2016 Unit/Department: School of Education Division - USC ...

Academic Program: Assessment Report 2015 - 2016 Unit/Department: School of Education Division: Secondary Education Program

1

Component Description

Program Mission Statement

From your Program Assessment Plan (Statement should articulate the unit/program mission in support of the institutional mission and include a clearly defined purpose appropriate to collegiate education)

The School of Education’s (SOE) mission supports the University of South Carolina Upstate’s “aim to become one of the Southeast’s leading metropolitan universities…” (USC Upstate Academic Catalog 2014 – 2015, p.7) by preparing highly qualified teachers to serve the needs of the Upstate’s K-12 public schools. The mission of the School of Education is three fold: teachers prepared at USC Upstate possess a broad knowledge of the liberal arts and applicable content areas, demonstrate the latest developments in curriculum and instruction, and respect the cultural diversity, welfare, and educational needs of their future students. The School of Education seeks to accomplish this mission by leading our students to be reflective practitioners who are committed to service built upon professional standards and ethics. The University’s metropolitan mission “to prepare its students to participate as responsible citizens in a diverse, global, and knowledge-based society, to pursue excellence in their chosen careers and to continue learning throughout life” (USC Upstate Academic Catalog 2014-2015, p. 8) supports the principles used to guide the Secondary Education Program. Faculty members and administrators of the USC Upstate Secondary Level Program have adopted a conceptual framework, focused mission, and a performance-based assessment system which are consistent with the University’s vision and mission statements. By undergoing rigorous processes of self-analysis and external review required for CAEP (Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation), SC CHE (South Carolina Commission on Higher Education) and SPA (Specialized Program Areas) the USC Upstate Education Professional Program assures excellence in its programs. This process also helps ensure that candidates who complete the Education Professional Program possess the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary for effective teaching and reflective professionalism. An important aspect of the mission of the Education Professional Program is to serve the needs of schools in the state of South Carolina, primarily the region of South Carolina encompassing Spartanburg, Greenville, Cherokee, Sumter, and Union counties. This mission involves working cooperatively with local teachers, P-12 students, superintendents, instructional supervisors, principals, partner schools, and in other professional working arrangements. In addition, faculty serve schools through curriculum development initiatives and various projects designed to meet specific needs of particular schools or school districts. Faculty members lead the development of curricula and summer


2

institutes, demonstrate state-of-the-art methods of teaching, provide in-service training, evaluate teacher effectiveness, share instructional materials, and provide forums for the discussion of issues and trends in the field of education.

Goals 1-5

From your Program Assessment Plan (Describe broad learning outcomes and concepts (what you want students to learn) expressed in general terms (clear communication, problem-solving, skills, etc.). Goals should focus on discipline-specific outcomes relevant to the program.)

The Secondary Education Program provides teacher candidates with the content knowledge, pedagogical skills, and dispositions in order to meet the South Carolina certification and highly qualified requirements for licensure in Secondary Art, Math, Science (Biology, Chemistry), English, History, and Spanish for grades 9-12. Its curriculum is based upon national and state standards which articulate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions required nationally of highly qualified secondary teachers. Accordingly, the Secondary Education Program’s goals are listed below:

I. Secondary Education teacher candidates demonstrate reflective teaching practice.

II. Secondary Education teacher candidates demonstrate learner-centered pedagogy.

III. Secondary Education teacher candidates demonstrate performance-based assessment.

IV. Secondary Education teacher candidates demonstrate a commitment to affirm diversity.

V. Secondary Education teacher candidates demonstrate a commitment to professional

responsibility.

Objectives SLO's (student learning outcomes)

From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the specific skills, values and attitudes students should be able to exhibit that reflect the broader goals. Objectives (student learning outcomes) transform the general program

Goals 1-5 are measured using the South Carolina Department of Education ADEPT (Assistance, Development, and Evaluation of Professional Teaching). The ADEPT model is an articulation of the student learning outcomes while establishing the criteria for determining candidate competence in essential domains of teaching and learning. It is based on the South Carolina Department of Education’s Performance Standards used statewide to evaluate certified teachers. The Secondary Level Program’s ADEPT assessment components align with CAEP (Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation) and SPA (Specialized Program Area) standards. The learning outcomes measured by the ADEPT assessments listed with its respective Secondary Education Program (SEP) goals are:

1. Demonstrate competence as effective long-range instructional planners; (SEP Goals I, II) 2. Demonstrate competence as effective daily instructional planners; (SEP Goals I, II)


3

goals into specific student performance/behaviors that demonstrate student learning and skill development along these goals.

3. Demonstrate competence in the areas of student assessment and reflective self-assessment; (SEP Goals I, III)

4. Establish high expectations for all learners; (SEP Goals I, IV) 5. Be knowledgeable of and capable of implementing a variety of instructional strategies which

utilize state of art instructional technology; (SEP Goals I, II, III) 6. Possess thorough and accurate knowledge of the content they teach; (SEP Goals I, II, III, IV) 7. Effectively monitor student learning and provide meaningful feedback to students; (SEP Goals

I, III) 8. Maintain a classroom environment that promotes and facilitates learning; (SEP Goals I, IV) 9. Manage their classrooms effectively with equity, firmness, and fairness; (SEP Goals I, IV) 10. Strive to develop as a teacher both professionally and personally. (SEP Goals I, V)

Students receiving recommendation from the USC Upstate School of Education to the South Carolina Department of Education will receive a passing score in the measure of ADEPT along with the Praxis II exam, and the Teacher Work Sample. South Carolina requires each student to submit a passing score in the Praxis II exam in the area of math, science, social studies, or English language arts to be certified in that subject area. The state mandates the minimum passing scores in each of these four Praxis II exams. The Teacher Work Sample is a set of ten artifacts that demonstrate mastery of content, pedagogy, and assessment. These three assessment measures serve to ensure that these 10 student learning outcomes are effectively met.

Assessment Methods

From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the measure(s) by which the department will know the students are meeting the departmental learning objectives. Includes both direct and indirect

The School of Education Secondary Level Program uses three major performance assessments to measure Student Learning Outcomes (SLO’s):

1. ADEPT Portfolio Evaluations (SLO’s 1-4, 6-10) The School of Education candidates’ performance is evaluated using a formative portfolio assessment process that aligns with the South Carolina Professional ADEPT (Assistance, Development, and Evaluation of Professional Teaching) System. At the beginning and end of the directed teaching experience candidates are measured on their ability to demonstrate teaching competencies. This evidence is organized into a portfolio and arranged by the ten South Carolina Professional ADEPT Performance Standards: 1) Unit Planning, 2) Lesson


4

assessment. Each SLO should have at least one assessment method.)

Planning, 3) Assessment of Students and Self-assessment, 4) High Expectations for Learners, 6) Instructional Strategies, 7) Teaching Content to Students, 8) Monitoring Student Learning, 8) Maintaining a Classroom Environment that Promotes Learning, 9) Classroom Management, and 10) Personal and Professional Development. For each portfolio section, candidates develop narrative explaining the philosophical, theoretical, and practical principles underpinning each indicator. These also include candidates’ justifications for the artifacts they select as evidence to demonstrate competency, along with a reflection on his/her learning and growth as a potential teacher. Assessment Rubric for Portfolio Rationale Statements

Level of Performance Expectations

Exemplary (E)

(4 points)

• Response shows an exemplary degree of understanding, knowledge, and/or performance

• Response shows a strong and very coherent rationale for match between evidence and selected performance Standard

• Response indicates a very thoughtful and serious consideration of learning and growth as a potential teacher; well written.

More Than Satisfactory

(M) (3 points)

• Response shows a high degree of understanding, knowledge, and/or performance

• Response shows a coherent rationale for the match between evidence and selected performance standard

• Response shows an acceptable explanation of learning and growth as a potential teacher

Satisfactory (S)

(2 points)

• Response shows a moderate degree of understanding, knowledge, and/or performance

• Response shows an acceptable rationale for match between evidence and selected performance standard

• Response shows weak connection to performance standard; response shows an adequate explanation of learning and growth as a potential teacher


5

Unsatisfactory (U)

(1 point)

• Response shows poor match to performance standard • Response provides an incoherent or unrelated rationale for match between

evidence and performance standard • Response shows little or no explanation of learning and growth as a

potential teacher If a portfolio performance standard is unsatisfactory the candidate will revise and resubmit the relevant documentation to the reviewer (course instructor or advisor). The student will not meet the requirements for the professional program or meet the requirements for application to student teaching until the entire portfolio performance standards submitted are rated (at least) as “satisfactory.”

2. Praxis II Examination (SLO’s 6-9) The Praxis II Content Knowledge exam is acknowledged by CAEP, SC Commission on Higher Education, and USC Upstate faculty as an excellent indicator of the candidate’s mastery of content. The State of South Carolina requires secondary level teacher education candidates pass the Praxis II subject assessment test in their selected area (science, math, social studies, or English language arts) to receive a teaching license. These assessments measure subject-specific skills and knowledge. Tests include multiple-choice and constructed-response essay questions. South Carolina Department of Education and the Specialized Program Areas (SPA) set cut scores are the following: Secondary Level English Language Arts (exam 5039) is 168, Secondary Level Mathematics (exam 5161) is 150, Secondary Level Science (exam 5435) is 150, and Secondary Level Social Studies (exam 5086) is 153.

3. Teacher Work Sample (SLO’s 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10) The School of Education candidates’ performance is evaluated using a teacher work sample. The teacher work sample is completed during the student teaching semester and is an evaluation tool that measures impact of student learning. The work sample consists of eight components: 1) Contextual Factors, 2) Learning Goals, 3) Assessment Plan, 4) Design for Instruction, 5) Instructional Decision Making, 6) Analysis of Student Learning, 7) Classroom Management, and 8) Self Evaluation and Reflection. Each component is evaluated separately and an overall score is reported. The following chart outlines the possible points for each of these eight sections.


6

Assessment Rubric for Teacher Work Sample Possible Score of 190 Contextual Factors 20 Instructional Decision Making 25 Learning Goals 20 Analysis of Student Learning 20 Assessment Plan 25 Reflection and Self-Evaluation 25 Design For Instruction 30 Classroom Environment 25 Exemplary (E) 190 – 177 More Than Satisfactory (M) 176 – 162 Satisfactory (S) 161 – 146 Unsatisfactory (U) below 146 Each of these three measures (ADEPT Portfolio Evaluations, Praxis II, and the Teacher Work Sample) are evaluated on a yearly basis to determine program effectiveness at the program level and the student level. Trends in the data are also noted and discussed on an annual basis during the first Secondary Level Program meeting of the academic year.

Assessment Criteria

Level of achievement you are targeting (Indicate benchmarks, scores on assessment instruments, etc… that would indicate acceptable achievement under your plan)

Students who have taken classes on the Greenville campus will no longer be listed separately from students who have taken classes on the Spartanburg campus. All secondary students take their upper division content and professional program classes on the Spartanburg campus. The only exception is students do have the option of taking their clinical experience on the Greenville campus. However, the clinical experience in a Greenville county school will be similar to the experience in a Spartanburg county school. ADEPT Portfolio: Secondary Level teacher candidates must receive a satisfactory score (2) or better on each standard in the portfolio in order to progress in the program. If a portfolio performance standard is unsatisfactory the Secondary Level teacher candidate will revise and resubmit the relevant documentation to the reviewer (course instructor or advisor). The teacher candidate will not meet the requirements of the professional program until ALL of the portfolio performance standards submitted are rated as “satisfactory” or above.


7

The Secondary Level Program sets a target score of 100% of its students meet the target score of 3.0/4.0 (more than satisfactory). Our program’s accrediting bodies (SC CHE, CAEP, and SPA) set the minimally acceptable score of 100% of the program’s students meet the minimally acceptable score of 2.0/4.0 (satisfactory). Praxis II Content Exams: Secondary Level teacher candidates must receive a passing score on Praxis II Content Area Tests (cut scores set by the SC State Dept. of Education) in order to achieve certification. South Carolina and the Specialized Program Area (SPA) set cut scores are the following: Secondary Level English Language Arts (exam 5039) is 168, Secondary Level Mathematics (exam 5161) is 150, Secondary Level Science (exam 5435) is 150, and Secondary Level Social Studies (exam 5086) is 153. Teacher Work Sample: Secondary level teacher candidates must receive a score of satisfactory on each component of the teacher work sample to successfully complete student teaching. If a teacher work sample component is scored as unsatisfactory the teacher candidate must revise and resubmit the relevant document to the reviewer (course instructor). Target = 177+/190 (exemplary), minimally acceptable = 146/190 (satisfactory). The Secondary Level Program sets a target score of 100% of its students meet the target score of 177+/190 (exemplary). Our program’s accrediting bodies (SC CHE, CAEP, and SPA) set the minimally acceptable score of 100% of the program’s students meet the minimally acceptable score of 146/190 (satisfactory).

Assessment Results

Actual results and data collected (Make sure to break down data by subgroups (e.g. other campuses or emphases). As appropriate, also include item or category analysis.)

All Data (ADEPT E-Portfolio, Praxis II and Teacher Work Sample) are noted on Appendices A - C of this report. ADEPT E-Portfolio All of the students in each of the five subject areas met the minimum score. The overall average score for the Pre-Student Teaching ADEPT E-Portfolio was 3.2. The overall average of score for the Exit Portfolio was 3.8. Although improved scores from the Pre-Student Teaching measure to the Exit Portfolio should be seen, the high number of 4.0’s over the past few semesters is cause for concern. The secondary program committee views interrater reliability as the primary reason for the consistently high scores. Faculty changes in the courses where these measures are taken have been made beginning


8

fall 2016. The expectation is that a more consistent sets of scores will be seen in the coming semesters. No data was recorded for the pre-directed teaching E-Portfolio even though there were two secondary social studies students. The data should have been recorded by the adjunct teacher but wasn’t. This may be due to the lack of understanding of the new LiveText system that we are using. The final grade indicates that the student did meet these expectations. Steps have been taken to ensure that data will be collected by all adjunct faculty teaching in the secondary program in future semesters. Praxis II The Secondary Level Program sets a target score of 100% of its students passing the Praxis II and the PLT. Our program’s accrediting bodies (SC CHE, CAEP, and SPA) set the minimally acceptable score of 80% of the program’s students passing these two exams. Seventy-three percent of the English students and 69% of the Social Studies students passed the Praxis II exam. Although we would like to see these scores higher they are in line with expectations. Also, faculty whose content area is in English and Social Studies are working with the faculty in the USC Upstate departments of English and social studies to determine how to improve student performance in the Praxis II exam. South Carolina has changed its passing scores during the summer. This increased the number of students passing to 69%. Although we would like to continue to see this number increase the scores are in line with expectations. For the past two semesters students have not been able to pass the Praxis II biology exam on their first attempt. However, half of the students were able to pass it on their second try and additional students passed on subsequent attempts. Faculty in the School of Education are working with faculty in the biology department to determine ways to improve these test scores. The Upstate library has purchased Praxis II study guides for each of these four tests. Students will now have access to a valuable resource in the preparation of taking these tests. Teacher Work Samples The Teacher Work Samples were 188 (exemplary) for each student for the spring of 2016. Although the Secondary level faculty believe this cohort of students did a fine job with their Teacher Work Sample questions of reliability still remain. The reliability of how well these scores match the actual ability of the students is a concern that is being addressed. Faculty changes have been made for fall 2016. The expectation is that a more normalized set of scores will be seen this coming year.


9

Action Plan

What actions or modifications have been or will be made based on this assessment?

ADEPT E-Portfolios: The Secondary Level program continues to link the two levels of the E-Portfolio (student teaching, and exit) with the Content Methods courses and Directed Teaching seminar. Using the ADEPT instrument to assess students before they enter Directed Teaching and then again when they finish Directed Teaching serves as to measure growth of the ten student outcomes. Secondary level faculty analyze these scores for each cohort as a way to measure growth of each student and to identify students who are not making acceptable progress. The Secondary level faculty also monitor overall averages on a semester by semester basis to note changes in instructors, changes in content, and/or changes in pedagogy. The lack of variation among the scores in the Exit ADEPT E-Portfolio for the spring of 2016 has been concerning. Changes in the faculty who teach the courses where this data is collected are in place for fall 2016. The Secondary level faculty and program coordinator anticipate that a more normal variability among Secondary level education students will return with these changes. These scores will be closely monitored in the coming semesters. The Secondary level program is pleased to have a full time social studies faculty member and a full time foreign languages faculty member. These two additional faculty will help to ensure the quality and accountability of the Secondary level program in these areas. Several secondary level meetings on the topics relating to ADEPT and the Teacher Work Sample have already taken place. The anticipated result is a program that is both deeper and broader in content and pedagogy which should be reflected in increased scores in these measures. A goal for 2016 – 2017 is to more fully use LiveText data collection system to analyze the ADEPT scores. LiveText can be used to disaggregate data and display graphs in multiple formats. The system can be easily tasked to compare data via campus, program, instructor, or individual. Looking at the data from these perspectives will allow Secondary Level faculty to better assess the effectiveness of program changes and teaching techniques. We are just beginning to use its potential to analyze student data. A second goal will be to improve the reliability of the ADEPT scores. Changes in faculty who teach this course are in place for fall 2016. Meetings between the Secondary Level Program coordinator and these new faculty regard the objective scoring of the ADEPT should also serve to increase reliability.


10

Teacher Work Sample: The mean scores for the teacher work samples were 188 (Exemplary) during spring 2016 and 187.8 (Exemplary) during fall 2015. This is consistent with last year’s scores but higher than that of previous years. The lack of variation among the scores in the Teacher Work Sample for the spring of 2016 has helped to serve changes in the faculty who teach these courses. The normal variability among Secondary level education students will likely return with these changes in place for Fall 2016. The Teacher Work Sample scores will be closely monitored in the coming semesters. A goal for 2016 – 2017 is to fully implement a new LiveText data management system. This process began initial implementation fall of 2015 and has full implementation fall of 2016. The LiveText data management system allow the Secondary level program to disaggregate data and to align the assessments with Student Learning Outcomes. This information will help the Secondary Level program improve specific Goals/SLOs. Analysis of this data will take place at the beginning of each semester during a faculty and adjunct instructors debriefing session. Addressing any concerns in program consistency and assessment raised by the data will be the goal of these discussions. A second goal will be to improve the reliability of the Teacher Work Sample scores. Changes in faculty who teach this course are in place for fall 2016. Ongoing meetings between the Secondary Level Program coordinator and these new faculty regarding the objective scoring of the ADEPT should also serve to increase reliability. Praxis II: The expected pass rate set forth by the South Carolina Department of Education and the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Programs (CAEP) is 80%. The scores are all down slightly this year with the exception of social studies. A goal for the faculty in the Secondary Level program is to continue to work with the divisions of math, social studies, English, biology, and chemistry department to monitor student pass rates on a semester basis as an indicator of the alignment of the content with the Praxis II exam. These regular communications between the School of Education and the departments of biology and chemistry help to ensure that any issues of concern that might arise will be quickly addressed. A second goal for 2016-2017 is to provide support for students as they prepare to take the Praxis II Secondary Level Content Exams. Secondary Level faculty will incorporate practice Praxis II content test questions into their Secondary level preparation courses. They will provide Praxis II tutoring


11

arranged on an individual basis. Faculty will also encourage students to take the content exams as they complete their upper level content course requirements to facilitate knowledge retention for this exam. Praxis II study guides have been purchased by the Upstate library this fall. Students will now have the opportunity to use these study guides in conjunction with their methods and content teachers to identify areas that need additional study.

Implementation and Evaluation of Previous Years’ “Action Plan”

How was the action plan identified in the previous year’s report implemented this year, and what was the impact?

ADEPT E-Portfolios: A goal for 2014 – 2015 was to monitor the implementation and assessment of the ADEPT E-portfolio levels to inform instructors of students’ progress toward the Student Learning Outcomes. Secondary Level adjunct instructors and faculty have met this August to discuss the reliability of ADEPT evaluation. The resulting plan of action includes the implementation of the new South Carolina ADEPT 4.0 standards as seen in the ADEPT E-Portfolio assessment. Two Secondary level faculty attended a one week conference in Columbia to be certified in this new system. These faculty are planning an in-service in the spring to train all the Secondary Level faculty in the new ADEPT 4.0 program. This new program is designed to increase the reliability of the ADEPT evaluation process. Teacher Work Sample: The goal for 2014-2015 was the full implementation of LiveText. Although the Secondary Level Program has made significant progress in meeting this goal it still remains a goal for 2016-2017. We continue to realize the capacities of this new data management system that allows the Secondary Level program to review the Teacher Work Sample scores in their individual concentrations of English, math, science, and social studies. LiveText is being used to disaggregate data in order to better identify trends in the data while controlling for variability in scoring among the faculty. This information was to help the Secondary Level program improve specific Goals and SLOs. The two new full time faculty in social studies and foreign language are working with the LiveText coordinator to pilot new sets of Teacher Work Sample data. The Teacher Work Sample will now include subject specific data in these two areas. Once collected, this data will help inform the effectiveness of Teacher Work Sample with these two content areas. Math and Science will evaluate this initiative and consider a similar course of action. Praxis II: A goal for 2015-2016 was to add math and English tutoring. A Praxis “Boot Camp” program began this semester to help students in these areas. Student verbal response has been very


12

positive. Of course 100% passing rate of the Praxis II is the goal, but strong and fairly consistent scores are seen in this year’s scores. All of the students taking the Secondary level English, social studies, and science Praxis II exam met the state minimum score. Six of the seven students who took the Secondary level math Praxis II exam met the state minimum score. Summary Results: All of the students in English, Social Studies, Math, Science, and Spanish met the minimum scores required to pass the ADEPT E-Portfolio in the fall of 2015 and in the spring of 2016. All of the students in these five areas of study met the minimum scores required to pass the Teacher Work Sample in the fall of 2015 and the spring of 2016. These measures serve to inform our crediting agencies, the School of Education, and USC Upstate of the high achievement levels in the areas of content and pedagogy displayed by the students in the Secondary Level Program.


13

Appendix A: ADEPT E-Portfolio Data Tables & Charts


14

Biology Exit E-Portfolio Data (2013 - 2016)

Domain APS Goals/SLO

Fall 2013 Mean Score N=1

Spring 2014 Mean Score N=2





Domain I 1,2,3 Goals I,II,III 3.00 3.50 - 4.00 - 4.00

Domain II 4,5,6,7 Goals I,II,III,IV 3.33 3.50 - 4.00 - 4.00

Domain III 8,9 Goals I,IV 3.50 3.00 - 4.00 - 4.00 Domain IV 10 Goals I,V 3.50 3.50 - 4.00 - 4.00 Overall Mean: Goals I-V 3.00 3.50 - 4.00 - 4.00

3

3.333.5 3.5

3

3.5 3.5

3

3.5 3.5

0 0 0 0 0

4 4 4 4 4

0 0 0 0 0

4 4 4 4 4

GOALS I,II,III GOALS I,II,III,IV GOALS I,IV GOALS I,V GOALS I-V

Biology Exit E-Portfolio Data (2013 - 2016)

Fall 2013 Mean Score N=1 Spring 2014 Mean Score N=2 Fall 2014 Mean Score N=0

Spring 2015 Mean Score N=2 Fall 2015 Mean Score N=0 Spring 2016 Mean Score N=3


15

Biology Pre-Student Teaching E-Portfolio Data (2013 - 2016)

APS Goals/SLO




Spring 2015 Mean S core N=2



APS 1 Goals I,II 3.0 2.7 - 4.0 2.5 4.0 APS 2 Goals I,II 3.0 2.4 - 4.0 2.5 4.0 APS 3 Goals I, III 3.0 2.4 - 4.0 2.6 4.0 APS 4 Goals I,IV 3.0 2.4 - 4.0 2.5 4.0 APS 5 Goals I,II,III 3.0 2.7 - 4.0 2.7 4.0 APS 6 Goals I,II,III,IV 3.0 2.7 - 4.0 2.2 4.0 APS 7 Goals I,III 3.0 2.4 - 4.0 2.3 4.0 APS 8 Goals I,IV 3.0 2.4 - 4.0 2.2 4.0 APS 9 Goals I,IV 2.8 2.4 - 4.0 2.3 4.0 APS 10 Goals I,V 3.00 2.7 - 4.0 2.4 4.0 Overall Mean Goals I-V 3.00 2.5 - 4.0 2.4 4.0


16

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2

3 3

2.7

2.4 2.4 2.4

2.7

2.4 2.4 2.4

2.72.5 2.4

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

2.5 2.5 2.6 2.52.7

2.2 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

GOALS I,II GOALS I,II GOALS I, III GOALS I,IV GOALS I,II,III GOALS I,II,III,IV

GOALS I,III GOALS I,IV GOALS I,IV GOALS I,V

Biology Pre-Student Teaching E-Portfolio Data (2013 - 2016)




17

Chemistry Exit E-Portfolio Data (2013 - 2016)









Domain I 1,2,3 Goals I,II,III - - - - - 2.5 - Domain II 4,5,6,7 Goals I,II,III,IV - - - - - 2.4 - Domain III 8,9 Goals I,IV - - - - - 2.3 - Domain IV 10 Goals I,V - - - - - 2.4 - Overall Mean: Goals I-V - - - - - 2.4 -


18

0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0

2.5 2.4 2.3 2.4

0 0 0 0

GOALS I,II,III GOALS I,II,III,IV GOALS I,IV GOALS I,V

Exit Portfolio (2013-2016)

Spring 2013 Mean Score N=0 Fall 2013 Mean Score N=0 Spring 2014 Mean Score N=0 Fall 2014 Mean Score N=0

Spring 2015 Mean Score N=0 Fall 2015 Mean Score N=1 Fall 2015 Mean Score N=0


19

Chemistry Pre-Student Teaching E-Portfolio Data (2013 - 2016)

APS Goals/SLO








APS 1 Goals I,II - - - - - 2.0 - APS 2 Goals I,II - - - - - 2.0 - APS 3 Goals I, III - - - - - 2.3 - APS 4 Goals I,IV - - - - - 2.3 - APS 5 Goals I,II,III - - - - - 2.6 - APS 6 Goals I,II,III,IV - - - - - 2.0 - APS 7 Goals I,III - - - - - 2.3 - APS 8 Goals I,IV - - - - - 2.3 - APS 9 Goals I,IV - - - - - 2.3 - APS 10 Goals I,V - - - - - 2.3 - Overall Mean Goals I-V - - - - - 2.3 -


20

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 2

2.3 2.3

2.6

2

2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


GOALS I,III GOALS I,IV GOALS I,IV GOALS I,V GOALS I-V

Chemistry Pre-Student Teaching E-Portfolio Data (2013 - 2016)




21

English Exit E-Portfolio Data (2013 - 2016)








Domain I 1,2,3 Goals I,II,III 4 4 3.8 3.4 4 4 Domain II 4,5,6,7 Goals I,II,III,IV 4 4 4.0 3.6 4 4 Domain III 8,9 Goals I,IV 4 4 3.8 3.6 4 4 Domain IV 10 Goals I,V 3.5 4 3.3 3.4 4 4 Overall Mean: Goals I-V 4 4 3.7 3.5 4 4


22

4 4 4

3.5

44 4 4 4 43.8

43.8

3.3

3.7

3.43.6 3.6

3.43.5

4 4 4 4 44 4 4 4 4


English Exit E-Portfolio Data (2013 - 2016)




23

English Pre-Student Teaching E-Portfolio Data (2013 - 2016)

APS Goals/SLO







APS 1 Goals I,II 3 3 3.2 3.2 3.0 2.9 APS 2 Goals I,II 3 2.5 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.1 APS 3 Goals I, III 3 2.5 3.7 3.6 3.2 2.9 APS 4 Goals I,IV 3 2.5 3.5 3.4 3.3 2.8 APS 5 Goals I,II,III 3 3.00 3.7 3.2 3.1 2.8 APS 6 Goals I,II,III,IV 3 3.00 3.7 3.6 3.3 3.0 APS 7 Goals I,III 3 2.50 3.5 3.4 3.3 2.9 APS 8 Goals I,IV 3 2.50 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.1 APS 9 Goals I,IV 3 2.50 3.5 3.6 3.3 3.0 APS 10 Goals I,V 3 3.00 3.7 3.2 3.3 2.8 Overall Mean Goals I-V 3 2.50 3.7 3.4 3.2 2.9


24

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 33

2.5 2.5 2.5

3 3

2.5 2.5 2.5

33.2 3.2

3.73.5

3.7 3.73.5

3.2

3.53.7

3.2 3.2

3.63.4

3.2

3.63.4

3.2

3.6

3.23

3.33.2

3.33.1

3.3 3.3 3.3 3.33.2

2.93.1

2.92.8 2.8

32.9

3.13

2.8

GOALS I,II GOALS I,II GOALS I, III GOALS I,IV GOALS I,II,III GOALS I,II,III,IV GOALS I,III GOALS I,IV GOALS I,IV GOALS I,V

English Pre-Student Teaching E-Portfolio Data (2013 - 2016)




25

Mathematics Exit E-Portfolio Data (2013- 2016)








Domain I 1,2,3 Goals I,II,III 3 4 3 4 4 4 Domain II 4,5,6,7 Goals I,II,III,IV 3.8 4 4 4 4 4 Domain III 8,9 Goals I,IV 3.5 4 3.5 4 4 4 Domain IV 10 Goals I,V 4 4 3 4 4 4 Overall Mean: Goals I-V 4 4 3.4 4 4 4


26

3

3.8

3.5

4 44 4 4 4 4

3

4

3.5

3

3.4

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


Mathematics Exit E-Portfolio Data (2013 - 2015)




27

Mathematics Pre-Student Teaching E-Portfolio Data (2013 - 2016)

APS Goals/SLO







APS 1 Goals I, II 2.00 2.00 3.5 3.5 3.0 2.8 APS 2 Goals I, II 3.00 2.00 3.5 3.5 2.9 2.6 APS 3 Goals I, III 3.00 2.00 3.5 3.5 3.0 2.3 APS 4 Goals I, IV 3.00 2.00 3.5 4.0 3.0 2.3 APS 5 Goals I, II, III 2.00 2.00 3.0 3.5 3.0 2.4 APS 6 Goals I, II, III, IV 2.00 2.00 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.5 APS 7 Goals I, III 2.00 2.00 3.5 3.5 3.0 2.7 APS 8 Goals I, IV 2.50 2.00 3.0 3.5 2.9 2.6 APS 9 Goals I, IV 2.50 2.00 3.0 3.5 3.0 2.6 APS 10 Goals I, V 2.50 2.00 4.0 3.5 3.2 2.5 Overall Mean Goals I-V 2.50 2.00 3.5 3.5 3.0 2.5


28

2

3 3 3

2 2 2

2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

3 3

3.5

3 3

4

3.53.5 3.5 3.5

4

3.5

4

3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

3 2.9 3 3 3 3 3

3.9

33.2

32.8

2.62.3 2.3 2.4 2.5

2.7 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5



Mathematics Pre-Student Teaching E-Portfolio Data (2013 - 2016)




29

Spanish Exit E-Portfolio Data (2013 - 2016)








Domain I 1,2,3 Goals I,II,III 4.00 - - - 4.00 - Domain II 4,5,6,7 Goals I,II,III,IV 4.00 - - - 4.00 - Domain III 8,9 Goals I,IV 4.00 - - - 4.00 - Domain IV 10.00 Goals I,V 4.00 - - - 4.00 - Overall Mean: Goals I-V 4.00 - - - 4.00 -


30

4 4 4 4 44 4 4 4 4


Spanish Exit E-Portfolio Data (2013 - 2016)




31

Spanish Pre-Student Teaching E-Portfolio Data (2013 - 2016)

APS Goals/SLO







APS 1 Goals I, II - 3.00 - - 3.0 - APS 2 Goals I, II - 3.00 - - 3.0 - APS 3 Goals I, III - 2.00 - - 3.0 - APS 4 Goals I, IV - 3.00 - - 3.0 - APS 5 Goals I, II, III - 3.00 - - 2.9 - APS 6 Goals I, II, III, IV - 3.00 - - 3.0 - APS 7 Goals I, III - 3.00 - - 2.8 - APS 8 Goals I, IV - 3.00 - - 3.0 - APS 9 Goals I, IV - 3.00 - - 3.0 - APS 10 Goals I, V - 2.00 - - 3.0 - Overall Mean Goals I-V - 3.00 - - 3.0 -


32

3 3

2

3 3 3 3 3 3

2

2.9

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 3 3 32.9

32.8

3 3 3 3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



Spanish Pre-Student Teaching E-Portfolio Data (2013 - 2016)




33

Social Studies Pre-Student Teaching E-Portfolio Data (2013-2016)








Domain I 1,2,3 Goals I,II,III 4.0 3.6 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Domain II 4,5,6,7 Goals I,II,III,IV 3.7 3.6 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Domain III 8,9 Goals I,IV 4.0 3.6 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Domain IV 10.00 Goals I,V 4.0 4.0 2.7 4.0 4.0 4.0 Overall Mean: Goals I-V 4.0 3.6 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0


34

43.7

4 4 4

3.6 3.6 3.6

4

3.6

3 3 32.7

3

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


Social Studies Pre-Student Teaching E-Portfolio Data (2013-2016)




35

Social Studies Pre-Student Teaching ADEPT Data (2013 - 2016)

APS Goals/SLO







APS 1 Goals I,II 3.00 2.40 3.6 3.4 - - APS 2 Goals I,II 2.67 2.40 3.6 3.4 - - APS 3 Goals I, III 2.67 2.40 3.5 3.4 - - APS 4 Goals I,IV 2.67 2.40 3.6 3.4 - - APS 5 Goals I,II,III 2.67 2.40 3.8 3.4 - - APS 6 Goals I,II,III,IV 2.67 2.20 3.6 3.4 - - APS 7 Goals I,III 2.67 2.20 3.6 3.4 - - APS 8 Goals I,IV 2.67 2.40 3.3 3.4 - - APS 9 Goals I,IV 2.67 2.40 4.0 3.4 - - APS 10 Goals I,V 2.67 2.00 3.6 3.4 - - Overall Mean Goals I-V 2.67 2.40 3.8 3.4 - -


36

3

2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7

2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.42.2 2.2

2.4 2.4

2

2.4

3.6 3.6 3.5 3.63.8

3.6 3.6

3.3

4

3.63.8

3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4



Social Studies Pre-Student Teaching E-Portfolio Data(2013 - 2016)




37

Appendix B: Teacher Work Sample Data Tables & Charts

Teacher Work Samples (2013 - 2016)

Goals/SLO Components Rating Fall 2013 N=7

Spring 2014 N=18

Fall 2014 N=9

Spring 2015 N=13

Fall 2015 N=10

Spring 2016 N=9

I-V 1 - 8 Exemplary 7 17 9 12 10 9

I-V 1 - 8 More than Satisfactory 0 1 1 0 0

I-V 1 - 8 Satisfactory 0 0 0 0 0 0 I-V 1 - 8 Unsatisfactory 0 0 0 0 0 0

Overall Mean (out of 190) 189 185.7 182.6 186.8 187.8 188


38

7

0 0 0

17

1 0 0

9

0 0 0

12

1 0 0

10

0 0 0

9

0 0 0

EXEMPLARY MORE THAN SATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY UNSATISFACTORY

Teacher Work Samples Spartanburg Campus (2013-2016)

Fall 2013 N=7 Spring 2014 N=18 Fall 2014 N=9 Spring 2015 N=13 Fall 2015 N=10 Spring 2016 N=9

189

185.74

182.6

186.8

189 189

OVERALL MEAN (OUT OF 190)

Teacher Work Samples Spartanburg Campus Overall Mean (2013-2016)

Fall 2013 N=7 Spring 2014 N=18 Fall 2014 N=9 Spring 2015 N=13 Fall 2015 N=10 Spring 2016 N=9


39

Appendix C: Praxis II Data Tables & Charts

Praxis Scores 2011-2016

Goals/SLO Major

Pass Rate 2011-2012

Pass Rate 2012-2013

Pass Rate 2013-2014

Pass Rate 2014-2015

Pass Rate 2015-2016

I-V Biology 2/2 = 100% - 3/3 = 100% 0/2=0% 0/2 = 0% I-V Chemistry 1/1=100% - - - - I-V English 3/3 = 100% - 8/8 = 100% 7/8=87% 8/11 = 73% I-V Mathematics 5/5 = 100% 5/7 = 71% 3/6 = 50% 4/7=57% 5/13 = 38% I-V Social Studies 7/8 = 88% 3/8 =3 7.5% 4/6 = 67% 3/6 =50% 9/13 = 69% I-V Spanish 3/4 = 75% - 1/3 = 33% - 3/7 = 43%


40

100 100 100 100

88

7571

37

100 100

50

67

33

0

87

5750

0

73

38

69

43

BIOLOGY CHEMISTRY ENGLISH MATHEMATICS SOCIAL STUDIES SPANISH

Praxis Scores 2011 -2016

Pass Rate 2011-2012 Pass Rate 2012-2013 Pass Rate 2013-2014 Pass Rate 2014-2015 Pass Rate 2015-2016

2016 Unit/Department: School of Education Division - USC ...

Documents

Transcript of 2016 Unit/Department: School of Education Division - USC ...