|
Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate
and Program Performance
Evidence must be presented in this section that
assessment results have been analyzed and have been or will be
used to improve candidate performance and strengthen the
program. This description should not link improvements to
individual assessments but, rather, it should summarize
principal findings from the evidence, the faculty’s
interpretation of those findings, and changes made in (or
planned for) the program as a result. Describe the steps program
faculty has taken to use information from assessments for
improvement of both candidate performance and the program. This
information should be organized around (1) content knowledge,
(2) pedagogical and professional knowledge, skill, and
dispositions, and (3) effects on student learning and on
creating environments that support learning.
The members of the
Elementary Education MA Program faculty have met and begun the
process of planning revisions to the program based on
examination and analysis of the data collected during the
preparation for the current NCATE accreditation visit. The
proposed changes that have been agreed upon are listed below,
and are broken into two parts: Current practices, followed by
the proposed re-design of courses, tasks, assessments, and
procedures.
(1) content knowledge:
1. Licensure assessment
or other content-based assessment:
Current Practice: For admissions to the Elementary MA
Program no rubric or content assessment are currently used as
part of the decision-making process, with the exception of those
applicants who have met the requirements for highly qualified
teachers in RI. We currently require that applicants hold a
valid teaching certificate, and provide undergraduate
transcripts (minimum GPA of 2.5) a letter of intent, and three
letters of recommendation.
Re-Design: Applicants
must meet the RI definition of highly qualified, meaning they
must have qualified for RI certification after spring, 2005, or
have a score of 145 or higher on the PRAXIS Elementary Education
Content Knowledge Test (10014). Applicants will also submit a
copy of a current, valid teaching certificate (SOE theme #1).
2. Content-based assessment:
Current Practice: Students are
required to take only one advanced content area methods course.
There is no consistency of tasks across advanced methods courses
in terms of increasing and assessing content area knowledge. EDC
517 is the only advanced methods course to have a consistent
task that addresses content area knowledge. Comprehensive exams
for elementary MA students do not consistently include a
question addressing content knowledge (currently, Elementary MA
students answer four questions on: Educational foundations,
research, curriculum planning, and instructional methods).
Re-Design: The
advanced methods sequence will include two mandatory, integrated
methods courses (math/science; language arts/social studies).
These will include curriculum and assessment that address
content knowledge at the appropriate levels, and will allow the
program to determine candidates’ competence in the four major
curricular areas (SOE theme #1). We also plan to re-design
comprehensive exams by reducing the number to two. The first
will test content knowledge and its application to instruction
and assessment, as well as ability to integrate content area
instruction and address issues of diversity (SOE themes #1 and
#3). The second will be a leadership performance assessment in
which students are asked to design and evaluate a potential
professional development experience. (SOE themes #2 and #5).
(2) pedagogical and professional knowledge,
skill, and dispositions:
3. Assessment of
candidate ability to plan instruction:
Current Practice:
Students are required to take only one advanced content area
methods course. There is inconsistency in tasks across advanced
methods courses in terms of instructional planning activities.
EDC 517 is the only advanced methods course to have a consistent
task that addresses instructional planning.
Re-Design: Develop
consistent instructional planning tasks in both of the
re-designed methods courses (see #2 above). These will address
planning in all 4 major content areas. (SOE theme #6)
(3) effects on student learning and on creating
environments that support learning:
4. Assessment of
internship, practicum, or other clinical experience,
and
5. Assessment of
candidate effect on student learning:
Current Practice: The
Elementary Education MA Program does not include a field
practicum component. While all candidates must be licensed
teachers it is not the case that all of our students are
classroom teachers while they are in the program, and we can
not, therefore, assume that they have an opportunity to put what
they are learning at the university into practice in the K-12
classroom environment.
Re-Design: Revision
of the field study that is completed by MA students as part of
EDC 575, in coordination with the Secondary Education MA
Program, . Currently, there is no required consistency in the
subject or methods of this study, which leads to a wide variety
of topics, and does not guarantee research or practice in a K-12
classroom. This task will be re-designed to begin during EDC
529, when students are introduced to methods of educational
research. The re-designed task will consist of a draft research
proposal as a final product for the class. Students will carry
this proposal with them into EDC 575, where they will work on
adapting the proposal as necessary to include a classroom
intervention and an action research focus. The intervention must
address diversity and special needs, either as a focus or in
combination with the larger K-12 student population. Students
will then finalize their design, and implement it in a K-12
classroom. The action research focus will require them to
closely examine their practice, by collecting and analyzing data
on their instruction and its impact on student performance.
Supervision of their work in the classroom will be done by their
project advisor (SOE themes #3, #4 and #6).
Additional areas for
improvement:
Tables 1 and 2 show summary
data of student responses in the areas of diversity and
technology:
|
Table 1
|
9. Did faculty in your program present their
curriculum for diverse learners in sensitive
ways? |
|
|
Mostly |
2 |
|
Sometimes |
2 |
|
Seldom |
0 |
|
Never |
0 |
|
22. How well prepared are you to support the
learning of all students in a diverse learning
community? |
|
|
Highly Prepared |
1 |
|
Moderately Prepared |
2 |
|
Slightly Prepared |
1 |
|
Not At All |
0 |
|
Table 2
|
26. How well prepared are you to use technology
appropriately with your students? |
|
|
Highly Prepared |
1 |
|
Moderately Prepared |
1 |
|
Slightly Prepared |
1 |
|
Not At All |
1 |
|
27. How well prepared are you to use technology
to enhance your own professional productivity? |
|
|
Highly Prepared |
1 |
|
Moderately Prepared |
1 |
|
Slightly Prepared |
2 |
|
Not At All |
0 |
|
These results indicate that
the process of re-designing both the advanced methods courses
and the field practicum component of the program (see above)
will need to include a focus on these two issues.
<<Back
|