Education Undergraduate Programs 2008 Annual Report

a. Program Name – Undergraduate Education: Elementary, Secondary, and Special Education

b. Report prepared by – Dr. Karen Clark with input from Dr. Susan Cress, Dr. Bruce Spitzer, and Dr. Terry Shepherd.

c. Who is the current assessment contact for your program? –

            Dr. Susan Cress – Elementary Education
            Dr. Terry Shepherd– Special Education
            Dr. Bruce Spitzer– Secondary Education
            Dr. Karen Clark – Assistant Dean, School of Education

d. Should assessment information be sent to anyone else in your department?

            Contacts for the 2008-2009 academic year will be:

            Dr. Susan Cress – Elementary Education
            Dr. Terry Shepherd – Special Education
            Dr. Bruce Spitzer – Secondary Education
            Dr. Karen Clark, Assistant Dean, School of Education

1. What are the program’s educational goals? (Please take goals directly from your program’s assessment plan, and highlight any changes made this year.)

All undergraduate teacher education programs assess candidate performance related to the following standards and dispositions. In addition all courses in undergraduate elementary, secondary, and special education programs are aligned with content and developmental standards approved by the Indiana Department of Education’s Division of Professional Standards.
IUSB Standards
Standard One: Content Knowledge
The teacher understands the subject(s) taught including the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structure of the discipline(s) he or she teaches and can create learning experiences that make these aspects of subject matter meaningful to students (adopted from INTASC Principle One). At advanced levels, candidates are expected to develop an in-depth understanding of their fields and to apply this understanding to real-world situations (adopted from National Board Core Proposition Two).
Standard Two: Growth & Development
The teacher understands how children and youth learn and develop and can provide learning opportunities and support their intellectual, social, and personal development (adopted from INTASC Principle Two and IPSB Standards). At advanced levels, candidates understand and apply current learning theories. They make a commitment to students beyond the classroom (adopted from National Board Core Proposition One).
Standard Three: Diverse Learners
The teacher understands how learners differ in their approaches to learning and creates instructional opportunities that are adapted to learners from diverse cultural backgrounds and with exceptionalities (adopted from INTASC Principle Three). At advanced levels, candidates provide equitable opportunities for all students and commit to implementing practices that support the well-being of all students (adopted from National Board Core Proposition One).
Standard Four: Instruction and Curriculum
The teacher understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage students’ development of critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills (adopted from INTASC Principle Four). At advanced levels, candidates are expected to be adept at conveying their subject matter to students and to realize the importance of merging a commitment to students and knowledge (adopted from National Board Core Proposition Two and Three).
Standard Five: Learning Environment
The teacher uses an understanding of individual and group motivation and behavior to create a learning environment that encourages positive social actions, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation (adopted from INTASC Principle Five). At advanced levels, candidates are able to orchestrate learning and maximize student engagement using creativity and knowledge of best practice (adopted from National Board Core Proposition Three).
Standard Six: Communication
The teacher uses knowledge of effective verbal, non-verbal, and media communication techniques to foster active learning, collaboration, and to support interaction in the classroom (adopted from INTASC Principle Six). At advanced levels candidates are expected to create multiple paths for understanding (adopted from National Board Core Proposition Two).
Standard Seven: Instructional Planning
The teacher plans and manages instruction based upon knowledge of subject matter, students, the community, and curriculum goals (adopted from INTASC Principle Seven). At advanced levels candidates are expected to motivate and mobilize various human resources to support learning (adopted from National Board Core Proposition Three).
Standard Eight: Assessment
The teacher understands and uses formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate and ensure the continuous intellectual, social, and physical development of learners (adopted from INTASC Principle Eight). At advanced levels, candidates are meticulous about monitoring student learning and adjusting instruction accordingly (adopted from National Board Core Proposition Three).
Standard Nine: Professionalism
The teacher is a reflective practitioner who continuously evaluates the effects of his or her choices and action on others (students, parents, and other professionals in the community) and who actively seeks out opportunities to grow professionally (adopted from INTASC Principle Nine). At advanced levels, candidates reflect to ensure equity for all students and to continuously evaluate decisions (adopted from National Board Core Proposition Four).
Standard Ten: Collaboration
The teacher communicates and interacts with parents/guardians, families, school colleagues, and the community to support students’ learning and well-being (adopted from INTASC Principle Ten and IPSB Standards). At advanced levels, candidates consult with sources of research and scholarship and participate in a larger learning community (adopted from National Board Core Proposition Five).
Professional Dispositions
Professionalism – Indicators of the disposition might include how well the candidate:

• Conforms to ethical standards of a profession
• Appreciates constructive feedback
• Reliably attends class, other professional functions, and meets deadlines
• Shows responsibility for self and actions
• Shows respect for teaching and learning
• Demonstrates proficient oral and written literacy

Care and Compassion - Indicators of the disposition might include how well the candidate:

• Treats all students and colleagues fairly and equitably
• Shows concern for all aspects of a student’s well being
• Shows an awareness of impact on others
• Shows sensitivity to others including families
• Shows a willingness to consider different strategies to support students

Collaboration - Indicators of the disposition might include how well the candidate:

• Consults with others regarding well-being of students
• Communicates effectively with others
• Willingly consults with others
• Recognizes professional responsibility to support self and others
• Shows appropriate problem-solving and conflict resolution skills

Lifelong Learning - Indicators of the disposition might include how well the candidate:

• Commits to continually learning new and refining current practices
• Engages enthusiastically in professional development

Integrity and Respect - Indicators of the disposition might include how well the candidate:

• Serves as a role model for students and others
• Demonstrates honesty when interacting with others
• Acts as an advocate for students and families
• Maintains privacy and confidentiality

Habits of Mind - Indicators of the disposition might include how well the candidate:

• Demonstrates curiosity about teaching and learning
• Demonstrates enthusiasm and commitment to content

Commitment to Technology - Indicators of the disposition might include how well the candidate:

• Is open to new technologies
• Uses technology to facilitate student learning

Respect for Diversity - Indicators of the disposition might include how well the candidate:

• Shows sensitivity to community and cultural norms
• Commits to addressing needs of individual students
• Is flexible and able to view issues from different perspectives

Work Ethic - Indicators of the disposition might include how well the candidate:

• Is proactive in engaging in activities beyond those that are required
• Engages in careful planning and preparation of learning activities
• Seeks resources to support the continuous development of all students

Commitment to Reflection - Indicators of the disposition might include how well the candidate:

• Engages in reflective practices on an ongoing basis

2. What assessment techniques did the program use? (Please take assessment techniques directly from your program’s assessment plan and highlight any changes made this year.)

Undergraduate teacher education programs in the School of Education use the Unit Assessment System as written for our accrediting agency, The National Council for the Accreditation for Teacher Education (NCATE). The entire School of Education, reviewed data from the 2006-2007 school year. Assessment data include the following.

• nationally normed test results (PRAXIS I and II scores, PRAXIS II subscores),
• field and student teaching evaluations (interval scales) from both university and school supervising teachers,
• data from LiveText artifact assessments completed by faculty (rubrics),
• data from Letters of Concern (for areas of dispositional concern), and
• summary of student teaching issues (numbers codes with areas of concern and resolutions)
• School of Education follow-up surveys
• Department of Education follow-up surveys

LiveText Data The following is an example of data from LiveText for students completing the Elementary or Secondary and Special Education licensure programs. Students were required to submit designated artifacts in LiveText, a web-based system for storing and reviewing student work.  Once artifacts are submitted, two members of the faculty review the artifacts and score them using a common rubric.  Students can view the rubric to see how well they did in relation to the standards.  Once individual artifacts are scored, data can be aggregated across program areas and across the unit as a whole.  All students scored in the “acceptable”, or “target” range.

Student Teaching Data The following is an example of data from the student teaching experiences of special education students.   Data from student teaching evaluations have been aggregated from the 2006-2007 academic year.  This data suggests that Standard One (Content Knowledge), Standard Ten (Collaboration), and Technology need to be addressed.  Along with data from other academic years, faculty will review this data at the department meeting in September 2008.

PRAXIS I and II Data The following tables provide examples of data from PRAXIS I and II scores of special education students. In addition to submitting required artifacts, students completing programs to earn an initial teaching license must take PRAXIS I and PRAXIS II standardized tests.  These test scores for program completers are compiled in a Title II report.  The data in this table reflect scores from all students taking the test, not just scores for program completers.  In nearly all areas, students meet or exceed state and national averages.  Students did not meet or exceed state or national averages in Curriculum and Instruction:  Education of Exceptional Students (MTMD).  The low averages for Curriculum and Instruction: Education of Exceptional Students (MTMD) and Structuring and Managing the Learning Environment: Education of Exceptional Students (MTMD) are of concern and will be discussed at the September departmental meeting.  The passing rate for students taking the special education PRAXIS examinations is 100%, which meets or exceeds the state average passing examinations.

3. What has your program done with assessment information this year? (i.e. communicated results to faculty, staff, alumni and students, made changes in the curriculum, made changes in the budget, added new courses. . .)

Elementary Education
Faculty from the Elementary Education Department discussed the assessment data from the 2006-2007 year during a School meeting and subsequently in departmental meetings. The faculty were presented with the following data. 

• PRAXIS I and II scores from 2001-2005
• Student Teaching Data from program areas for 2005-2006
• LiveText data aggregated by program area 2004-2006
• Summary of Letters of concern fall 2005-spring 2006
• Summary of Student Teaching Issues spring 2002 – spring 2006

 Faculty have spent time reviewing the packet of data and then engaged in discussions about the implications of the data.
In elementary education a new more direct instruction model on assessment of student (P-6) learning is under discussion.  A new lesson plan format has also been designed by a subcommittee in elementary education.

Secondary Education

In the upcoming year, Secondary Education will consider a new instruction model on assessment of student (6-12) learning.  Secondary Education has also begun the process of moving student portfolio submission from the commercially available LiveText system to IU’s Oncourse system.  Students submitting final portfolios received communication so that their final submission results are known and students needing remediation are taken care of in a timely manner.

Special Education
Assessment information was shared with the School of Education Advisory Board at a meeting held in October 3, 2007. Data were shared from two follow-up surveys conducted with SOE graduates.  The first survey was conducted by the Indiana Department of Education.  Lee Smith, associate dean, and Michelle Wruble, graduate student, conducted the second survey on behalf of the SOE.  Michelle Wruble provided a brief description of respondents and an overview of results of the second survey. She distributed a draft of the future survey and asked for input. Participants suggested it might be difficult for faculty in CLAS to respond to the survey questions since they often do not know which students in their classes are education majors. It was suggested that the SOE might consider targeting some 300 level courses in CLAS.  PRAXIS II data were also shared.

Unit Assessment information is also available to faculty, staff, alumni, and students at http://www.iusb.edu/~sbassess/Senate%20Reports/senate07.shtml.

4. What are two concerns about student learning you identified this year?

Elementary Education
Elementary program faculty reviewed the data and concluded that the PRAXIS I scores over the last three years, in reading, writing, and math remain high; no further interventions are deemed necessary at this time. In the PRAXIS 2 scores are somewhat difficult to analyze in a meaningful way, but comparatively the elementary faculty noted some difficulty with reading theory, although students passed the test without difficulty.  

Data contained in the Letters of concern for elementary program students have centered around one of three issues.  The most frequent is absenteeism, the next is poor performance, and the third is plagiarism.  In terms of absenteeism, policies are clearly stated in each syllabus to communicate the importance of regular attendance.  Poor performance is dealt with on an individual basis and does not seem to be reflected in any one elementary class.  The Elementary faculty has focused on plagiarism issues by making sure that students in each upper level block of courses have passed the online IU plagiarism tutorial.
In reviewing the summary of student teaching issues there were only two students involved and did not seem to speak to a revision of plans for all students.
Elementary education faculty carefully reviewed the checkpoint information. Students were rated at the acceptable or target level on all standards in fall of 2006.  All but one student received acceptable or target rating in the spring of 2007.  The only standard which is slightly below the others is in assessment . Since this was the first full year of the revised elementary program, faculty will continue to review data as subsequent cohorts of students complete the program.

Secondary Education
In general, data reviewed look positive. Program faculty will continue to review data for students being recommended for licensure under Rules 2002.
One area of concern is with students with low grades in their licensure content areas.  While students may score acceptably on the Praxis II content area, anecdotal evidence indicates those with low content GPAs may experience difficulty in student teaching placements.  Program faculty will explore the implications of raising content GPA expectations from 2.50 to 2.75.
Another concern is with students in World Language licensure areas.  This tends to be an area that few students pursue, but of those few, they seem to struggle with Praxis II, the content area nationally normed exam.  Program faculty will work with World Languages faculty to try to determine if changes are needed in Education curriculum or in World Languages curriculum to help students better prepare for these exams. 
Special Education
The special education faculty will meet to discuss strategies to improve student performance in content knowledge, technology, curriculum and instruction, and structuring and managing the learning environment.
The special education faculty is also currently involved in developing a dual-license program (elementary/special education) aligned with Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) standards.  The development of said program should address many of the needs of students seeking certification in special education.  The ultimate goal of the department is gaining national CEC accreditation.