Academic Assessment Report - AY 2015-2016ncate/CAEP Accreditation 2017/SLO...Academic Assessment Report - AY 2015-2016 College of Education School for Global Education and Innovation

Academic Assessment Report - AY 2015-2016 College of Education School for Global Education and Innovation Name of Program: K-12 Teacher Certification/Spanish Pre-service teachers in the Kean University Spanish/World Languages K-12 Teacher Certification Program will: 1) Speak, write, interpret and present a wide array of texts and communicative products at a minimum level of "Advanced Low" on the ACTFL Performance Descriptors. http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/PerformanceDescriptorsLanguageLearners.pdf (CAEP Principle B, ACTFL Standard 1, KU1, KU4; GE: K3, S1, S2, S4, S5, V2, V3, V4, V5) 2) Demonstrate l inguist ic and cul tural understandings while comparing language systems and cultures through the interdisciplinary perspectives, products, and practices they convey. (CAEP Principle B, ACTFL Standard 2, KU1, KU2; GE: K3, K4, S1, S2, S4, S5, V1, V2, V3, V4, V5) 3) Demonstrate an understanding of the methods of literary analysis as well as critical reading and writing in collaborative, project-based and technology-rich environments. (CAEP Principle B, ACTFL Standard 2, KU1, KU2; GE: K3, S1, S2, S4, S5, V1, V3, V4, V5) 4) Demonstrate an understanding of key principles of language acquisition, child and adolescent development while creating linguistically and culturally rich learning environments. (CAEP Principles A and C, ACTFL Standard 3, KU1, KU4; GE: K2, S1, S2, S4, S5, V3, V4, V5) 5) Integrate the goal areas of the ACTFL Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century and NJCC standards in classroom practices while integrating authentic texts, technology, and self-designed instructional materials. (CAEP Principles A and C, ACTFL Standard 4, KU1, KU4; GE: K2, S1, S2, S4, S5, V2, V3, V4, V5) 6) Design and use ongoing authentic performance assessments, analyze the results of student assessments and report on and use data to inform and strengthen subsequent instruction. (CAEP Principle C, ACTFL Standard 5, KU1, KU4; GE: K2, S1, S2, S4, S5, V3, V4, V5) 7) Engage in ongoing professional development opportunities that strengthen linguistic, cultural, technology and pedagogical competencies, while promoting reflection on instructional practice as well as interaction and collaboration with global, regional, and professional communities. (CAEP Principle D, ACTFL Standard 6, KU1, KU3, KU4; GE: K2, S1, S2, S4, S5, V1, V2, V3, V4, V5)

Program Level Student Learning

Outcomes

Assessment Measure(s)

Assessment Criteria (Describe how data is

collected--rubric, survey, etc.)

Results of Assessment (Specific to Data Collected)

Action Taken (Closing the Loop: New action or follow

up from last Assessment Report)

SLO #1: Speak, write,

interpret and present a

wide array of texts and

communicative products

at a minimum level of

"Advanced Low" on the

ACTFL Oral Proficiency

Direct #1: SPAN 4700: Capstone Seminar Course: Oral presentations, short reflective papers, formal research assignment of 8-10 pages, final exam.

Rubric-based evaluation of all measures by Capstone Instructor

Using the GE Writing and Presentation 21 Students (SP16). SP 16: Mean: 27.7/30 for Writing Mean: 46/50 for Speech. Improvements seen in students’ editing and argument development skills. (No Capstone offered

We are still midstream on the implementation of ACTFL-aligned rubrics for Civilization, Writing and Phonetics courses. Following on last year’s recommendations—foundations courses created and will go through approval process AY 16-17. Continue collecting data using existing and newly developed rubrics established to measure SLOs.

http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/PerformanceDescriptorsLanguageLearners.pdf

Interview (OPI). (CAEP

Principle B, ACTFL

Standard 1, KU1, KU4;

GE: K3, S1, S2, S4, S5,

V2, V3, V4, V5)

FA 15)

Direct #2: SPAN 3100: Advanced Spanish Composition: Writing Proficiency Exam and Writing Portfolio Evaluation to include writing samples from the following discourses: research, analysis and argumentation.

Rubric-based evaluation of writing samples; writing exam similar to Avant Stamp 4s appraising higher level writing proficiency

Using the GE Writing Presentation Rubric 6 criteria: FA15: 31 students Mean 19.1/30 and SP16: 39 students: Mean is 20.8/30.

Working on Inter-rater reliability with instructors of 3100 to accurately assess students writing.

Indirect: Graduating Student Survey (to be administered by GE) and Spring 2014 student survey (to be administered by SGEI)

Qualtrics survey to evaluate student perceptions of SLO achievement and quality for specific Spanish courses.

Data unavailable Continue to collect and analyze data from Graduating Student Survey. Inform students and teaching staff of program SLOs. Carry out Adjunct faculty training. Draft and deploy another SGEI student survey for Fall 2015 focused on SLOs of specific fundamental courses in Spanish Program.

SLO #2: Demonstrate l inguistic and cultura l understandings while comparing language systems and cultures through the interdisciplinary perspectives, products, and practices they convey. (CAEP Principle B, ACTFL Standard 2, KU1, KU2; GE: K3, K4, S1, S2, S4, S5, V1, V2, V3, V4, V5)

Direct #1: SPAN 4700: Capstone Seminar Course: group projects, short reflective papers, formal written assignments of 8-10 pages, final exam


Using the GE Writing and Presentation 21 Students (SP16). SP 16: Mean: 27.7/30 for Writing Mean: 46/50 for Speech. Improvements seen in students’ editing and argument development skills. (No Capstone offered FA 15)









SLO #3: Demonstrate an

understanding of the

methods of literary

analysis as well as critical

reading and writing in

collaborative, project-

based and technology-

rich environments.

(CAEP Principle B, ACTFL


GE: K3, S1, S2, S4, S5,

V1, V3, V4, V5)

Direct #1: SPAN 4700: Capstone Seminar Course: electronic assignments, group projects, oral presentations, short reflective papers, formal written research project of 8-10 pages, final exam











SLO #4: Demonstrate an understanding of key principles of language acquisition, child and adolescent

Direct #1: EMSE 3250: METHODOLOGY: K-12 INSTRUCTION: Evaluation of Methods Final Project—Learning Goals

Rubric-based evaluation of all three measures using separate rubrics for each component.

ACTFL-aligned measures and rubrics produced the following data per category: FA15: Learning Goals Mean is 14.8/20, Assessment Mean

Additional methodology course (GLOB 3255) has been designed and approved and will be added to required courses for Certification AY 2016-17. There is a need to continue work with Understanding by

development while creating linguistically and culturally rich learning environments. (CAEP Principles A and C, ACTFL Standard 3, KU1, KU4; GE: K2, S1, S2, S4, S5, V3, V4, V5)

(4 characteristics—5 points each), Assessment Plan (5 characteristics—5 points each), and Design for Instruction (6 characteristics—5 points each),

is 15.8/25 and Design Mean is 24/30. SP16: Learning Goals Mean is 15.5/20, Assessment Mean is 17.9/25 and Design Mean is 25.7/30.

Design and Student-centered and Technology-based Instructional Models at an earlier stage in Teacher Preparation—we will identify courses in core EDUC courses to improve preparation for Design and Tech integration.

Direct #2: EMSE 3250: METHODOLOGY: K-12 INSTRUCTION: Evaluation of 10 categories (3=exceeds expectations, 2=meets expectations, 1=doesn’t meet expectations)—3 points each 30 total.

Rubric-based evaluation of modified TWS.

ACTFL-aligned measures and rubrics yielded: FA 15: 13 students: Mean 21.1/30 SP16: 18 students: Mean is 22.5/30

Understanding by Design and Student-

centered and Technology-based

Instructional Models at an earlier stage in

Teacher Preparation—we will identify

courses in core EDUC courses to improve

preparation for Design and Tech

integration.

SLO #5: Integrate the goal areas of the ACTFL Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century and NJCC standards in classroom practices while integrating authentic texts, technology, and self-designed instructional materials. (CAEP Principles A and C, ACTFL Standard 4, KU1, KU4; GE: K2, S1, S2, S4, S5, V2, V3, V4, V5)

Direct #1: EMSE 3250: METHODOLOGY: K-12 INSTRUCTION: Evaluation of Methods Final Project—Learning Goals (4 characteristics—5 points each), Assessment Plan (5 characteristics—5 points each), and Design for Instruction (6 characteristics—5 points each),


ACTFL-aligned measures and rubrics produced the following data per category: FA15: Learning Goals Mean is 14.8/20, Assessment Mean is 15.8/25 and Design Mean is 24/30. SP16: Learning Goals Mean is 15.5/20, Assessment Mean is 17.9/25 and Design Mean is 25.7/30.

Additional methodology course (GLOB 3255) has been designed and approved and will be added to required courses for Certification AY 2016-17. There is a need to continue work with Understanding by Design and Student-centered and Technology-based Instructional Models at an earlier stage in Teacher Preparation—we will identify courses in core EDUC courses to improve preparation for Design and Tech integration.










integration.

SLO #6: Design and use ongoing authentic performance assessments, analyze the results of student assessments and report on and use data to inform and strengthen subsequent instruction. (CAEP Principle C, ACTFL Standard 5, KU1, KU4; GE: K2, S1, S2, S4, S5, V3, V4, V5)














integration.

SLO #7: Engage in

ongoing professional

development

opportunities that

strengthen linguistic,

cultural, technology and

pedagogical

competencies, while

promoting reflection on

instructional practice as





well as interaction and

collaboration with

global, regional, and

professional

communities. (CAEP

Principle D, ACTFL

Standard 6, KU1, KU3,

KU4; GE: K2, S1, S2, S4,

S5, V1, V2, V3, V4, V5)










integration.

College of Education School for Global Education and Innovation Name of Program: Spanish Program SLOs: Students who graduate with a B.A. in Spanish will: 1) Speak, write, interpret and present a wide array of texts and communicative products at a minimum level of "Advanced Low" on the ACTFL Performance Descriptors. http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/PerformanceDescriptorsLanguageLearners.pdf (CAEP Principle B, ACTFL Standard 1, KU1, KU4; GE: K3, S1, S2, S4, S5, V2, V3, V4, V5) 2) Demonstrate linguistic and cultural un derstandings while comparing language systems and cultures through the interdisciplinary perspectives, products, and practices they convey. (CAEP Principle B, ACTFL Standard 2, KU1, KU2; GE: K3, K4, S1, S2, S4, S5, V1, V2, V3, V4, V5) 3) Demonstrate an understanding of the methods of literary analysis as well as critical reading and writing in collaborative, project-based and technology-rich environments. (CAEP Principle B, ACTFL Standard 2, KU1, KU2; GE: K3, S1, S2, S4, S5, V1, V3, V4, V5)

Program Level Student Learning

Outcomes

Assessment Measure(s)

Assessment Criteria (Describe how data is

collected--rubric, survey, etc.)

Results of Assessment (Specific to Data Collected)

Action Taken (Closing the Loop: New action or follow

up from last Assessment Report)

SLO #1: Speak, write,

interpret and present a

wide array of texts and

communicative products

at a minimum level of

"Advanced Low" on the

ACTFL Oral Proficiency

Direct #1: SPAN 4700: Capstone Seminar Course: Oral presentations, short reflective papers, formal research assignment of 8-10 pages, final exam.


Using the GE Writing and Presentation 21 Students (SP16). SP 16: Mean: 27.7/30 for Writing Mean: 46/50 for Speech. Improvements seen in students’ editing and argument development skills. (No Capstone offered


http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/PerformanceDescriptorsLanguageLearners.pdf

Interview (OPI). (CAEP

Principle B, ACTFL


GE: K3, S1, S2, S4, S5,

V2, V3, V4, V5)

FA 15)


Rubric-based evaluation of writing samples; writing exam similar to Avent Stamp 4s appraising higher level writing proficiency






SLO #2: Demonstrate l inguistic and cultura l understandings while comparing language systems and cultures through the interdisciplinary perspectives, products, and practices they convey. (CAEP Principle B, ACTFL Standard 2, KU1, KU2; GE: K3, K4, S1, S2, S4, S5, V1, V2, V3, V4, V5)

Direct #1: SPAN 4700: Capstone Seminar Course: group projects, short reflective papers, formal written assignments of 8-10 pages, final exam











SLO #3: Demonstrate an

understanding of the

methods of literary

analysis as well as critical

reading and writing in

collaborative, project-

based and technology-

rich environments.

(CAEP Principle B, ACTFL


GE: K3, S1, S2, S4, S5,

V1, V3, V4, V5)

Direct #1: SPAN 4700: Capstone Seminar Course: electronic assignments, group projects, oral presentations, short reflective papers, formal written research project of 8-10 pages, final exam



We are still midstream on the implementation of ACTFL-aligned rubrics for Civilization, Writing and Phonetics courses. Following on last year’s recommendations—foundations courses were created and will go through approval process AY 16-17. Continue collecting data using existing and newly developed rubrics established to measure SLOs.








Learning Goals

Rubric

TWS Standard: The teacher sets significant, challenging, varied and appropriate learning goals.

Rating →

Indicator ↓

1

Unacceptable

2

Beginning

3

Developing

4

Capable

5

Accomplished Score

Significance, Challenge and

Variety

Goals are not in evidence. Goals reflect only one type or

level of learning Goals reflect several types or

levels of learning but lack

significance or challenge

Goals reflect several types or

levels of learning and are

significant and challenging.

Goals are significant and

challenge thought and

expectations including three or

more levels and types.

Clarity Goals are vague or not in

evidence. Goals are not stated clearly

and are activities rather than

learning outcomes.

Some of the goals are clearly

stated as learning outcomes. Most of the goals are clearly

stated as learning outcomes Goals are clearly stated in

behavioral terms.

Appropriateness for

Students

Goals presented are

inappropriate for the class or

set unrealistic expectations

for students.

Goals are not developmentally

appropriate; nor address pre-

requisite knowledge, skills,

experiences, or other student

needs.

Some goals are

developmentally appropriate

and address some pre-

requisite knowledge, skills,

experiences, and other student

needs.

Most goals are

developmentally appropriate;

addresses pre-requisite

knowledge, skills, experiences

and other student needs are

considered.

Goals demonstrates realistic

expectations for all students in

addition to providing for

students’ critical thinking and

reflection.

Alignment with National,

State or Local Standards

Fails to develop goals aligned

with national, state and

ACTFL standards

Goals are not aligned with

national, NJ standards or

ACTFL standards.

Some goals are aligned with

national, state or ACTFL

standards.

Most of the goals are

explicitly aligned with

national, state and ACTFL

standards.

Goals are aligned with national,

state, ACTFL standards and are

articulated through the lesson

presentations. Alignments are

explained.

Assessment Plan

Rubric

TWS Standard: The teacher designs and uses assessment tools that are technically and methodologically sound, aligned with national and state standards, and employ multiple modes.

Rating →

Indicator ↓

1

Unacceptable

2

Beginning

3

Developing

4

Capable

5

Accomplished Score

Alignment with

Learning Goals and

Instruction

Minimal plans for pre and

post assessments are

provided; assessments do not

measure learning goals.

Content and methods of

assessment lack congruence with

learning goals or lack cognitive

complexity.

Some of the learning goals are assess through

the assessment plan, but many are not

congruent with learning goals in content and

cognitive complexity.

Each of the learning goals is assessed

through the assessment plan;

assessments are congruent with the

learning goals in content and cognitive

complexity.

All learning goals are assessed

by the assessment plan, and

provide students with

constructive feedback on their

learning.

Clarity of Criteria and

Standards for

Performance

The assessments contain no

criteria for measuring

student performance relative

to the learning goals.

Assessments contain poorly stated

criteria for measuring student

performance leading to student

confusion.

Assessment criteria have been developed, but

they are not clear or are not explicitly linked

to the learning goals.

Assessment criteria are clear and are

explicitly linked to the learning goals. Assessment criteria are linked

to learning goals; accurately

documenting student learning.

Multiple Modes and

Approaches The assessment plan fails to

demonstrate evidence of

The assessment plan includes only

one assessment mode and does not

The assessment plan includes multiple modes

but all are either pencil/paper based (i.e., they

The assessment plan includes multiple

assessment modes (including

The assessment plan uses

formal/informal assessments

student assessment other

than after

instructions. Limited

knowledge of

formal/informal assessments

assess students before, during, and

after instruction. are not performance assessments) and/or do

not require the integration of knowledge,

skills and critical thinking.

performance assessments, lab reports,

research projects, etc.) and assesses

student performance throughout the

instructional sequence.

and student’s self-assessments

to assess student performance

and effectiveness of the

instructional sequence.

Technical Soundness

Assessments are not

designed to measure lessons goals and objectives; scoring

procedures are inaccurate.

Assessments are not valid; scoring

procedures are inaccurate; items or prompts are poorly written;

directions and procedures are

confusing to students.

Assessments appear to have some

validity. Some scoring procedures are explained; some items or prompts are clearly

written; some directions and procedures are

clear to students

Assessments appear to be valid;

scoring procedures are explained; most items or prompts are clearly written;

directions and procedures are clear to

students.

Assessments appear to be valid

and clearly written. Assessments data used

to document students’ strengths

as well as opportunities for

learning.

Adaptations Based on

the Individual Needs of

Students

Teacher does not address or

link assessments to identified

contextual factors.

Teacher does not adapt

assessments to meet the individual

needs of students or these

assessments are inappropriate.

Teacher makes adaptations to assessments

that are appropriate to meet the individual

needs of some students.

Teacher makes adaptations to

assessments that are appropriate to

meet the individual needs of most

students.

Teacher’s adaptations of

assessments for all students

needs to be met. Adaptations

are creative and show evidence

of outstanding problem-solving

skills by teacher candidate.

Design for Instruction

Rubric

TWS Standard: The teacher designs instruction for specific learning goals, student characteristics and needs, and learning contexts.

Rating →

Indicator ↓

1

Unacceptable

2

Beginning

3

Developing

4

Capable

5

Accomplished Score

Alignment with

Learning Goals

No lesson is linked to

learning goal. No

learning activities are

aligned to learning

goals.

Few lessons are explicitly linked to

learning goals. Few learning

activities, assignments and resources

are aligned with learning goals. Not

all learning goals are covered in the

design.

Most lessons are explicitly linked

to learning goals. Most learning

activities, assignments and

resources are aligned with

learning goals. Most learning

goals are covered in the design.

All lessons are explicitly linked to

learning goals. All learning

activities, assignments and

resources are aligned with

learning goals. All learning goals

are covered in the design.

All lessons are explicitly

linked to learning goals,

demonstrating critical

thinking and reflection in

activities and assignments.

Accurate

Representation of

Content

Teacher does not

demonstrate purpose

and relevancy of

content.

Teacher’s use of content appears to

contain numerous

inaccuracies. Content seems to be

viewed more as isolated skills and facts rather than as part of a larger

conceptual structure.

Teacher’s use of content appears

to be mostly accurate. Shows

some awareness of the big ideas

or structure of the discipline.

Teacher’s use of content appears

to be accurate. Focus of the

content is congruent with the big

ideas or structure of the discipline.

Teacher provides cross-

content approach to student

learning, stressing depth and

breadth of content.

Lesson and Unit

Structure

The lessons within the

unit do not demonstrate

knowledge of how

content is created and

developed.

The lessons within the unit are not

logically organized

(e.g., sequenced).

The lessons within the unit have

some logical organization and

appear to be somewhat useful in

moving students toward achieving

the learning goals.

Most lessons within the unit are

logically organized and appear to

be useful in moving students

toward achieving the learning

goals.

All lessons within the unit

demonstrate how knowledge

of content is created and

organized and integrates

knowledge from other fields

of content.

Use of a Variety of

Instruction,

Activities,

Assignments and

Resources

A single, instructional

modality is used with

textbook as only

reference.

Little variety of instruction, activities,

assignments, and resources. Heavy

reliance on textbook or single

resource (e.g., work sheets).

Some variety in instruction,

activities, assignments, or

resources but with limited

contribution to learning.

Significant variety across

instruction, activities,

assignments, and/or

resources. This variety makes a

clear contribution to learning.

Instructional strategic

assignments are varied to

accommodate individual

learners and to achieve lesson

goals.

Use of Contextual

Information and Data

to Select Appropriate

and Relevant

Activities,

Assignments and

Resources

Instruction has not been

based upon knowledge

of subject matter,

students or pre-

assessment data.

Instruction has been designed with

very limited reference to contextual

factors and pre-assessment

data. Activities and assignments do

not appear productive and

appropriate for each student.

Some instruction has been

designed with reference to

contextual factors and pre-

assessment data. Some activities

and assignments appear

productive and appropriate for

each student.

Most instruction has been

designed with reference to

contextual factors and pre-

assessment data. Most activities

and assignments appear

productive and appropriate for

each student.

All instruction addresses the

diverse needs of individual

students and contextual

factors of community, school

and class.

Use of Technology

Teacher does not use

technology during

instruction.

Technology is inappropriately used

and inappropriate rationale is

provided.

Teacher uses technology but it

does not make a significant

contribution to teaching and

learning or teacher provides

limited rationale for not using

technology.

Teacher integrates appropriate

technology that makes a

significant contribution to

teaching and learning or provides

a strong rationale for not using

technology.

Teacher integrates a variety of

media and technology into

instruction and relates both

directly to lesson goals.

STUDENT TEACHING--TWS

Teacher Work Sample

Target

3

Acceptable

2

Unacceptable

1

Description of Learning

Environment/Inclusive

Context

Description consists of a full, detailed

description of the school site and

student body.

Description includes relevant

information about the school site and

students.

Description is incomplete and/or missing

key information.

Planning for Instruction in

Inclusive Settings: Unit Plan

Unit plan follows required format.

Unit plan addresses required subject-

specific P-12 student standards—may

address more than 3 goal areas of FL

student standards. Interdisciplinary

connections and technology are the

focus of much of the unit. Critical

thinking plays a key role in the unit.

Unit plan follows required format. Unit

plan addresses required subject-

specific P-12 student standards;

addresses 3 goal areas of FL student

standards. Interdisciplinary

connections and technology are

addressed in the unit. Critical thinking

is evident.

Unit plan does not follow required

format and may not address required

subject-specific P-12 student standards;

may address fewer than 3 goal areas of

FL student standards. Interdisciplinary

connections and technology are minimal.

Critical thinking skills are not evident.

Planning for Instruction in

Inclusive Settings: Selected

Lesson Plans

Lesson plans follow required format

and effectively address required

subject-specific P-12 student

standards; may address more than 2

goal areas of FL student standards.

All lesson objectives are learner-

centered and measurable. Critical

Lesson plans follow required format

and address required subject-specific

P-12 student standards; address 2 goal

areas of FL student standards. All

lesson objectives are learner centered

and measurable. Some attention is

given to critical thinking skills. All

Lesson plans do not follow required

format and may not address required

subject-specific P-12 student standards;

may address fewer than 2 goal areas of

FL student standards. Some lesson

objectives may not be learner-centered

and measurable. Critical thinking skills

thinking skills are integrated. All

lesson activities address objectives

appropriate to all learners in inclusive

settings. There is evidence of a

variety of instructional activities.

lesson activities address objectives that

are appropriate to all learners in

inclusive settings.

are not addressed. Some lesson activities

may not address objectives, may not be

learner-centered and may not be

appropriate to all learners in inclusive

settings. Instructional materials may be

inadequate to meet the needs of all

learners in inclusive setting.

Implementing Instruction:

Evaluation by Supervisors

Observations by cooperating teacher

and university supervisor indicate

that the candidate exceededs student

teaching expectations (see evaluation

form).

Observations by cooperating teacher

and university supervisor indicate that

the candidate met the majority of the

student teaching expectations (see

evaluation form).

Observations by cooperating teacher and

university supervisor indicate that the

candidate did not meet several student

teaching expectations (see evaluation

form).

Implementing Instruction:

Self-Evaluations on Lesson

Plans

Self-evaluations present a thorough

analysis of the lesson, link learning

theories to practice, and offer a

systematic approach to

improvement.

Self-evaluations are reflective, link

some learning theories to practice,

analyze positive and negative aspects

of lesson, and include ideas for

improvement.

Self-evaluations lack depth and detail.

They are superficial and may attribute

lesson results to factors such as those

perceived to be caused by students

and/or cooperating teacher, and fail to

link learning theories and practice.

Assessment of Student

Learning in Inclusive

Settings: Design of

Assessments

Highly effective design of pre- and

post-assessments is evident.

Assessments are standards-based

and effectively assess targeted

objectives. All assessments are

contextualized, meaningful, and

learner-centered. Grading system

and rubrics are effectively designed.

Samples of student work are

included.

The design of pre- and post-

assessments is satisfactory.

Assessments effectively assess

targeted objectives. Assessments are

mostly contextualized, meaningful, and

learner-centered. Grading system and

rubrics are satisfactory. Samples of

student work are included.

Ineffective design of pre- and/or post-

assessments. Assessments fail to assess

targeted objectives and/or are not

contextualized, meaningful, or learner-

centered. Rubrics are either not included

or are ineffective. Grading system is

unsatisfactory. Samples of student work

may not be included.

Assessment of Student

Learning in Inclusive

Settings: Impact on Student

Learning

Pre-/Post-assessment results provide

convincing evidence of student

learning. Data confirm that all

students learned as a result of

instruction. Student surveys indicate

Pre-/Post-assessment results provide

evidence of student learning. Data

confirm that the majority of students

learned as a result of instruction.

Student surveys indicate a satisfactory

Pre-/Post-assessment results do not

provide evidence of student learning.

Data do not confirm that the majority of

students learned as a result of

instruction. Student surveys may indicate

a high level of satisfaction with

instruction.

level of student learning and general

satisfaction with instruction.

a low level of student learning and/or

dissatisfaction with instruction.

Analysis of Student

Learning: Formative and

Alternative Assessments

A thorough, detailed analysis of data.

Comparison of pre- and post- test

performance is detailed and

reflection on student performance is

thorough and insightful.

Analysis of data is complete and

effectively presented. Compares pre-

and post-test performance and offers a

rationale for the quality of student

performance.

Analysis of data may lack details and/or

may not be effectively presented.

Comparison of pre- and post-test

performance may be incomplete.

Reflection may fail to justify the quality

of student performance.

Reflection on Teaching

Effectiveness

Reflection on teaching effectiveness

is detailed and includes connections

to the Danielson framework.

Commentary is based on learning

theories and how they relate to and

inform classroom practice. Candidate

proposes a systematic, effective plan

for improving each student’s

performance based on results of this

work sample.

Reflection on teaching effectiveness is

satisfactory and includes connections

to the Danielson framework.

Commentary links learning theories to

practice. Candidate offers several

effective ideas for improving each

student’s performance based on

results of this work sample.

Reflection on teaching effectiveness is

superficial and/or does not relate to the

Danielson framework. Commentary does

not adequately analyze teaching

practices and /or link learning theories to

practice. The ideas offered by candidate

for improving each student’s

performance are inadequate and/or

ineffective and may not be based on the

results of the work sample.

Reflection on Professional

Growth

Candidate provides a comprehensive

plan for professional growth and

improvement in teaching.

Candidate identifies several aspects of

professional growth needed and sets

several goals for improvement.

Candidate is unable to plan effectively for

future professional growth.

SPANISH 3210, 3215, 3225, 3230: All Civilization Courses

Final Project: Cultural Investigation

Rubric for Research Paper Part of Project

Criteria 4=Exemplary (TARGET) 3=Accomplished (ACCEPTABLE 2=Developing (ACCEPTABLE 1=Beginning

HIGH) LOW) (UNACCEPTABLE)

Quality of thesis

statement

Score=

Thesis is student’s own

original idea, and clearly

states the main point of the

paper. Thesis is neither too

general nor too obvious.

Thesis is of appropriate

scope for the length of the

paper.

Thesis is student’s own original

idea and clearly states the

main idea of the paper. Thesis

is neither too general nor too

obvious. BUT thesis is NOT of

an appropriate scope for the

length of the paper.

Thesis is student’s own

original idea, BUT does not

clearly state the main idea of

the paper AND/OR is not of

an appropriate scope for the

length of the paper.

Thesis is not student’s

original idea, OR thesis is

too general or obvious.

Originality and

quality of

Ideas (cultural

products,

practices,

perspectives)

Score=

Thorough and accurate

analysis of cultural products,

practices, perspectives as

they relate to one another.

Ideas throughout the paper

(from title through

conclusion) show evidence of

original, creative, and critical

thinking (such as analysis,

interpretation, comparison,

synthesis, and evaluation).

The paper arrives at sound

conclusions.

Good discussion of products,

practices, perspectives, but

paper needs to relate the three

to one another more closely.

Most of the ideas in the paper

show evidence of original,

creative, and critical thinking.

Most of the conclusions are

sound.

Some discussion of products,

practices, perspectives; may

focus on only one of these

areas. Some of the ideas in

the paper show evidence of

original, creative, and critical

thinking. Some of the

conclusions are sound.

Little discussion of cultural

products, practices,

perspectives, OR analysis is

faulty. Very few of the

ideas in the paper show

evidence of original,

creative, or critical

thinking. Few of the

conclusions are sound.

Organization

and

expression of

ideas

Score=

All ideas support the thesis

statement. Ideas are

consistently organized in a

logical order. Paper avoids

excessive direct quoting.

Most ideas support the thesis

statement. Ideas are mostly

organized in a logical order.

Paper avoids excessive direct

quoting.

Ideas often do not support

the thesis statement. In

several instances, the ideas

are not logically organized,

OR in several instances, there

is excessive direct quoting.

Very few of the ideas

support the thesis

statement. Ideas often are

not organized in a logical

order, OR paper relies too

much on direct quoting.

Use of sources

Score=

Paper shows evidence of the

student’s having considered

appropriate types and

numbers of sources. Student

carefully distinguishes

between his/her own ideas

and those of others. Paper

provides the target reader

with appropriate amount of

background and contextual

information.

Paper shows evidence of the


appropriate types and numbers

of sources. Student carefully

distinguishes between his/her

own ideas and those of others,

BUT paper provides in

inappropriate amount of

background and contextual

information.

Paper shows evidence of


appropriate types and

quantities of sources. Paper

is inconsistent in

distinguishing between

student’s ideas and those of

others, OR is inconsistent in

providing appropriate

amounts of background

information.

Paper shows NO evidence

of student’s having

considered appropriate

types and quantities of

sources, OR paper does not

distinguish between

student’s ideas and those

of others, OR paper gives

too much or too little

background information.

Mechanics of

the

essay

Score=

Paper consistently uses

correct grammatical

structures and vocabulary, as

well as correct spelling,

capitalization, accentuation,

underlining, and

punctuation. Sentence

structure is varied. Essay is

fully comprehensible and

easy to read.

Paper has a few errors in

grammatical structures,

vocabulary, spelling,

capitalization, accentuation,

underlining, and/or

punctuation. Sentence

structures is generally varied,

and essay is mostly

comprehensible and easy to

read.

Paper has many errors in

spelling, capitalization,

underlining, accentuation,

and/or punctuation. BUT

paper has FEW errors in

grammatical structures or

vocabulary; sentence

structure is generally varied,

and essay is generally

comprehensible.

Paper has many errors in

grammatical structures

and/or in vocabulary.

Paper is often difficult to

comprehend because of

these errors. Paper also

has many errors in spelling,

capitalization, underlining,

accentuation, and/or

punctuation.

Mechanics of

MLA

format

Score=

Paper consistently adheres to

MLA rules for format, page

numbering, citations,

footnotes/endnotes, and

bibliography/ list of works

cited.

Paper deviates in a few areas

from the MLA rules for format,

page numbering, citations,

footnotes/endnotes, and/or

bibliography/list of works

cited.

Paper often deviates from

MLA rules for format, page

numbering, citations,

footnotes/endnotes, and/or

bibliography/list of works

cited.

Paper shows little evidence

that student consulted

MLA rules for writing of

research papers.

*If the instructor determines that inappropriate copying of materials from sources (i.e., plagiarism) is apparent in the paper, the student will

receive a grade of “0” as a final grade on the paper.

SPANISH 3115 and 3105: Phonetics & Phonemics

Linguistic Analysis of a Speech Sample: Spanish

Target

3

Acceptable

2

Unacceptable

1

Description of dialectical

features

Provides a full

description of the

phonological and

morphological rules,

how they operate

within the dialect, and

how they compare to

other dialects of

Spanish.

Describes accurately at

least three dialectical

features of the speech

sample in terms of

phonological and

morphological aspects.

Description either lacks

sufficient detail or is at

least partly inaccurate.

Or fewer than three

features are described.

Description of

phonemes/allophones

Gives the linguistic rules

plus a detailed written

explanation of the

distribution of the

phonemes, with

supporting examples,

and comparisons to

other dialects of

Spanish and to English.

Analyzes accurately the

four phonemes /

allophones selected and

makes appropriate

comparisons to English.

Analysis either lacks



Or fewer than four

phonemes are

described.

Description of syntactic

or intonation patterns

Provides a detailed

analysis of the syntactic

or intonation patterns,

with examples, and

comparisons to other

dialects of Spanish and

to English.


two syntactic or

intonation patterns

selected and makes

appropriate





Or only one pattern is

described.

Description of

pragmatic/sociolinguistic

features

Provides a detailed

analysis of the

pragmatic /

sociolinguistic features,

with examples, and


two pragmatic /

sociolinguistic features

selected and makes

appropriate




Or only one pattern is

described.



to English.


Description of additional

features

Provides a detailed

analysis of the

additional features with

examples, and



to English.

Identifies and analyzes

accurately two

additional features of

the speech sample.




Or only one feature is

described.

Use of Spanish and

citations in paper

May have a few minor

errors. Citations

included and adhere to

proper format.

May be some errors but

no major patterns of

errors to interfere with

comprehensibility.

Citations included and

mostly follow proper

format.

Errors are so serious as

to make paper difficult

to follow. And/or no

citations and/or

citations do not follow

proper format.

Quality of interpersonal

communication in

interview

Interview is of an

appropriate length and

conducted

appropriately. No major

patterns of errors; may

be some minor errors. Is

an active conversational

partner. Negotiates

meaning in order to

clarify message.

Interview is of an

appropriate length and

conducted

appropriately. Message

is comprehensible

although there may be a

few patterns of errors.

Responds to some of

what informant says.

May ask for clarification

in the face of

misunderstanding.

Interview is too short

and/or not conducted

professionally. And/or

errors in Spanish often

make message difficult

to understand. May be

little evidence of

negotiation of meaning.

SCORING RUBRIC

Professional Involvement Log

Target

3

Acceptable

2

Unacceptable

1

Efforts to Improve

Spanish Outside of

Class

Has worked on language

proficiency outside of coursework

by participating in TWO or more

activities throughout a semester.

One activity may be a second

study abroad experience.

Has worked on language proficiency outside of

coursework and the required study abroad

experience by participating in at least ONE activity

throughout a semester. Acceptable activities

include conversing with a conversation partner,

participating in local events, and working in an

environment where Spanish is spoken.

Demonstrated little to no evidence

of working on language

proficiency outside of coursework

and the required study abroad

experience.

Attendance at

Professional

Development Events

Has documented evidence of

attending more than 3

professional development events.

Documented evidence includes

both proof of attendance and a

description of what was learned

at these events.

Has documented evidence of attendance at 1-3

professional development Documented evidence

includes both proof of attendance and a

description of what was learned at these events.

Has no documented evidence of

attendance at any professional

development events and/or has

documented evidence of

attendance at 1-3 events but is

unable to describe what was

learned at these events.

Familiarity With and

Membership in

Foreign Language

Professional

Organizations

In addition to describing the

missions of at least TWO foreign

language professional

organizations and evaluating

opportunities for professional

development offered by these

organizations, the teacher

candidate has joined at least ONE

organization as a student

member.

Describes the missions of at least TWO foreign

language professional organizations (e.g., ACTFL,

PSMLA, AATSP); may include one regional

conference such as ACTFL. Lists examples of several

opportunities for professional development

offered by these organizations.

May identify the names of one or

two foreign language professional

organizations but is unable to

provide additional information

regarding either mission or the

opportunities for professional

growth offered by these

organizations. No participation in

FL organizations.

Future Plans for

Professional

Involvement

Explains a clear vision of his/her

role as an active participant in the

profession.

Identifies several ideas for ways to become

involved actively in the profession.

Relates no immediate plans for

becoming involved in the

profession.

Documents

Academic Assessment Report - AY 2015-2016ncate/CAEP Accreditation 2017/SLO...Academic Assessment Report - AY 2015-2016 College of Education School for Global Education and Innovation