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 Three: Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates

Candidates reflect a thorough understanding of pedagogical content knowledge delineated in the standards. They have in-depth understanding of the subject matter they plan to teach, allowing them to provide multiple explanations and instructional strategies so all students learn. They facilitate learning through presentation of content in clear and meaningful ways and through integration of technology.

The following evidence in this section indicates that initial teaching license candidates clearly meet this element: (A) grades in general and subject area methods courses, technology and reading courses while in the program; (B) ratings of proficiency at constructing and implementing work samples during student teaching; (C) evaluation of effectiveness in encouraging student learning during student teaching; (D) scores on technology components of work samples; (E) scores on technology components of student teaching evaluations, and (F) program assessment by graduates.

A. GPAs in Pedagogical Content Knowledge Courses

All candidates take general methods courses appropriate to their authorization level. Secondary candidates also have a methods course in their content area specialty and in reading while Elementary, Early Childhood, and Middle Level candidates have methods courses in all the subject areas taught at their levels. Courses designed to increase skills in the use of technology to enhance student learning are required for all candidates. Our students earn high grades in all of our programs: 98% of our students have graduated with a GPA higher than 3.50.

B. Work Samples

In two required work samples completed during student teaching, Initial Teaching License candidates demonstrate their pedagogical knowledge in content areas through competence in using student characteristics in designing and writing lesson plans, assessing P-12 learning, and integrating technology into teaching. Each section is rated on a 1 - 5 point scale as defined in the Work Sample Scoring Guidepdf.

Table 1.3.1
Pedagogical Content Knowledge for ITL Teacher Candidates from Work Samples
(Average Scores on Work Sample Evaluations on Selected Items)
(1 = Low; 5 = High)

 Work Sample Items
MAT/5 FG 6/07
N = 56
MAT/5 Eugene
(12/06)
N = 46
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
G2. Formative and Summative Assessment Plan
 4.57
 4.89
4.77
4.45
4.92
4.54
H1. Learning Objectives
4.83
4.91
4.83
4.77
5.00
4.75
H3. Learning Strategies
4.73
4.96
4.91
4.82
4.92
4.75
H4. Instruction & Lesson Sequence
4.78
4.82
4.88
4.77
4.92
4.71

C. Student Teaching Summary Evaluations

The candidates’ success in employing pedagogical content knowledge is assessed in the Student Teacher Summary Evaluation’s standards on employing pedagogical content knowledge. The ratings for several competencies as scored by the mentors and university supervisors are given below, disaggregated by program. (For a complete set of ratings on all competencies, see the Master Candidate Database.)

Table 1.3.2
Pedagogical Content Knowledge Summary from ITL Student Teaching Evaluations
(1 = Low; 5 = High)

Competency
The candidate employs pedagogical content knowledge and demonstrates ability to:
MAT/5 FG 6/07
N = 56
MAT/5 Eugene
(12/06)
N = 46
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
1d) Determine content, skills, and processes that will assist students in accomplishing desired unit outcomes, and design learning activities that lead to their mastery.
Mentor(s)*
4.77
4.87
4.41
4.18
Met
4.00
University Supervisor
4.54
4.85
4.41
4.00
Met
3.91
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
Met
3.82
University Supervisor
4.48
4.71
4.34
4.09
Met
3.73
5c) Evaluate students’ initial conceptions and provide opportunities to gain a deeper and more useful understanding.
Mentor(s)*
4.65
4.80
4.31
4.27
Met
4.09
University Supervisor
4.44
4.84
4.34
4.09
Met
4.09
5d) Present content in a variety of ways that are clear and appropriate for students.
Mentor(s)*
4.81
4.91
4.38
4.27
Met
4.18
University Supervisor
4.60
4.96
4.36
4.27
Met
3.91
5f) Link content to students’ knowledge, experience and interests as well as to other content disciplines and real world phenomena.
Mentor(s)
4.81
4.86
4.45
4.27
Met
4.09
University Supervisor
4.65
4.74
4.41
4.18
Met
4.00
5i) Provide opportunities for students to use content knowledge to think and problem solve.
Mentor(s)
4.74
4.88
4.34
4.44
Met
4.09
University Supervisor
4.59
4.79
4.43
4.33
Met
4.00

* If the candidate had more than one mentor, the ratings are averaged.
** These candidates were scored on an older instrument with only Met/Not Met ratings.

D. Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Appropriate Use of Technology

The use of technology to enhance learning is a focus of Pacific’s teacher education program. The standards from the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) are integrated into the Conceptual Framework. The key courses for acquisition of these skills for the Initial Teaching License are Educ 436 and Educ 537 (Technology across the Curriculum) in which students demonstrate their ability to meet the ISTE standards. All students who complete Educ 436/537 demonstrate their ability to meet the NETS•T standards at the level of teacher candidates who are completing their professional preparation. The verification of these standards is embedded in the course requirements and show up in the course grades.

The COE is one of six independent colleges who cooperated together to start the Oregon Technology in Education Network (OTEN, www.oten.info). Now in its tenth year, OTEN is currently funded through a Teacher Education Quality Enhancement Partnership grant. OTEN is devoted to increasing thoughtful and effective ways of integrating technology in classrooms, K-college. As a member of this consortium, the COE operates several programs for students preparing to be teachers: a software preview center; technology lending library; two annual technology conferences; and competitive $500 mini grants to enhance learning through technology. Faculty members at these institutions can also access technology tools to model effective teaching. Faculty members who represent Pacific University in the consortium collaborate with faculty members at the other institutions in conducting research on P-12 student learning as the result of teaching with technology. In addition, OTEN has provided technology tools directly to initial license candidates and to teachers serving in low-income schools who are actively using technology to enhance learning. These practicing teachers, in turn, act as mentors to emerging teachers. Examples of projects developed by initial teacher licensure candidates may be found at: http://www.oten.info/conferences/2007conf/presenters07.html

Candidates are evaluated on their use of technology in the two work samples they plan and implement during their student teaching experience. They are rated on a scale of 1 – 5 from the scoring rubric for the work samples. As a result, COE candidates understand the social, ethical, legal, and human issues surrounding the use of technology in P-12 schools and apply those principles in practice. Further, COE candidates demonstrate that they are competent in the following practices:
  1. Model and teach legal and ethical practice related to technology use.
  2. Apply technology resources to enable and empower learners with diverse backgrounds, characteristics, and abilities.
  3. Identify and use technology resources that affirm diversity.
  4. Promote safe and healthy use of technology resources.
  5. Facilitate equitable access to technology resources for all students. (NETS•T Standard 6)

Table 1.3.3
Ratings for ITL Candidates on Application of Technology in Work Samples
(Mean Scores on Work Sample Evaluations)
(1 = Low; 5 = High)

Work Sample Item
MAT/5 FG 6/07
N = 56

MAT/5 Eugene
(12/06)
N = 46

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
L. Technology and Multimedia
4.75
4.93
4.79
4.77
4.75
4.33

E. Student Teaching Evaluations

The student teaching summary evaluations by the mentor(s) and university supervisors specifically address competence in integrating technology to support student learning. (Scale: 1-Not Met – 6-Exceptional)

Table 1.3.4
Ratings for Candidates on Application of Technology During Student Teaching
(Mean Scores on Summary Evaluations)
(1 = Low; 6 = High)

Competency
The candidate employs pedagogical content knowledge and demonstrates ability to:
MAT/5 FG 6/07
N = 56
MAT/5 Eugene
(12/06)
N = 46
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
5g) Utilize a range of instructional resources and technology tools to enhance learning.
Mentor(s)*
4.95
4.88
4.34
4.36
Met**
3.50
University Supervisor
4.72
4.79
4.43
4.09
Met**
3.00
5h) Engage students in pedagogically powerful applications of technology that foster learning.
Mentor(s)*
4.61
–***
–***
4.33
Met**
3.25
University Supervisor
4.55
–***
–***
4.22
Met**
3.00

* If the candidate had more than one mentor, the ratings are averaged.
** These were scored as Met/Not Met on the form used; all candidates met the competency.
*** Missing data due to change in forms.

F. Program Assessment by Graduates

Candidates’ perceived pedagogical content knowledge is demonstrated through the program evaluation survey of graduates. Graduating candidates were asked whether “The Teacher Education Program prepared me to use pedagogical content knowledge effectively to encourage students to construct an understanding of subject area content.” The program ratings ranged from 1 (Disagree) to 5 (Agree). By far the majority of candidates rated their program a ‘4’ or above. (See Tables 2.15 and 2.16 on Program Assessment.)

Table 1.3.5
Candidate Evaluation of Program in Pedagogical Content Knowledge
 and Use of Instructional Technology (ITL and SpEd), 2006-07
(1 = Strongly Disagree; 5 = Strongly Agree
)


Selected Program Assessment Items
Forest Grove
N = 108
Eugene
N = 71
3.  The Teacher Education Program encouraged me to construct my own understanding of pedagogical content knowledge and skills.
4.25
4.07
4.  The Teacher Education Program prepared me to create a student-centered learning environment in my classroom.
4.10
4.21
5.  The Teacher Education Program developed my skill in using technology effectively to enhance learning.
4.17
4.01

Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Advanced Programs Candidates

All Advanced Programs candidates (MAT Special Education, MEd, MEd with Continuing Teaching License, and Continuing Teaching License only) complete a course entitled Technology Enhanced Learning Environments, which is aligned with the National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS•T) at the level of practicing teachers. (See related performance indicators at
http://cnets.iste.org/teachers/t_profile-first.html, http://cnets.iste.org/index3.html) Advanced Programs candidates all complete a portfolio that is assessed using the draft Portfolio Assessment Scoring Guidepdf.

Special Education

Candidates in the Special Education programs develop and teach two work samples (unless they hold a previous teaching license and are adding an endorsement only, in which case they do only one). Work samples are scored by the university supervisors who oversee the intern or student teacher practicum experiences. In addition, university supervisors conduct a work sample scoring session each semester with Teacher Education Associates who review a number of work samples to improve their ability to mentor interns in the work sample process and to improve inter-rater reliability.

Table 1.3.6
Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Special Education Candidates
(Average Scores on Work Sample Evaluations on Selected Items)
(1 = Low; 5 = High)

 Work Sample Item
SpEd FG 8/06
N=66*
SpEd Eug 8/06
N=36*
SpEd FG 8/07
N=67*
SpEd Eug 8/07
N=36*
Formative Assessment Plan
4.07
4.00
4.26
4.03
Summative Assessment Plan
4.06
4.06
4.19
4.27
Learning Goals
4.05
4.01
4.11
4.01
Daily Lesson Plans
4.25
4.12
4.17
4.19
Weekly Plan
4.03
3.98
4.19
4.05

* N represents the total number of work samples; some ‘endorsement-only’ candidates only do one work sample.

Table 1.3.7 displays mean rating scores on SpEd candidates’ ability to apply technology to assist students and enhance their learning during student teaching/internship placements.

Table 1.3.7
Ratings for Candidates on Application of Technology During Special Education Internships
(Mean Scores on Summary Evaluations)
(1 = Low; 6 = High)

Competency
The candidate employs pedagogical content knowledge and demonstrates ability to:
SpEd FG 8/06
N = 35
SpEd Eug 8/06
N = 22
SpEd FG 8/07
N = 30
SpEd Eug 8/07
N = 21
1d) Considers communication, behavior and assistive technology needs.
Mentor
Met
Met
– *
Met
University Supervisor
Met
Met
– *
Met
3f) Selects and uses technology to enhance participation and learning.
Mentor
Met
Met
– *
Met
University Supervisor
Met
Met
– *
Met
5g) Utilize a range of instructional resources and technology tools to enhance learning.
Mentor
– *
– *
4.58
– *
University Supervisor
– *
– *
4.20
– *
5h) Engage students in pedagogically powerful applications of technology that foster learning.
Mentor
– *
– *
4.44
– *
University Supervisor
– *
– *
3.96
– *

* Due to numerous changes in evaluation instruments in the last few years, not every item was assessed.

The following are data on the item from the Special Education Work Samples that is particularly related to the pedagogical content knowledge focusing on application of technology to enhance learning.

Table 1.3.8
Ratings for Candidates on Application of Technology in Special Education Work Samples
(Mean Scores on Work Sample Evaluations)
(1 = Low; 5 = High)

 Work Sample Item
SpEd FG 8/06
N = 66*
SpEd Eug 8/06
N = 36*
SpEd FG 8/07
N = 67*
SpEd Eug 8/07
N = 36*
L. Technology and Multimedia
4.06
3.94
3.99
4.03

* The ‘N’ represents the total number of work samples completed.