Part III: Evidence for Meeting Each Standard

Standard One: Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions

Candidates know and demonstrate the content, pedagogical and professional knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Assessments indicate that candidates meet professional, state, and institutional standards.

Element One: Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates

Programs for Initial Preparation of Teachers

Candidates in initial preparation programs have an in-depth knowledge of the subject matter they plan to teach as described in professional, state, and institutional standards. They demonstrate their knowledge through inquiry, critical analysis, and synthesis of the subject by the end of the program. All initial program completers pass academic content area examinations. Multiple means of verifying their content knowledge are used, as outlined in the following table.

Table 1.1.1
Verification of Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates
in Initial Teaching License (ITL)Programs

ITL Program

GPA

CBEST or PPST

ORELA

PRAXIS II

Work Sample
Evaluation

Student Teaching Evaluation

Undergraduate Programs

Midplacement

Summary

ECE

X

X

X

 

X

X

X

Elementary

X

X

X

 

X

X

X

Graduate Programs

 

 

MAT/5th Year

X

X

X
(ECE, Elem, and MS only)

X
(MS and HS)

X

X

X

MAT/FLEX

X

X

X
(ECE, Elem, and MS only)

X
(MS and HS)

X

X

X

Special  Education

X

X

*X

X

X

X

X
* Required for Highly Qualified status, but not licensure/exit.

The following evidence will be provided in this section to support this element: (A) state program approval, (B) content preparation and GPAs of candidates prior to admission, (C) state-approved standardized examination results, (D) evaluations of work samples, and (E) effectiveness in student teaching.

A. State Program Approval

Pacific University College of Education has received program approval from the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission for the following programs.

Table 1.1.2
Pacific University College of Education Programs Approved by TSPC

BA/BS: Education and Learning Major –
Early Childhood and Elementary Authorizations
Multiple Subjects Endorsement

Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT): Fifth Year and Flex

Authorizations:

  • Early Childhood Education
  • Elementary Education

Endorsements:

  • Art
  • Biology
  • Business
  • Chemistry
  • Drama
  • French
  • German
  • Health
  • Integrated Science (MS & HS)
  • Japanese
  • Middle Level
  • High School
  • Language Arts (MS & HS)
  • Marketing
  • Math – Basic
  • Math – Advanced
  • Multiple Subjects
  • Music
  • Physical Education
  • Physics
  • Russian
  • Social Studies (MS & HS)
  • Spanish

MAT/Special Educator (mild, moderate, and severe disabilities)
     Endorsements:
           Special Educator: Early Childhood and Elementary
           Special Educator: Middle and High School

Advanced Programs: Endorsements and Certificates

  • Continuing Teaching License (CTL)
  • Reading Endorsement **
  • ESOL Endorsement **
  • ESOL/Bilingual Endorsement **
  • Special Education Endorsement
  • Additional Authorization Levels
  • Additional Content Area Endorsements
  • Cultural Competence Certificate*
  • Talented and Gifted Certificate*
* There is no TSPC approval process for these certificates
** These endorsements may be added at the Initial Teaching License level in addition to one required for the degree.

B. Content Preparation and GPAs of Candidates Prior to Admission

Candidate preparation in content areas is reviewed at the time of admission to the program. This assessment entails a detailed transcript review to ensure that the applicant has met all content requirements for the endorsement. Applicants without appropriate content background must complete the appropriate content requirements before admission. In addition, candidates are required to pass a TSPC-approved required content area examination prior to their student teaching. Candidates all have incoming GPAs of at least 2.75 for admission.

C. Standardized Assessment Evidence: Initial Preparation of Candidates

TSPC-Approved Basic Skills Tests

Standardized tests approved by TSPC are used to assess a candidate’s basic skills prior to admission to COE teacher education programs. Table 1.1.3 below displays the entering GPAs and mean basic skills test scores for admitted candidates for selected years across a nine-year span. CBEST and PPST are basic skills tests; MSAT (now discontinued) and ORELA constitute content area tests for ECE, Elementary and Middle Level authorizations.

Table 1.1.3
Comparison of Mean GPAs and Mean Test Scores by Program and Year
(SMPS = State Minimum Passing Score)

 
Year
GPA
CBEST
PPST
MSAT
ORELA
   
Reading
SMPS 37
Math SMPS 37
Writing SMPS 37
Reading
SMPS 174
Writing
SMPS 171
Math
SMPS 175
Cont. Know.
SMPS 142
Cont. Area
SMPS  141
Cumul. Score
SMPS 299
Sub-
test I
SMPS 240
Sub-
test II
SMPS 240
MAT 5
1998
3.17
59
61
48
183
177
180
166
160
326
- - -
- - -
2002
3.14
56
57
47
182
180
181
169
164
333
- - -
- - -
2005
3.17
57
56
46
182
178
183
168
163
331
- - -
- - -
2006
3.23
56
56
46
183
179
182
171
163
334
274
270
MAT Flex
2002
3.03
56
53
46
181
175
186
168
163
331
- - -
- - -
2005
3.10
56
55
49
184
179
187
167
162
329
2006
3.21
55
59
48
183
179
185
170
160
330
272
276
UG
2005
3.28
53
53
46
182
174
184
159
159
318
2006
3.40
54
53
44
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
271
267
Special Educ.
2002
3.07
61
59
49
180
180
172
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
2005
3.22
55
54
47
184
176
185
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
2006
2.99
55
55
44
180
175
179
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -

TSPC-Approved Content Area Tests

Candidate scores on approved content area tests provide one measure of mastery of content knowledge. Table 1.1.4 includes Initial Teaching License candidates in secondary level authorizations and Special Education candidates as well as Advanced Programs candidates adding on an endorsement. Note that the means of our candidates’ scores tend to be well above the state minimum required score. With the exception of the special educator, reading, and ESOL endorsements, we recognize that these content area test scores are a reflection of the knowledge gained prior to entry into the COE. However, this does verify our diligence in selecting only candidates who have the content knowledge suitable for the endorsements they are earning. For each test, 100% of our program completers have met or exceeded the state minimum score.

Table 1.1.4
Praxis II Content Area Aggregate Scores among ITL Program Completers (FG & Eugene) (100% Pass Rate)

Praxis II Test
State Minimum Score
1998
2002
2005
2006
(n)
Mean Score
(n)
Mean Score
(n)
Mean Score
(n)
Mean Score
Art Art: Content Knowledge

156
--
--
7
157
4
183
7
182
Art: Content, Traditions, Criticism & Aesthetics
145
--
--
7
159
4
161
7
152
Biology Biology: Content Knowledge, Part 1
155
9
174
3
175
8
178
4
175
Biology: Content Knowledge, Part 2
148
9
164
3
172
8
166
4
168
Biology: Content Essays
154
9
154
3
163
8
163
4
160
Business Business Education
600
5
659
3
635
1
740
5
668
Chemistry Chemistry: Content Knowledge
136
1
143
--
--
4
171
--
--
Chemistry: Content Essays
140
1
160
--
--
4
166
--
--
ESOL Teaching English as a Second Language
510
--
--
5
688
4
703
5
570
French French: Content Knowledge
146
--
--
--
--
1
187
--
--
French: Productive Language Skills
160
--
--
--
--
1
165
--
--
German German: Content Knowledge
156
--
--
--
--
1
182
--
--
German: Productive Language Skills
160
--
--
--
--
1
180
--
--
Health Health Education
690
5
748
6
777
5
728
4
708
Integrated Science General Science: Content Knowledge Part 1
145
7
161
3
174
8
173
4
179
General Science: Content Knowledge Part 2
143
7
168
3
157
8
168
4
166
General Science: Content Essays
135
7
144
3
143
8
149
4
142
Language Arts English Language, Lit., & Composition: Content Knowledge
159
7
185
9
180
18
181
21
181
English Language, Literature, & Composition: Essays
145
7
165
9
161
18
149
21
164
Math, Basic Basic Math: Middle School Mathematics
156
--
--
6
167
8
179
12
176
Math, Advanced Mathematics: Content Knowledge
138
3
162
7
164
13
161
7
158
Mathematics: Proofs, Models & Problems Part 1
144
3
157
7
149
13
168
7
158
Music Music: Analysis
167
--
--
--
--
1
182
--
--
Music: Content Knowledge
162
--
--
--
--
1
166
--
--
Physical Education Physical Education: Content Knowledge
156
5
161
4
162
4
163
6
161
Physical Education: Movement Forms-Analysis & Design
141
5
151
4
157
4
161
6
167
Physical Education: Movement Forms-Video Evaluation
145
5
158
4
159
4
161
6
165
Physics Physics: Content Knowledge
139
--
--
1
156
1
148
--
--
Physics: Content Essays
145
--
--
1
170
--
--
Social Studies Social Studies: Content Knowledge
155
28
169
21
174
Social Studies: Interpretation & Analysis
161
27
171
Spanish Spanish: Content Knowledge
161
--
--
2
168
2
191
Spanish: Productive Language Skills
160
--
--
2
167
2
Special Education Special Education: Knowledge-Based Core Principles
147
--
--
18
174
30
171
44
166
Special Education: Application of Core Principles
158
--
--
18
166
30
160
44
157

D. Work Sample Evaluation

Every candidate completes two work samples to demonstrate the ability to plan, teach, and assess a unit of instruction in a content area. The work samples are evaluated by the candidate’s university supervisor using a scoring rubric that has been developed, tested and modified over the years. (Work Sample Evaluation Formpdf and Work Sample Scoring Guidepdf) Each section is evaluated on a 1 (Unmet) to 5 (Exceptional) scale with a minimum of 3 (Met) for acceptance. The sections of the work sample that particularly evaluate understanding of content area are the Rationale for the instructional unit, the Learning Goals, the Key Points to be learned, and the Content Relations. (For the complete scores for all areas of the work samples, see Master Candidate Database). The mean scores in the table below are based on two work samples for each candidate.

Table 1.1.5
Work Sample Evaluation of Content Knowledge of ITL Candidates
(1 = Low; 5 = High)

Work Sample Item
MAT/5 FG (6/07)
N = 58*
MAT/5 Eug (12/06)
N = 48
MAT/Flex FG & Eug (12/06)
N = 29
MAT/Flex FG & Eug (6/07)
N = 11
UG FG & Eug
12/06
N = 6
UG FG & Eug 6/07
N = 12
A. Rationale
4.78
4.84
4.90
4.95
4.67
4.79
C. Learning Goals
4.71
4.90
4.77
4.68
4.67
4.75
D. Key Points
4.91
4.85
4.70
4.90
5.00
4.85
E. Content Relations
4.73
4.85
4.93
4.95
5.00
4.83
*N refers to number of candidates in each group; these are the mean scores for both work samples.

The fact that these mean scores average nearly at the top of the range (5 = exceptional) reveals several program elements:

  1. Faculty members are committed to ensuring that every candidate earning a license shows mastery of the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed for the Initial Teaching License.
  2. The standard for showing mastery is set at a high level (candidates must average a 4 or above).
  3. The purpose of the first work sample is to formatively develop candidates’ knowledge of the learning cycle (assessing student needs, planning curriculum appropriate to those needs, creating a student-centered classroom conducive to learning, assessing the group and individuals’ learning gains, using that knowledge about learning gains to plan the next set of lessons, and reflecting on their own professional growth.
  4. Because these work samples are “published” documents (available for others to see, including future employers), candidates are required to continue editing until the minimum mastery level (rating of 4) is reached.
  5. Candidates are expected to produce the second work sample at the mastery level with only limited feedback from faculty.

E. Effectiveness in Student Teaching

At the midpoint of each placement and at the end of each authorization, candidates are evaluated by their mentor(s) and their university supervisor. The competencies evaluated are appropriate to the mission of Pacific University and the College of Education, aligned with the conceptual framework, comply with state standards, and aligned with national professional standards. (Oregon Content Standards; INTASC Standardspdf; Student Teaching Summary Evaluationpdf) Each competency is evaluated on a 1 - 6 point scale, with a scoring guide to inform the rating. The scores provided are from the Student Teacher Summary Evaluation only; the Midplacement Student Teaching Progress Report is viewed as a formative process, and scores are not maintained in the data base. Note the strong correlations between Mentor Teacher(s) scores and those of the University Supervisor, suggesting a high degree of inter-rater reliability. This is undoubtedly a result of the regular supervisor and mentor training sessions in which scoring is a key component.

Sections of the Student Teacher Summary Evaluation specifically address content knowledge competence and the ability to construct effective instruction. In evaluating each section, the mentor and university supervisor must agree that overall the candidate has met the competencies in each section in order for the candidate to be recommended for licensure. Table 1.1.6 shows the breakdown of the ratings for selected competencies that reveal candidates’ content knowledge. (See Master Candidate Database for the complete ratings on all competencies.)

Table 1.1.6
Summary Ratings of Candidates on Content Knowledge (Subject Matter)
During Student Teaching (Mean Score by Program)
(1 = Low; 6 = High)

Competency:
Candidate demonstrates the ability to:
MAT/5 FG 6/07
N = 58
MAT/5 Eugene
(12/06)
N = 48
MAT/Flex FG & Eug (12/06)
N = 29
MAT/Flex FG & Eug
(6/07)
N = 11
UG FG & Eug
(12/06)
N = 6
UG FG & Eug (6/07)
N = 12
3c) Implement instructional plans that employ knowledge of subject matter and basic skills.
Mentor(s)*
4.82
4.93
4.52
4.45
3.60
4.36
University Supervisor
4.72
4.91
4.41
4.27
3.20
4.09
5a) Understand the subject(s) being taught and  appreciate how knowledge in that subject is created, organized, and linked to other disciplines and applied in real-world settings.
Mentor(s)*
4.82
4.99
4.38
4.36
3.20
4.00
University Supervisor
4.72
4.97
4.38
4.45
2.80
3.73
5b) Select and sequence disciplinary content to support future learning in and out of school.
Mentor(s)*
4.61
4.83
4.38
4.00
3.40
3.82
University Supervisor
4.48
4.71
4.34
4.09
3.40
3.73

* If the candidate had more than one mentor, the ratings are averaged.

As the table reveals, the undergraduate students on both campuses are not as fully developed in their content knowledge as the Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) students. This may be due to factors such as age (generally younger and less experienced in life), lack of a bachelor’s degree in a discipline, or a perception by mentors and supervisors that they are still emerging as professionals. This data has prompted us to review our undergraduate programs and determine whether we have weak links in our processes and instruction.

Programs for Advanced Preparation of Teachers

The College of Education at Pacific University offers programs that emphasize the skills and approaches that are critical for teaching in the 21st century. These Advanced Programs are primarily intended for licensed educators who want to continue their development as professionals under the guidance of our faculty in both Forest Grove and in Eugene.

Preparation at the advanced level is accomplished through a 30-credit MED program (which may include the Continuing Teaching License), one of the Special Education (SpEd) programs, or a 6-10 credit Continuing Teaching License (CTL) program. SpEd programs are available at both the Initial and Advanced levels. Additional endorsements that can be added to any Initial Teaching License include: Reading, ESOL, ESOL/Bilingual, and Special Education. Candidates may also add other authorization levels to their licenses by completing the requirements established for doing so. In addition, the COE offers certificate programs in Cultural Competence and Talented and Gifted. Advanced Programs candidates adding an endorsement must take and pass the TSPC-mandated standardized assessment. (Table 1.1.7)

The two primary goals of the College of Education MED Advanced Programs are based on TSPC competencies. These goals are: (1) to enable teachers to develop advanced competencies in meeting the educational needs of individual students within a collaborative learning community, and (2) to provide them with the tools to document those advanced competencies. In order to meet these goals, the coursework and documentation requirements that make up the program have been designed to enable candidates to demonstrate the ability to:

The MEd program is currently undergoing redesign; the committee report will first come before the full faculty in January of 2008. The draft Advanced Programs Handbook includes efforts to adapt the existing MED programs to changes and challenges in the P-12 schools, and to incorporate features of our Conceptual Framework.

Masters of Education Program Requirements (Draft)

Program for Candidates Holding a Bachelor’s Degree and an Initial Teaching License  (30-Hour Program)
I.  The Foundations Core (4 required courses)
Educ 660 Advanced Teaching and Learning 2 credits
Educ 611 Meeting the Needs of All Students 3 credits
Educ 682 Technology Enhanced Learning Environments 2 credits
Educ 6xx School and Community Leadership 2 credits
  9 credits
II.  The Research Core (3 required courses)
Educ 601 Teachers as Consumers of Research 2 credits
Educ 585 Teachers as Researchers 3 credits
Educ 596 Education Research Project 2 credits
  7 credits
III. The Specialization Core
May include content courses, certificates (Cultural Competence or TAG), additional endorsements (Reading, Special Education, ESOL, or subject area) or authorizations (ECE, Elem, MS or HS), and electives. The program also includes two recommended electives for the Continuing Teaching License, particularly useful for those preparing for National Board Certification.
Educ 625 Portfolio Development 1 credit
Educ 686 Portfolio Presentation 1 credit
Electives:  12 credits
  14 credits

All Advanced Programs candidates (in the recommended redesigned program) will present a portfolio as the culminating experience and for assessment purposes. Many changes and improvements will likely result from the faculty review process.

Continuing Teaching License Candidates

Advanced Programs candidates who are adding the Continuing Teaching License all do a portfolio and presentation that are assessed on the basis of the draft Continuing Teaching License Portfolio Scoring Guidepdf. Professional preparation of Advanced Programs candidates is documented primarily through two means: (1) passing scores on the TSPC-mandated Praxis II exams, and (2) grades in required courses. In the case of the course grades, nearly every candidate earns an ‘A’ in every course. The scores on the TSPC-mandated Praxis exams are in Table 1.1.7.

Table 1.1.7
Praxis II Content Area Aggregate Scores for Advanced Programs Completers (FG & Eugene)

Praxis II Test
State Minimum Passing Score
2006
2007
 (n)
Mean score
 (n)
Mean score
Art Art: Content Knowledge
156
0
1
175
Art: Content, Traditions, Criticism & Aesthetics
145
0
1
155
Biology Biology: Content Knowledge Part I
161
1
171
0
Biology: Content Knowledge Part II
148
1
155
0
Business Business Education
600
1
710
0
Chemistry Chemistry, Physics, & General Science
570
1
690
0
ESOL Teaching English as a Second Language
510
4
718
5
636
Health Health Education
690
0
1
690
Integrated Science General Science: Content Knowledge Part I
145
2
194
0
General Science: Content Knowledge Part II
143
2
189
0
General Science: Content Essays
135
2
168
0
Language Arts Eng Lang: Lit Comp Content Knowledge
159
2
179
0
Eng Lang: Lit Comp Essays
145
2
155
0
Marketing Marketing Education
660
2
700
0
Math, Basic Basic Math: Middle School Mathematics
156
0
5
176
Math, Advanced Mathematics: Content Knowledge
138
2
158
0
Mathematics: Proofs, Models & Problems Part 1
144
2
179
0
Physical Education Physical Education: Content Knowledge
156
1
168
2
159
Physical Education: Movement Forms-Analysis & Design
141
1
149
2
159
Physical Education: Movement Forms-Video Evaluation
145
1
155
2
165
Reading Reading Specialist
610
1
680
5
666
Social Studies Social Studies: Content Knowledge
153
3
170
0
Social Studies: Interpretation & Analysis
155
3
161
0

Special Education

Special Education candidates earning the Initial Teaching License complete two work samples to demonstrate the ability to plan, teach, and assess a unit of instruction in a content area. Those individuals adding a Special Educator endorsement to an existing initial teaching license are required to do one work sample. This latter Pacific University requirement exceeds the state standards for adding an endorsement. The Work Samples are evaluated by the candidate’s university supervisor using a scoring guide that has been developed, tested and modified over the years. Each section is evaluated on a 1 (Not Met) – 5 (Exceptional) scale with a minimum of 3 (Met) for acceptance. (Work Sample Scoring Guidepdf) As Table 1.1.8 reveals, the sections of the work sample that particularly evaluate understanding of content area are the Rationale for the instructional unit, the Learning Goals, the Key Points to be learned, and the Content Relations. (See the Master Candidate Database for the complete scores for all areas of the Special Education work samples)

Table 1.1.8
Work Sample Evaluation of Content Knowledge of Special Education Candidates
(1 = Low; 5 = High)

 

Work Sample Item

SpEd FG
8/06
N = 35 (4)*

SpEd Eugene
8/06
N = 22 (14)*

SpEd FG 8/07
N = 37 (7)*

SpEd Eugene 8/07
N = 21 (15)*
A. Rationale
4.15
4.08
4.37
4.07
C. Learning Goals
4.05
4.01
4.11
4.01
D. Key Points
4.19
4.16
4.25
4.08
E. Content Relations
4.16
4.17
4.32
4.19

* Those adding a SpEd endorsement to an existing ITL are required to do only one work sample.
Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of candidates completing only one work sample.

Candidates earning the Special Educator endorsement show competency in the field through either a year-long internship or a student teaching practicum. The mentors for the interns are supplied by the sponsoring school district and are referred to as Teacher Education Associates (TEA). These licensed special education teachers provide continuous support to the interns who carry out all the independent responsibilities of a licensed teacher during their internship. During the internship or student teaching practicum, the candidate, TEA or mentor and university supervisor meet and each do a Midplacement Progress Report, which is formative in nature; these are used as the focus of discussion and for the purpose of goal-setting. At the end of the placement, the university supervisor and mentor (TEA) complete a Summary Student Teaching/Internship Evaluation. Table 1.1.9 provides data from the Summary Evaluations that reveals the professional judgment of supervisors and mentors concerning candidates’ content knowledge.

Table 1.1.9
Summary Ratings of Candidates on Content Knowledge (Subject Matter)
During Special Education Internships (Average Score by Program)
(1 = Low; 6 = High)

Competency
Candidate demonstrates the ability to:
SpEd FG
8/06
N=35
SpEd Eugene 8/06
N=22
SpEd FG
8/07
N=30 (7)*
SpEd Eugene
8/07
N=21
3c) Implement instructional plans that employ knowledge of subject matter and basic skills.
Mentor(s)
Met
Met
4.63
Met
University Supervisor
Met
Met
4.36
Met
5a) Understand the subject(s) being taught and appreciate how knowledge in that subject is created, organized, and linked to other disciplines and applied in real-world settings.
Mentor(s)
Met
Met
4.60
Met
University Supervisor
Met
Met
4.50
Met
5b) Select and sequence disciplinary content to support future learning in and out of school.
Mentor(s)
Met
Met
4.42
Met
University Supervisor
Met
Met
4.21
Met

* Seven students completed their endorsement early under a previous evaluation instrument; all scored ‘Met’.

Reading Endorsement, ESOL Endorsement, and Other Endorsements

Candidates who choose to add an endorsement to either an Initial Teaching License (ITL) or a Continuing Teaching License (CTL) must meet the COE’s requirements including coursework, a practicum, and passing the required state-mandated assessments in their area. (Table 1.1.7)