Annual Program Assessment Report - Vanderbilt … · Web viewAnnual Initial Licensure Program Assessment Report Modified Special Education Program Due June 15 th Date of Meeting:

Annual Initial Licensure Program Assessment ReportModified Special Education Program

Due June 15th

Date of Meeting:

Participants/Role: Andrea Capizzi, Assistant Professor of the PracticeKim Paulsen, Associate Professor of the PracticeJoseph Wehby, Associate Professor Donald Compton, Professor Dan Reschly, Professor (do I add everyone?)

Program Progression

1. How many undergraduate candidates applied for Screening I during the academic year? How many of those candidates were admitted into Teacher Education?

8 candidates applied for Screening I in Fall 2011 and 4 applied in Spring 2012. All of these candidates were admitted into Teacher Education.

2. How many master’s level candidates were admitted into the program during the academic year?

3.17 master’s level candidates were admitted

4. How many undergraduate candidates applied for Screening II during the academic year? How many of those candidates were approved for student teaching?

10 undergraduate candidates applied for Screening II (9 in Fall 2011 and 1 in Spring 2012) and were approved for student teaching.

5. How many master’s level candidates were approved for student teaching?

14 masters level candidates were approved for student teaching and engaged in student teaching in Spring 2012.

6. How many candidates successfully completed their student teaching experience?

9 undergraduate and 14 masters students successfully completed their student teaching experience during the 2011-2012 academic year.

Additional Comments:

We continued to use admission to the Masters program as fulfillment of Screening I for the masters student and completion of the Screening I interviews along with the required GPA for entrance into the Teacher Education Program for the undergraduate students. During Screeing I, interviews were conducted by practicing teachers, concern was noted about one undergraduate’s communication skills. Following the interview, the student was told of the teachers’ concerns so that she could work to address these issues in subsequent field placements. All candidates who applied for Screening II successfully completed the process and were admitted to student teaching.

Review of data on admission to programs, teacher education, and student teaching, supports continuation of current structures, supports, and outreach efforts for masters candidates. No changes are needed.

Candidate Performance on Key Assessments

Undergraduate ProgramPRAXIS II Exams: All candidates passed all of their PRAXIS II Exams taken during the 2011-2012 academic year.

Comprehensive Exams: Nine undergraduate candidates completed the comprehensive exam in Spring 2012. All candidates passed the exam.

Behavior Change Project

Student 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11Course

AverageBehavior Change ProjectTarget Student 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3.91Setting 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3.91Target Behavior Increased 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 3.82Target Behavior Decreased 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 3.82Social Validation 4 3 4 3 3 4 2 2 2 3 4 3.09Observation and Recording Procedures 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 3.82Baseline 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.91Intervention 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3.55Program Evaluation 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 4 4 3.55Generalization and Maintenance 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 2 1 4 3.18Data Collection Sheets 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3.91

& GraphPowerPoint and Presentation 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4Final Score 3.67 3.75 4 3.83 3.83 4 3.83 3.42 3.17 3.33 3.92 3.70

In this assessment, candidates develop, implement, and evaluate a behavior management intervention for a school-age student. The assignment is completed in a field-based site through the following steps: (1) observing and identifying classroom procedures, rules, and physical environment; (2) identifying a target student and target behavior; (3) collecting and graphing data for their target behavior; (4) developing, implementing, and evaluating an intervention for the target behavior; (5) summarizing their intervention and findings in a final write up and presentation.Based on the data provided above, students average at the proficient or greater level in all areas. The areas that were of greatest weakness for students were “social validation” and “generalization and maintenance”. These data suggest that, overall, students are meeting the expectations of the assignment. The data support overall maintenance of the structures that are in place to teach the assignments. The lower averages in “generalization and maintenance” and “social validation” suggest that greater time and attention should be paid to teaching and reinforcing these skills. These course sections will be expanded.

Class Wide Plan

Student 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Course Average

Class-Wide PlanLevel of Structure 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3.6Schedule Considerations

2 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 4 4 3.5

Physical Arrangement

3 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 3.4

Class Rules 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 3 4 4 3.7

Attention Signal 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 3.7

Class Routines 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 3 3 4 3.6Teaching Expectations

2 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 3 4 3.4

Methods to Increase Positive Behavior

4 3 4 3 3 4 4 2 4 3 3.4

Methods to Decrease Negative Behavior

3 3 4 3 3 4 4 2 4 4 3.4

Monitoring Procedures

2 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 3 3 3.1

Data Decision Rules 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 2 4 4 3.4

Family Collaboration 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 3.5

Organization 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3.9

Style 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3.7

Mechanics 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2.8

Final Score3.27

3.6 3.67 3.6 3.67

3.8 3.27 2.6 3.53

3.73 3.47

In this assessment, students develop a comprehensive class-wide plan including a) class physical arrangement, b) class rules, c) positive and corrective consequences, d) attention signal and routines, f) methods for evaluation with decision rules. Some sections require a rationale based on best practices from readings and class discussion. The data provided in the table above show that students all performed at or above the proficient level on the assignment, with averages of each of the assignment indicators averaging above proficient levels. Students #1 and 8 were at emergent level on several indicators. The lowest average was on Mechanics and on Monitoring Procedures. Based on the data collected for the assignment, students demonstrate proficiency in developing a class-wide management plan. “Mechanics” and “Monitoring Procedures” were the weakest areas, suggesting that these areas require greater attention in lectures, discussions, and readings. Mechanics scores tended to be low due to typographical errors. No revisions to the full assignment are needed.

Math Units

Student 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Course Average

Math Unit 1Pre-Teaching Components 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 3.7

Instructional Sequence 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 3.7

CRA Sequence 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3.9

Post-Teaching Components 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 3.7

Differentiation of Lesson and Evaluation 4 4 2 4 4 3 3 3.4

Final Score 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 3.7



CRA Sequence 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3.9



Final Score 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3.9



CRA Sequence 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.0



Final Score 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.97



CRA Sequence 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.0



Final Score 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.97

Candidates develop mathematical units addressing early numeracy activities, rational numbers, measurement, and algebra. Each unit consists of a series of lesson plans using the concrete/representational/abstract sequence of teaching mathematics to students with learning difficulties. Each unit includes SmartBoard and learning center activities that reinforce the objectives addressed in the lessons. Candidates also develop differentiation plans for each lesson that detail additional specific activities to further support conceptual understanding and vocabulary development for struggling students. The average score of 3.4 and above for each indicator suggests that candidates fall into the proficient-accomplished range. Candidate 3 struggled with the first unit and met with the instructor frequently to strengthen her understanding of mathematical concepts and integral components of the lesson plan format. Her performance improved significantly with subsequent assignments. Analysis of the data for the remaining candidates indicates changes are not necessarily needed in this assignment.

Language Assessment

Student 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14Course Average

Language AssessmentIntroduction 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4Response to Language Analysis Protocol 3 4 3 4 2 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 3.5Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 3.71Rationale for targeting weaknesses 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 3.57Lesson Plans and Materials 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 3.71Elements of Effective Writing 3 2 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 2 3 3.21Final Score 3.17 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.83 3.17 3.5 4 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.83 3.62

Each student will analyze transcripts from two visual story retellings (2 children retelling a story from a movie clip they watched) using a language assessment protocol provided by the instructor. Based on the analysis, the student will write a short paper that includes: a comparison of the students’ language strengths and weaknesses, a rationale for a lesson plan to address 1 language skill problem, and a brief description of how the potential

lesson plan would be carried out in the classroom. Based on student scores (provided above), students averaged at the proficient level or greater on all requirements for the assignment. The area that was of greatest weakness for students was elements of effective writing, which required students to submit an assignment that was free of errors (spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc.) and contained proper use of APA format. A second area of weakness was response to language analysis protocol. However, overall, students met the expectations for this assignment. The data support continued use of this assignment as well as continued use of the instructional methods for introducing information for this assignment to students. The lower average in elements of effective writing indicates students may need more reminders to proofread assignments before turning them in or a short review of APA procedures for citations. The lower average in response to language analysis protocol suggests that students may need additional instruction and reinforcement of the requirements for this aspect of the assignment. The course section covering completion of the language analysis protocol will be expanded to address this weakness.

Literacy Unit

Student 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Course

Avg

Literacy UnitRationale for Unit 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4

3.79

Rationale for Readings 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 2 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3

3.37

Goals and Objectives 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 3 4 4 4 3 3

3.74

Rationale for 5 Areas of NRP 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

3.89

Expository and Narrative Text Used 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 2 2 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4

3.47

Lessons Clearly Organized 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

3.79

Skills/Strategies in Detail 2 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 4

3.53

Lessons Systematic/Appropriate 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4.00

Evaluation Procedures 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 3

3.42

Skills/Strategies Taught 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4

3.53

Time Shown 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 4

3.58

Overall Presentation 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

3.95

Final Score

3.58

3.92

3.75

3.92

3.83 3.5

3.75

3.67

3.42

3.42

3.67

3.75

3.42

3.58

3.75

3.67

3.83

3.58

3.75

3.67

Each student developed a weeklong literacy unit for a group of five struggling readers; this included a series of lessons for five days (90 minutes per day). The unit was built around a theme appropriate for the student’s specified grade-level. The unit integrated instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Students were required to include both expository and narrative texts. The literacy unit included (a) overall goals and objectives for the unit, (b) rationale for the scope and sequence of instruction, (c) overview of how the lessons build upon one another to achieve the identified objectives, (d) detailed lesson plans, and (e) assessment procedures. Based on the summarized data provided above, students performed in the average or greater range across on all evaluation indices. The area that appears to be of most difficult for students was provided a clear rationale for their text selections and appropriate integration of text use within their lessons. Further, students showed some weakness with describing appropriate evaluation procedures to assess children’s strategy and/or skill use. Overall, these data suggest that students were able to meet the expectations for the assignment, but that certain aspects of the assignment may be improved for the future. In general, the data demonstrate that students had adequate knowledge and preparation to perform well on this assignment. The lower averages on criteria related to text selection and evaluation suggest that greater time could be spent supporting students in their application of these elements. This will be included in components of the course next year. Furthermore, changes will be proposed to the overall structure of the literacy unit—reducing several of the requirements (e.g., length, theme selection) so that students may have the opportunity to put their full efforts into developing a comprehensive unit that demonstrates integration of instruction across skill areas.

Field-Based Project – Pre-Student Teaching

Student 1 2 3 4 5Course

AverageAssessment ReportPermission Obtained 4 4 4 4 4 4Demographic Information 4 4 4 4 4 4Reason for Evaluation 3 4 3 3 4 3.4Student Background Information 4 4 3 3 4 3.6Student Observations 2 3 3 1 3 2.4Current Assessment Selection 4 3 3 4 3 3.4Current Assessment Results 3 3 3 3 2 2.8Current Assessment Summary 4 3 3 2 3 3Current Assessment Recommendations 4 4 3 4 4 3.8

Report to Mentor Teacher 4 4 4 4 4 4Style 4 4 4 4 4 4Final Score 3.64 3.64 3.36 3.27 3.55 3.49CollaborationCollaboration With School Personnel 3 4 3 4 4 3.6Collaboration With Families 3 4 3 4 4 3.6Final Score 3 4 3 4 4 3.60IEPDemographic Information 4 4 4 4 4 4Student Strengths and Parent Concerns 3 3 3 4 3 3.2Present Levels of Performance 3 4 3 4 2 3.2Considerations of Special Factors 4 4 4 3 4 3.8Annual Goals 3 3 4 4 4 3.6Short Term Objectives 4 4 4 3 3 3.6Program Modifications or Supports 1 3 4 3 2 2.6Supplement, Aids, etc. 3 3 4 4 4 3.6State/District Mandated Tests 4 4 4 4 4 4TCAP-ALT (if appropriate) 4 4 4 4 4 4Special Education and Related Services 4 4 4 3 4 3.8LRE and General Education 3 3 4 3 3 3.2Transition Services (if applicable) 4 4 4 4 4 4Participants 4 4 4 4 4 4Progress Reports 3 1 3 4 4 3Style 4 4 4 4 4 4Final Score 3.44 3.5 3.81 3.69 3.56 3.60Lesson Plan 1Pre-Teaching Components 4 4 4 4 3 3.8Instructional Sequence 4 3 3 4 4 3.6Post Teaching Components 4 2 3 3 4 3.2Differentiation of Lesson and Evaluation 4 2 3 3 3 3Final Score 4 2.75 3.25 3.5 3.5 3.40Lesson Plan 2Pre-Teaching Components 4 4 4 4 3 3.8Instructional Sequence 3 3 3 3 4 3.2Post Teaching Components 2 2 3 3 3 2.6Differentiation of Lesson and Evaluation 2 2 2 3 3 2.4Final Score 2.75 2.75 3 3.25 3.25 3.00

Lesson Plan 3Pre-Teaching Components 4 4 4 4 3 3.8Instructional Sequence 3 3 3 3 3 3Post Teaching Components 1 2 3 3 2 2.2Differentiation of Lesson and Evaluation 3 2 2 3 2 2.4Final Score 2.75 2.75 3 3.25 2.5 2.85Professional ReflectionVideo Critique 4 1 4 4 4 3.4Weekly Reflections 3 2 3 4 4 3.2Final Reflection 4 4 3 4 3 3.6Philosophy 3 3 4 3 3 3.2Final Score 3.5 2.5 3.5 3.75 3.5 3.35Progress MonitoringStudent Overview 4 2 4 3 4 3.4Objectives 4 2 4 4 4 3.6Probes 4 2 4 4 4 3.6Data Sheets 3 1 2 4 3 2.6Administration Procedures 4 1 3 4 4 3.2Data Collection 4 1 4 3 4 3.2Graph 4 1 1 3 4 2.6Summary of Progress 3 1 2 3 2 2.2Recommendations 4 1 2 3 4 2.8Style 4 1 4 3 4 3.2Final Score 3.8 1.3 3 3.4 3.7 3.04School ContextSchool Context 4 4 4 4 4 4Classroom Context 4 4 4 4 4 4Current Classroom Structural Supports 4 4 4 4 4 4Teaching Behaviors and Instructional Strategies 4 4 4 4 4 4Final Score 4 4 4 4 4 4Sub PlanIntroductory Letter 4 4 4 4 4 4Basic Information 4 4 4 4 4 4Emergency Information 4 4 4 4 4 4Rules and Procedures 4 4 4 4 4 4Emergency Activities 4 4 4 4 4 4Final Score 4 4 4 4 4 4

The field-based project has 5 purposes. First it is designed to assist candidates in identifying characteristics of the schools and classrooms they are assigned to during their student teaching, as well as identify their mentoring teacher(s) style. Second, candidates will identify one student in each placement to assess. Candidates will use the assessment data to develop an IEP and then progress monitor skills throughout their time in the classroom. Third, candidates will write and effectively implement lesson plans and classroom management for all students they teach. The fourth purpose is to ensure

candidates have opportunities to interact with colleagues and families. The final purpose for candidates to reflect on their teaching experience and set goals based on these reflection. Based on the data provided above candidates scored at the proficient level on most indicators. They were proficient to accomplished level on the “Assessment”, “Collaboration”, “IEP”, and “Substiture Plan”, “School Context” and “Professional Reflection”. Through the semester, “Lesson Plan” averages decreased. Overall, all candidates, with the exception of Candidate 6 scored in the proficient to accomplished range in most indicators.

Field-Based Project –-Student Teaching

Student 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Course Average

Field-Based Project

School Context

School Context 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.9

Classroom Context 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.0

Current Classroom Structural Supports

4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.9

Teaching Behaviors, Instructional Strategies

4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.9

Final Score 4 4 4 4 4 3.25 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.9

Assessment Report

Permission Obtained 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Demographic Information

4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 3.8

Reason for Evaluation

4 3 3 4 4 2 3 4 3.4

Student Background Information

3 4 4 4 2 3 2 3 3.1

Student Observations 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3.8

Current Assessment Selection

4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3.9

Current Assessment Results

4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.1

Current Assessment Summary

3 4 3 3 2 3 2 3 2.9

Current Assessment Recommendations

3 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 3.6

Report to Mentor Teacher

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Style 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3.8

Final Score3.73 3.82 3.64 3.82 3.4

53.27 3.27 3.64 3.6

IEPDemographic Information

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Student Strengths and Parent Concerns

3 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3.3

Present Levels of Performance

3 4 3 3 3 2 2 4 2 4 4 2 4 2 3

Considerations of Special Factors

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Annual Goals 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 3

Short Term Objectives

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3

Program Modifications or Supports

3 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 3.3

Supplement, Aids, etc.

4 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.3

State/District Mandated Tests

4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.8

TCAP-ALT (if appropriate)

4 4 3 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.3

Special Education and Related Services

4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.7

LRE and General Education

4 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3.5

Transition Services (if applicable)

4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3.8

Participants 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Progress Reports 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3.3

Style 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.8

Final Score3.63 3.69 3.31 3.56 3.6

93.25 3.69 3.75 3.5 3.88 3.81 3.44 3.94 3.69 3.52

Progress Monitoring

Student Overview 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3.9

Objectives 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.9

Probes 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 3.5

Data Sheets 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 3.7

Administration Procedures

3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3.8

Data Collection 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Graph 4 1 4 4 4 3 4 4 2 4 4 4 3 4 3.5

Summary of Progress 2 2 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3.2

Recommendations 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 3 3 3 4 3 2 4 3.4

Style 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.6

Final Score 3.6 3.4 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.1 3.9 3.6 3.4 3.8 4 3.7 3.6 3.9 3.7

Lesson PlansPre-Teaching Components

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Instructional Sequence

3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 3

Post Teaching Components

4 3 4 4 3 2 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3

Differentiation of Lesson and Evaluation

3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Final Score 3.5 3.25 4 3.5 3.5 3 3.5 3.5 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.75 3.75 3.5 3.5 3.25

Lesson Plans ContPre-Teaching Components

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4


3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 3.33

Post-Teaching Components

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 3.33


3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 3.17

Final Score3.25 3.5 3.25 3.25 3.2

53.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.5 3.25 3.25 4 3.75 3 3.25 3.25 4 3.

53.75 3.25 4 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.46

CollaborationCollaboration With School Personnel

4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3.9

Collaboration With Families

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Final Score 4 4 3.5 4 4 4 4 4 3.9

Professional Reflection

Video Critique 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Weekly Reflections 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Final Reflection 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3.9

Philosophy 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.9

Final Score 4 3.75 3.75 4 4 4 4 4 3.9

The field-based project has 5 purposes. First it is designed to assist candidates in identifying characteristics of the schools and classrooms they are assigned to during their student teaching, as well as identify their mentoring teacher(s) style. Second, candidates will identify one student in each placement to assess. Candidates will use the assessment data to develop an IEP and then progress monitor skills throughout their time in the classroom. Third, candidates will write and effectively implement lesson plans and classroom management for all students they teach. The fourth purpose is to ensure candidates have opportunities to interact with colleagues and families. The final purpose for candidates to reflect on their teaching experience and set goals based on these reflection.

Number of Students Evaluated:

School Context: 14Assessment Report: 8IEP: 14Progress Monitoring: 14Lesson Plans: 42Collaboration: 8Professional Reflection: 8

Overall analysis of the data show that candidates scored at the proficient to advanced level on all components of the Field-Based Project. Data suggest that candidates are proficient in all components of the field-based project. In implementation of the Field-based project, it was determined that a single collaboration and evaluation of 4 lesson plans is sufficient. Also, it was determined that progress monitoring should include the IEP progress report and that the guidelines for the assignment should be clarified for students.

Masters Program

PRAXIS II Exams: All candidates passed all of their PRAXIS II Exams taken during the 2011-2012 academic year.

Comprehensive Exams: Twenty-two master’s candidates completed the comprehensive exam in Spring 2012. All candidates passed the exam.

Class Wide Plan

Student 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Course

AverageClass Wide PlanLevel of Structure 4 3 2 3 3 4 4 4 3.38Schedule Considerations 4 2 4 2 3 4 4 4 3.38Physical Arrangement 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3.88Class Rules 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3.75Attention Signal 4 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 3.63Class Routines 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3.88Teaching Expectations 4 4 2 3 3 4 4 4 3.5Methods to Increase Positive Behavior 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3.88Methods to Decrease Negative Behavior 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3.88Monitoring Procedures 4 3 2 3 3 4 4 4 3.38Data Decision Rules 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3.88Family Collaboration 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3.25Organization 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3.88Style 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3.88Mechanics 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3.88

Final Score3.93

3.67

3.4

3.6 3

3.93 4

3.93 3.68

In the Class Wide Plan, students develop a comprehensive class-wide plan including a) class physical arrangement, b) class rules, c) positive and corrective consequences, d) attention signal and routines, f) methods for evaluation with decision rules. Some sections require a rationale based on best practices from readings and class discussion. The data provided in the table above show that students all performed at or above the proficient level on the assignment, with averages of each of the assignment indicators averaging above proficient levels. Based on the data collected for the assignment, students demonstrate proficiency in developing a class-wide management plan. “Structure”, “Teaching Expectations”, and “Family Collaboration” were the weakest areas, suggesting that these areas require greater attention in lectures, discussions, and readings. No revisions to the full assignment are needed.

Math Units - Advanced

Student 1 2 3 Course AverageMath Unit 1Pre-Teaching Components 2 3 4 3Instructional Sequence 2 3 4 3CRA Sequence 2 3 4 3Post-Teaching Components 2 3 4 3Differentiation of Lesson and Evaluation 2 3 4 3Final Score 2 3 4 3Math Unit 2Pre-Teaching Components 2 3 4 3Instructional Sequence 2 3 4 3CRA Sequence 2 3 4 3Post-Teaching Components 2 3 4 3Differentiation of Lesson and Evaluation 2 3 4 3Final Score 2 3 4 3Math Unit 3Pre-Teaching Components 2 3 4 3Instructional Sequence 2 3 4 3CRA Sequence 2 3 4 3Post-Teaching Components 2 3 4 3Differentiation of Lesson and Evaluation 2 3 4 3Final Score 2 3 4 3

Candidates are required to develop 3 mathematical units (i.e., beginning number activities, rationale numbers, measurement). Each unit consists of 4 scripted lesson plans using the concrete/representational/abstract sequence of teaching mathematics to students with disabilities. Each unit must also have 2 SmartBoard activities and 2 Learning Centers to accompany the lesson plans. Candidates are also required to complete a differentiation plan for each unit. This plan includes a list of activities that could be used if the student was not understanding the concept as well as identifying language that would need to be taught in order for students to understand the concepts being presented.The average score of 3 on all indicators would show candidates fall into the proficient range. However, Candidate 1 consistently scored in the emergent level on all indicators. Candidate 1 had a difficult time in the course and did not have a strong understanding of mathematical concepts. The instructor met with this candidate on several occasions regarding this difficulty and suggested the candidate receive some additional assistance to increase her mathematical abilities.

Analysis of the data for the other two candidates would indicate that changes are not needed in the assessment. However, changes will be made in the number of problems candidates need to script. Candidates were required to script 15 problems for each lesson plan, which made the lesson plans very lengthy. The problems will be decreased to 9 in future assessments, as we will be able to measure candidate understanding at the same level with 6 fewer problems.

Math Units - Endorsement

Student 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Course

AverageMath Unit 1Pre-Teaching Components 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 3.5Instructional Sequence 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3.25CRA Sequence 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 3.5Post-Teaching Components 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 3.5Differentiation of Lesson and Evaluation 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Final Score3.4

3.8

3.6

3.2 3

3.8 3 3 3.35

Math Unit 2Pre-Teaching Components 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 3.5Instructional Sequence 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3.25CRA Sequence 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 3.38Post-Teaching Components 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 3.5Differentiation of Lesson and Evaluation 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3.25

Final Score3.4 4

3.6 3 3 4 3 3 3.38

Math Unit 3Pre-Teaching Components 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3.88Instructional Sequence 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3.88CRA Sequence 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3.88Post-Teaching Components 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3.88Differentiation of Lesson and Evaluation 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3.88Final Score 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3.88

Candidates are required to develop 3 mathematical units (i.e., beginning number activities, rationale numbers, measurement). Each unit consists of 4 scripted lesson plans using the concrete/representational/abstract sequence of teaching mathematics to students with disabilities. Each unit must also have 2 SmartBoard activities and 2 Learning Centers to accompany the lesson plans. Candidates are also required to complete a differentiation plan for each unit. This plan includes a list of activities that could be used if the student was not understanding the concept as well as identifying language that would need to be taught in order for students to understand the concepts being presented. Overall all candidates in this program scored within the proficient to accomplished level on all indicators. Individual candidates showed improvement in most areas from unit 1 to unit 3. Analysis of the data would indicate that changes are not needed in the assessment. However, changes will be made in the number of problems candidates need to script. Candidates were required to script 15 problems for each lesson plan, which made the lesson plans very lengthy. The problems will be decreased to 9 in future assessments, as we will be able to measure candidate understanding at the same level with 6 fewer problems.

Language Assessment – Endorsement

Student 1 2 3 4 Course AverageLanguage AssessmentIntroduction 3 3 2 3 2.75Response to Language Analysis Protocol 3 3 2 3 2.75Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 3 3 3 3 3Rationale for targeting weaknesses 2 1 1 1 1.25Lesson Plans and Materials 3 3 2 2 2.5Elements of Effective Writing 3 3 2 3 2.75Final Score 2.83 2.67 2 2.5 2.50

In the Language Assessment, each student transcribed and analyzed two visual story retellings (2 children retelling a story from a movie clip they watched). Based on the analysis, the student will develop a short paper that includes: an introduction that summarizes what you did, an integrated summary for the students (language strengths and weaknesses), a comparison of the two students, a rationale for a lesson plan to address 1 language skill problem, and the lesson plan (including all materials). Based on the data provided above, students’ greatest weakness involved the Rationale for Targeting a Weakness to work on and their Lesson Plans and Materials. Their greatest strength was Summarizing Language Weaknesses and Strengths. With the exception of the two weaknesses, students’ performance was acceptable, but not outstanding. The data suggest that students need more work especially on Rationale for Targeting a Weakness to work on and their Lesson Plans and Materials when creating lesson plans for language. Greater time and attention will be devoted to both of these topics in the course. However, all topics (except Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses) will need additional work. This was the first time that this assignment has been used so some weaknesses were expected.

Language Assessment – Licensure

Student 1 2 3 4Course

AverageLanguage AssessmentIntroduction 4 3 4 3 3.5Response to Language Analysis Protocol 4 4 4 4 4Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 3 4 3 4 3.5Rationale for targeting weaknesses 3 4 3 3 3.25Lesson Plans and Materials 4 3 4 4 3.75Elements of Effective Writing 4 4 4 4 4Final Score 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67

In the Language Assessment, each student transcribed and analyzed two visual story retellings (2 children retelling a story from a movie clip they watched). Based on the analysis, the student will develop a short paper that includes: an introduction that summarizes what you did, an integrated summary for the students (language strengths and weaknesses), a comparison of the two students, a rationale for a lesson plan to address 1 language skill problem, and the lesson plan (including all materials). Based on the data generated through the evaluation, students’ scores were at the proficient or greater level in all areas. The area that was of greatest weakness for students was “Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses” at 3.5. These data suggest that, overall, students are meeting the expectations of the assignment. The data support continuing to apply the same instructional procedures that are currently in place to teach this assignment. Nevertheless, additional attention will be devoted to Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses.

Literacy Unit – Endorsement

Student 1 2 3 4 Course AverageLiteracy UnitRationale for Unit 4 4 4 4 4

Rationale for Readings 4 4 4 4 4

Goals and Objectives 4 4 4 4 4

Rationale for 5 Areas of NRP 4 4 4 4 4

Expository and Narrative Text Used 4 4 4 4 4

Lessons Clearly Organized 4 4 4 4 4

Skills/Strategies in Detail 4 4 4 4 4

Lessons Systematic/Appropriate 4 4 4 4 4

Evaluation Procedures 4 4 4 4 4

Skills/Strategies Taught 4 4 4 4 4

Time Shown 4 4 4 4 4

Overall Presentation 4 4 4 4 4

Final Score 4 4 4 4 4.00

Students put together a week long unit of reading instruction for a small group of children struggling with reading. Areas covered in the unit were phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension. All units were required to have both narrative and expository text. Based on the data provided above, students were proficient in all areas. These data suggest that, overall, students are meeting the expectations of the assignment. The data support overall maintenance of the structures that are in place to teach the assignments. The averages in suggest that generally the knowledge and skills being taught in the course are adequate, and therefore a similar approach will be used in future courses.

Literacy Unit – Licensure

Student 1 2 3 4 5 6 Course AverageLiteracy UnitRationale for Unit 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Rationale for Readings 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Goals and Objectives 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Rationale for 5 Areas of NRP 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Expository and Narrative Text Used 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Lessons Clearly Organized 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Skills/Strategies in Detail 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Lessons Systematic/Appropriate 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Evaluation Procedures 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Skills/Strategies Taught 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Time Shown 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Overall Presentation 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Final Score 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.00

Students put together a week long unit of reading instruction for a small group of children struggling with reading. Areas covered in the unit were phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension. All units were required to have both narrative and expository text. Based on the data provided above, students were proficient in all areas. These data suggest that, overall, students are meeting the expectations of the assignment. The data support overall maintenance of the structures that are in place to teach the assignments. The averages in suggest that generally the knowledge and skills being taught in the course are adequate, and therefore a similar approach will be used in future courses.

Field-Based Project – Practicum Endorsement

Student 1 2 3 4 5Course

AverageAssessment ReportPermission Obtained 4 4 4 4 4 4Demographic Information 4 4 4 4 4 4Reason for Evaluation 3 4 3 3 4 3.4Student Background Information 4 4 3 3 4 3.6Student Observations 2 3 3 1 3 2.4Current Assessment Selection 4 3 3 4 3 3.4Current Assessment Results 3 3 3 3 2 2.8Current Assessment Summary 4 3 3 2 3 3Current Assessment Recommendations 4 4 3 4 4 3.8

Report to Mentor Teacher 4 4 4 4 4 4Style 4 4 4 4 4 4Final Score 3.64 3.64 3.36 3.27 3.55 3.49CollaborationCollaboration With School Personnel 3 4 3 4 4 3.6Collaboration With Families 3 4 3 4 4 3.6Final Score 3 4 3 4 4 3.60IEPDemographic Information 4 4 4 4 4 4Student Strengths and Parent Concerns 3 3 3 4 3 3.2Present Levels of Performance 3 4 3 4 2 3.2Considerations of Special Factors 4 4 4 3 4 3.8Annual Goals 3 3 4 4 4 3.6Short Term Objectives 4 4 4 3 3 3.6Program Modifications or Supports 1 3 4 3 2 2.6Supplement, Aids, etc. 3 3 4 4 4 3.6State/District Mandated Tests 4 4 4 4 4 4TCAP-ALT (if appropriate) 4 4 4 4 4 4Special Education and Related Services 4 4 4 3 4 3.8LRE and General Education 3 3 4 3 3 3.2Transition Services (if applicable) 4 4 4 4 4 4Participants 4 4 4 4 4 4Progress Reports 3 1 3 4 4 3Style 4 4 4 4 4 4Final Score 3.44 3.5 3.81 3.69 3.56 3.60Lesson Plan 1Pre-Teaching Components 4 4 4 4 3 3.8Instructional Sequence 4 3 3 4 4 3.6Post Teaching Components 4 2 3 3 4 3.2Differentiation of Lesson and Evaluation 4 2 3 3 3 3Final Score 4 2.75 3.25 3.5 3.5 3.40Lesson Plan 2Pre-Teaching Components 4 4 4 4 3 3.8Instructional Sequence 3 3 3 3 4 3.2Post Teaching Components 2 2 3 3 3 2.6Differentiation of Lesson and Evaluation 2 2 2 3 3 2.4Final Score 2.75 2.75 3 3.25 3.25 3.00

Lesson Plan 3Pre-Teaching Components 4 4 4 4 3 3.8Instructional Sequence 3 3 3 3 3 3Post Teaching Components 1 2 3 3 2 2.2Differentiation of Lesson and Evaluation 3 2 2 3 2 2.4Final Score 2.75 2.75 3 3.25 2.5 2.85Professional ReflectionVideo Critique 4 1 4 4 4 3.4Weekly Reflections 3 2 3 4 4 3.2Final Reflection 4 4 3 4 3 3.6Philosophy 3 3 4 3 3 3.2Final Score 3.5 2.5 3.5 3.75 3.5 3.35Progress MonitoringStudent Overview 4 2 4 3 4 3.4Objectives 4 2 4 4 4 3.6Probes 4 2 4 4 4 3.6Data Sheets 3 1 2 4 3 2.6Administration Procedures 4 1 3 4 4 3.2Data Collection 4 1 4 3 4 3.2Graph 4 1 1 3 4 2.6Summary of Progress 3 1 2 3 2 2.2Recommendations 4 1 2 3 4 2.8Style 4 1 4 3 4 3.2Final Score 3.8 1.3 3 3.4 3.7 3.04School ContextSchool Context 4 4 4 4 4 4Classroom Context 4 4 4 4 4 4Current Classroom Structural Supports 4 4 4 4 4 4Teaching Behaviors and Instructional Strategies 4 4 4 4 4 4Final Score 4 4 4 4 4 4Sub PlanIntroductory Letter 4 4 4 4 4 4Basic Information 4 4 4 4 4 4Emergency Information 4 4 4 4 4 4Rules and Procedures 4 4 4 4 4 4Emergency Activities 4 4 4 4 4 4Final Score 4 4 4 4 4 4

The field-based project has 5 purposes. First it is designed to assist candidates in identifying characteristics of the schools and classrooms they are assigned to during their student teaching, as well as identify their mentoring teacher(s) style. Second, candidates will identify one student in each placement to assess. Candidates will use the assessment data to develop an IEP and then progress monitor skills throughout their time in the classroom. Third, candidates will write and effectively implement lesson plans and classroom management for all students they teach. The fourth purpose is to ensure

candidates have opportunities to interact with colleagues and families. The final purpose for candidates to reflect on their teaching experience and set goals based on these reflection. Based on the data provided above candidates scored at the proficient level on most indicators. They were proficient to accomplished level on the “Assessment”, “Collaboration”, “IEP”, and “Substitute Plan”, “School Context” and “Professional Reflection”. Through the semester, “Lesson Plan” averages decreased. Candidate 2 struggled throughout assignments with particular difficulty on progress monitoring. Overall, all candidates, with the exception of Candidate 6 scored in the proficient to accomplished range in most indicators. The decrease in the lesson plan scores suggest that the candidates may have become less tied to the structures of the lesson plans. This will be addressed in the future through greater time and focus on planning throughout the semester. Overall, candidates also require greater support in progress monitoring.

Field-Based Project – Practicum Licensure

Student 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Course Averag

e

Assessment ReportPermission Obtained 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4Demographic Information 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3.93Reason for Evaluation 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3.86Student Background Information 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 2 4 3.57Student Observations 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 3.14Current Assessment Selection 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 3.57Current Assessment Results 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 2 3 3.36Current Assessment Summary 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3Current Assessment Recommendations 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 2 4 3 2 4 3.43Report to Mentor Teacher 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.86Style 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 3.71

Final Score 3.733.2

73.8

23.7

33.6

43.9

13.5

53.6

43.8

23.4

53.8

23.6

42.6

43.5

5 3.58CollaborationCollaboration With School Personnel 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3.5Collaboration With Families 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3.57Final Score 3 4 4 3.5 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3.54

IEPDemographic Information 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4Student Strengths and Parent Concerns 2 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2.93Present Levels of Performance 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3.5Considerations of Special Factors 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4Annual Goals 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 2 3 3.21Short Term Objectives 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 2 3 3.36Program Modifications or Supports 2 4 3 4 2 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 2 3.36Supplement, Aids, Modifications, Accomodations 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 3.86State/District Mandated Tests 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 3 4 3.71TCAP-ALT (if appropriate) 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4Special Education and Related Services 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3.93LRE and General Education 2 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 3.57Transition Services (if applicable) 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.93Participants 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 1 4 3.64Progress Reports 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 2 4 3.64Style 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 3.79

Final Score 3.313.8

83.5

63.8

83.7

53.8

83.7

53.8

83.8

83.7

53.3

13.8

12.9

43.5

6 3.65Lesson Plan 1 4 4 4 4 4 4Pre-Teaching Components 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4Instructional Sequence 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 2 4 3 4 3 4 4 3.36Post Teaching Components 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 4 3.21Differentiation of Lesson and Evaluation 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 4 3 4 3 4 3 2.86

Final Score 33.7

53.2

5 32.7

5 3.5 32.7

5 43.2

5 43.2

53.7

53.7

5 3.36Lesson Plan 2Pre-Teaching Components 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.86Instructional Sequence 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 3.36Post Teaching Components 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 3.36Differentiation of 1 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 4 3 4 3 2 3 2.71

Lesson and Evaluation

Final Score 2.753.7

53.2

52.7

5 33.2

52.7

53.7

5 43.2

5 43.2

5 33.7

5 3.32Lesson Plan 3Pre-Teaching Components 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.93Instructional Sequence 3 4 3 3 3 4 2 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3.21Post Teaching Components 2 4 3 3 3 4 3 2 4 3 4 3 3 3 3.14Differentiation of Lesson and Evaluation 1 3 3 2 3 4 2 4 2 3 4 3 2 3 2.79

Final Score 2.53.7

53.2

5 3 3 42.7

53.2

5 3.53.2

5 43.2

5 33.2

5 3.27Professional ReflectionVideo Critique 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3.86Weekly Reflections 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 3.64Final Reflection 1 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 1 4 3.36Philosophy 3 4 1 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3.43

Final Score 2.75 42.7

5 3.5 3.53.7

5 4 4 43.7

5 4 3.5 2.5 4 3.57Progress MonitoringStudent Overview 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.93Objectives 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4Probes 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3.93Data Sheets 4 4 3 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.79Administration Procedures 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.93Data Collection 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.93Graph 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 3.71Summary of Progress 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 3.79Recommendations 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3.79Style 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4Final Score 3.8 4 3.9 3.9 4 4 3.4 4 4 4 4 3.7 3.6 4 3.88School ContextSchool Context 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.93Classroom Context 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.79Current Classroom Structural Supports 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.79Teaching Behaviors and Instructional Strategies Used 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.86

Final Score 33.2

5 3.5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.84Sub PlanIntroductory Letter 2 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 3.64Basic Information 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.93

Emergency Information 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.93Rules and Procedures 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4Emergency Activities 2 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.64Final Score 2.8 4 3.2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.6 4 3.83

The field-based project has 5 purposes. First it is designed to assist candidates in identifying characteristics of the schools and classrooms they are assigned to during their student teaching, as well as identify their mentoring teacher(s) style. Second, candidates will identify one student in each placement to assess. Candidates will use the assessment data to develop an IEP and then progress monitor skills throughout their time in the classroom. Third, candidates will write and effectively implement lesson plans and classroom management for all students they teach. The fourth purpose is to ensure candidates have opportunities to interact with colleagues and families. The final purpose for candidates to reflect upon their teaching experience and set goals based on these reflection. Overall analysis of the data show that candidates, on average, scored at the proficient to advanced level on all components of the Field-Based Project. They were especially strong at “Progress Monitoring”, “Sub Plan”, “School Context” and “IEP”. Lesson Planning is the weakest area for candidates. Data suggest that students are gaining proficiency through the current instructional methods and structures in place during their field experiences. Lesson Planning does not improve through the semester, suggesting that students either stop using skills, or find it difficult to maintain lesson planning components as demands in the classroom increase. Greater attention will be paid to lesson planning throughout the semester in the future.

Field-Based Project – Student Teaching

Student 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28Course Average

Field-Based ProjectSchool Context

School Context3 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 3.6

Classroom Context

3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 3 4 4 3.6

Current Classroom Structural Supports

3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 3.7

Teaching Behaviors, Instructional Strategies

4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 4 4 4 3.8

Final Score3.25 4 3.25 3.5 4 3.5 3.25 3.75 3.75 3.25 3.25 3.5 4 4 3.5 4 4 3.75 4 4 3.75 4 4 3.5 2.5 3.5 4 4 3.7

Assessment ReportPermission Obtained

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44

Demographic Information

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 43.9

Reason for Evaluation

4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 43.9

Student Background Information

4 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 2 4

3.6Student Observations

3 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 33.1

Current Assessment Selection

4 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4

3.6Current Assessment Results

3 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 2 3

3.4Current Assessment Summary

4 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1

3Current Assessment Recommendations

4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 2 4 3 2 4

3.4Report to Mentor Teacher

4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 43.9

Style3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4

3.7

Final Score3.73 3.27 3.82 3.73 3.64 3.91 3.55 3.64 3.82 3.45 3.82 3.64 2.64 3.55

3.6

IEPDemographic Information

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44

Student Strengths and Parent Concerns

3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 3

3.4Present Levels of Performance

3 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 2 3 33.4

Considerations of Special Factors

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4

Annual Goals3 4 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3

3.4Short Term Objectives

3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 33.5

Program Modifications or Supports

4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3

3.8Supplement, Aids, etc.

3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 43.9

State/District Mandated Tests

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44

TCAP-ALT (if appropriate)

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44

Special Education and Related Services

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4

4LRE and General Education

4 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 2 3 4

3.4Transition Services (if applicable)

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4

3.9

Participants4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4Progress Reports

3 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 23.1

Style3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4

3.9

Final Score3.56 3.94 3.75 3.5 3.88 3.69 3.88 3.88 3.81 3.94 3.69 3.31 3.69 3.56

3.7Progress MonitoringStudent Overview

4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 43.9

Objectives4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4

Probes4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4

3.9

Data Sheets4 4 3 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

3.8Administration Procedures

4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 43.9

Data Collection4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

3.9

Graph4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4

3.7Summary of Progress

3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 43.8

Recommendations

3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 43.8

Style4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4

Final Score3.8 4 3.9 3.9 4 4 3.4 4 4 4 4 3.7 3.6 4

3.9

Lesson PlansPre-Teaching Components

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4


3 4 3 3 3 4 3 2 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 4 4 3 4 3 3 4

Post Teaching Components

3 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 4


2 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 4 3 4 3 4 3 1 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 4 3 4 3 2 3

Final Score3 3.75 3.25 3 2.75 3.5 3 2.75 4 3.25 4 3.25 3.75 3.75 2.75 3.75 3.25 2.75 3 3.25 2.75 3.75 4 3.25 4 3.25 3 3.75

Lesson Plans ContPre-Teaching Components

4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 3.8


4 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3.4

Post-Teaching Components

4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 3.5


4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.9

Final Score4 3.5 3.75 3 3.75 3.75 3.5 3.5 3.25 3 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 3.5 3.75 3 3.

753.75 3.5 3.5 3.

253 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 3.4

CollaborationCollaboration With School Personnel

3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3.5

Collaboration With Families

3 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3.6

Final Score3 4 4 3.5 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3.5 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3.6

Professional Reflection

Video Critique3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.9

Weekly Reflections

4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.8

Final Reflection

1 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 1 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.6

Philosophy3 4 1 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3.7

Final Score2.75 4 2.75 3.5 3.5 3.75 4 4 4 3.75 4 3.5 2.5 4 3.5 4 3.75 4 4 4 4 3.75 4 4 4 4 3.7

The field-based project has 5 purposes. First it is designed to assist candidates in identifying characteristics of the schools and classrooms they are assigned to during their student teaching, as well as identify their mentoring teacher(s) style. Second, candidates

will identify one student in each placement to assess. Candidates will use the assessment data to develop an IEP and then progress monitor skills throughout their time in the classroom. Third, candidates will write and effectively implement lesson plans and classroom management for all students they teach. The fourth purpose is to ensure candidates have opportunities to interact with colleagues and families. The final purpose for candidates to reflect on their teaching experience and set goals based on these reflection.Number of Students Evaluated:

School Context: 28Assessment Report: 14IEP: 14Progress Monitoring: 14Lesson Plans: 56Collaboration: 28Professional Reflection: 26

Overall analysis of the data show that candidates, on average, scored at the proficient to advanced level on all components of the Field-Based Project. Data suggest that candidates are proficient in all components of the field-based project. In implementation of the Field-based project, it was determined that a single collaboration and evaluation of 4 lesson plans is sufficient. Also, it was determined that progress monitoring should include the IEP progress report and that the guidelines for the assignment should be clarified for students.

Summatively, data suggest that candidates are meeting appropriate levels of proficiency on all targeted assignments. Assessments are capturing data adequately

Diversity

During the 2011-2012 academic year, most candidates were placed in Metro Nashville Public Schools, but several were placed in Williamson County Public Schools and one was placed in Wilson County Public Schools. While in their placements, candidates worked with racially, ethnically, linguistically, and religiously diverse populations of K-12 students. Coursework and dispositions indicate that students are proficient at working with diverse populations. Classwide Plan: Family Collaboration (> 3)Math Units: Differentiation (> 3)Field Based Project: Family Communication (> 3)

We will need to expand here with data from disposition forms from mentor teachers and university mentors – but you may choose to do this department wide as weith the field based and mentor teacher information below.

1. What do data from key assessments and dispositions indicate about candidates’ ability to work with diverse populations?

2. What changes are needed to improve the candidates’ performance in working with diverse populations?

Additional Comments:Due to the way this was set up in TaskStream it is not possible to disaggregate the data by program area. This data will be provided in our department report. Beginning in Fall 2012 the TaskStream DRF will be set up so we can have this data by program area.

Field-Based Experiences

1. What do data from field-based experiences indicate about candidates’ ability to be successful in the classroom?

2. What changes are needed to improve candidate performance during their field-based experiences?

Additional Comments:

Due to the way this was set up in TaskStream it is not possible to disaggregate the data by program area. This data will be provided in our department report. Beginning in Fall 2012 the TaskStream DRF will be set up so we can have this data by program area.

Mentor Teacher/University Mentor

1. What do data indicate about the effectiveness of the mentoring teachers and university mentors?

2. What changes are needed to improve the effectiveness of mentoring teachers and university mentors?

Additional Comments: Due to the way this was set up in TaskStream it is not possible to disaggregate the data by program area. This data will be provided in our department report. Beginning in Fall 2012 the TaskStream DRF will be set up so we can have this data by program area.

What are the activities and timeline for implementing needed changes?

Needed Change Timeline1. Based on feedback from candidates, we will clarify and expand guidelines for the field-based project.

These will be prepared and implemented in the Fall of 2012

2. The progress monitoring component of the field-based project will include the IEP progress report.

Will be implemented Fall 2012

3. The Colleague and Family Communication/Collaboration logs will be completed across both placements in student teaching rather than attempting to create one for each placement in order to improve continuity.


4. 3 Lesson plans will be uploaded and evaluated for Masters Practicum and Undergraduate and Masters Student teaching in order to streamline the data collection and edit redundancy.


Documents

Annual Program Assessment Report - Vanderbilt … · Web viewAnnual Initial Licensure Program Assessment Report Modified Special Education Program Due June 15 th Date of Meeting: