Standard 1: Element 7

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 Seven: Student Learning for Teacher Candidates

Throughout the program, candidates develop the knowledge bases for analyzing student learning. The following evidence is provided to demonstrate that Pacific University’s ITL candidates have a positive effect on P-12 student learning: (A) courses in which candidates are required to develop assessment tools and/or analyze P-12 learning; (B) candidate performance on work samples; (C) candidate performance on summary student teaching evaluations, and (D) program assessment ratings from graduates. Evidence is also provided for Advanced Programs.

A. Courses Focused on Gathering Evidence of Student Learning for Candidates in Initial Licensure Programs

In many courses, faculty members model the use of multiple means of assessment. Results from a survey indicating the types of assessment preferred by each instructor and in each course suggests a great variety of assessment systems are being used. ( Preferred Assessment Methods (pdf))

In order to successfully complete many of their courses, candidates must develop assessment tools and practice analyzing assessment data. Examples of the courses in which they are prepared to develop assessments include:

Educ 326/G/526 Teaching, Assessment, and Classroom Management
Educ 459/G Preparing the Work Sample
Educ 533 Integrated Methods I: General Methods, Assessment, and Classroom Management
Secondary Special Methods in the Content Area

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 (pdf) by individual course, aligned with TSPC standards.

B. Work Samples

The two work samples all ITL candidates construct and implement during their student teaching are based on careful assessment of student learning, attention to adjustments to instruction necessary to support learning by all students, and evaluation of the effectiveness of the instruction based on the evidence collected by the assessment process. The emphasis in the work samples is on careful analysis of the effectiveness of the planning and instruction, and reflection on modifications that would enhance the unit rather than simply recording student gains. It is that emphasis on the process of analysis and reflection that serves professional growth.

Table 1.7.1
Ratings of ITL Work Sample Items Demonstrating Assessment and Analysis of Student Learning*
(1 = Low; 5 = High)

Work Sample Item

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

G1. Formative and Summative Plan

4.57

4.89

4.76

4.45

4.92

4.54

G2. Performance Task and Scoring Guide

4.70

4.95

4.83

4.64

4.92

4.79

G3. Pre-Instruction Assessment and Scoring Guide

4.66

4.9

4.88

4.77

4.75

4.63

G4. Post-Instruction Assessment and Scoring Guide

4.67

4.86

4.84

4.76

4.83

4.60

H5. Assessment of Learning

4.73

4.87

4.88

4.77

4.92

4.75

N. Interpretation of Assessment Data for Class as a Whole

4.69

4.92

4.79

4.73

4.67

4.58

P. Evaluation of Teaching

4.88

4.91

5.00

4.91

4.67

4.71

*Each candidate completes two work samples. The ratings are an average for two samples for each member of the cohort.

C. Student Teaching Evaluations

Candidates’ success in assessing and analyzing student learning is demonstrated through the summary performance evaluations completed at the end of student teaching by the mentor(s) and the university supervisor. The summary of the professional judgment ratings on all individual competencies can be found in the electronic exhibit room on the Master Candidate Database. The following competencies provide specific evidence of candidates’ focus on student learning.

Table 1.7.2
Analysis of Student Learning 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=6

1b) Determine the current performance level of one’s students with respect to the learning goals established for a unit of instruction.

Mentor(s)*

4.51

4.85

4.40

4.27

Met

3.86

University Supervisor

4.48

4.79

4.29

3.91

Met

3.73

4a) Select and/or develop tests, performance measures, observation schedules, student interviews, or other formal or informal assessment procedures that are appropriate to determine the progress of all students including those from diverse cultural or ethnic backgrounds.

Mentor(s)*

4.44

4.56

4.34

4.18

Met

4.27

University Supervisor

4.28

4.57

4.26

4.00

Met

3.91

4b) Document student progress in accomplishing state content standards and district standards, prepare data summaries that show this progress to others, and inform students, supervisors, and parents about progress in learning.

Mentor(s)

4.34

4.66

4.34

3.82

Met

3.60

University Supervisor

4.23

4.56

4.28

3.91

Met

3.64

2e) Use knowledge of the influence of the physical, social, and emotional climates of students’ homes and the community to optimize motivation, learning, and behavior.

Mentor(s)*

4.66

4.77

4.31

4.27

Met

4.09

University Supervisor

4.48

4.69

4.22

4.00

Met

3.64

*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.

Though sufficient for recommending MAT/Flex and Undergraduate candidates for a license, the data reveals that candidates from those programs are not as strong in these areas as are the MAT/5th students. As a result, program changes have been made to deepen the quality.

D. Program Assessment by Graduates and Other Stakeholders

Candidates’ perceived satisfaction with their ability to have a positive effect on student learning is demonstrated through the program evaluation survey of graduates.

Table 1.7.3
Evaluation of Candidates’ Ability to Promote Student Learning
(Data from Program Assessment)

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

4. Create a student-centered learning environment in the classroom.

4.10

4.21

4.39

4.26

4.10

4.29

5. Use technology to enhance student learning.

4.17

4.01

4.39

4.26

4.13

3.79

6. Develop skills for utilizing a variety of instructional strategies.

4.38

4.41

4.28

4.29

4.20

4.21

7. Accept and nurture a range of learning styles and intelligence.

4.29

4.33

4.11

4.33

4.13

4.21

Advanced Programs

Special Education

Table 1.7.4
Ratings of Special Education Work Sample Items Demonstrating Assessment and Analysis of Student Learning*
(1 = Low; 5 = High)

Work Sample Item

SpEd FG 8/06
N=66*

SpEd Eug8/06
N=36*

SpEd FG 8/07
N=67*

SpEd Eug 8/07
N=36*

Initial Assessment

4.15

4.09

4.24

4.07

Determine Instructional Starting Point

4.06

4.06

4.12

4.08

Formative Assessment

4.07

4.00

4.26

4.03

Summative Assessment

4. 06

4.06

4.19

4.27

Daily Lesson Plans

4.25

4.12

4.17

4.19

Daily Reflection

4.32

4.16

4.42

4.14

Evaluation of Teaching: Final Reflection

4.19

4.20

4.34

4.21

*Each candidate completes one or two work samples.

The results show that university supervisors rate special education ITL candidates as competent in demonstrating student gains during the two formalized work samples.

Table 1.7.5
Candidate Analysis of Student Learning During Special Education Internships (Average Score by Program)
(1 = Low; 6 = High)

Competency
The candidate demonstrates the ability to:

SpEd FG 8/06
N=35

SpEd Eugene 8/06
N=22

SpEd FG 8/07
N=30

SpEd Eugene 8/07
N=21

1b) Determine the current performance level of one’s students with respect to the learning goals established for a unit of instruction.

Mentor(s)*

Met

Met

4.60

Met

University Supervisor

Met

Met

4.61

Met

4a) Select and/or develop tests, performance measures, observation schedules, student interviews, or other formal or informal assessment procedures that are appropriate to determine the progress of all students including those from diverse cultural or ethnic backgrounds.

Mentor(s)*

Met

Met

4.26

Met

University Supervisor

Met

Met

3.95

Met

4b)Document student progress in accomplishing state content standards and district standards, prepare data summaries that show this progress to others, and inform students, supervisors, and parents about progress in learning.

Mentor(s)

Met

Met

4.48

Met

University Supervisor

Met

Met

4.20

Met

2e) Use knowledge of the influence of the physical, social, and emotional climates of students’ homes and the community to optimize motivation, learning, and behavior.

Mentor(s)*

-- **

-- **

5.02

-- **

University Supervisor

-- **

-- **

4.89

-- **

*If the candidate had more than one mentor, the ratings are averaged.
** Due to instrument modifications, some items were scored Met/Not Met only, and some were not scored at all.

The data results also show consistency in student learning throughout the intern and student teaching experiences since all candidates have demonstrated competencies and met the standards for the ITL.

Table 1.7.6
Special Education Candidate Self-Evaluation of Ability to Promote Student Learning
(Program Assessment Data)

7. The Teacher Education Program encouraged my ability to accept and nurture a range of learning styles and intelligences.

 

1
Strongly Disagree

2

3

4

5
Strongly Agree

 

Forest Grove survey
Dec 2005 n=19
Jun 2007 n= 22

0.0% (0)

2.4% (1)

14.6% (6)

34.1% (14)

48.8% (20)

41

Forest Grove survey
Jun 2006 n=49
Jun 2007 n=24

2.7% (2)

4.1% (3)

6.8% (5)

28.8% (21)

57.5% (42)

73

 

 

2

4

11

35

62

113

1%

3%

10%

31%

55%

100%

Eugene survey
05-06 n=13
Dec 07 n=53

0.0% (0)

3.0% (2)

6.1% (4)

27.3% (18)

63.6% (42)

66

Eugene survey
Dec 2006

0.0% (0)

5.9% (3)

11.8% (6)

27.5% (14)

54.9% (28)

51

Eugene survey
UG Jun 2006

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

40.0% (2)

0.0% (0)

60.0% (3)

5

 

 

0

5

12

32

73

122

0%

4%

10%

26%

60%

100%

Other Advanced Programs Assessments

A new scoring guide for all Advanced Programs candidates (other than Special Education) has been adopted. See the following excerpts from the draft Advanced Programs Handbook.

Continuing Teaching License and Advanced Program Portfolio Scoring Guide

The draft Portfolio Scoring Guide will be used for all Advanced Program portfolios, but will be flexibly applied to individual programs using the following criteria:

Candidates seeking the 30-credit MEd with the Continuing Teaching License (CTL) are expected to prepare a portfolio that documents evidence toward growth in all 12 competency dimensions. See examples of possible types of evidence in the last row for each competency.

Candidates seeking the Continuing Teaching License (CTL) only are expected to prepare a portfolio that documents evidence toward growth in all 12 competency areas. See examples of possible types of evidence in the last row for each competency.

Candidates seeking the 30-credit MEd without the Continuing Teaching License (CTL) are expected to prepare a portfolio in which they write a reflection on each of the competency dimensions #1 through #11. Complete documentation/evidence is not required.

Candidates adding an endorsement or certification only are expected to prepare a portfolio in which they write a reflection on any two bulleted points selected from within each of the competency dimensions #1 through #11. Complete documentation/evidence is not required.