Element 5B: Modeling Best Professional Practices in Teaching
Data regarding learning outcomes and assessment of candidate performance are on syllabi, course grades, in the Livetext system and in NYSTCE exam results. Data to respond to this element are drawn from syllabi, faculty vitae, interviews and anecdotal comments by faculty and from candidate examinations, sample papers, and other course-teaching related products mentioned in faculty survey responses.

There are multiple indicators of the faculty's understanding of content, most of which were reviewed under Standard 1 of this report:  the reviews of the initial and advanced programs by national professional organizations (SPA's); the grade point averages of candidates in initial and advanced programs; candidates' ratings of acquired content from relevant items on the course evaluations; candidates' demonstrated knowledge of content on benchmark assignments; candidates' demonstrated knowledge during student teaching (measured on the Pathwise rubric); candidates' performance on the New York State Teachers' Certification Examinations that address content (the liberal arts test and professional knowledge test); and the alumni responses to the exit survey.

The candidates' responses on the course evaluation items most related to content knowledge are summarized in Standard 1 from the Fall 2004 through Spring 2006 semesters.  Questions on the evaluation pertaining to gaining subject knowledge (terminology, methods, skills), learning relevant principles, theories, and concepts, and the faculty member's clear understanding of subject matter were highlighted.  On a scale from "1" (strongly agree) to "5" (strongly disagree), 650 candidates rating faculty averaged between 1.3 and 1.55 across all semesters.

As presented in previous Standards, there are multiple indicators to evaluate faculty's modeling of professional practices, including candidates' demonstrated and reported knowledge of content and pedagogy.  As discussed in Standard 1 of this report, candidate proficiency (both distinguished and proficient levels) on the benchmark assignments that involved content or pedagogical knowledge in the initial and advanced programs ranged from 71 to 94 percent. In 2004-2005,  99 percent of the candidates successfully passed the Liberal Arts and Sciences Test for New York State certification; 91 to 100 percent passed each of the areas addressed in the Content Specialty Test.  Once graduated, alumni were surveyed about the program's impact on their content and pedagogical knowledge with items scaled from "1" ("strongly disagree") to "4" ("strongly agree").  Alumni from the programs gave answers on items related to content knowledge that averaged from 2.89 to 3.05; 84 percent responded to items about pedagogical knowledge as being in agreement.

The faculty's teaching reflects the elements of the Conceptual Framework:   Scholarship is often expressed in the use of current research as part of course content; Inclusive Community is expressed as commitment to diversity, differentiated instruction, and inclusive education; Reflection is expressed through teaching strategies that emphasize experiential education; Social Justice is reflected in a curriculum that emphasizes the educator's role in a democratic society; Wellness is expressed through study of society's and candidates' physical, emotional, and cognitive health; and Creativity and the Arts is expressed through teaching activities designed to stimulate imagination

One indicator of the faculty's teaching of the Conceptual Framework is whether faculty members have syllabi that are aligned with the template described above.  After review of all of the course syllabi across the unit's programs, 100% included the Conceptual Framework and addressed its role in the course.   The course syllabi are available as Exhibit S3-1.  And as summarized in the earlier sections of this report, candidates were asked to address five additional questions on the course evaluations used throughout the University, beginning in Spring 2005.  Over a three-semester period, over 90 percent agreed or strongly agreed that the faculty member had increased their understanding of the Conceptual Framework (see Table 1-5).

Faculty members provide information about their understanding of research, theories, and current developments in their respective fields and teaching through their syllabi and reading lists.   Several of the initial and advanced programs include entire courses that require candidates to become consumers and designers of research.  The curriculum in Special Education, for example, has a two-semester sequence of courses that address research.  Candidates in Educational Leadership and Technology are expected to develop an action research project in the Research and Evaluation course that is carried out through subsequent courses.  One of the ways in which faculty's understanding of research can be demonstrated is through the research that is conducted and presented by the candidates, themselves.  The University annually holds a research conference, offering candidates a unique opportunity to submit their original research and share it with their peers in the academic community.  They have the option to participate in either competitive or noncompetitive categories.  Both undergraduate and graduate candidates from the unit have submitted their research projects from their coursework.

Evidence of faculty members valuing candidates' learning includes responses to items on the course evaluations that are most aligned with this important element of teaching: timeliness in returning candidates' work, giving helpful/useful responses, being respectful and available outside of class.  Based on candidate responses over a four-semester period, average ratings on these items ranged from 1.25 to 1.45 ("1" being strongly agree, see Exhibit S1-10).

The faculty demonstrates the importance of candidate learning in offering personal contact with their candidates during a minimum of six office hours per week.  Beyond this, the faculty who teach within STEP have created an informal advisor/mentor program for the candidates to meet in small groups on an ongoing basis to discuss issues of education and their experiences related to their own professional development.  With regard to the coursework, faculty show the importance of candidate learning  through benchmark assignments. Based on the evidence from the benchmark rubrics and performance on other learning tasks, faculty members reflect on their effectiveness and modify assignments and instructional strategies to optimize candidate learning.

During Fall 2005, the faculty were surveyed to evaluate four key areas in teaching, providing evidence of the faculty's understanding of different learning styles:  integrating new information about content field, teaching and learning into instructional practice (including uses of technology); encouraging candidate critical thinking and reflection; assessing candidate performance; and assessing their own effectiveness.  On the section dealing with faculty assessment practices 42 full-time faculty responded to how they rated their use of eight different types of assessment.  Their aggregated response appears as Table 5-4.  Responses regarding forms of assessment used in teaching (listed in the left column) included exams, quizzes, performance tests, in-class writing, peer evaluations, rubrics applied to journals or papers, and field observations via rubric.  Based on this sample, the faculty most frequently use rubrics to evaluate candidates' progress.  Faculty also wrote in other assessment forms on the survey, which included candidate participation, quality of discussion, research, and class presentations.

An additional item on the course evaluation addressed the course/instructor's assistance in developing the candidate's dispositions (see Table 1-6) and a large majority of the candidates felt that they were supported in their development. After thoughtful discussions, the faculty designed a professional disposition rubric that is yielding important information about the development of dispositional knowledge and skills over the course of the initial and advanced programs.  The description of the rubric is detailed in Standard 1F.

The Fall 2005 faculty survey described before included questions about the variety of instructional strategies used.  Table 5-5 summarizes the responses of the 42 full-time faculty.  The range of their answers included teaching activities to encourage critical thinking and reflection include lecture, group discussion/debate, in-class assignments, case analysis, simulations, Socratic method, fieldwork, reflective journals, research assignments, and peer teaching.  They wrote in other techniques, such as role play, brainstorming, and class demonstrations.   Percentages of each strategy's use are given in the table.  It is significant to note that all of the instructional strategies are used for less than 15% of instructional time, suggesting use of an array of strategies.