N- Number of Students  D- Distinguished  P- Proficient  B- Basic  U- Unsatisfactory  * - Adv Programs

As was the case with the trends in content knowledge of initial and advanced program candidates, this table shows gains in candidates' pedagogical knowledge from Induction (with 70 percent at "Distinguished" or "Proficient" levels) to Reflection (with 91 percent at those same levels).  The candidates in advanced programs show increases, as well (from 83 to 89 percent).  Similar increases are found with the 2004-2005 data.  These trends suggest that the programs are effective in supporting the candidates' development of pedagogical knowledge. 

There are selected elements of the Pathwise rubric that assess pedagogical knowledge of initial and advanced program candidates during their internships/student teaching (summary data from 2005-2006 in Exhibit S1-8).  As previously described, the disproportionately high number of candidates being awarded "Distinguished" levels of pedagogical knowledge requires review by the faculty of the rubric during 2006-2007.

In both the initial and advanced programs, course evaluations provide an indication of candidates' reported gains in pedagogical knowledge. Question number five of the "write-in questions" on the survey states, "field experiences (in this course), if required, contributed to my professional growth." Table 1-5 provides aggregated summaries by program and across the unit of the candidates' evaluation of the question. Responses to this item ranged from 1.4 to 2.1 across program.

While course grades may not, in themselves, represent candidates' knowledge—let alone a differentiation of content and pedagogical knowledge—trends across the transition points are worth noting. Exhibit S1-12 summarizes the grade point averages of candidates for the initial and advanced programs for Fall 2004 to Spring 2006. As already noted, the grades increased from the Exploration to the Reflection transition point for most programs.  Again, this may be a function of the unit faculty's effectiveness at intervening with candidates who should be dropped from the program. 

As described before, candidates have completed an "exit" survey at the completion of their program.  A large majority of the candidates in the programs responded that they were provided pedagogical knowledge needed in the identified areas given above (see Exhibit S1-14).  In particular, candidates favorably evaluated their ability to develop their own philosophies of education as a result of the program, to make educational decisions made based on reflective practice and to collaborate effectively with other professionals as a team (see Table 1-6).  Candidates responding to the survey also indicated, however, that they needed more support in working with English Language Learners, evaluating educational software and in developing knowledge about how to make themselves heard in school decisions.  In addition, they were less positive about the programs' planning for field placements and having the opportunity to express opinions about the program.

Two additional indicators of candidates' pedagogical knowledge—the alumni and employers' surveys (Exhibit S1-17 and Table 1-7, respectively)—yielded data that show the programs' effectiveness.  Alumni have responded that the unit's methods courses have been very important in their development as teachers; they viewed the theory and philosophy courses as less useful.  The employers have rated the unit's candidates as better than other teachers in two areas related to pedagogical knowledge:  competence in design of instruction and knowledge of current theoretical issues.


Notable Examples of Data-Informed Program Improvement
The data from the program reviews and the exit surveys, in particular, have prompted the faculty to review the field components of their methods courses prior to the Synthesis transition point, particularly in where and how they should occur.  All of the programs' faculty members have become committed to candidates gaining experience in high-need and diverse field placements.  The initial programs have undertaken a curriculum change with undergraduate and graduate methods courses in two ways:  1)  increasing the courses from three- to four-credit sequences so that faculty can observe candidates in the field and 2)   the inclusion of participatory requirements for candidates in field experiences that tie more directly into the courses' pedagogical objectives through small group instruction and tutoring in classrooms.  And one program, Adolescence, has launched a team teaching approach in 2006-2007 through integration ESL modules into content-based methods courses.