Program Evaluation

Note: Beginning spring 2008 EDSC will use the electronic submission system allowing for the collection of data at the unit level. Until then results are compiled and reported at the program level. Fall 2006 and spring 2007 results are not yet available. The results presented are from 2005-2006, prior to the adoption of the common rubric 4-point scale now used in all initial programs. Program Evaluation Single Subject Credential Program 2005-2006

Program Evaluation Process • Participants • Master Teachers and Mentors • Program Completers • Data Collection • Surveys are distributed to program completers in their 449S Student Teacher Seminar, and are returned in SASE to the Coordinator of the Single Subject Credential Program. • Survey Instrument • Program completer competence is rated on a 5-point scale: excellent, good, average, weak, and inadequate. • Survey (in print form) consists of 26 items which are later collapsed into 13 categories of the Teaching Performance Expectations. • Items were taken directly from language of the Teaching Performance Expectations and include two items per expectation. • Data Analysis • Data is disaggregated by Master/Mentor Teachers, Program Completers, and a subset, Intern Program Completers. • Data is also compared to the previous years. At this time, we have two years of data.

TPE 1 • Specific Pedagogical Skills for Subject Matter Instruction 5 (Superior) 4 (Good) 3 (Average) 2 (Weak) 1 (Inadequate)

TPE 2 • Monitoring Student Learning During Instruction 5 (Superior) 4 (Good) 3 (Average) 2 (Weak) 1 (Inadequate)

TPE 3 • Interpretation and Use of Assessments 5 (Superior) 4 (Good) 3 (Average) 2 (Weak) 1 (Inadequate)

TPE 4 • Making Content Accessible 5 (Superior) 4 (Good) 3 (Average) 2 (Weak) 1 (Inadequate)

TPE 5 • Student Engagement 5 (Superior) 4 (Good) 3 (Average) 2 (Weak) 1 (Inadequate)

TPE 6 • Developmentally Appropriate Teaching Practices 5 (Superior) 4 (Good) 3 (Average) 2 (Weak) 1 (Inadequate)

TPE 7 • Teaching English Learners 5 (Superior) 4 (Good) 3 (Average) 2 (Weak) 1 (Inadequate)

TPE 8 • Learning about Students 5 (Superior) 4 (Good) 3 (Average) 2 (Weak) 1 (Inadequate)

TPE 9 • Instructional Planning 5 (Superior) 4 (Good) 3 (Average) 2 (Weak) 1 (Inadequate)

TPE 10 • Instructional Time 5 (Superior) 4 (Good) 3 (Average) 2 (Weak) 1 (Inadequate)

TPE 11 • Social Environment 5 (Superior) 4 (Good) 3 (Average) 2 (Weak) 1 (Inadequate)

TPE 12 • Professional, Legal, and Ethical Obligations 5 (Superior) 4 (Good) 3 (Average) 2 (Weak) 1 (Inadequate)

TPE 13 • Professional Growth 5 (Superior) 4 (Good) 3 (Average) 2 (Weak) 1 (Inadequate)

Master Teacher/Mentor Annual Comparison

Student Teacher Annual Comparison

Intern Annual Comparison

Trends • 2005-2006 Data • In general, Master/Mentor Teachers rate our candidates slightly lower than our candidates rate themselves. None of the differences are significantly different. • Candidates were rated lowest on TPE 7 (Teaching English Learners) and TPE 8 (Learning About Students). • Candidates were rated as “good” or higher for all 13 TPE categories. • Comparison of 04-05 and 05-06 Data • There was a slight decrease in the ratings of candidates by Master/Mentor Teachers in 9 of 13 categories. • There was a slight decrease in the ratings of candidates by themselves in 5 of 13 categories. • There was a slight decrease in the ratings of intern candidates by themselves in only 1 of 13 categories.

Recommendations and Goals • Department of Secondary Education • SECTEP • SECTEP Advisory Council

Program Evaluation