Campus Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes

What are the student learning outcomes in your unit? 

Initial Licensure Programs—Communication; Higher Order Thinking Skills; Technology; Learning and Development; School Culture and Diversity; Instructional Design and Delivery; Classroom Management; Assessment and Evaluation; Professional Development

Advanced Programs—Reflection; Collaboration and Professional Development; Assessment; Classroom Management; Learning and Development; Knowledge and Instruction; Educational Equity; Formal Inquiry

Educational Leadership Program—Vision of Learning; School Culture and Instructional Program; Management; Collaboration with Families and Community; Integrity, Fairness, and Ethical Behavior; Political, Social, Economic, Legal, and Cultural Context

 Which outcome did you assess this academic year?

The School of Education assesses candidates on all program outcomes each semester in courses and field experiences.

How did you assess their skills before, during and/or at the end of the semester/ academic year?

There are two major ways by which the Unit assesses candidates’ knowledge, skills and dispositions. The first is through the use of rubrics in scoring outcome artifacts. Candidates are required to complete artifacts, such as lesson or unit plans, essays, presentations, etc. in courses to demonstrate program outcomes. Course instructors, or in the case of field experiences, cooperating teachers and university supervisors, use rubrics to score the artifacts on a scale of 1 to 4. Candidates must earn scores of 3 or higher on all outcome artifacts in order to progress through their programs.

The artifact scoring process is a major part of assessing candidates’ progression through program “checkpoints”, which are periodic evaluations of candidates’ completion of specific program requirements. Checkpoints are completed prior to entry to a program, at roughly the midpoint, and at the completion of programs, which includes licensure for Initial and Educational Leadership programs. In addition to artifact scores, scores on the Praxis and SLLA tests, course grades, g.p.a., and required course completion are the major assessments done in checkpoints.

The other major way by which candidates are assessed is through performance in field experiences. Course instructors, field cooperating teachers/mentors/principals, and university supervisors use survey and open-ended instruments to evaluate candidate performance on each of the conceptual framework outcomes.

Please summarize the data you have collected this semester/academic year.

As part of its Unit Assessment System, the School of Education collects the following data each semester/year: candidate performance of conceptual framework outcomes in courses and field/student teaching experiences; candidate demonstration of professional dispositions in courses and field/student teaching experiences; candidate self-assessment of professional dispositions; field cooperating teacher/mentor/principal evaluation of field experience programs; field cooperating teacher/mentor/principal evaluation of university supervisors; candidate evaluation of field cooperating teacher/mentor/principal; candidate progression through program checkpoints; program exit surveys; graduate follow-up surveys; advising evaluations; course evaluations; and PRAXIS and SLLA scores.

Please describe any programmatic changes you have made or are planning to make based on the data you have collected.

Based on data from field experience and student teaching evaluations as well as focus group meetings with teachers, principals and university supervisors, the SOE is in the process of redesigning student teaching and field experiences. The new design will focus on ensuring SOE initial programs are aligned with the complex and diverse experiences of modern P-12 classrooms. A major focus will be on the increased incorporation of educational technology in instruction, supervision, evaluation, and collaboration. An important part of the redesign is the SOE’s creation of a useful and efficient system for documenting candidates’ ability to demonstrate impact on P-12 student learning.