 3%) INTASC-8.D

NCTE 1 (impact)


Analysis of student learning includes evidence of the impact on student learning in terms of number of students who achieved and made progress toward each learning goal.

Analysis of student learning includes some evidence of the impact on student learning in terms of number of students who achieved and made progress toward each learning goal.

Analysis of student learning includes little evidence of the impact on student learning in terms of number of students who achieved and made progress toward each learning goal.

Analysis of student learning fails to include evidence of the impact on student learning in terms of number of students who achieved and made progress toward each learning goal.

Interpretation of Student Learning (1, 3%) INTASC-9.A

NCTE 2.3

Reflection and Evaluation

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

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

Provides some evidence to support conclusions drawn in "Analysis of Student Learning" section, but does not provide multiple hypotheses for why some students did not meet learning goals.

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

Insights on Effective Instruction and Assessment (1, 3%) INTASC-2.F

NCTE 2.3


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

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

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

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

Alignment Among Objectives, Instruction and Assessment (1, 3%) INTASC-4.H INTASC-8.D INTASC-8.F

NCTE 2.3


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

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

Somewhat connects learning objectives, instruction, and assessment results in the discussion of student learning and effective instruction; misunderstandings or conceptual gaps are present.

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

Implications for Future Teaching (1, 3%) INTASC-8.J INTASC-9.D INTASC-9.I

NCTE 2.3


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

Provides some ideas for redesigning learning objectives, instruction, and assessment and somewhat explains why these modifications would improve student learning.

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

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

Data

Spring 2012 Student Teaching Instructional Assessment Plan: English Only (12 completers**)

Instr. Plan Element(0 pts)

Target(3 pts)

Acceptable(2 pts)

Developing(1 pts)

Unacceptable(0 pts)

Mean

Mode

Stdev

Knowledge of School and Classroom Factors

0

8

0

0

0

3.00

3

0.00

Knowledge of Characteristics of Students

0

6

2

0

0

2.75

3

0.43

Knowledge of Students' Varied Approaches to Learning

0

7

1

0

0

2.88

3

0.33

Implications for Instructional Planning and Assessment

0

7

1

0

0

2.88

3

0.33

Significance, Challenge and Variety

0

8

0

0

0

3.00

3

0.00

Clarity

0

8

0

0

0

3.00

3

0.00

Appropriateness for Students

0

8

0

0

0

3.00

3

0.00

Alignment with State Standards

0

8

0

0

0

3.00

3

0.00

Alignment with Learning Objectives and Instruction

0

8

0

0

0

3.00

3

0.00

Clarity of Criteria and Standards for Performance

0

8

0

0

0

3.00

3

0.00

Multiple Modes and Approaches

0

8

0

0

0

3.00

3

0.00

Technical Soundness

0

7

0

1

0

2.75

3

0.66

Adaptations Based on Individual Needs of Students

0

6

2

0

0

2.75

3

0.43

Alignment with Learning Objectives

0

7

0

0

1

2.62

3

0.99

Accurate Representation of Content

0

7

0

0

1

2.62

3

0.99

Lesson Structure

0

7

0

0

1

2.62

3

0.99

Use of a Variety of Instruction, Activities, Assignments and Resources

0

7

0

0

1

2.62

3

0.99

Use of Contextual Information and Data to Select Appropriate and Relevant Activities, Assignments and Resources

0

7

0

0

1

2.62

3

0.99

Clarity and Accuracy of Presentation

0

7

0

1

0

2.75

3

0.66


0

6

1

0

1

2.50

3

1.00

Interpretation of Data

0

7

0

1

0

2.75

3

0.66

Evidence of Impact on Student Learning

0

7

0

1

0

2.75

3

0.66

Interpretation of Student Learning

0

7

0

1

0

2.75

3

0.66

Insights on Effective Instruction and Assessment

0

7

0

1

0

2.75

3

0.66

Alignment Among Objectives, Instruction and Assessment

0

7

0

1

0

2.75

3

0.66

Implications for Future Teaching

0

6

0

0

1

2.57

3

1.05


8(100%)


6(75%)

2(25%)


7(87%)

1(12%)


7(87%)

1(12%)


8(100%)

Clarity

8(100%)


8(100%)


8(100%)


8(100%)


8(100%)


8(100%)

Technical Soundness

7(87%)

1(12%)

Adaptations Based on Individual Needs of Students

6(75%)

2(25%)


7(87%)

1(12%)

Accurate Representation of Content

7(87%)

1(12%)

Lesson Structure

7(87%)

1(12%)

Use of a Variety of Instruction, Activities, Assignments and Resources

7(87%)

1(12%)

Use of Contextual Information and Data to Select Appropriate and Relevant Activities, Assignments and Resources

7(87%)

1(12%)

Clarity and Accuracy of Presentation

7(87%)

1(12%)


6(75%)

1(12%)

1(12%)

Interpretation of Data

7(87%)

1(12%)

Evidence of Impact on Student Learning

7(87%)

1(12%)

Interpretation of Student Learning

7(87%)

1(12%)

Insights on Effective Instruction and Assessment

7(87%)

1(12%)

Alignment Among Objectives, Instruction and Assessment

7(87%)

1(12%)

Implications for Future Teaching

6(85%)

1(14%)

Instr. Plan Element

Target

Acceptable

Developing

Unacceptable

** Missing data from 4 candidates (1 evaluator)

Fall 2011 Student Teaching Instructional Assessment Plan: English Only (1 completer)

Instr. Plan Element(0 pts)

Target(3 pts)

Acceptable(2 pts)

Developing(1 pts)

Unacceptable(0 pts)

Mean

Mode

Stdev


0

1

0

0

0

3.00

3

0.00


0

1

0

0

0

3.00

3

0.00


0

1

0

0

0

3.00

3

0.00


0

1

0

0

0

3.00

3

0.00


0

0

1

0

0

2.00

2

0.00

Clarity

0

0

1

0

0

2.00

2

0.00


0

1

0

0

0

3.00

3

0.00


0

1

0

0

0

3.00

3

0.00


0

0

1

0

0

2.00

2

0.00


0

1

0

0

0

3.00

3

0.00


0

1

0

0

0

3.00

3

0.00

Technical Soundness

0

1

0

0

0

program report for the preparation of english language ... · €€€€5.€€ncate...

Documents