  
|
 |
|
Element 1G: Student Learning for Teacher Candidates
Teacher candidates are expected to impact student learning in all of their work. Throughout the stages of the courses of study – Exploration/Synthesis (Academic Coursework) and Synthesis/Reflective Practice (Field Experiences) – candidates must learn and subsequently analyze and monitor student learning to adjust their teaching as appropriate. The central aspect of this involves assessment of their learning and development. Student learning for teacher candidates as represented within the Conceptual Framework is shown in Exhibit S1-1.
Benchmark data from initial and advanced programs addressing the effect of candidates on student learning during 2005-2006 can be seen in Table 1-13. Exhibit S1-7 provides similar data for 2004-2005.
|
Table 1-13: Benchmark Rubric Scores in Student Learning By Program (2005-2006)
|
|
|
PROGRAM
|
INDUCTION
|
EXPLORATION
|
|
|
N
|
D
|
P
|
B
|
U
|
N
|
D
|
P
|
B
|
U
|
|
Health Ed
|
|
|
|
|
|
125
|
70
|
34
|
15
|
6
|
|
Physical Ed-BS
|
154
|
52
|
65
|
21
|
16
|
248
|
86
|
106
|
48
|
8
|
|
Physical Ed-MA
|
|
|
|
|
|
267
|
142
|
91
|
30
|
4
|
|
Art Ed
|
|
|
|
|
|
210
|
75
|
82
|
52
|
1
|
|
Childhood
|
|
|
|
|
|
125
|
43
|
54
|
27
|
2
|
|
Special Ed
|
|
|
|
|
|
146
|
54
|
53
|
36
|
6
|
|
Early Child
|
|
|
|
|
|
73
|
45
|
23
|
4
|
1
|
|
E Child Sp Ed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STEP-Adol
|
|
|
|
|
|
239
|
92
|
91
|
50
|
0
|
|
STEP-Child
|
|
|
|
|
|
284
|
100
|
114
|
67
|
3
|
|
Adolescent
|
|
|
|
|
|
144
|
52
|
60
|
32
|
0
|
|
Comm Sci Disorders*
|
|
|
|
|
|
159
|
125
|
20
|
5
|
9
|
|
TESOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
45
|
12
|
20
|
11
|
2
|
|
Literacy*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schl Psych*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL
|
154
|
52
|
65
|
21
|
16
|
2063
|
896
|
748
|
377
|
42
|
|
TOTAL %
|
|
33
|
43
|
13
|
11
|
|
43
|
36
|
18
|
3
|
|
Table 1-13 (Continued): Benchmark Rubric Scores in Student Learning By Program (2005-2006)
|
|
|
PROGRAM
|
SYNTHESIS
|
REFLECTION
|
|
|
N
|
D
|
P
|
B
|
U
|
N
|
D
|
P
|
B
|
U
|
|
Health Ed
|
73
|
45
|
20
|
6
|
2
|
22
|
15
|
6
|
1
|
0
|
|
Physical Ed-BS
|
118
|
55
|
51
|
12
|
0
|
50
|
30
|
15
|
5
|
0
|
|
Physical Ed-MA
|
199
|
116
|
60
|
20
|
3
|
29
|
20
|
9
|
0
|
0
|
|
Art Ed
|
45
|
20
|
14
|
9
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Childhood
|
75
|
24
|
32
|
16
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Special Ed
|
161
|
82
|
60
|
8
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Early Child
|
133
|
75
|
48
|
10
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E Child Sp Ed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STEP-Adol
|
76
|
46
|
21
|
7
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STEP-Child
|
241
|
139
|
73
|
20
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adolescent
|
36
|
25
|
8
|
3
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comm Sci Disorders*
|
18
|
4
|
13
|
1
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TESOL
|
67
|
30
|
23
|
13
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Literacy*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schl Psych*
|
80
|
30
|
37
|
13
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL
|
1322
|
691
|
460
|
138
|
29
|
101
|
65
|
30
|
6
|
0
|
|
TOTAL %
|
|
52
|
36
|
10
|
2
|
|
65
|
30
|
5
|
0
|
N- Number of Candidates D- Distinguished P- Proficient B- Basic U- Unsatisfactory * - AdvPrograms
The percentage of candidates achieving a "Distinguished" or "Proficient" rating on student learning increased from 76 percent at Induction to 95 percent at Reflection. The same trend occurred with the 2004-2005 data (74 to 99 percent). This suggests an increasing mastery of the ability to evaluate and support student learning across programs.
The most valuable place to assess candidate's impact on student learning is in extended field experiences like student teaching. Student work samples were collected from the candidates, beginning in 2003, in order to develop an evaluation system of candidates' support of student learning. As of this writing, work samples have been reviewed and placed into one of three categories: "High," "Medium" and "Low" demonstrated proficiency. These categories are being refined by the programs during the current academic year. The student work and the categorizations are available as Exhibit S1-24. In addition, Exhibit S1-8 (described earlier in the report) presents aggregated evidence from all initial programs from the selected elements from the Pathwise rubric that addresses the impact of candidates on student learning. These data indicate that further work must be done by the unit's faculty to increase the impact that candidates have on student learning.
Table 1-6 presents selected questions from the exit survey candidates complete at the end of their program. Exhibit S-14 identifies the exit survey data for each of the "initial" programs. One item, in particular, resulted in one of the highest rates of agreement: valuing different approaches to learning. In addition, Table 1-7 (the employer's survey) included an item about assessment/diagnostic skills and 58 percent responded that the unit's graduates were better than those from other programs.
In the coming semester, the Assessment Committee will be working with the unit's faculty to refine and implement an evaluation system for student work samples that have been collected by the Office of School and Community Partnerships. This system is part of each program's assessment plan.
|
|
