Part III: Evidence for Meeting Each Standard
Standard Two: Assessment System and Unit Evaluation
Pacific University has a comprehensive assessment system that collects and analyzes data on applicant qualifications, candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations. The processes and results are reviewed annually, and refined as needed. The description of the assessment system provided in this section represents current implementation as well as future plans for assessment at Pacific University. The evidence documented in this section will support the claim that Pacific University meets Standard Two.
Element Two: Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation
Pacific University’s College of Education implements an assessment system that provides an annual comprehensive review of data on the program and the candidates to the faculty and Consortium. Data on the program, faculty, and candidates is gathered from multiple methods of assessment. The College of Education maintains a record of formal candidate complaints and documentation of their resolution. The College has initiated and tested a variety of technologies to improve the assessment system over time. This section will describe these data and the processes used for aggregation and analysis.
Evaluation of Candidate Proficiencies
Evidence in Standard One shows that the College of Education uses multiple sources of information to assess candidate proficiencies. Refer to Tables 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, and 2.1.4 for the description of the periodic assessments on candidate progress toward the teacher preparation outcomes we expect. The data collected on candidate qualifications is entered into the Excel master spreadsheet, reports are generated by the Assessment Coordinator, analysis begins with the NCATE Coordinator, and further interpretation is done by the Dean, the Dean’s Council, appropriate committees, the faculty as a whole, and the Consortium.
At the level of courses, the Initial Teaching Licensure candidates are also assessed in a variety of ways. See the matrix on Assessment of Knowledge and Skills
by individual course, aligned with TSPC standards.
Evaluation of Program
Refer to Table 2.1.5 and 2.1.6 for an overview of the assessment of individual programs and the College of Education as a unit. Table 2.2.1 below describes the source of that data. Analysis proceeds in the same manner as in the previous paragraph.
Table 2.2.1
Data Collection and Evaluation of Program by Stakeholders
Program Evaluation |
Candidates |
Mentors |
Principals/ Employers |
Alumni |
|---|---|---|---|---|
MAT/5th Year |
X |
X |
X |
X |
MAT/Flex |
X |
X |
X |
X |
Undergraduate |
X |
X |
X |
X |
SpEd |
X |
X |
X |
|
Advanced Programs |
X |
X |
Another perspective of program satisfaction comes not from students but from the clinical/school faculty who mentor our candidates in the P-12 schools. We ask our mentor teachers to evaluate our university supervisors on several key indicators. About 95% of the respondents indicated Agree or Strongly Agree on all indicators having to do with the mentoring work that supervisors complete when overseeing candidates.
Formal Candidate Complaints
Candidates who have formal complaints are expected to initially express their concerns to the faculty member involved. Should the issue not be resolved with the faculty member, the candidate can take the complaint to the Strand Coordinator, the Assistant Dean, and finally to the Dean of the College of Education. Each program Handbook describes the means of assessment of candidate proficiencies, and the means by which a candidate may continue in good standing in the program. The Handbook also describes the appeal process to be used if a candidate disagrees with a decision made in the program. This process is also described in both the Undergraduate and Professional Programs catalogs. Candidates have the right to appeal beyond the college to a university-wide appeals committee should they desire.
Retention Rate of Candidates in COE Licensure Programs
Candidate retention rates for the College of Education have always been quite good. The chart below shows the rates for all programs for the past six years. The percentage rate does not include students who transferred to other programs within Pacific University or the College of Education.
Table 2.2.2
Retention Rate of Candidates in COE Licensure Programs
Years |
COE Licensure Programs (both campuses) |
Total # of Students |
# Dropped Out |
Retention % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000-01 | MAT 5, MAT Flex, UG, APT Math/Science | 212 |
15 |
92.92 |
| 2001-02 | MAT 5, MAT Flex, UG, APT Math/Science, School Counseling | 218 |
4 |
98.17 |
| 2002-03 | MAT 5, MAT Flex, UG, APT Math/Science, School Counseling, & Special Ed | 261 |
1 |
99.62 |
| 2003-04 | MAT 5, MAT Flex, UG, School Counseling, & Special Ed | 233 |
1 |
99.57 |
| 2004-05 | MAT 5, MAT Flex, UG, School Counseling, & Special Ed | 234 |
1 |
99.57 |
| 2005-06 | MAT 5, MAT Flex, UG, & Special Ed | 246 |
4 |
98.37 |
| 2006-07 | MAT 5, MAT Flex, UG, & Special Ed | 270 |
16 |
94.08 |
The retention rates confirm two important principles: 1) admit well-qualified candidates; 2) graduate only those who can meet the requirements to complete the standards for an Oregon Initial Teaching License and Pacific University degree requirements.