Standard 1: Element 1

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

MathSMPS 37

WritingSMPS 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 percent 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 percent 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 Form (pdf) and Work Sample Scoring Guide (pdf)) 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 Standards; Student Teaching Summary Evaluation (pdf)) 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:

  • Design, implement, and analyze instruction that is based on state and national standards. Standards-based teaching is the practice of providing students and teachers with identifiable content and performance standards that ask learners to demonstrate what they know and are able to do. Candidates must understand the underlying foundations of the standards.
  • Collaborate in learning communities. A learning community is comprised of all individuals who participate in some way in the functioning of that community, for example, students, educators, parents, and outside agencies. A learning community is characterized by cooperation and shared decision-making.
  • Meet individual needs of students. Individual needs, in this context, include socio-cultural as well as cognitive needs of students.
  • Participate in school improvement. School improvement is the process of analyzing student learning and achievement in relation to curriculum and instruction, and responding to deficit areas by educational interventions. Effective school reform is achieved through careful consideration and implementation of current research.

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 Guide (pdf). 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 Guide (pdf)) 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)