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 Four: Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates

Professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills are standards-based and are developed throughout the program. Candidates develop the ability to plan, deliver, and assess meaningful learning experiences for all students. They reflect on their practice in order to make the necessary adjustments to enhance student learning; they know how students learn and how to make ideas accessible to them. Candidates consider school, family, and community contexts in connecting concepts to students’ prior experience and the world they live in. As principal components of our conceptual framework, particular emphasis is placed on community and cultural competency. The following evidence is presented to demonstrate strong candidate competence in this element: (A) ITL candidate performance on work samples, (B) ITL candidate performance on summary student teaching evaluations, (C) ratings from graduates, mentors, and principals/employers on candidate pedagogical and professional skills in the Program Assessment, and (D) evidence on Advance Programs candidates. In addition, some samples of unsolicited testimony from district administrators are included.

A. Initial Teaching License (ITL) Work Samples

Several sections of the required work samples provide evidence for the high level of attainment of candidates in their professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills. Students are rated from 1- 5 by their university supervisor on each section using the Work Sample Scoring Guide (1 = Agree; 5 = Disagree). The sections on accommodating individual differences and cultural competency require knowledge and skill in making ideas accessible to all students based on their individual differences as well as the school, family and community contexts. Section O on Interpretation of Assessment Results and Section P on Evaluation of Teaching highlight candidates’ ability to reflect on their effectiveness and adjust instruction to enhance student learning.

Table 1.4.1
Ratings of Work Sample Items Demonstrating Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills among ITL Candidates*
(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
I. Accommodating Individual Differences
4.71
4.90
4.88
4.91
5.00
4.88
J. Cultural Competence
4.65
4.79
4.79
4.82
4.75
4.88
K. Cross-Curricular Integration
4.72
4.87
4.88
4.86
4.75
4.71
M. Communication and Feedback
4.66
5.00
– **
4.38
Met
3.98
O. Interpretation of Assessment Data for Selected Individuals
4.79
4.91
4.78
4.95
4.92
4.75
P. Evaluation of Teaching
4.88
4.93
5.00
4.91
4.67
4.71

* Each candidate completes two work samples. The ratings are an average of two work samples for each member of the cohort.
** This item was scored as a Met/Not Met; all candidates met the competency.

B. Student Teaching Evaluations

Professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills are assessed through a midplacement and summary performance evaluation during and at the end of student teaching by the candidate, the mentor(s), and the university supervisor. These evaluations are aligned with the conceptual framework and state standards for developing first year teachers. (Midplacement Student Teaching Evaluation Formpdf and Summary Student Teaching Evaluation Formpdf) Each competency is rated on a 1-6 scale according to the rubric, with a composite rating of Met or Not Met for each standard. At midplacement, the candidate, the mentors and the university supervisor complete a similar evaluation as formative assessment that serves as the basis for discussion of the development of knowledge and skills. On the Summary Evaluation, candidates must be rated as having “Met” the standards for each area of evaluation in order to be eligible for licensure. (The summary of the ratings on individual competencies is available in the Master Candidate Database.)

Table 1.4.2
Evidence of Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills During ITL Student Teaching
(1 = Low; 6 = High)

Competency
The candidate demonstrates the ability to:
MAT/5 FG 6/07
N = 56
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
1a) Select or write learning goals for units of instruction that are consistent with the school’s long term curriculum goals, State and district standards, research findings on how students learn, and the physical and mental maturity of one’s students.
Mentor(s)*
4.67
4.72
4.47
4.27
Met
4.00
University Supervisor
4.57
4.72
4.31
4.00
Met
3.73
1f) Adapt unit and lesson plans for students with diverse needs, and for students with varying cultural, social, and linquistic backgrounds.
Mentor(s)*
4.81
4.91
4.28
3.73
Met
3.82
University Supervisor
4.60
4.96
4.33
3.82
Met
3.73
2a) Affirm the dignity and worth of all students and provide the positive support students need to be effective learners.
Mentor(s)
4.81
4.86
4.76
3.73
Met
4.27
University Supervisor
4.65
4.74
4.76
3.64
Met
4.09
2g) Interact thoughtfully and courteously with students and their parents and resolve conflicts in a professional manner, respecting the cultural context of the community.
Mentor(s)
4.74
4.88
4.59
4.45
Met
4.36
University Supervisor
4.59
4.79
4.41
4.40
Met
4.00
3d) Use a variety of research-based educational practices that reflect how students learn, are sensitive to individual differences and diverse cultures, and encourage parent participation.
Mentor(s)*
4.81
4.91
4.55
4.18
Met
3.90
University Supervisor
4.60
4.96
4.43
4.00
Met
3.73
4c) Evaluate student progress in learning and refine plans for instruction, establish alternative learning options, or make appropriate referrals.
Mentor(s)
4.81
4.86
4.41
4.09
Met
3.91
University Supervisor
4.65
4.74
4.28
3.91
Met
3.64
5e) Adapt/modify content knowledge for exceptional learners, including talented and gifted.
Mentor(s)
4.74
4.88
4.24
3.73 n=18
---------
3.77
University Supervisor
4.59
4.79
4.24
3.73 n=18
---------
3.82

*If the candidate had more than one mentor, the ratings are averaged.
**Due to an instrument modification, this program’s candidates were only scored Met/Not Met.

C. Program Assessments

Candidates’ perception of their professional knowledge and skills is demonstrated through the program assessment survey of graduates at the completion of their program as well as by surveys of mentors, alumni, and principals/employers. (See Tables 2.1.5 and 2.1.6) By far the majority of candidates rated the program a ‘4’ or above on each of the following selected items aligned with professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills.

Table 1.4.3
ITL Candidates’ Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills by Candidates (Data from Program Assessment)
(1 = Strongly Disagree; 5 = Strongly Agree)

Selected Program Assessment Items
Forest Grove
N = 108
Eugene
N = 71
1. The Teacher Education Program prepared me to develop a community of learners in my own classroom.
4.42
4.27
4. The Teacher Education Program prepared me to create a student-centered learning environment in my classroom.
4.10
4.21
6. The Teacher Education Program promoted my development of skills for my utilization of a variety of instructional strategies.
4.38
4.41

Mentors, alumni and principals also rate the program highly in the ability to prepare candidates for professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills.

Table 1.4.4
ITL Candidates’ Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills by Mentors, Alumni, and Principals/Employers (Data from Program Assessment)
(1 = Strongly Disagree; 5 = Strongly Agree)

 Selected Program Assessment Items
Mentor Teachers
Alumni
Principals/
Employers
FG
N=46
Eug
N=60
FG
N=40
Eug
N=14
FG
N=40
Eug
N=25
1. The Teacher Education Program prepares candidates to develop a community of learners in the classroom.
4.37
4.31
4.20
4.29
4.35
4.52
4. The Teacher Education Program prepares candidates to create a student-centered learning environment in the classroom.
4.39
4.26
4.10
4.29
4.37
4.64
6. The Teacher Education Program promotes the development of skills for the candidate to utilize a variety of instructional strategies.
4.28
4.29
4.20
4.21
4.19
4.37

Advanced Programs

The major assessment instrument for Advanced Programs will be the required Portfolio Assessment Scoring Guide; however, it is still in the pilot stage and data have not yet been collected. The other sources of data for Advanced Programs are from scores on Praxis II exams. (See Table 1.1.7.) Candidates in these programs (MEd, endorsements, certificates, CTL and added authorizations) are generally quite mature and academically inclined. Nearly every candidate earns a preponderance of A’s, with a mean for all candidates in all Advanced Programs of 3.92.

D. Program Assessment Data by Advanced Program Graduates

Those doing a CTL program are well prepared to apply for the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification, since the CTL and its portfolio were specifically designed with those standards in mind. See Table 2.1.6 for program assessment data by Advanced Programs candidates (including Special Education).

Special Education

Because MAT Special Education candidates must complete work samples, these serve as useful instruments to assess for the ability to demonstrate professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills required for the special educator endorsement. Table 1.4.5 illustrates the competency of our special education interns as rated by Teacher Education Associates (TEA) and the program coordinator for the specific work sample items. Table 1.4.6 describes the ratings by the TEAs and university supervisor for the Initial Teaching License standards that deal with professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills. Table 1.4.7 presents the interns’ self-reports in these categories from the program assessment data. In addition, all students completing Educ 682 in the Special Education programs will improve their ability to meet 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 and http://cnets.iste.org/index3.html.)

Table 1.4.5
Ratings of Work Sample Items Demonstrating Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills of Special Education Interns*
(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*
Learning goals
4.05
4.01
4.11
4.01
Co-curricular goals
4.26
4.05
4.27
3.97
Adaptations: Accommodations & Modifications
4.43
4.14
4.43
4.18
Pre-requisite skills
4.09
4.03
4.08
4.08
Summary and interpretation of data
4.22
4.02
4.21
4.25
Daily Lesson Plans
4.25
4.12
4.17
4.19
Daily Reflection
4.32
4.16
4.42
4.14
Feedback
4.05
4.08
4.07
4.02
Evaluation of Teaching: Final Reflection
4.19
4.20
4.34
4.21

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

Table 1.4.6
Evidence of Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills During Special Education Internships
(1 = Low; 6 = High)

Competency
The candidate demonstrates the 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
1a) Select or write learning goals for units of instruction that are consistent with the school’s long term curriculum goals, State and district standards, research findings on how students learn, and the physical and mental maturity of one’s students.
Mentor(s)*
4.67
4.72
4.47
Met
University Supervisor
4.57
4.72
4.46
Met
1f) Adapt unit and lesson plans for students with diverse needs, and for students with varying cultural, social, and linguistic backgrounds.
Mentor(s)*
4.81
4.91
4.66
-- *
University Supervisor
4.60
4.96
4.57
-- *
2a) Affirm the dignity and worth of all students and provide the positive support students need to be effective learners.
Mentor(s)
4.81
4.86
5.06
Met
University Supervisor
4.65
4.74
5.00
Met
2g) Interact thoughtfully and courteously with students and their parents and resolve conflicts in a professional manner, respecting the cultural context of the community.
Mentor(s)
4.74
4.88
4.95
Met
University Supervisor
4.59
4.79
4.93
Met
3d) Use a variety of research-based educational practices that reflect how students learn, are sensitive to individual differences and diverse cultures, and encourage parent participation.
Mentor(s)*
4.81
4.91
4.45
Met
University Supervisor
4.60
4.96
4.04
Met
4c) Evaluate student progress in learning and refine plans for instruction, establish alternative learning options, or make appropriate referrals.
Mentor(s)
4.81
4.86
4.61
Met
University Supervisor
4.65
4.74
4.18
Met
5e) Adapt/modify content knowledge for exceptional learners, including talented and gifted.
Mentor(s)
4.74
4.88
4.49
Met
University Supervisor
4.59
4.79
4.25
Met

* Due to instrument modifications, some items were scored Met/Not Met only, and some were not scored at all.

Table 1.4.7
Special Education Candidate Self-Evaluation of Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge
and Skills (Data from Program Assessment)

Program Assessment Item
Disagree
1

2

3

4
Agree
5
Mean
1. The Teacher Education Program prepared me to develop a community of learners in my own classroom. (n = 73)
 
0.0% (0)
1.4% (1)
9.6% (7)
17.8% (13)
68.5% (50)
4.58
4. The Teacher Education Program prepared me to create a student-centered learning environment in my classroom. (n = 73)
 
4.1% (3)
4.1% (3)
11.0% (8)
28.8% (21)
52.1% (38)
4.21
6. The Teacher Education Program promoted the development of skills for using a variety of instructional strategies. (n = 73)
 
2.7% (2)
4.1% (3)
6.8% (5)
28.8% (21)
57.5% (42)
4.34

E. Program Assessment by School District Administrators

Employers are anxious to hire Pacific University graduates; in fact they arrange with us to do interviews on campus in order to have the first opportunity to hire them. Scores on the program assessment done by principals/employers are consistently high, with means on all nearly items scored between Agree and Strongly Agree regarding our ability to prepare well-qualified teachers. (See Table 2.1.5)

The following unsolicited statement was sent from a local area district superintendent:
“As a District, we are pleased with the College of Education program at Pacific University and the students we hire who graduate from the program. We look forward to seeing more of them at future recruiting events and wish you a successful 2007-08 academic year.” Superintendent Colonna, Beaverton School District. (Note: Beaverton hires ~300 new teachers per year, 100 new to the profession; usually about 35 of the new hires are from Pacific University.)

From Mark Moser, a former Human Resources director: “For the last 9 years, I have worked closely with Pacific University's education department. As the administrator responsible for teacher recruitment, hiring and student teacher placement in one of the largest district's in the state of Oregon, Pacific University is a leader among all other Oregon universities in teacher preparation. They are responsive to the needs of our school district. Together, we have worked to develop creative programs to bring people from many walks of life into the teaching profession. When you talk to many of our principals you will hear a common refrain that Pacific University-prepared teachers are some of the very best we hire.”