Program Outcomes Assessment - Indiana State University

3URJUDP�2XWFRPHV�$VVHVVPHQW

%$�%6�LQ�(OHPHQWDU\�(GXFDWLRQ

&UHDWHG�RQ��$0�&'7�/DVW�0RGLILHG��30�&'7

�

7DEOH�RI�&RQWHQWV

*HQHUDO�,QIRUPDWLRQ �

6WDQGLQJ�5HTXLUHPHQWV �0LVVLRQ�6WDWHPHQW �2XWFRPHV�/LEUDU\ �&XUULFXOXP�0DS �&RPPXQLFDWLRQ�RI�2XWFRPHV �

$UFKLYH �$UFKLYH �

��$VVHVVPHQW�&\FOH �$VVHVVPHQW�3ODQ �$VVHVVPHQW�)LQGLQJV �$FWLRQ�3ODQ �6WDWXV�5HSRUW �




��$VVHVVPHQW�&\FOH �

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

$VVHVVPHQW�3ODQ �$VVHVVPHQW�)LQGLQJV �

��$VVHVVPHQW�&\FOH �$VVHVVPHQW�3ODQ �$VVHVVPHQW�)LQGLQJV �



$SSHQGL[ �

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

*HQHUDO�,QIRUPDWLRQ��3URJUDP�2XWFRPHV�$VVHVVPHQW�

3URJUDP�2XWFRPHV�$VVHVVPHQW%$�%6�LQ�(OHPHQWDU\�(GXFDWLRQ

1

https://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/

6WDQGLQJ�5HTXLUHPHQWV

� 0LVVLRQ�6WDWHPHQW

2XWFRPHV�/LEUDU\

%$�%6�LQ�(OHPHQWDU\�(GXFDWLRQ�2XWFRPH�6HW

��'HYHORSPHQW��/HDUQLQJ�DQG�0RWLYDWLRQ

2XWFRPH 0DSSLQJ

��&RQVWUXFW�OHDUQLQJ�RSSRUWXQLWLHV'HYHORSPHQW��/HDUQLQJ��DQG�0RWLYDWLRQ��&DQGLGDWHV�NQRZ�XQGHUVWDQG��DQG�XVH�WKH�PDMRU�FRQFHSWV��SULQFLSOHV��WKHRULHV�DQG�UHVHDUFK�UHODWHG�WR�GHYHORSPHQW�RI�FKLOGUHQ�DQG�\RXQJDGROHVFHQWV�WR�FRQVWUXFW�OHDUQLQJ�RSSRUWXQLWLHV�WKDW�VXSSRUWLQGLYLGXDO�VWXGHQWV¶�GHYHORSPHQW��DFTXLVLWLRQ�RI�NQRZOHGJH��DQGPRWLYDWLRQ�

1R�0DSSLQJ �

��&XUULFXOXP�6WDQGDUGV

2XWFRPH 0DSSLQJ

��5HDGLQJ��:ULWLQJ��DQG�2UDO�/DQJXDJH5HDGLQJ��:ULWLQJ��DQG�2UDO�/DQJXDJH²&DQGLGDWHV�GHPRQVWUDWHD�KLJK�OHYHO�RI�FRPSHWHQFH�LQ�XVH�RI(QJOLVK�ODQJXDJH�DUWV�DQG�WKH\�NQRZ��XQGHUVWDQG��DQG�XVHFRQFHSWV�IURP�UHDGLQJ��ODQJXDJH�DQG�FKLOGGHYHORSPHQW��WR�WHDFK�UHDGLQJ��ZULWLQJ��VSHDNLQJ��YLHZLQJ�OLVWHQLQJ��DQG�WKLQNLQJ�VNLOOV�DQG�WR�KHOS�VWXGHQWV�VXFFHVVIXOO\DSSO\�WKHLU�GHYHORSLQJ�VNLOOV�WR�PDQ\�GLIIHUHQW�VLWXDWLRQV�PDWHULDOV��DQG�LGHDV�

)RXQGDWLRQDO�6WXGLHV��([SUHVV�WKHPVHOYHV�HIIHFWLYHO\�SURIHVVLRQDOO\��DQG�SHUVXDVLYHO\�ERWK�RUDOO\�DQG�LQ�ZULWLQJ�

�

��6FLHQFH6FLHQFH²&DQGLGDWHV�NQRZ��XQGHUVWDQG��DQG�XVH�IXQGDPHQWDOFRQFHSWV�RI�SK\VLFDO��OLIH��DQG�HDUWK�VSDFHVFLHQFHV��&DQGLGDWHV�FDQ�GHVLJQ�DQG�LPSOHPHQW�DJH�DSSURSULDWH�LQTXLU\�OHVVRQV�WR�WHDFK�VFLHQFH��WR�EXLOGVWXGHQW�XQGHUVWDQGLQJ�IRU�SHUVRQDO�DQG�VRFLDO�DSSOLFDWLRQV��DQGWR�FRQYH\�WKH�QDWXUH�RI�VFLHQFH�

1R�0DSSLQJ �

��0DWKHPDWLFV0DWKHPDWLFV²&DQGLGDWHV�NQRZ��XQGHUVWDQG��DQG�XVH�WKH�PDMRUFRQFHSWV�DQG�SURFHGXUHV�WKDW�GHILQHQXPEHU�DQG�RSHUDWLRQV��DOJHEUD��JHRPHWU\��PHDVXUHPHQW��DQGGDWD�DQDO\VLV�DQG�SUREDELOLW\��,Q�GRLQJ�VR�WKH\FRQVLVWHQWO\�HQJDJH�SUREOHP�VROYLQJ��UHDVRQLQJ�DQG�SURRI�FRPPXQLFDWLRQ��FRQQHFWLRQV��DQG�UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ�

1R�0DSSLQJ �

��6RFLDO�VWXGLHV6RFLDO�VWXGLHV²&DQGLGDWHV�NQRZ��XQGHUVWDQG��DQG�XVH�WKHPDMRU�FRQFHSWV�DQG�PRGHV�RI�LQTXLU\�IURP�WKHVRFLDO�VWXGLHV²WKH�LQWHJUDWHG�VWXG\�RI�KLVWRU\��JHRJUDSK\��WKHVRFLDO�VFLHQFHV��DQG�RWKHU�UHODWHG�DUHDV²WR�SURPRWH�HOHPHQWDU\VWXGHQWV¶�DELOLWLHV�WR�PDNH�LQIRUPHG�GHFLVLRQV�DV�FLWL]HQV�RI�DFXOWXUDOO\�GLYHUVH�GHPRFUDWLF�VRFLHW\�DQG�LQWHUGHSHQGHQW�ZRUOG�

1R�0DSSLQJ �


2


�

��7KH�DUWV7KH�DUWV²&DQGLGDWHV�NQRZ��XQGHUVWDQG��DQG�XVH²DVDSSURSULDWH�WR�WKHLU�RZQ�XQGHUVWDQGLQJ�DQG�VNLOOV²WKH�FRQWHQW��IXQFWLRQV��DQG�DFKLHYHPHQWV�RI�WKH�SHUIRUPLQJ�DUWV�GDQFH��PXVLF��WKHDWHU��DQG�WKH�YLVXDO�DUWV�DV�SULPDU\�PHGLD�IRUFRPPXQLFDWLRQ��LQTXLU\��DQG�HQJDJHPHQW�DPRQJ�HOHPHQWDU\VWXGHQWV�

1R�0DSSLQJ �

��+HDOWK�HGXFDWLRQ+HDOWK�HGXFDWLRQ²&DQGLGDWHV�NQRZ��XQGHUVWDQG��DQG�XVH�WKHPDMRU�FRQFHSWV�LQ�WKH�VXEMHFW�PDWWHU�RI�KHDOWKHGXFDWLRQ�WR�FUHDWH�RSSRUWXQLWLHV�IRU�VWXGHQW�GHYHORSPHQW�DQGSUDFWLFH�RI�VNLOOV�WKDW�FRQWULEXWH�WR�JRRG�KHDOWK

1R�0DSSLQJ �

��3K\VLFDO�HGXFDWLRQ3K\VLFDO�HGXFDWLRQ²&DQGLGDWHV�NQRZ��XQGHUVWDQG��DQG�XVH²DVDSSURSULDWH�WR�WKHLU�RZQ�XQGHUVWDQGLQJ�DQGVNLOOV²KXPDQ�PRYHPHQW�DQG�SK\VLFDO�DFWLYLW\�DV�FHQWUDOHOHPHQWV�WR�IRVWHU�DFWLYH��KHDOWK\�OLIH�VW\OHV�DQGHQKDQFHG�TXDOLW\�RI�OLIH�IRU�HOHPHQWDU\�VWXGHQWV�

1R�0DSSLQJ �

��,QVWUXFWLRQ�6WDQGDUGV

2XWFRPH 0DSSLQJ

��,QWHJUDWLQJ�DQG�DSSO\LQJ�NQRZOHGJH�IRU�LQVWUXFWLRQ,QWHJUDWLQJ�DQG�DSSO\LQJ�NQRZOHGJH�IRU�LQVWUXFWLRQ²&DQGLGDWHVSODQ�DQG�LPSOHPHQW�LQVWUXFWLRQ�EDVHG�RQNQRZOHGJH�RI�VWXGHQWV��OHDUQLQJ�WKHRU\��FRQQHFWLRQV�DFURVV�WKHFXUULFXOXP��FXUULFXODU�JRDOV��DQG�FRPPXQLW\�

1R�0DSSLQJ �

��$GDSWDWLRQ�WR�GLYHUVH�VWXGHQWV$GDSWDWLRQ�WR�GLYHUVH�VWXGHQWV²&DQGLGDWHV�XQGHUVWDQG�KRZHOHPHQWDU\�VWXGHQWV�GLIIHU�LQ�WKHLU�GHYHORSPHQW�DQGDSSURDFKHV�WR�OHDUQLQJ��DQG�FUHDWH�LQVWUXFWLRQDO�RSSRUWXQLWLHVWKDW�DUH�DGDSWHG�WR�GLYHUVHVWXGHQWV�

1R�0DSSLQJ �

��'HYHORSPHQW�RI�FULWLFDO�WKLQNLQJ�DQG�SUREOHP�VROYLQJ'HYHORSPHQW�RI�FULWLFDO�WKLQNLQJ�DQG�SUREOHP�VROYLQJ²&DQGLGDWHV�XQGHUVWDQG�DQG�XVH�D�YDULHW\�RI�WHDFKLQJ�VWUDWHJLHVWKDW�HQFRXUDJH�HOHPHQWDU\�VWXGHQWV¶�GHYHORSPHQW�RI�FULWLFDOWKLQNLQJ�DQG�SUREOHP�VROYLQJ

1R�0DSSLQJ �

��$FWLYH�HQJDJHPHQW�LQ�OHDUQLQJ$FWLYH�HQJDJHPHQW�LQ�OHDUQLQJ²&DQGLGDWHV�XVH�WKHLU�NQRZOHGJHDQG�XQGHUVWDQGLQJ�RI�LQGLYLGXDO�DQG�JURXS�PRWLYDWLRQ�DQGEHKDYLRU�DPRQJ�VWXGHQWV�DW�WKH�.��OHYHO�WR�IRVWHU�DFWLYHHQJDJHPHQW�LQ�OHDUQLQJ��VHOI�PRWLYDWLRQ��DQG�SRVLWLYH�VRFLDOLQWHUDFWLRQ�DQG�WR�FUHDWH�VXSSRUWLYH�OHDUQLQJ�HQYLURQPHQWV

1R�0DSSLQJ �

��&RPPXQLFDWLRQ�WR�IRVWHU�FROODERUDWLRQ&RPPXQLFDWLRQ�WR�IRVWHU�FROODERUDWLRQ²&DQGLGDWHV�XVH�WKHLUNQRZOHGJH�DQG�XQGHUVWDQGLQJ�RI�HIIHFWLYHYHUEDO��QRQYHUEDO��DQG�PHGLD�FRPPXQLFDWLRQ�WHFKQLTXHV�WRIRVWHU�DFWLYH�LQTXLU\��FROODERUDWLRQ��DQG�VXSSRUWLYHLQWHUDFWLRQ�LQ�WKH�HOHPHQWDU\�FODVVURRP�

)RXQGDWLRQDO�6WXGLHV��([SUHVV�WKHPVHOYHV�HIIHFWLYHO\�SURIHVVLRQDOO\��DQG�SHUVXDVLYHO\�ERWK�RUDOO\�DQG�LQ�ZULWLQJ�

�

��$VVHVVPHQW�6WDQGDUGV

2XWFRPH 0DSSLQJ

��$VVHVVPHQW�IRU�LQVWUXFWLRQ$VVHVVPHQW�IRU�LQVWUXFWLRQ²&DQGLGDWHV�NQRZ��XQGHUVWDQG��DQGXVH�IRUPDO�DQG�LQIRUPDO�DVVHVVPHQW�VWUDWHJLHV�WR�SODQ�HYDOXDWH�DQG�VWUHQJWKHQ�LQVWUXFWLRQ�WKDW�ZLOO�SURPRWH�FRQWLQXRXVLQWHOOHFWXDO��VRFLDO��HPRWLRQDO��DQG�SK\VLFDO�GHYHORSPHQW�RIHDFK�HOHPHQWDU\�VWXGHQW�

)RXQGDWLRQDO�6WXGLHV��,,,D��4XDQWLWDWLYH�/LWHUDF\ �

��3URIHVVLRQDO�6WDQGDUGV


3


2XWFRPH 0DSSLQJ

��3URIHVVLRQDO�JURZWK��UHIOHFWLRQ��DQG�HYDOXDWLRQ3URIHVVLRQDO�JURZWK��UHIOHFWLRQ��DQG�HYDOXDWLRQ²&DQGLGDWHV�DUHDZDUH�RI�DQG�UHIOHFW�RQ�WKHLU�SUDFWLFH�LQOLJKW�RI�UHVHDUFK�RQ�WHDFKLQJ��SURIHVVLRQDO�HWKLFV��DQG�UHVRXUFHVDYDLODEOH�IRU�SURIHVVLRQDO�OHDUQLQJ��WKH\FRQWLQXDOO\�HYDOXDWH�WKH�HIIHFWV�RI�WKHLU�SURIHVVLRQDO�GHFLVLRQVDQG�DFWLRQV�RQ�VWXGHQWV��IDPLOLHV�DQG�RWKHUSURIHVVLRQDOV�LQ�WKH�OHDUQLQJ�FRPPXQLW\�DQG�DFWLYHO\�VHHN�RXWRSSRUWXQLWLHV�WR�JURZ�SURIHVVLRQDOO\�

1R�0DSSLQJ �

��&ROODERUDWLRQ�ZLWK�IDPLOLHV��FROOHDJXHV��DQGFRPPXQLW\�DJHQFLHV&ROODERUDWLRQ�ZLWK�IDPLOLHV��FROOHDJXHV��DQG�FRPPXQLW\DJHQFLHV²&DQGLGDWHV�NQRZ�WKH�LPSRUWDQFH�RIHVWDEOLVKLQJ�DQG�PDLQWDLQLQJ�D�SRVLWLYH�FROODERUDWLYHUHODWLRQVKLS�ZLWK�IDPLOLHV��VFKRRO�FROOHDJXHV��DQGDJHQFLHV�LQ�WKH�ODUJHU�FRPPXQLW\�WR�SURPRWH�WKH�LQWHOOHFWXDO�VRFLDO��HPRWLRQDO��SK\VLFDO�JURZWK�DQG�ZHOO�EHLQJ�RI�FKLOGUHQ�

1R�0DSSLQJ �

�

&XUULFXOXP�0DS

$FWLYH�&XUULFXOXP�0DSV�%$%6�(OHP(G�0DS��6HH�DSSHQGL[�$OLJQPHQW�6HW��%$�%6�LQ�(OHPHQWDU\�(GXFDWLRQ�2XWFRPH�6HW&UHDWHG��SP�&'7/DVW�0RGLILHG��SP�&'7

�

� &RPPXQLFDWLRQ�RI�2XWFRPHV


4

javascript:parent.ShowHelp('Workspaces_EditContent_CurriculumMaps')


$UFKLYH��7KLV�DUHD�LV�WR�EH�XVHG�IRU�DUFKLYLQJ�SUH�7DVN6WUHDP�DVVHVVPHQW�GDWDDQG�IRU�FXUUHQW�GRFXPHQWV��

�

$UFKLYH

)LOH�$WWDFKPHQWV�

�� %6�LQ�(OHPHQWDU\�(GXFDWLRQ��63$��5HVSRQVH�WR�&RQGLWLRQV��6HSWHPEHU��SGI��6HH�DSSHQGL[�

�� %6�LQ�(OHPHQWDU\�(GXFDWLRQ��63$�5HSRUW�0DUFK��SGI��6HH�DSSHQGL[�

�� (OHPHQWDU\�(GXFDWLRQ��6HH�DSSHQGL[�(OHPHQWDU\�(GXFDWLRQ�$VVHVVPHQW�3ODQ

�� (OHPHQWDU\�(GXFDWLRQ��6HH�DSSHQGL[��$VVHVVPHQW

�� (OHPHQWDU\�(GXFDWLRQ��6HH�DSSHQGL[�(DUO\�&KLOGKRRG�(GXFDWLRQ��

�� (OHPHQWDU\�(GXFDWLRQ��6HH�DSSHQGL[�(OHPHQWDU\�(GXFDWLRQ��5HDGLQJ�7HDFKHU�/LFHQVXUH�

�� (OHPHQWDU\�(GXFDWLRQ��6HH�DSSHQGL[�(OHPHQWDU\�(GXFDWLRQ�5HDGLQJ�6SHFLDOLVW��

�� ,QVWLWXWLRQDO�5HSRUW�IRU�1&$7(��6HH�DSSHQGL[�

�� ,QVWLWXWLRQDO�5HSRUW�IRU�1&$7(��6HH�DSSHQGL[�

�� ,68�%2(�5HSRUW��6HH�DSSHQGL[�

�� ,68�%2(�5HSRUW��6HH�DSSHQGL[�


5


��$VVHVVPHQW�&\FOH

$VVHVVPHQW�3ODQ2XWFRPHV�DQG�0HDVXUHV



��&RQVWUXFW�OHDUQLQJRSSRUWXQLWLHV'HYHORSPHQW��/HDUQLQJ�DQG�0RWLYDWLRQ��&DQGLGDWHV�NQRZ�XQGHUVWDQG��DQG�XVH�WKHPDMRU�FRQFHSWV��SULQFLSOHV�WKHRULHV��DQG�UHVHDUFKUHODWHG�WR�GHYHORSPHQW�RIFKLOGUHQ�DQG�\RXQJDGROHVFHQWV�WR�FRQVWUXFWOHDUQLQJ�RSSRUWXQLWLHV�WKDWVXSSRUW�LQGLYLGXDO�VWXGHQWV¶GHYHORSPHQW��DFTXLVLWLRQRI�NQRZOHGJH��DQGPRWLYDWLRQ�

� 1R�PHDVXUHV�VSHFLILHG �


��5HDGLQJ��:ULWLQJ�DQG�2UDO�/DQJXDJH5HDGLQJ��:ULWLQJ��DQG�2UDO/DQJXDJH²&DQGLGDWHVGHPRQVWUDWH�D�KLJK�OHYHORI�FRPSHWHQFH�LQ�XVH�RI(QJOLVK�ODQJXDJH�DUWV�DQGWKH\�NQRZ��XQGHUVWDQG�DQG�XVH�FRQFHSWV�IURPUHDGLQJ��ODQJXDJH�DQGFKLOGGHYHORSPHQW��WR�WHDFKUHDGLQJ��ZULWLQJ��VSHDNLQJ�YLHZLQJ��OLVWHQLQJ��DQGWKLQNLQJ�VNLOOV�DQG�WR�KHOSVWXGHQWV�VXFFHVVIXOO\�DSSO\WKHLU�GHYHORSLQJ�VNLOOV�WRPDQ\�GLIIHUHQW�VLWXDWLRQV�PDWHULDOV��DQG�LGHDV�


��6FLHQFH6FLHQFH²&DQGLGDWHV�NQRZ�XQGHUVWDQG��DQG�XVHIXQGDPHQWDO�FRQFHSWV�RISK\VLFDO��OLIH��DQGHDUWK�VSDFHVFLHQFHV��&DQGLGDWHV�FDQGHVLJQ�DQG�LPSOHPHQWDJH�DSSURSULDWH�LQTXLU\OHVVRQV�WR�WHDFK�VFLHQFH��WREXLOGVWXGHQW�XQGHUVWDQGLQJ�IRUSHUVRQDO�DQG�VRFLDODSSOLFDWLRQV��DQG�WR�FRQYH\WKH�QDWXUH�RI�VFLHQFH�



6


WKH�QDWXUH�RI�VFLHQFH�

��0DWKHPDWLFV0DWKHPDWLFV²&DQGLGDWHVNQRZ��XQGHUVWDQG��DQG�XVHWKH�PDMRU�FRQFHSWV�DQGSURFHGXUHV�WKDW�GHILQHQXPEHU�DQG�RSHUDWLRQV�DOJHEUD��JHRPHWU\�PHDVXUHPHQW��DQG�GDWDDQDO\VLV�DQG�SUREDELOLW\��,QGRLQJ�VR�WKH\FRQVLVWHQWO\�HQJDJHSUREOHP�VROYLQJ��UHDVRQLQJDQG�SURRI��FRPPXQLFDWLRQ�FRQQHFWLRQV��DQGUHSUHVHQWDWLRQ�


��6RFLDO�VWXGLHV6RFLDO�VWXGLHV²&DQGLGDWHVNQRZ��XQGHUVWDQG��DQG�XVHWKH�PDMRU�FRQFHSWV�DQGPRGHV�RI�LQTXLU\�IURP�WKHVRFLDO�VWXGLHV²WKHLQWHJUDWHG�VWXG\�RI�KLVWRU\�JHRJUDSK\��WKH�VRFLDOVFLHQFHV��DQG�RWKHU�UHODWHGDUHDV²WR�SURPRWHHOHPHQWDU\�VWXGHQWV¶DELOLWLHV�WR�PDNH�LQIRUPHGGHFLVLRQV�DV�FLWL]HQV�RI�DFXOWXUDOO\�GLYHUVHGHPRFUDWLF�VRFLHW\�DQGLQWHUGHSHQGHQW�ZRUOG�


��7KH�DUWV7KH�DUWV²&DQGLGDWHVNQRZ��XQGHUVWDQG��DQG�XVH²DV�DSSURSULDWH�WR�WKHLURZQ�XQGHUVWDQGLQJ�DQGVNLOOV²WKH�FRQWHQW��IXQFWLRQV��DQGDFKLHYHPHQWV�RI�WKHSHUIRUPLQJ�DUWV��GDQFH�PXVLF��WKHDWHU��DQG�WKHYLVXDO�DUWV�DV�SULPDU\PHGLD�IRU�FRPPXQLFDWLRQ�LQTXLU\��DQG�HQJDJHPHQWDPRQJ�HOHPHQWDU\VWXGHQWV�


��+HDOWK�HGXFDWLRQ+HDOWK�HGXFDWLRQ²&DQGLGDWHV�NQRZ�XQGHUVWDQG��DQG�XVH�WKHPDMRU�FRQFHSWV�LQ�WKHVXEMHFW�PDWWHU�RI�KHDOWKHGXFDWLRQ�WR�FUHDWHRSSRUWXQLWLHV�IRU�VWXGHQWGHYHORSPHQW�DQG�SUDFWLFHRI�VNLOOV�WKDW�FRQWULEXWH�WRJRRG�KHDOWK


��3K\VLFDO�HGXFDWLRQ3K\VLFDO�HGXFDWLRQ²&DQGLGDWHV�NQRZ�XQGHUVWDQG��DQG�XVH²DVDSSURSULDWH�WR�WKHLU�RZQXQGHUVWDQGLQJ�DQGVNLOOV²KXPDQ�PRYHPHQWDQG�SK\VLFDO�DFWLYLW\�DVFHQWUDO�HOHPHQWV�WR�IRVWHUDFWLYH��KHDOWK\�OLIH�VW\OHV



7


�

DQGHQKDQFHG�TXDOLW\�RI�OLIH�IRUHOHPHQWDU\�VWXGHQWV�


��,QWHJUDWLQJ�DQGDSSO\LQJ�NQRZOHGJHIRU�LQVWUXFWLRQ,QWHJUDWLQJ�DQG�DSSO\LQJNQRZOHGJH�IRU�LQVWUXFWLRQ²&DQGLGDWHV�SODQ�DQGLPSOHPHQW�LQVWUXFWLRQEDVHG�RQNQRZOHGJH�RI�VWXGHQWV�OHDUQLQJ�WKHRU\�FRQQHFWLRQV�DFURVV�WKHFXUULFXOXP��FXUULFXODU�JRDOV�DQG�FRPPXQLW\�


��$GDSWDWLRQ�WRGLYHUVH�VWXGHQWV$GDSWDWLRQ�WR�GLYHUVHVWXGHQWV²&DQGLGDWHVXQGHUVWDQG�KRZHOHPHQWDU\�VWXGHQWV�GLIIHULQ�WKHLU�GHYHORSPHQW�DQGDSSURDFKHV�WR�OHDUQLQJ�DQG�FUHDWH�LQVWUXFWLRQDORSSRUWXQLWLHV�WKDW�DUHDGDSWHG�WR�GLYHUVHVWXGHQWV�


��'HYHORSPHQW�RIFULWLFDO�WKLQNLQJ�DQGSUREOHP�VROYLQJ'HYHORSPHQW�RI�FULWLFDOWKLQNLQJ�DQG�SUREOHPVROYLQJ²&DQGLGDWHVXQGHUVWDQG�DQG�XVH�DYDULHW\�RI�WHDFKLQJVWUDWHJLHV�WKDW�HQFRXUDJHHOHPHQWDU\�VWXGHQWV¶GHYHORSPHQW�RI�FULWLFDOWKLQNLQJ�DQG�SUREOHPVROYLQJ


��$FWLYHHQJDJHPHQW�LQOHDUQLQJ$FWLYH�HQJDJHPHQW�LQOHDUQLQJ²&DQGLGDWHV�XVHWKHLU�NQRZOHGJH�DQGXQGHUVWDQGLQJ�RI�LQGLYLGXDODQG�JURXS�PRWLYDWLRQ�DQGEHKDYLRU�DPRQJ�VWXGHQWVDW�WKH�.��OHYHO�WR�IRVWHUDFWLYH�HQJDJHPHQW�LQOHDUQLQJ��VHOI�PRWLYDWLRQ�DQG�SRVLWLYH�VRFLDOLQWHUDFWLRQ�DQG�WR�FUHDWHVXSSRUWLYH�OHDUQLQJHQYLURQPHQWV


��&RPPXQLFDWLRQ�WRIRVWHU�FROODERUDWLRQ&RPPXQLFDWLRQ�WR�IRVWHUFROODERUDWLRQ²&DQGLGDWHVXVH�WKHLU�NQRZOHGJH�DQGXQGHUVWDQGLQJ�RI�HIIHFWLYH



8


YHUEDO��QRQYHUEDO��DQGPHGLD�FRPPXQLFDWLRQWHFKQLTXHV�WR�IRVWHU�DFWLYHLQTXLU\��FROODERUDWLRQ��DQGVXSSRUWLYHLQWHUDFWLRQ�LQ�WKHHOHPHQWDU\�FODVVURRP�


��$VVHVVPHQW�IRULQVWUXFWLRQ$VVHVVPHQW�IRU�LQVWUXFWLRQ²&DQGLGDWHV�NQRZ�XQGHUVWDQG��DQG�XVHIRUPDO�DQG�LQIRUPDODVVHVVPHQW�VWUDWHJLHV�WRSODQ��HYDOXDWH�DQGVWUHQJWKHQ�LQVWUXFWLRQ�WKDWZLOO�SURPRWH�FRQWLQXRXVLQWHOOHFWXDO��VRFLDO�HPRWLRQDO��DQG�SK\VLFDOGHYHORSPHQW�RI�HDFKHOHPHQWDU\�VWXGHQW�



��3URIHVVLRQDOJURZWK��UHIOHFWLRQ��DQGHYDOXDWLRQ3URIHVVLRQDO�JURZWK�UHIOHFWLRQ��DQG�HYDOXDWLRQ²&DQGLGDWHV�DUH�DZDUH�RIDQG�UHIOHFW�RQ�WKHLU�SUDFWLFHLQOLJKW�RI�UHVHDUFK�RQWHDFKLQJ��SURIHVVLRQDOHWKLFV��DQG�UHVRXUFHVDYDLODEOH�IRU�SURIHVVLRQDOOHDUQLQJ��WKH\FRQWLQXDOO\�HYDOXDWH�WKHHIIHFWV�RI�WKHLU�SURIHVVLRQDOGHFLVLRQV�DQG�DFWLRQV�RQVWXGHQWV��IDPLOLHV�DQGRWKHUSURIHVVLRQDOV�LQ�WKHOHDUQLQJ�FRPPXQLW\�DQGDFWLYHO\�VHHN�RXWRSSRUWXQLWLHV�WR�JURZSURIHVVLRQDOO\�


��&ROODERUDWLRQ�ZLWKIDPLOLHV��FROOHDJXHV�DQG�FRPPXQLW\DJHQFLHV&ROODERUDWLRQ�ZLWK�IDPLOLHV�FROOHDJXHV��DQG�FRPPXQLW\DJHQFLHV²&DQGLGDWHV�NQRZWKH�LPSRUWDQFH�RIHVWDEOLVKLQJ�DQGPDLQWDLQLQJ�D�SRVLWLYHFROODERUDWLYH�UHODWLRQVKLSZLWK�IDPLOLHV��VFKRROFROOHDJXHV��DQGDJHQFLHV�LQ�WKH�ODUJHUFRPPXQLW\�WR�SURPRWH�WKHLQWHOOHFWXDO��VRFLDO�HPRWLRQDO��SK\VLFDO�JURZWKDQG�ZHOO�EHLQJ�RI�FKLOGUHQ�



9


$VVHVVPHQW�)LQGLQJV)LQGLQJ�SHU�0HDVXUH










��0DWKHPDWLFV0DWKHPDWLFV²&DQGLGDWHVNQRZ��XQGHUVWDQG��DQG�XVHWKH�PDMRU�FRQFHSWV�DQGSURFHGXUHV�WKDW�GHILQH



10


QXPEHU�DQG�RSHUDWLRQV�DOJHEUD��JHRPHWU\�PHDVXUHPHQW��DQG�GDWDDQDO\VLV�DQG�SUREDELOLW\��,QGRLQJ�VR�WKH\FRQVLVWHQWO\�HQJDJHSUREOHP�VROYLQJ��UHDVRQLQJDQG�SURRI��FRPPXQLFDWLRQ�FRQQHFWLRQV��DQGUHSUHVHQWDWLRQ�







��3K\VLFDO�HGXFDWLRQ3K\VLFDO�HGXFDWLRQ²&DQGLGDWHV�NQRZ�XQGHUVWDQG��DQG�XVH²DVDSSURSULDWH�WR�WKHLU�RZQXQGHUVWDQGLQJ�DQGVNLOOV²KXPDQ�PRYHPHQWDQG�SK\VLFDO�DFWLYLW\�DVFHQWUDO�HOHPHQWV�WR�IRVWHUDFWLYH��KHDOWK\�OLIH�VW\OHVDQGHQKDQFHG�TXDOLW\�RI�OLIH�IRUHOHPHQWDU\�VWXGHQWV�




11










��&RPPXQLFDWLRQ�WRIRVWHU�FROODERUDWLRQ&RPPXQLFDWLRQ�WR�IRVWHUFROODERUDWLRQ²&DQGLGDWHVXVH�WKHLU�NQRZOHGJH�DQGXQGHUVWDQGLQJ�RI�HIIHFWLYHYHUEDO��QRQYHUEDO��DQGPHGLD�FRPPXQLFDWLRQWHFKQLTXHV�WR�IRVWHU�DFWLYHLQTXLU\��FROODERUDWLRQ��DQGVXSSRUWLYHLQWHUDFWLRQ�LQ�WKHHOHPHQWDU\�FODVVURRP�



12










2YHUDOO�5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV

1R�WH[W�VSHFLILHG

2YHUDOO�5HIOHFWLRQ


13



� $FWLRQ�3ODQ

� 6WDWXV�5HSRUW


14







0HDVXUH��,QVWUXFWLRQDO�3ODQQLQJ'LUHFW��6WXGHQW�$UWLIDFW

�

�

'HWDLOV�'HVFULSWLRQ��/HVVRQ�3ODQV

7DUJHW�

,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ�3ODQ��WLPHOLQH��&RPSOHWLRQ�RI�,QWHUQVKLS

5HVSRQVLEOH�,QGLYLGXDO�V��

0HDVXUH��3DUHQW�,QYROYHPHQW'LUHFW��6WXGHQW�$UWLIDFW

�

�

'HWDLOV�'HVFULSWLRQ��3URMHFW��$GGLWLRQDO�DVVHVVPHQW�WKDW�DGGUHVVHV�$&(,�VWDQGDUGV

7DUJHW�

,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ�3ODQ��WLPHOLQH��5HTXLUHG�&RXUVH��(/('��(PHUJHQW�/LWHUDF\�


0HDVXUH��6XSHUYLVHG�6WXGHQW�7HDFKLQJ�(YDOXDWLRQ'LUHFW��2WKHU

�

�

'HWDLOV�'HVFULSWLRQ��&RPSUHKHQVLYH�(YDOXDWLRQ��$VVHVVPHQW�RI�VWXGHQW�WHDFKLQJ

7DUJHW�

,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ�3ODQ��WLPHOLQH��&RPSOHWLRQ�RI�3URJUDP


0HDVXUH��7HFKQRORJ\'LUHFW��6WXGHQW�$UWLIDFW

�

�


7DUJHW�

,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ�3ODQ��WLPHOLQH��5HTXLUHG�&RXUVH��(/('��(DUO\�&KLOGKRRG�7HDFKLQJ�DQGOHDUQLQJ�LQ�NLQGHUJDUWHQ�


0HDVXUH��:RUN�6DPSOH'LUHFW��3RUWIROLR

�


15

javascript:ToggleArrow('knhgz6e0cqzmh6ea')

javascript:ToggleArrow('anz9edzef4cwha')

javascript:ToggleArrow('uohvh0hiz4cmza')

javascript:ToggleArrow('pphgfczefyh2ck')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fpznzpcjzjfhfa')


�

'HWDLOV�'HVFULSWLRQ��3RUWIROLR��$VVHVVPHQW�RI�FDQGLGDWH�HIIHFW�RQ�VWXGHQW�OHDUQLQJ

7DUJHW�





0HDVXUH��*UDGHV'LUHFW��2WKHU

�

�

'HWDLOV�'HVFULSWLRQ��)LQDO�*UDGHV��5HTXLUHG�&RXUVHV��0DWK��(/('��07+��DQG�07+��5HDGLQJ��/DQJ��$UWV��(/('��6FLHQFH��6&('��6RFLDO�6WXGLHV��(/('��$UW��$57(��0XVLF�086��3K\VLFDO�(GXFDWLRQ�DQG�+HDOWK��3(��DQG�+/7+��

7DUJHW�

,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ�3ODQ��WLPHOLQH��



�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�



0HDVXUH��3UD[LV�,,'LUHFW��([DP

�

�

'HWDLOV�'HVFULSWLRQ��6WDWH�/LFHQVXUH�1RUP��5HIHUHQFHV�7HVW

7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




16

javascript:ToggleArrow('ktcpz8eth4chfa')

javascript:ToggleArrow('pezqh4cjzyhwhu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('uffvhphuh4cmzp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('kpcuhdzjzyh2ck')

javascript:ToggleArrow('akfdf6cyc4c2cu')



�

�


7DUJHW�





�

�

'HWDLOV�'HVFULSWLRQ��)LQDO�*UDGHV��5HTXLUHG�&RXUVHV�0DWK��(/('��07+��DQG07+��5HDGLQJ�/DQJ��$UWV�(/('��6FLHQFH�6&('��6RFLDO6WXGLHV��(/('��$UW��$57(��0XVLF��086��3K\VLFDO�(GXFDWLRQDQG�+HDOWK��3(��DQG�+/7+��

7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




17

javascript:ToggleArrow('faf0cozkzqzmhqca')

javascript:ToggleArrow('pafffbfffoz2cp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('pth5c4cuhlfmhlhf')

javascript:ToggleArrow('uoz6caf0cyh2ca')

javascript:ToggleArrow('ajzpzvc0cozwhu')



�

�


7DUJHW�





�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�



18

javascript:ToggleArrow('fxh8epzkz1hmhlhu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('u4cdzlz0cozwha')

javascript:ToggleArrow('pbzef1ckzozmzk')

javascript:ToggleArrow('k3cschz0c4cwhu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('auc4clz0cyh2ca')




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�





�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�


19

javascript:ToggleArrow('kthrcmzff4chff')

javascript:ToggleArrow('f_zth0hkzqz7e6ea')

javascript:ToggleArrow('pkhxh2cuhoz2ca')

javascript:ToggleArrow('uohqc3cffozmzu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fnzrhmzkzyhhfp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('ashqhxhkzjfmzf')


�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�





�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




20

javascript:ToggleArrow('f9eozpzkzlfczqcf')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fqzqzifff4c2cp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('uxcmh1huh6crcbzk')

javascript:ToggleArrow('k2c1cxh0c4c2cu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('adzphjfkzozwhf')



�

�


7DUJHW�





�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




21

javascript:ToggleArrow('awhrhqz0c1h7elhk')

javascript:ToggleArrow('pgfpzozffjfwhk')

javascript:ToggleArrow('aqz2c6cuhlf7elha')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fpznhpzffyh2cu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('usclhpcgflfmhbzp')


�



�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




��,QWHJUDWLQJ�DQGDSSO\LQJ�NQRZOHGJHIRU�LQVWUXFWLRQ,QWHJUDWLQJ�DQG�DSSO\LQJ


�


22

javascript:ToggleArrow('fgzoz0hffjfhff')

javascript:ToggleArrow('prhbfpcgf6c7ebza')

javascript:ToggleArrow('urcthpz0cozwhu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('kffrclfkzoz2ca')

javascript:ToggleArrow('klzvh5egfqzmh6ep')

javascript:ToggleArrow('f4ccf6ckzoz2cf')


NQRZOHGJH�IRU�LQVWUXFWLRQ²&DQGLGDWHV�SODQ�DQGLPSOHPHQW�LQVWUXFWLRQEDVHG�RQNQRZOHGJH�RI�VWXGHQWV�OHDUQLQJ�WKHRU\�FRQQHFWLRQV�DFURVV�WKHFXUULFXOXP��FXUULFXODU�JRDOV�DQG�FRPPXQLW\�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




0HDVXUH��'LIIHUHQWLDWLRQ'LUHFW��6WXGHQW�$UWLIDFW

�

�

'HWDLOV�'HVFULSWLRQ��3URMHFW

7DUJHW�

,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ�3ODQ��WLPHOLQH��5HFRPPHQGHG�&RXUVH��63('��7KH�([FHSWLRQDO�/HDUQHU�LQWKH�5HJXODU�&ODVVURRP�



�

�


7DUJHW�




�


23

javascript:ToggleArrow('upzlfpc1c1hmhlha')

javascript:ToggleArrow('kbziflfuhozmzf')

javascript:ToggleArrow('uphlhpc1c4chfk')

javascript:ToggleArrow('kqhffbzlzlfrcqck')

javascript:ToggleArrow('u7enzdzlzjfmza')

javascript:ToggleArrow('pczucqcgfqz7e6ea')


�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�





�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




24

javascript:ToggleArrow('agzlhezgfjfwhk')

javascript:ToggleArrow('uuhvctc1cyhmzu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('kqc5eafvh4cmzk')

javascript:ToggleArrow('p5etcgzvh4cwha')

javascript:ToggleArrow('aafphucvh4chfp')



�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�





�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�



25

javascript:ToggleArrow('pffpz6e1cqzmhqck')

javascript:ToggleArrow('kjzuhfz1cozmzk')

javascript:ToggleArrow('atcthgzvhozwhf')

javascript:ToggleArrow('pxcyhvclzozhfp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('poznhczgf1hrc6ef')

javascript:ToggleArrow('a2cczcf1c4chfu')





�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




��$VVHVVPHQW�IRULQVWUXFWLRQ$VVHVVPHQW�IRU�LQVWUXFWLRQ


�


26

javascript:ToggleArrow('u1hhzrhvhozwhu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('k5cvhdfgfoz2cf')

javascript:ToggleArrow('agfbfsh1c4cmzk')

javascript:ToggleArrow('uqcthrc1c6c7e6ep')

javascript:ToggleArrow('ahzqcdflzozhfa')

javascript:ToggleArrow('ajzcz8evhlfrclhp')


²&DQGLGDWHV�NQRZ�XQGHUVWDQG��DQG�XVHIRUPDO�DQG�LQIRUPDODVVHVVPHQW�VWUDWHJLHV�WRSODQ��HYDOXDWH�DQGVWUHQJWKHQ�LQVWUXFWLRQ�WKDWZLOO�SURPRWH�FRQWLQXRXVLQWHOOHFWXDO��VRFLDO�HPRWLRQDO��DQG�SK\VLFDOGHYHORSPHQW�RI�HDFKHOHPHQWDU\�VWXGHQW�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




��3URIHVVLRQDOJURZWK��UHIOHFWLRQ��DQGHYDOXDWLRQ3URIHVVLRQDO�JURZWK�UHIOHFWLRQ��DQG�HYDOXDWLRQ²&DQGLGDWHV�DUH�DZDUH�RIDQG�UHIOHFW�RQ�WKHLU�SUDFWLFHLQOLJKW�RI�UHVHDUFK�RQWHDFKLQJ��SURIHVVLRQDOHWKLFV��DQG�UHVRXUFHV


�

�


7DUJHW�




27

javascript:ToggleArrow('krc_zthvhozwhp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('pphyh7evh1h7eqca')

javascript:ToggleArrow('kbfucef1cozwhp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('a0cffthvh4chfk')

javascript:ToggleArrow('u3chz8e1c1hrclhp')


DYDLODEOH�IRU�SURIHVVLRQDOOHDUQLQJ��WKH\FRQWLQXDOO\�HYDOXDWH�WKHHIIHFWV�RI�WKHLU�SURIHVVLRQDOGHFLVLRQV�DQG�DFWLRQV�RQVWXGHQWV��IDPLOLHV�DQGRWKHUSURIHVVLRQDOV�LQ�WKHOHDUQLQJ�FRPPXQLW\�DQGDFWLYHO\�VHHN�RXWRSSRUWXQLWLHV�WR�JURZSURIHVVLRQDOO\�


�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�





�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�



28

javascript:ToggleArrow('ffzjzuhgfozhfp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('koz0heflzyhmzf')

javascript:ToggleArrow('kbzezkzlzozwhf')

javascript:ToggleArrow('kpc3cnhgfqzmhqcu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('pizlhmzvhozmza')

javascript:ToggleArrow('aifczlzgfozhfk')




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�








�

�


7DUJHW�



)LQGLQJV�IRU�,QVWUXFWLRQDO�3ODQQLQJ �

1R�)LQGLQJV�$GGHG


�

�


7DUJHW�



)LQGLQJV�IRU�3DUHQW�,QYROYHPHQW �


29

javascript:ToggleArrow('k9exhgflzozwhk')

javascript:ToggleArrow('u5eizvhvhyhhfk')

javascript:ToggleArrow('uscgzqcfflfrcqck')

javascript:ToggleArrow('a3coh8eycozmzf')




�

�


7DUJHW�



)LQGLQJV�IRU�6XSHUYLVHG�6WXGHQW�7HDFKLQJ�(YDOXDWLRQ �



�

�


7DUJHW�



)LQGLQJV�IRU�7HFKQRORJ\ �



�

�


7DUJHW�



)LQGLQJV�IRU�:RUN�6DPSOH �



��5HDGLQJ��:ULWLQJ�DQG�2UDO�/DQJXDJH5HDGLQJ��:ULWLQJ��DQG�2UDO/DQJXDJH²&DQGLGDWHVGHPRQVWUDWH�D�KLJK�OHYHORI�FRPSHWHQFH�LQ�XVH�RI(QJOLVK�ODQJXDJH�DUWV�DQGWKH\�NQRZ��XQGHUVWDQG�


�



30

javascript:ToggleArrow('ftclzkfxcjf2cu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fphvhczjzjfhfa')

javascript:ToggleArrow('ppz3cpcefyh2cp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('uoh5cscefozmzu')


DQG�XVH�FRQFHSWV�IURPUHDGLQJ��ODQJXDJH�DQGFKLOGGHYHORSPHQW��WR�WHDFKUHDGLQJ��ZULWLQJ��VSHDNLQJ�YLHZLQJ��OLVWHQLQJ��DQGWKLQNLQJ�VNLOOV�DQG�WR�KHOSVWXGHQWV�VXFFHVVIXOO\�DSSO\WKHLU�GHYHORSLQJ�VNLOOV�WRPDQ\�GLIIHUHQW�VLWXDWLRQV�PDWHULDOV��DQG�LGHDV�

�

7DUJHW�



)LQGLQJV�IRU�*UDGHV �



�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�



)LQGLQJV�IRU�3UD[LV�,, �



�



31

javascript:ToggleArrow('fezqhozjzyhhfp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('auhvhphkzjfmzf')

javascript:ToggleArrow('p5ekzdzjzjfmzf')

javascript:ToggleArrow('kpzxcqzthjfmza')


�

7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�







�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�




32

javascript:ToggleArrow('uuckzozkzlf7eqcf')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fph0cvcuh4c2ck')

javascript:ToggleArrow('aycpzyhffqzczlhf')





�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�





��0DWKHPDWLFV0DWKHPDWLFV²&DQGLGDWHVNQRZ��XQGHUVWDQG��DQG�XVHWKH�PDMRU�FRQFHSWV�DQGSURFHGXUHV�WKDW�GHILQHQXPEHU�DQG�RSHUDWLRQV�DOJHEUD��JHRPHWU\�PHDVXUHPHQW��DQG�GDWDDQDO\VLV�DQG�SUREDELOLW\��,QGRLQJ�VR�WKH\FRQVLVWHQWO\�HQJDJH


�

'HWDLOV�'HVFULSWLRQ��)LQDO�*UDGHV��5HTXLUHG�&RXUVHV�0DWK��(/('��07+��DQG07+��5HDGLQJ�/DQJ��$UWV�(/('��6FLHQFH�


33

javascript:ToggleArrow('fyh1hfz0cyhhfa')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fyckfqhffjfmzp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fifsckfkzqz7e6ep')

javascript:ToggleArrow('ayhdzvhkzjfwhf')


SUREOHP�VROYLQJ��UHDVRQLQJDQG�SURRI��FRPPXQLFDWLRQ�FRQQHFWLRQV��DQGUHSUHVHQWDWLRQ�

�

6&('��6RFLDO6WXGLHV��(/('��$UW��$57(��0XVLF��086��3K\VLFDO�(GXFDWLRQDQG�+HDOWK��3(��DQG�+/7+��

7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






34

javascript:ToggleArrow('ulhycvh0cjfhfa')

javascript:ToggleArrow('f3cdzwcuh4cmza')

javascript:ToggleArrow('faf4c1ckzozwhf')



�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�







�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�





35

javascript:ToggleArrow('fefczmzuhjf2ca')

javascript:ToggleArrow('kpcyc5c0c6cmh6ek')

javascript:ToggleArrow('akhnzwhuhozmzu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('p9e6enz0c4chff')




�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�





��7KH�DUWV7KH�DUWV²&DQGLGDWHVNQRZ��XQGHUVWDQG��DQG�XVH²DV�DSSURSULDWH�WR�WKHLURZQ�XQGHUVWDQGLQJ�DQGVNLOOV²WKH�FRQWHQW��IXQFWLRQV��DQGDFKLHYHPHQWV�RI�WKHSHUIRUPLQJ�DUWV��GDQFH�PXVLF��WKHDWHU��DQG�WKHYLVXDO�DUWV�DV�SULPDU\PHGLD�IRU�FRPPXQLFDWLRQ�LQTXLU\��DQG�HQJDJHPHQW


�

�


7DUJHW�




36

javascript:ToggleArrow('f3crhhfuhyh2ck')

javascript:ToggleArrow('axcbf3cuh4c2cu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fez4c5ckz1hczbza')

javascript:ToggleArrow('uqzlfnzkzozhfp')


DPRQJ�HOHPHQWDU\VWXGHQWV�




�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�


7DUJHW�



37

javascript:ToggleArrow('kizcz6ckz1h7ebza')

javascript:ToggleArrow('f2clznzkzjfhfu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('udzuc4cuhyhwhp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('kmzwc1h0c6cmhqcf')


�5HVSRQVLEOH�,QGLYLGXDO�V��





�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�





38

javascript:ToggleArrow('f1c0hyhkz4cwhf')

javascript:ToggleArrow('f1h2clfuhlf7ebzp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('akfsckfkzozhff')


�



�

�


7DUJHW�







�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�




39

javascript:ToggleArrow('knh6e_z1c6cmh6ea')

javascript:ToggleArrow('uqh4c0h0cjfhfa')

javascript:ToggleArrow('awcgzpcvh6ccz6eu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('frcycpzkzyhhfk')





�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�








�

�


7DUJHW�






�


7DUJHW�



40

javascript:ToggleArrow('akzcz1hff4chfp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('klzlzkh1c1hczqcp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('uyhhz1hffjfmzk')

javascript:ToggleArrow('f0hlf_zgfqzmhbza')






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�







�

�


7DUJHW�



)LQGLQJV�IRU�'LIIHUHQWLDWLRQ �



�


7DUJHW�


41

javascript:ToggleArrow('fbz3c6cff4cmzf')

javascript:ToggleArrow('uaf6e_zgf4c2ck')

javascript:ToggleArrow('kvckzlhvh6crcqcu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('a7e3cnhgfyhwha')


�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�





��'HYHORSPHQW�RIFULWLFDO�WKLQNLQJ�DQGSUREOHP�VROYLQJ'HYHORSPHQW�RI�FULWLFDOWKLQNLQJ�DQG�SUREOHPVROYLQJ²&DQGLGDWHVXQGHUVWDQG�DQG�XVH�D


�


7DUJHW�


42

javascript:ToggleArrow('uczuclhgfqzcz6eu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fqhqc9elzozmza')

javascript:ToggleArrow('ukzqhez1c4chff')

javascript:ToggleArrow('p6epcph1c4c2cf')


YDULHW\�RI�WHDFKLQJVWUDWHJLHV�WKDW�HQFRXUDJHHOHPHQWDU\�VWXGHQWV¶GHYHORSPHQW�RI�FULWLFDOWKLQNLQJ�DQG�SUREOHPVROYLQJ

�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�



43

javascript:ToggleArrow('fpcohqhlzyhmza')

javascript:ToggleArrow('ufzafaf1cjfhfu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('pkz5cqcgf6cczlhp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('aefkzafvh4cwhf')


�

7DUJHW�







�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�


44

javascript:ToggleArrow('kezthgzvhoz2cu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('ushjfqh1cozwhu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fjf8emh1c1hczlhf')

javascript:ToggleArrow('uhf7ewcvh4cmzf')


�


7DUJHW�







�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�


45

javascript:ToggleArrow('f6ccfwclzjf2ck')

javascript:ToggleArrow('kpzlzxcgf4cmzp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('kgfvcdfvhozwha')

javascript:ToggleArrow('alhef7e1c1h7e6eu')


�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�








�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






46

javascript:ToggleArrow('prh6edfgfyh2cf')

javascript:ToggleArrow('pefczdz1clfczbza')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fczpcjz1cjf2ck')



�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






��3URIHVVLRQDOJURZWK��UHIOHFWLRQ��DQGHYDOXDWLRQ3URIHVVLRQDO�JURZWK�UHIOHFWLRQ��DQG�HYDOXDWLRQ²&DQGLGDWHV�DUH�DZDUH�RIDQG�UHIOHFW�RQ�WKHLU�SUDFWLFHLQOLJKW�RI�UHVHDUFK�RQWHDFKLQJ��SURIHVVLRQDOHWKLFV��DQG�UHVRXUFHVDYDLODEOH�IRU�SURIHVVLRQDOOHDUQLQJ��WKH\FRQWLQXDOO\�HYDOXDWH�WKHHIIHFWV�RI�WKHLU�SURIHVVLRQDO


�

�


7DUJHW�





47

javascript:ToggleArrow('uphozczlzlfmh6ep')

javascript:ToggleArrow('kqhfzyclzyhwha')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fffkzthvhjfwhp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('uifrhscgf1hmhqca')


GHFLVLRQV�DQG�DFWLRQV�RQVWXGHQWV��IDPLOLHV�DQGRWKHUSURIHVVLRQDOV�LQ�WKHOHDUQLQJ�FRPPXQLW\�DQGDFWLYHO\�VHHN�RXWRSSRUWXQLWLHV�WR�JURZSURIHVVLRQDOO\�



�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�





��&ROODERUDWLRQ�ZLWKIDPLOLHV��FROOHDJXHV�DQG�FRPPXQLW\DJHQFLHV&ROODERUDWLRQ�ZLWK�IDPLOLHV�FROOHDJXHV��DQG�FRPPXQLW\DJHQFLHV²&DQGLGDWHV�NQRZ


�


7DUJHW�


48

javascript:ToggleArrow('pucefff1cyhwhu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('uoz5cyclzjf2cp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('ulhohkzlzozwhu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('a5enzdzlzqzczbzk')


WKH�LPSRUWDQFH�RIHVWDEOLVKLQJ�DQGPDLQWDLQLQJ�D�SRVLWLYHFROODERUDWLYH�UHODWLRQVKLSZLWK�IDPLOLHV��VFKRROFROOHDJXHV��DQGDJHQFLHV�LQ�WKH�ODUJHUFRPPXQLW\�WR�SURPRWH�WKH

�




FRPPXQLW\�WR�SURPRWH�WKHLQWHOOHFWXDO��VRFLDO�HPRWLRQDO��SK\VLFDO�JURZWKDQG�ZHOO�EHLQJ�RI�FKLOGUHQ�



�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�



49

javascript:ToggleArrow('pdf6emz1cozhff')

javascript:ToggleArrow('u3ccz1c1cyhhfk')

javascript:ToggleArrow('ftcxhvhlzyhmza')

javascript:ToggleArrow('a_zdf1cgfozmzf')


�

7DUJHW�









� $FWLRQ�3ODQ

� 6WDWXV�5HSRUW


50








�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�


51

javascript:ToggleArrow('a9eqcohgf1hmhlhf')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fscfzafvh1h7ebzu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('kxcgztclzqzrcbzf')

javascript:ToggleArrow('aqzqztcvh6crcbzp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('khf1ctclzlfmhqck')


�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




52

javascript:ToggleArrow('pgf0hphvh6ccz6ep')

javascript:ToggleArrow('k0hdzgzvh6cczqcu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('k0crcwc1c6cmh6ek')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fhzkzph1cqz7eqck')

javascript:ToggleArrow('umhjzqhvhqzcz6ef')



�

�


7DUJHW�





�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�



53

javascript:ToggleArrow('pbfozvc1clfmhqcp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('ulh3cwcgfqzczqck')

javascript:ToggleArrow('uphbzizvhlfczbzp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('kyhhzcflzqzcz6eu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fjzbfiz1cqzczqca')

javascript:ToggleArrow('piflzizgf6cczbzp')


�7DUJHW�





�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




54

javascript:ToggleArrow('atcucjz1c1hrcqcp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('u2c5cth1cqzmh6ea')

javascript:ToggleArrow('akhpcycvh1hczqcf')

javascript:ToggleArrow('kshuhycgf1h7e6ef')

javascript:ToggleArrow('anhef0cgfqzcz6ef')



�

�


7DUJHW�





�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�



55

javascript:ToggleArrow('k1h8ekz1c6cmh6ea')

javascript:ToggleArrow('avhrcvh1clf7elhu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('upzwcvh1cqz7e6ep')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fwcozkzvhlf7e6ef')

javascript:ToggleArrow('pmhif1cgf6c7ebza')

javascript:ToggleArrow('uvclhmz1cqzmhbzp')





�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�



��+HDOWK�HGXFDWLRQ+HDOWK�HGXFDWLRQ²&DQGLGDWHV�NQRZ�XQGHUVWDQG��DQG�XVH�WKH


�


56

javascript:ToggleArrow('ajfgfmzvhlfmh6ek')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fbzkhnz1c6cczqcf')

javascript:ToggleArrow('f0cgzmz1clf7ebzf')

javascript:ToggleArrow('pucphxhvh6crcbzu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fthkznz1cqzmhlhk')

javascript:ToggleArrow('u3cpznz1c1h7ebzf')


PDMRU�FRQFHSWV�LQ�WKHVXEMHFW�PDWWHU�RI�KHDOWKHGXFDWLRQ�WR�FUHDWHRSSRUWXQLWLHV�IRU�VWXGHQWGHYHORSPHQW�DQG�SUDFWLFHRI�VNLOOV�WKDW�FRQWULEXWH�WRJRRG�KHDOWK

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�





�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




57

javascript:ToggleArrow('ppctcyh1clfczbzf')

javascript:ToggleArrow('uezjzyhlz6crc6ef')

javascript:ToggleArrow('udfozyhlz1hcz6ea')

javascript:ToggleArrow('u1hrhpzvhqzczlhk')

javascript:ToggleArrow('k8e3ckfgf1hrcbzk')


�


�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�



58

javascript:ToggleArrow('ahfrcpzvh6cmh6ef')

javascript:ToggleArrow('frhqc1h1clf7eqcf')

javascript:ToggleArrow('pgfvcqzvh6cczlhu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('umh_zkhhflfmhqca')

javascript:ToggleArrow('a0hlz1hgflfrclha')

javascript:ToggleArrow('uqhuckhhfqz7elhu')


�7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�





�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�


59

javascript:ToggleArrow('f0cff5e2clfcz6ek')

javascript:ToggleArrow('unzmh7ewh6cczlhu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('f6e9elh2c1hczlhf')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fjfkfpcwh6cczbzp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('kafjzlhmzlfmhqcp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('aef4cbzhf6crc6eu')


�


7DUJHW�





�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




60

javascript:ToggleArrow('kpcdfrchf6ccz6ef')

javascript:ToggleArrow('klflzdz2clfrcbzp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('ptcifrcmzlfcz6ek')

javascript:ToggleArrow('uwhgznhwhqzmh6ef')

javascript:ToggleArrow('ash6e8emz6cmh6ea')




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�





�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




61

javascript:ToggleArrow('pscpc9ehflfczbza')

javascript:ToggleArrow('ahzfz9emzqzrcbza')

javascript:ToggleArrow('a5cpzohwhqzczbzk')

javascript:ToggleArrow('pgf0cohwhqzrcbza')

javascript:ToggleArrow('f7etcfzmzlfrc6ea')

javascript:ToggleArrow('klhdfqh2clfmhlhu')



�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�


62

javascript:ToggleArrow('pgzycafhf6cmhlhu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('pozrcvcmzlfrclhu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('puhozfzmz1h7ebzf')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fez_zizmzqzmhbzu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('kjzqchzhf1hczqcu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('uucxhbfmz1hrclhk')


�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




63

javascript:ToggleArrow('fxhgzrhmzqz7eqck')

javascript:ToggleArrow('a_zhfhzhflfcz6ef')

javascript:ToggleArrow('pnh9ethmz1hrcqcu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fshafizwh1hczbzf')

javascript:ToggleArrow('uhf0cshwh1hrc6ea')



�

�


7DUJHW�





�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




�

�


7DUJHW�




64

javascript:ToggleArrow('alf5cdfwhqzmhlhk')

javascript:ToggleArrow('acfefefwh6crcbzk')

javascript:ToggleArrow('uvcxh0c2c6c7e6ep')

javascript:ToggleArrow('alz4cefmzqz7ebza')

javascript:ToggleArrow('kczxcff2cqzmhlhp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('ppz7euhhf6cmhlhf')







�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�


65

javascript:ToggleArrow('pohlhoh1cqz7eqck')

javascript:ToggleArrow('udzfzph1cqzrc6ek')

javascript:ToggleArrow('kxcvctc1c1h7eqca')

javascript:ToggleArrow('kqz1htclzlfrc6ef')


�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�








�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






66

javascript:ToggleArrow('fmzvhohlzqz7e6ea')

javascript:ToggleArrow('avh0hucvhqzrc6ek')

javascript:ToggleArrow('k5cscbflzqzrcqck')



�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






67

javascript:ToggleArrow('pkzczrhgfqzczlhk')

javascript:ToggleArrow('uhzfffzlzqz7ebza')

javascript:ToggleArrow('a7ejzvclzqzrcbzu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('pgzozbf1cqzczbzk')




�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�





68

javascript:ToggleArrow('pqcnzwcvh6crclhk')

javascript:ToggleArrow('auclhxclz1h7ebzk')

javascript:ToggleArrow('f4cwcrhvhqzrclhf')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fthvcdfvhlf7ebzp')




�

�


7DUJHW�







�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�




69

javascript:ToggleArrow('fif1cdflzqz7e6ep')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fohfzthlzlfmhqcu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('u2c0hycgflfmhbzp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('ppckhyclzlf7e6ea')





�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�





��6RFLDO�VWXGLHV6RFLDO�VWXGLHV²&DQGLGDWHVNQRZ��XQGHUVWDQG��DQG�XVHWKH�PDMRU�FRQFHSWV�DQGPRGHV�RI�LQTXLU\�IURP�WKHVRFLDO�VWXGLHV²WKHLQWHJUDWHG�VWXG\�RI�KLVWRU\�JHRJUDSK\��WKH�VRFLDO


�



70

javascript:ToggleArrow('fizkzthgflf7ebzu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('a8eycff1clfczbzu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('p1hdz0clz1hczbzp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('kgfczvhgf1h7ebzk')


VFLHQFHV��DQG�RWKHU�UHODWHGDUHDV²WR�SURPRWHHOHPHQWDU\�VWXGHQWV¶DELOLWLHV�WR�PDNH�LQIRUPHGGHFLVLRQV�DV�FLWL]HQV�RI�DFXOWXUDOO\�GLYHUVHGHPRFUDWLF�VRFLHW\�DQGLQWHUGHSHQGHQW�ZRUOG�

�

7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�



71

javascript:ToggleArrow('f0hhz1c1cqzrcqck')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fhzoz0cgflfcz6ek')

javascript:ToggleArrow('umhxhvh1c6ccz6ea')

javascript:ToggleArrow('kgzbz2clz1hmhqcf')


�

7DUJHW�







�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�


72

javascript:ToggleArrow('fozlz2cvhlfczbzu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fqckh3cgfqzczbza')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fkzqhmz1c6c7ebzp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('afzphnzvhqz7e6ea')


�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�







�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






73

javascript:ToggleArrow('uycuh3c1c6cmhbzu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('k3ckfifvh6cczqcu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fpcezyh1c1h7ebzf')

javascript:ToggleArrow('ftcth4cgflfrc6ep')



�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�







�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






74

javascript:ToggleArrow('ftcth4cgflfrc6ep')

javascript:ToggleArrow('uxcozyh1cqzmhbzp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('aqzrhkfgf1hrclhu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('adzxhkfgf6cmhqcu')


�


�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�








�

�


7DUJHW�





75

javascript:ToggleArrow('ahf7ekflz1hcz6eu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fcfqclf1cqz7eqck')

javascript:ToggleArrow('plzgz6cgf6ccz6eu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('k7epckhhflfczqcf')




�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�







�

�


7DUJHW�




76

javascript:ToggleArrow('kkfgf1h1c6cczbzp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('pqhucpc2clf7e6ep')

javascript:ToggleArrow('a0cff_zmzlfczbzu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fifmh7e2c1hmhbzk')





�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�




77

javascript:ToggleArrow('ulhohbzwhlfczlhp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fyh0h5e2cqzcz6ea')

javascript:ToggleArrow('pucjzlhhf1hrc6eu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fycjfbz2clf7eqcu')






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�




78

javascript:ToggleArrow('upcshmhmzqzczlhu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('plf1c8emz1h7ebzk')

javascript:ToggleArrow('a9enzczmzqzczbzk')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fhfbfdz2cqz7elha')





�

�


7DUJHW�







�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�


7DUJHW�



79

javascript:ToggleArrow('kizqcscwhlfczlhk')

javascript:ToggleArrow('k8e_zezhfqz7e6ep')

javascript:ToggleArrow('prhafezmz1hmh6eu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('p0h0hohhf1hczlhf')


� 5HVSRQVLEOH�,QGLYLGXDO�V��




�

�


7DUJHW�







�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�


7DUJHW�



80

javascript:ToggleArrow('ulz0cohhfqzmhlhf')

javascript:ToggleArrow('uczohfz2clfmhqcu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('fqcdfgzmzlfmhqck')

javascript:ToggleArrow('pgzycuc2clf7eqcp')






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�








�

�


7DUJHW�






�


81

javascript:ToggleArrow('ayhczbf2cqzrcbzu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('uff4cphmzlfrcqck')

javascript:ToggleArrow('pezpcshhf6crcqcp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('athlhwcmzlfmh6ea')


�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�







82

javascript:ToggleArrow('aafifqh2c6c7eqca')

javascript:ToggleArrow('pifbfhz2clfrclhp')

javascript:ToggleArrow('akhhfhzhf6c7elhp')




�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






83

javascript:ToggleArrow('pnhtcycmzlfrc6ea')

javascript:ToggleArrow('pshphsh2cqz7eqck')

javascript:ToggleArrow('umzkzsh2cqzrc6ek')

javascript:ToggleArrow('k6c5cxc2c1h7eqca')




�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�






�

�


7DUJHW�





84

javascript:ToggleArrow('fhzththmzqz7e6ea')

javascript:ToggleArrow('pgz3c0chf1hrcqcu')

javascript:ToggleArrow('avhyhycwhqzrc6ek')

javascript:ToggleArrow('krcxcffmzqzrcqck')



0HDVXUH��:RUN�6DPSOH �0HDVXUH��:RUN�6DPSOH'LUHFW��3RUWIROLR

�

�


7DUJHW�









� $FWLRQ�3ODQ

� 6WDWXV�5HSRUW


85

javascript:ToggleArrow('ppzczuhhfqzczlhk')

javascript:ToggleArrow('ppzczuhhfqzczlhk')



� $VVHVVPHQW�3ODQ

� $VVHVVPHQW�)LQGLQJV

� $FWLRQ�3ODQ

� 6WDWXV�5HSRUW


86






87






88






89






90


$SSHQGL[

$�� %$%6�(OHP(G�0DS��&XUULFXOXP�0DS�%�� %6�LQ�(OHPHQWDU\�(GXFDWLRQ��63$��5HVSRQVH�WR�&RQGLWLRQV��6HSWHPEHU��SGI��$GREH�$FUREDW�'RFXPHQW�

&�� %6�LQ�(OHPHQWDU\�(GXFDWLRQ��63$�5HSRUW�0DUFK��SGI�$GREH�$FUREDW�'RFXPHQW�

'�� ,QVWLWXWLRQDO�5HSRUW�IRU�1&$7(��$GREH�$FUREDW'RFXPHQW�

(�� ,QVWLWXWLRQDO�5HSRUW�IRU�1&$7(��$GREH�$FUREDW'RFXPHQW�

)�� ,68�%2(�5HSRUW��$GREH�$FUREDW�'RFXPHQW�*�� ,68�%2(�5HSRUW��$GREH�$FUREDW�'RFXPHQW�+�� (OHPHQWDU\�(GXFDWLRQ��0LFURVRIW�:RUG�,�� (OHPHQWDU\�(GXFDWLRQ��0LFURVRIW�:RUG�-�� (OHPHQWDU\�(GXFDWLRQ��0LFURVRIW�:RUG�.�� (OHPHQWDU\�(GXFDWLRQ��$GREH�$FUREDW�'RFXPHQW�/�� (OHPHQWDU\�(GXFDWLRQ��0LFURVRIW�:RUG�


91


Elementary Education – Reading Specialist – 2006-2009

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION 2006-2009 Reading Specialist

Elementary, Early and Special Education


Program Field Experiences Course #/Title or Program

Requirement Purpose of Field

Experience Number of Required

Hours in P-12 Classroom Candidate Required

Tasks

ELED 681 Assess student with multiple measures 10 Hours

Assessment Report

ELED 685 Develop an instructional plan based on an assessment and carry it out

20 Hours

Case Report


Curriculum Section MASTERs OF EDUCATION Department of Elementary, Early, Effective Fall 2008 & Special Education College of Education Indiana State University Please check with Education Student Services for specific requirements of your licensing needs. Name: Start Date Finish Date Concentration Area ID Number 14 hours of basic professional courses

Course # Description Hrs

When Taken Grade Comments

Basic Professional Courses (14)

CIMT 610 – Research in Education 3

ELED 660 – The Elementary Curriculum 3 EPSY 521 – Advanced Child Psychology Or 3

EDS 621 – Development Through the Lifespan Or

ELAF 605 – Philosophy of Education Or

ELAF 607 – The History of American Education

ELED 678 – Teacher as Reflect Prac (Video Analysis) 2

ELED 667 – Seminar in Elementary Education 3

Complete one of the following concentrations Literacy – 18 hrs * ELED 681 – Literacy Assessment (Fall) (Practicum) 3

ELED 682 – Literacy, Theory and Research (Fall) 3

ELED 685 – Literacy Intervention Strategies (Spring) (Practicum) 3 ELED 686 – Building Innovative Curriculum in Literacy (Writing) (Spring) 3

ELED 670 – Leadership of Reading Programs (Summer) 3

ELED 668 – Building Innovative Curriculum (Literature) (Summer) 3 *Completion of the Literacy Specialty will lead to “reading specialist” added to license for teachers who have “reading teacher” on their initial license. See attached for how to add “reading teacher” to license. Primary & Intermediate – 18 hrs ELED 668 – Building Innovative Curriculum in (Literature) (Summer) 3

ELED 680 – Family and School Literacy 3

ELED 686 – Bldg Innov Curriculum in Literacy (Writing) 3

Choice of 9 hrs from courses below

ELED 571 – Integrated Software Packages for the Classroom 3 ELED 650 - Teaching Mathematics in Preschool and Primary Or 3

ELED 651 - Teaching Mathematics in the Middle Grades

ELED 666 – Improv S S Instr in the Elementary School 3

ELED 681 – Literacy Assessment (Fall) 3

ELED 682 – Literacy, Theory and Research (Fall) 3


ELED 685 – Literacy Intervention Strategies (Spring) (Practicum) 3

SCED 685 – Adv Methods Sem in the Teach of Sci 3 Early Childhood – 18 hrs

ELED 532 – E C: Teach w/in a Diverse Society 3

ELED 541 – EC: Prog Admin & Leadership 3

ELED 645 – EC: Advanced Curriculum 3

ELED 647 – ED: Interagency Collaboration & Parent Involve 3

ELED 648 – EC: Comparative Study 3 ELED 680 – Family and School Literacy or 3

ELED 686 – Bldg Innov Curriculum in Literacy (Writing) (Summer)

See back side for signatures and dates Student’s Signature Date Advisor’s Signature Date Date graduation applied for Date of exit interview


2. Course Description(s) 668 Building Innovative Curriculum (Literature)—3 hours. The study of the role, quality, and influence of children’s literature on all aspects of the elementary school curriculum. Emphasis on creating quality lessons and units of study around children’s literature. Focus on text sets, invitations, and classroom inquiry 670 Leadership of Reading Programs – 3 hours This course includes a survey of current leadership theories and styles and their application to the promotion of literacy in educational settings and beyond 681 Literacy Assessment—3 hours. The course will examine the theory and practice of assessing literacy, with a specific focus on the support of children experiencing difficulty with reading. Students will explore the underlying belief systems that shape assessment, literacy development, and the reading process. Participants will examine and practice a variety of assessment strategies and instruments with focus on the impact of teaching for diversity, the infusion of technology, and current and classic literature. 682 Action Research in Elementary Education—3 hours. This course will examine research in reading through the critiques of published research and through becoming classroom researchers. Participants will develop questions and hypotheses about specific aspects of their own classroom teaching, collect data, and report on the results of interventions and hypothesis testing. 685 Literacy Intervention Strategies—3 hours. This course will enable participants to assess children’s literacy and plan instruction responsive to the needs of the child based upon this assessment. Specific intervention strategies will be presented and discussed. Participants will examine the relationship between literacy assessment and intervention strategies that support children in becoming more proficient learners, focus on the impact of teaching for diversity, and the infusion of technology. 686 Building Innovative Curriculum in Literacy (Writing)—3 hours. Students will continue to collect data in their own classrooms related to a language arts/writing topic. They will analyze the data, draw conclusions, write a research article, and submit it to the appropriate journal, focusing on the impact of teaching for diversity and the infusion of technology.


B. Content Standards Matrix Standard Eled 681 Eled 682 Eled 685 Eled 686 Eled 668 Eled 670

1 Foundational Knowledge

T 3 T 3, 7

2 Strategies & Materials

T 3, 7 T 7 T 3, 7 T 3

3 Assessment

T 7 T 3, 7 T 7 T 3, 7

4 Literate Environment

T 7 T 7 T 3

5 Professional Development

T 3 T 3 T 2, 3, 8

T = Teacher standard addressed Performance Assessment Examples: (1) test, (2) paper, (3) project, (4) portfolio artifact, (5) labs, (6) lesson plan, (7) teaching, (8) other.


C. Assessment Data Section 1. Element Assessed

Describe Assessment Activity

When is it Assessed

Title of the Assessment Instrument/Rubric (attach copies)

Aggregated Summary Data for last 3 years

Curriculum/ Program/Unit Operations: modifications made based on this data

Content Standards Addressed by this Assessment Activity

Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates

Assessment Mid

program (Eled 681)

Report of Assessment

N=14 Pass Rate

100% 3, 4

Research Project

Beginning Program

(Eled 682) Action Research

N=31 Pass Rate

100% 1, 2, 3, 5

Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teachers Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates

Analyze a program and

dev. Staff development

End of Program

(Eled 670) Staff Dev. Plan N=

Pass Rate 5

Case Study

Mid-point of

Program (Eled 685)

Case study N=28

Pass Rate 100%

2, 3, 4

Student Learning for Teacher Candidates

Teacher work sample

Mid-point of

Program (Eled 686)

Work Sample rubric

N=37 100% 1, 2, 3, 5

Assessment 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Report of Assessment 14/14 100% Action Research 14/14 100% NA 17/17 100% Staff Development Plan NA NA Case Study 14/14 100% 14/14 100% Work Sample 15/15 100% 12/12 100% 10/10 100% 2. Assessment instruments and scoring guides/rubrics are available in a departmental file. They will all be entered into TK 20. 3. Assessments have been revised to reflect the current standards for reading specialist and to comply with the requirements of the UAS.


4. Faculty who teach the courses meet twice each semester to review the data and to ensure that the program meets the Indiana standards for reading specialist. As a result of these meetings a new course has been added to the program (Eled 670) to more adequately meet the requirements of standard 5. D. Faculty Section Faculty Name Highest

Degree Attained

Areas(s) or Specialization

Courses Taught in Program

Additional Responsibility in Program

Years of P-12 Experience

Bauserman, Kathryn L.

Ph.D. 1) Reading 2) Early Childhood

Eled 681, 685 Undergrad advisor

17

Cutter, Lisa Ph.D. Early Childhood Elementary Education

Eled 680 Undergrad advisor

9

Quatroche, Diana J

Ph.D. Reading Language Arts

Eled 680, 681, 682, 686

Chairperson 20 Teaching 3 Administrator

Whitaker, Beth

Ph.D. Language Arts Educational Administration

ELED 398 ELED 250 ELED 324 ELED 678

Undergrad advisor

7 Teaching 5 Administration

Wheeler, Patricia

Ph.D. Supervision, Language Arts, Social Studies

Eled 681, 685, 668, 678

Graduate Advisor

15

Reading Minor – 2006-2008

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION 2006-2009 Reading Minor – Reading Teacher Licensure







Tasks

ELED 324

Gain experience in teaching emergent literacy skills to kindergarten children on a one-to-one basis

12 hours Informally assess the literacy development of a child; Create and implement lessons at the child’s developmental level; maintain a progress folder on the child

ELED 397

To gain experience in teaching Language Arts methods at the elementary level.

24 hours Tutor a struggling reader; teach integrated language arts lessons (Writing Workshop)

ELED 398

Teacher candidates will work one-on-one with a student who has demonstrated below expected reading-language arts performance. The teacher candidate will administer assessments to determine the student's strengths and needs. They will then design two weeks of instruction to support and further the child's growth and development as a reader and writer.

Approx. 20 hours The candidate will administer informal reading assessments, design and deliver appropriate instruction, reflect daily (in depth) on the student's progress, and submit a documentation portfolio at the end demonstrating instructional and assessment knowledge gained during the course of the practicum.

ELED 485

Teacher candidates will tutor one child for 10 wks., twice a week focusing on 4-8 skills.

10 hours The candidate will synthesize knowledge learned from previous reading courses to evaluate, prescribe, and plan specific skills instruction.


Curriculum Section 1. Advising Sheet Elementary, Early and Special Education Indiana State University Reading Minor College of Education Effective Fall 2007 Name Date The reading minor requirements are listed below. The Reading Minor will allow for Reading Teacher to be added to the initial license. The coverage of the minor is the level of the license (grades K-6 on elementary license). Grade/

hrs done

Hrs Req

Hrs to do

ELED

324 Emergent Literacy 3.0

ELED

397 The Teaching of Developmental Reading & Other Language Arts 3.0

ELED

398 Corrective Reading in the Classroom

3.0

ELED

485

Practicum: Literacy Intervention in Elementary School 3.0

Approved Literature course: ENG COMM

280 266

Children’s Literature or Oral Interpretation of Children’s Literature

3.0

Approved Linguistics Course:

3.0

Total Hours 18.0 Advisor: Date: Student Signature ________________________ Date _________________________ Advisor Signature _________________________ Date _________________________


2. Course Description(s) 324 Emergent Literacy—3 hours. This course focuses on the study of young children’s development of listening, speaking, reading, and writing abilities from a holistic approach and examines the implications for practice. Field experience is required which involves on-going classroom teaching experiences with young children. Prerequisite: admission to BCP-I. 397 Teaching Developmental Reading and Other Language Arts—3 hours. Emphasis is placed on teaching-learning techniques and uses of instructional materials for developing foundations of reading skills instruction and oral and written language programs in the elementary school. Required laboratory work involves experiences with elementary pupils. Prerequisites: successful completion of Blocks I and II and admission to BCP-I. 398 Corrective Reading in the Classroom—3 hours. Analysis, diagnosis, prescription, and correction of reading problems in the elementary school classroom with emphasis on types of treatment and methods for aiding children with learning difficulties. Required laboratory work involves experiences with elementary pupils. Prerequisites: 397 and admission to BCP-I. 485 Practicum: Working with the Disabled Reader—3 hours. Individual work with a pupil with emphasis on diagnostic and prescriptive teaching techniques. Required on the reading minor after basic reading courses (397 and 398 or their equivalents) have been completed.


B. Content Standards Matrix

T = Teacher standard addressed Performance Assessment Examples: (1) test, (2) paper, (3) project, (4) portfolio artifact, (5) labs, (6) lesson plan, (7) teaching, (8) other.

Content Standard


1 T 1

T 2, 6, 7

T 1, 4, 8

T 8

2

T 6

T 8

3

T 2, 6 7

T 8

4

T 6

T 1, 4, 8

5

T 8

6

T 3

T 2, 6 7

7

T 6

T 8

8

T 1, 4, 8

T 8

9

T 2

T 2, 6 7

T 8

10

T 1, 4, 8

T 8




When is it Assessed






Praxis Reading Specialist

During Student Teaching

Reading Specialist Test Results

Pass Rate = 99% N= 89

Alignment of curriculum

I 1-4, 6-8

Case Study

Midpoint (eled 398)

Professional Literacy Portfolio

Pass Rate = 100% N = 156

1, 4, 8, 10


Work with a child

Midpoint (eled 324)

Lesson plans Pass Rate = % 99 N = 159

1, 2, 4, 7

Teaching unit on writing

Midpoint (eled 397)

Writing folio Pass Rate = 99% N = 324

1, 3, 6, 9


Tutoring and report

Midpoint (eled 485)

Case report Pass Rate = 100% N = 40

1, 3, 5, 9, 10

* See http://coe.indstate.edu/faculty/spowers/uas2007 Assessment 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009

Number Pass Rate Number Pass

Rate Number Pass Rate

Praxis – Reading Specialist 88/89 99%

Professional Literacy Portfolio 62/62 100% 94/94 100%

Lesson Plans 108/109 99% 50/50 100%

Unit Writing Folio 95/97 98% 104/104 100% 87/87 100%

Case Report 4/4 100% 10/10 100% 26/26 100%


2. Assessment instruments and scoring guides/ rubrics for assessments are available in Livetext and TK 20. 3. Assessments have been revised to reflect the Indiana standards for reading teacher. The textbook chosen for the courses reflects the Indiana standards. 4. Through discussions each semester with the faculty responsible for the reading courses in the minor. One faculty member took the Praxis reading specialist test and determined that course content was reflected in the test. Emphasis has been placed on ensuring that pre-service teachers demonstrate competence in teaching phonics. D. Faculty Section Faculty Name Highest

Degree Attained







ELED 397 ELED 324 ELED 485

Committee Chairperson; Undergrad advisor

17

Cutter, Lisa Ph.D. Early Childhood; Elementary Education

ELED 324

Undergrad advisor

9

Quatroche, Diana J

Ph.D. Reading Language Arts

ELED 397 ELED 324


Wheeler, Patricia

PhD Supervision; Language Arts; Social Studies

ELED 485

Graduate Advisor

15

Whitaker, Beth

Ph.D. Language Arts; Educational Administration

ELED 398 ELED 324

Undergrad advisor


Early Childhood Education 2006-2009 Elementary, Early and Special Education

A. Curriculum Section

Program Field Experiences Course #/Title or Program Requirement

Purpose of Field Experience Number of Required Hours in P-12 Classroom

Candidate Required Tasks

ELED 110 Foundations of Early Childhood Education

Understanding child development and various learning environments of Early Childhood facilities

9 hours in three different Early Childhood facilities

-Observation -Interaction with young children and teachers -Field notes -Reflection Journals

ELED 220 Integrated Curriculum for Young Children in Pre-K Setting

Understanding developmentally appropriate teaching practice (creating lesson plans and unit plans) and various learning environments of Early Childhood classrooms

18 hours in two different preschool classrooms of one Early Childhood facility

-Observation -Interaction with young children and teachers -Field notes -Reflection Journals -Teaching demonstration; creating lessons and teaching small groups of preschoolers

ELED 315 Integrated Curriculum in Early Childhood: Creative and Affective Domains

Obtaining preschool teachers’ curriculum planning skills and instruction strategies in art, play, music, and movement

9 hours in a preschool classroom setting


ELED 320 Integrated Curriculum in Early Childhood: Cognitive Domain

Obtaining preschool teachers’ curriculum planning skills and instruction strategies in literacy, mathematics, science, social studies, health, and nutrition

9 hours in a preschool classroom setting


ELED 324 Emergent Literacy

Gaining experiences in teacher’s emergent literacy skills and kindergarten children in a one to one hour

12 hours in kindergarten classrooms

-Assessing the literacy development of a child -Creating and implementing lessons at the child’s development level; maintain a progress folder on each child

ELED 335 Early Childhood: Teaching and Learning in the Kindergarten

Gaining experiences in kindergarten teacher’s teaching strategies and kindergarten children in a one to on hour

9 hours in kindergarten classrooms

-Observation -Interaction with young children and teachers -Field notes -Reflection Journals

ELED 425/426 Early Intervention: Infant & Toddler Developmental Delay

Obtaining caregivers’ skills in promoting infants and toddlers’ physical, social, emotional, and cognitive development with emphasis on their daily routines

18 hours in an Early Childhood Special Education program (an infant & toddler setting)

-Observation -Interaction with young children and teachers -Interviewing teachers -Field notes -Reflection Journals

ELED 437 Early Childhood: Theories and Practices in Working with Exceptional Children

Observing and learning teachers’ knowledge and skills to work with children with special needs

12 hours in an inclusive classroom setting

-Observation -Interaction with young children and teachers -Interviewing teachers -Field notes -Reflection Journals

BASIC STUDIES (15-27 hours) WRITING (6-9 hours) If the student’s SAT Verbal score is below 510 or ACT English score is below 20, ENG 101 AND ENG 105 must be completed: Hours Completed ENG 101 Freshman Writing I _________ ENG 105 Freshman Writing II _________ If the student’s SAT Verbal score is 510 or above, or ACT English score is 20 or above, choose ONE of: ENG 107, ENG 108, OR ENG 130

Hours Completed ENG 107 Rhetoric and Writing ENG 108 Writing about Literature and Culture (Honors) ENG 130 Literature and Composition _________

AND ENG 305 Adv. Expository Writing _________ ENG 305 is required of ALL students after completing 48 credit hours

SPEECH COMMUNICATION (3 hours) Hours Completed COMM 302 Speech for the Teacher _________ A grade of “C” or better is required in this course To be taken instead of COMM 101

QUANTITATIVE LITERACY (0-3 hours) Hours Completed MATH 102 Quantitative Literacy _________ Prerequisite: Successful completion of appropriate math course as determined by COMPASS placement Students maybe exempt by scoring 21 or higher on QLET

FOREIGN LANGUAGE (0-6 hours) Hours Completed FL 101 Elementary (FL) _________ FL 102 Intermediate (FL) _________ Foreign Language Offerings: French, German, Latin, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, or Greek Students may be exempt from the Foreign Language requirement by completing at least 2 years of one foreign language in high school with an average grade of “C” or better, or by passing the Foreign Language Exemption Exam

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (3 hours) Hours Completed ELED 272 Intro to Classroom Computer Use _________ Must be taken within first 32 hours of coursework at ISU A grade of “C” or better is required in this course

PHYSICAL EDUCATION (3 hours) Hours Completed PE 463 Physical Education for Early Childhood _________ A grade of “C” or better is required in this course To be taken instead of PE 101 (Course is available only in the spring semester) Hrs Hrs Hrs Page one (1) subtotals: Completed Required Remaining General Education _________ 43-59 _________

LIBERAL STUDIES (28-32 hours) SCIENTIFIC AND MATH STUDIES [SMS] (7 hours)

Hours Completed BIOL 112 Human Aspects of Biology _________ AND choose ONE of the following courses: CHEM 100 Survey of Chemistry GEOG 111 The Physical Environment GEOL 160 Intro to Earth & Sky PHYS 101 Intro to Physical Sciences _________ A grade of “C” or better is required in the above courses AND Hours Completed Choose ONE of the following corresponding lab courses: BIOL 112L Human Aspects of Biology Lab CHEM 100L Survey of Chemistry Lab GEOG 111L The Physical Environment Lab GEOL 160L Intro to Earth & Sky Lab PHYS 101L Intro to Physical Sciences Lab _________

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL STUDIES [SBS] (6 hours) Choose ONE of the following four courses: Hours Completed ECON 100 Basic Economics PSCI 130 Intro to Political Science PSY 101 General Psychology SOC 100 Foundations of Social Life _________

And choose either: A second course from above OR a course below. The second course MUST be from a different department ECON 200 Principles of Macroeconomics ECON 201 Principles of Microeconomics PSCI 201 American Government ______________________

A grade of “C” or better is required in each course

LITERARY, ARTISTIC, and (6 – 10 hours) PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES [LAPS] Choose an approved LAPS:F course Hours Completed LAPS:F ______________________ _____________________

Please note that course offerings vary semester to semester, therefore students should refer to the General Education office at http://www.indstate.edu/gened/ or the current Schedule of Classes for a comprehensive list of courses

And choose EITHER of the following courses: Hours Completed ART 151 Visual Arts in Civilization ARTE 390 Visual Arts in Elementary Schools (4 hours) ______________________

A grade of “C” or better is required in either course If ARTE 390 is taken, COMM 266 or another approved LAPS elective must be taken LAPS:E _________________ _________

HISTORICAL STUDIES [HS] (3 hours) Hours Completed HIST 101 World Civilization Before 1500 OR HIST 102 World Civilization Since 1500 A grade of “C” or better is required in Historical Studies ______________________

MULTICULTURAL STUDIES [MCS] (6 hours) Hours Completed EPSY 341 Education in a Multicultural Society _________ GEOG 130 World Geography _________

A grade of “C” or better is required in both courses

ADDITIONAL SUBJECT MATTER (24 hours) A grade of “C” or better is required in each course Hours Completed ELAF 200 Education and Community _________ ELAF 200 must be taken prior to Block II ENG 235 Major World Authors _________ Choose ONE Children’s Literature course (ENG 280 or COMM 266) ENG 280 Children’s Literature OR COMM 266 Oral Interpretation of Children’s Literature _________ Choose ONE US History Course (HIST 201 or HIST 202) HIST 201 The United States to 1877 OR HIST 202 The United States Since 1865 _________

HLTH 327 School Health Services _________

MATH 205 Math for Elementary Teachers I _________

MATH 305 Math for Elementary Teachers II _________ MATH 205 and 305 must be complete prior to Block IV MUS 325 Music in the Education of Children_________ Taken after 31 earned hours

MAJOR (33-35 hours) A grade of “C” or better is required in each course as well as a minimum GPA of a 2.5. Field experiences are required in all courses. Students are encouraged to complete each cluster before taking the subsequent cluster. Declaration of the ECE major and passing scores on PRAXIS is required before taking Cluster courses

CLUSTER I (6 hours) Hours Completed ELED 110 Foundations of Early Childhood Education _________ EPSY 342 Growth & Development of the Young Child _________

CLUSTER II (9 hours) Prerequisite: Admission to Becoming a Complete Professional I Hours Completed ELED 315 Integrated Curriculum in Early Childhood: Creative & Affective Domains _________ ELED 320 Integrated Curriculum in Early Childhood: Cognitive Domain _________ ELED 335 Early Childhood: Teaching and Learning in the Kindergarten _________

CLUSTER III (9 hours) Prerequisite: Admission to BCP-I Hours Completed ELED 426 Educating Infants & Toddlers in an Inclusive Environment _________ ELED 432 Early Childhood: Teaching Within a Diverse Society _________ ELED 437 Early Childhood: Theories & Practices Working with Exceptional Children _________

CLUSTER IV (9-11 hours) Prerequisite: Successful completion of Cluster III

Hours Completed

ELED 441 Early Childhood: Program Adm. & Leadership _________ ELED 443 Practicum in Early Childhood Programs (3-5hrs) _________ ELED 449 Early Childhood: Family, School & Community Relationships _________

PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION (32 hours)

BLOCK II—Teaching and Learning (8 hours) Prerequisites: 2.5 GPA,, successful completion of Cluster I, and ELAF 200 Hours Completed ELED 250& Teaching-Learning and Classroom 250L Management and Lab _________ ELED 259 Measurement & Evaluation in the Elementary School (2 hrs) _________ ELED 324 Emergent Literacy _________

BLOCK III—Curriculum Theory and Instruction (6 hours) Prerequisite: Admission to Becoming a Complete Professional I and Block II Hours Completed ELED 392& The Teaching of Elementary 392L School Social Studies and Lab _________ ELED 397 Teaching, Developmental Reading and Other Language Arts _________

BLOCK IV—Curriculum Theory and Instruction (6 hours) Prerequisites: Completion of Math 205 and Math 305 Hours Completed and Block III ELED 394& The Teaching of Elementary School 394L Math and Lab _________ ELED 398 Corrective Reading in the Classroom _________

BLOCK V—PROFESSIONAL SEMESTER (12 hours) Prerequisites: Admission to Becoming a Complete Professional II Successful completion of all clusters Successful completion of Block II, Block III, and Block IV Hours Completed ELED 450 Seminar in Early Childhood Education _________ ELED 451 Supervised Teaching (5 hrs) _________ Should be completed in grades 1, 2, or 3 ELED 454 Student Teaching in Early Childhood Education (4 hrs) _________

ADDITIONAL ELECTIVES: If necessary (Use additional sheet, if needed)

Hrs Hrs Hrs Completed Required Remaining

General Education _________ 43-59 _________ Additional Subject Matter _________ 24 _________ Major _________ 33-35 _________

Professional Education _________ 32 _________ Minimum Total _________ 132 _________

When a student has completed this program of study with the required GPA, received a baccalaureate degree, and passed the licensure exams, ISU will recommend the student for the Initial Indiana Instructional license under Rules 2002 standards. Tr hrs______ Tr GPA________ ISU GPA ______ Major GPA_________

Date/Initials:______________________________________________________

Courses 110 Foundations of Early Childhood Education—3 hours. This course is designed to provide an understanding of the role of the early childhood educator, to develop skills in observing and working with young children, to develop an awareness of the various types of programs serving young children, and to aid the student in developing a professional commitment to the field of study. The goals will be achieved through both observation and seminar sessions. Prerequisites: admission 220. Integrated Curriculum for Young Children in Pre-K Setting —3 hours. This course focuses on enhancing teacher candidates’ pedagogical content knowledge and skills in planning integrated curriculum for young children three to six years of age with an emphasis on developmentally appropriate and culturally relevant teaching at Pre-K settings. This course addresses national and state standards and outcome based assessment to diverse learners. Field experience in a Pre-K setting is required. 315 Integrated Curriculum in Early Childhood: Creative and Affective Domains—3 hours. This course focuses on fostering the development of creative abilities in children ages two to five with emphasis on creating teaching-learning experiences and planning curriculum content in art, play, music, and movement. The course integrates national and state standards into curriculum planning to teach diverse learners. Field experience is required and provides students an opportunity to demonstrate their pedagogical knowledge of teaching. Prerequisite: admission to BCP-I. 320 Integrated Curriculum in Early Childhood: Cognitive Domain—3 hours. This course provides students with the theoretical and practical aspects of cognitive development for children age three to eight with emphasis on creating teaching-learning experiences and planning curriculum content in the cognitive domain that includes mathematics, science, social studies, health, and nutrition. The course integrates national and state standards into curriculum planning to teach diverse learners. Field experience is required and provides students an opportunity to demonstrate their pedagogical knowledge of teaching. Prerequisite: admission to BCP-I. 324 Emergent Literacy—3 hours. This course focuses on the study of young children’s development of listening, speaking, reading, and writing abilities from a holistic approach and examines the implications for practice. Field experience is required which involves on-going classroom teaching experiences with young children. Prerequisite: admission to Teacher Education Program I. 335 Early Childhood: Teaching and Learning in the Kindergarten—3 hours. This course focuses on the pedagogical knowledge and skills taught in kindergarten classrooms. The course integrates national and state developmental and content standards into curriculum planning to work with diverse learners. Field experience is required in a kindergarten classroom. Prerequisite: admission to the BCP. 425/426 Early Childhood: Educating Infants and Toddlers in an Inclusive Environment—3 hours. This course focuses on fostering caregivers’ skills in promoting infants and toddlers’ physical, social, emotional, and cognitive development with emphasis on their daily routines, environmental safety, health and nutritional needs, and their psychological needs. The course content integrates national standards and addresses child rearing practices in different cultures. Field experience is required in an infant and toddler setting. Prerequisite: admission to BCP-I. *432 Early Childhood: Teaching Within a Diverse Society—3 hours.

This course focuses on developing and enhancing the knowledge and skills to work with children and families from diverse cultural, racial, and soci-economic backgrounds. This course introduces the conceptual frameworks of multicultural teaching and reviews the current research and practices relevant to teaching-learning solutions. Prerequisite: admission to BCP-I. *437 Early Childhood: Theories and Practices in Working with Exceptional Children—3 hours. This course focuses on providing early childhood students with knowledge and skills to work with children with special needs in an inclusive classroom setting. The course provides students with learning opportunities to observe children’s behavior, identify each child’s special needs, and implement appropriate learning and assessment strategies. Field experience is required and involves interactions with atypical young children. Prerequisite: admission to BCP-I. *441 Early Childhood: Program Administration and Leadership—3 hours. This course focuses on developing administrative and leadership strategies in opening, managing, evaluating, and advocating an early childhood program in a variety of settings. Prerequisite: complete Cluster III courses or chairperson’s permission. *443 Practicum in Early Childhood Programs—3-5 hours. This course provides students an opportunity to demonstrate their pedagogical knowledge and teaching skills in an early childhood program. Course outcome focuses on the ability to provide developmentally and culturally appropriate curriculum to young children. 449 Early Childhood: Family, School, and Community Relationships—3 hours. This course focuses on building family, school, and community partnerships. Teacher education students learn techniques such as organizing parent conferences, home visits, parent meetings, and the process of implementing a parent involvement program. The course also addresses the cross-cultural issues in families and school and community linkage. Prerequisites: complete Cluster III courses with chairperson’s permission. 450 Early Childhood: Capstone Course —3 hours. Teacher candidates will participate in a series of seminars that will synthesize the common goals of liberal studies and their professional goals. Seminars will focus on teacher candidate’s abilities to effect growth within learners and call upon their reasoning and judgment to link the success of the learner to their instructional practice by drawing from their content knowledge. Prerequisites: concurrent enrollment with 451 and 453 and admission to TEP II; at least 78 credit hours and seven of nine required Liberal Studies courses. See General Education section of the Catalog for a complete description of the capstone requirement. General Education Credits [GE2000: Capstone Course]

Contents Standards for Early Childhood (Preschool Focus)

Standards ELED

110 ELED 220

ELED 315

ELED 320

ELED 324

ELED 335

ELED 425 /426

ELED 432

ELED 437

ELED 441

ELED 443

ELED 449

ELED 450

1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 2 X X X X X X X X X X X 3 X X X 4 X X X 5 X X 6 X X X 7 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 8 X X X X X X X C. Assessment Data Section Element Assessed


When is it Assessed



Curriculum/ Program/Unit Operations modifications made based on this data



Praxis II (core knowledge) ECE

Prior to student teaching

Praxis II results Tutoring made available

EC 1-8

Student Teaching


Final student teaching evaluations (ELED 458)

N-4 100%


EC 1-4 7 8

Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teachers

Disposition Assessment

Mid-point Disposition Professional Semester

EC 1 3 4 5

Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates

Student Teaching Final Evaluation

Student Teaching

Final Student Teaching Evaluation (ELED 451)

N= 4 100%

EC 6 8


Teacher Work Samples


Teacher Work Sample Rubric (ELED 457)

N=4 100%

Mentoring EC 7 8

Assessment Number of Students % Passed 2006-2007 N/A 1.) Praxis II 2.) Student Teacher Evaluation 3.) Work Sample 4.) 5.) 2007-2008 N/A 1.) Praxis II 2.) Student Teacher Evaluation 3.) Work Sample 4.) 5.) 2008-2009 1.) Praxis II 2.) Student Teacher Evaluation 4/4 100% 3.) Work Sample 4/4 100% 4.) Student Teacher Final Eval 4/4 100% 5.) 2. Submit assessment instruments and/or scoring guides/rubrics for assessments included on the assessment data description. GENERAL GRADING CRITERIA (FOR 25, 50, 75 & 100 POINT ASSIGNMENTS) Possible Points Minimum Requirement for Points 25 50 75 100 Excellent in Every Way: Fulfilled all requirements and 25 50 75 100 expectations; professionally written and presented clearly; shows creativity as well as depth of reflection and understanding. Very Good: Fulfilled all requirements and expectations; >23 >46 >69 >92 professionally written and presented; all main points expressed completely and clearly. Acceptable to Good: Fulfilled all or most requirements >20 >40 >60 >80 and expectations; well or acceptably written and/or presented; most, but not necessarily all of the main points expressed. Poor: Fulfilled some or most of the requirements and >18 >36 >54 >72 expectations; written and/or presented; few of the main points expressed; lacks organization and clarity. Very Poor: Fulfilled few of the requirements and >16 >32 >48 >64 Expectations; poorly written and/or presented; few to none of the main points expressed. Unacceptable: Fulfilled none of the requirements. <15 <30 <45 <60

3. Submit a description (narrative or bulleted format) of how data have been used for specific program changes over the past 3 years. This information may be contained in a “history of change” document. Over the past 3 years, Early Childhood major program has been replaced as Early Childhood minor program. Currently, the existing courses are ELED 110, ELED 220, ELED 324, ELED 335, ELED 432, ELED 425, and ELED 449. 4. Submit a summary statement about what your unit has learned relative to your understanding of the aggregated content program assessment data. As for the data of Program Field Experiences, eight Early Childhood courses out of thirteen are based on field experience. This is a good example of experiential learning and community engagement. According to the data of Content Standards for Early Childhood (Preschool Focus), although only two courses focus on the standard, “Family, Culture, and Community,” many Early Childhood courses concentrate on the general content standards such as “core knowledge,” “Child Growth and Development,” “Professionalism,” “Observation and Assessment” and “Learning Environments.” The outcome means that Early Childhood courses can cover Indiana Contents Standards for Early Childhood (preschool focus). D. Faculty Section Faculty Name Highest

Degree Attained









17 years (in P-3)

Cutter, Lisa Ph.D. Early Childhood Elementary Education

ELED 324 ELED 335

Undergrad advisor

11 years

Gottschling, Gail

MA Early Chilhdood


Director of Early Childcare Education Center

29 years

Liu, Karen Ph.D. Early Childhood

ELED 432 ELED 426 ELED 441 ELED 443 ELED 449 ELED 450

Program Director; Undergrad advisor

11 years

Park, Yong Joon

Ph.D. Early Childhood


Undergrad advisor

7 years

Elementary Education – 2006-2009

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION 2006-2009 Undergraduate







Tasks

ELED 100

The major focus of this initial experience in education is working with students and developing a sense about the responsibilities of teachers.

15 – 24 hours Tour the school Observe teaching to learn about classroom routine and behavior management Give assistance to individual students as well as small groups of students Interview the host teacher

ELED 250 Gain experiences in teaching

24 hours Observe teaching and then teach 3 lesson plans.

ELED 324

Gain experience in teaching emergent literacy skills to kindergarten children on a one-to-tone basis

12 Informally assess the literacy development of a child; Create and implement lessons at the child’s developmental level; maintain a progress folder on the child

ELED 335

Gain experience working with kindergarten children. Gain insight into the: tasks that are required of kindergarten teachers; kindergarten curriculum; and, daily routines of the kindergarten classroom.

15 4-Week Themed Unit Final Project (75 points; 15% of final grade; due 10:00 a.m. Thursday, December 13th): this is based on their field work Family Learning Day (50 points; 10% of final grade; due Saturday, September 22nd 8:30-12:00) Partnered students will develop a hands-on learning opportunity for parents and children, centering on writing. They then administer this activity at Vigo County’s Family Learning Day on Saturday, 9/22.

ELED 392

Teaching Unit Approx 24 hrs Observe, prepare unit, teach unit integrating language arts, and assess student learning

ELED 394 Teach Everyday Math 25 hours Construct the Framework

(lesson plans) to teach a two week unit in math

ELED 397

To gain experience in teaching Language Arts methods at the elementary level.

24 hours Tutor a struggling reader; teach integrated language arts lessons (Writing Workshop)

ELED 398

ISU teacher candidates will work one-on-one with a student who has demonstrated below expected reading-language arts performance. The teacher candidate will administer assessments to determine the student's strengths and needs. They will then design two weeks of instruction to support and further the child's growth and development as a

Approx. 20 hours The candidate will administer informal reading assessments, design and deliver appropriate instruction, reflect daily (in depth) on the student's progress, and submit a documentation portfolio at the end demonstrating instructional and assessment knowledge gained during the course of the practicum.


reader and writer.

ELED 451/453

Elementary student teaching

15 weeks of full-time teaching (40hrs/week) which is about 600 hours; most do two 8-week assignments in different grades; some do 16-week in one grade

Teaching performance assessed by the 10 INTASC principles. Complete a Parent Involvement Project, lesson plans based on Indiana Academic Standards, technology implemented into weekly lessons, complete technology profiles on LiveText (are assessed), Teacher Work Sample (5-day integrated unit) with pre and post assessments.


Content Curriculum Section 1. Advising Sheet BASIC STUDIES (14-26 hours) WRITING (6-9 hours) If the student’s SAT Verbal score is below 510 or ACT English score is below 20, ENG 101 AND ENG 105 must be completed: Hours Completed ENG 101 Freshman Writing I _________ ENG 105 Freshman Writing II _________ If the student’s SAT Verbal score is 510 or above, or ACT English score is 20 or above, choose ONE of: ENG 107, ENG 108, OR ENG 130

Hours Completed ENG 107 Rhetoric and Writing ENG 108 Writing about Literature and Culture (Honors Program) ENG 130 Literature and Composition _________

AND ENG 305 Adv. Expository Writing _________ ENG 305 is required of ALL students after completing 48 credit hours

SPEECH COMMUNICATION (3 hours) Hours Completed COMM 302 Speech for the Teacher _________ A grade of “C” or better is required in this course To be taken instead of COMM 101

QUANTITATIVE LITERACY (0-3 hours) Hours Completed MATH 102 Quantitative Literacy _________ Students with SAT Math scores <430 or ACT Math <17 are required to successfully complete MATH 011 prior to enrolling in MATH 102 Students maybe exempt by scoring 21 or higher on QLET

FOREIGN LANGUAGE (0-6 hours) Hours Completed FL 101 Elementary (FL) _________ FL 102 Intermediate (FL) Foreign Language Offerings: _________ French, German, Latin, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, or Greek Students may be exempt from the Foreign Language requirement by completing at least 2 years of one foreign language in high school with an average grade of “C” or better

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (3 hours) Hours Completed ELED 272 Intro to Classroom Computer Use _________ Must be taken within first 32 hours of coursework at ISU A grade of “C” or better is required in this course

PHYSICAL EDUCATION (2 hours) Hours Completed PE 348 Methods of Teaching PE in Elementary School (2 hrs) _________ A grade of “C” or better is required in this course To be taken instead of PE 101 To ensure compliance with General Education requirements, students are encouraged to refer to their Undergraduate Catalog or consult with their academic advisor to ensure appropriate courses are taken.


LIBERAL STUDIES (28-32 hours) SCIENTIFIC AND MATH STUDIES [SMS] (7 hours)

Hours Completed SMS:F (Students must select a corresponding lab course) BIOL 112/112L Human Aspects of Biology CHEM 100/100L Survey of Chemistry GEOG 111/111L The Physical Environment GEOL 160/160L Intro to Earth & Sky PHYS 101/101L Intro to Physical Sciences _________ AND Select either a second SMS:F course or a SMF:E course

SMS:E _______________________ _________

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL STUDIES [SBS] (6 hours) SBS:F Hours Completed CRIM 100 Individuals, Society, and Justice ECON 100 Basic Economics PHIL 201 Ethics and the Good Life PSCI 130 Intro. to Political Science PSY 101 General Psychology SOC 100 Foundations of Social Life _________

AND SBS:E (EPSY 202 Psychology of Childhood & Adolescence is recommended ) _________

LITERARY, ARTISTIC, and (6 – 10 hours) PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES [LAPS] Hours Completed LAPS:LL Literature & Life/Public Life _________

And choose ONE of the following courses: LAPS:E Art/Art History Course _________ OR ARTE 390 Visual Arts in Elementary Schools (4 hours) _________ _

If ARTE 390 is taken, another approved LAPS:E course must be taken (COMM 266 recommended) LAPS:E _________________ _________

HISTORICAL STUDIES [HS] (3 hours) Hours Completed HIST 201 The United States to 1877 OR HIST 202 The United States since 1865 _________ A grade of “C” or better is required in Historical Studies

MULTICULTURAL STUDIES [MCS] (6 hours) MCS:UD Hours Completed EPSY 341 Education in a Multicultural Society _________ A grade of “C” or better is required this course MSC:IC ____________________ _________


ADDITIONAL SUBJECT MATTER (24 hours) A grade of “C” or better is required in each course Hours Completed Choose ONE Special Education course (SPED 102 or 226) SPED 102 Intro to Special Education OR SPED 226 The Exceptional Learner in the Regular Classroom _________ SPED 102/226 must be completed prior to Block II ELED 335 Early Childhood: Teaching & Learning in Kindergarten _________ Prerequisite: Admission into the BCP Program ENG 235 Major World Authors _________ Choose ONE Children’s Literature course (ENG 280 or COMM 266) ENG 280 Children’s Literature OR COMM 266 Oral Interpretation of Children’s

Literature _________

HLTH 327 School Health Services _________ MATH 205 Math for Elementary Teachers I _________ MATH 305 Math for Elementary Teachers II _________ MATH 205 and 305 must be complete prior to Block IV MUS 325 Music in the Education of Children_________ Taken after 31 earned hours

MAJOR/PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 41 Hours A grade of “C” or better is required in each course, as well as a minimum GPA of a 2.5. The professional education component in elementary education consists of a sequential pattern of coursework integrated into blocks. Each subsequent block has the previous block as a prerequisite. Before enrolling into Block I, required scores on Praxis I are required. Prior to enrolling in Block III, the student must have been admitted to Becoming a Complete Professional I.

BLOCK I—Initial Experience (4 hours) Hours Completed ELED 100& Initial Experiences in Elementary

100L Education and Lab (1 hr) _________ EPSY 202 Psychology of Childhood and Adolescence _________

BLOCK II—Teaching and Learning (8 hours) Prerequisites: State-level Praxis I scores Hours Completed ELED 250& Teaching-Learning and Classroom 250L Management and Lab _________ ELED 259 Measurement & Evaluation in the Elementary School (2 hrs) _________ ELED 324 Emergent Literacy _________

SCIENCE TEACHING (5 hours) Prerequisites: 2.50 GPA, successful completion of Block II, and 3-7 hours of science. SCED 393 must be completed prior to Block V Hours Completed SCED 393& Science in the Elementary School (4 hrs) _________ SCED 393L Science in the Elementary School Lab (1 hr) _________


BLOCK III—Curriculum Theory and Instruction (6 hours) Prerequisite: Admission to Becoming a Complete Professional I Hours Completed ELED 392& The Teaching of Elementary 392L School Social Studies and Lab _________ ELED 397 Teaching, Developmental Reading and Other Language Arts _________

BLOCK IV—Curriculum Theory and Instruction (6 hours) Prerequisites: Completion of Math 205 and Math 305 Hours Completed ELED 394& The Teaching of Elementary School 394L Math and Lab _________ ELED 398 Corrective Reading in the Classroom _________

BLOCK V—Professional Semester (12 hours) Prerequisites: Admission to Becoming a Complete Professional II ELED 451 Supervised Teaching (5 hrs) _________ ELED 453 Supervised Teaching (3 hrs) _________ ELED 457 Seminar in Elementary Education (4 hrs) _________

ADDITIONAL ELECTIVES/MINOR: If necessary (Use additional sheet, if needed) Hrs Hrs Hrs

Completed Required Remaining

General Education _________ 42-58 _________ Additional Subject Matter _________ 24 _________ Major/Professional Edu _________ 41 _________ If Minor/Endorsement/Con. _________ Needed _________ If Electives _________ Needed _________ Minimum Total _________ 124 _________

When a student has completed this program of study with the required GPA, received a baccalaureate degree, and passed the licensure exams, ISU will recommend the student for the Initial Indiana Instructional license under Rules 2002 standards. The coverage will include regular classroom teaching in the elementary school setting. Tr hrs______ Tr GPA________ ISU GPA ______ Major GPA_________ Date/Initials:_____________________________________________________


2. Content Courses and Description(s) 100 Initial Experiences in Elementary Education—1 hour. An opportunity to look at the role of the elementary school teacher, children in instructional and non-instructional situations, and the requirements of the teaching profession, and the opportunity to assess capabilities, preferences, and commitments. Required laboratory work involves experiences in public schools. Prerequisites: admission to the elementary education major, 2.5 cumulative GPA, and required scores on the PPST. 100L Initial Experiences in Elementary Education—0 hours. 250 Teaching�Learning and Classroom Management—3 hours. This course investigates children’s behavioral and interpersonal needs in relation to the way they learn and construct knowledge. For instructional and classroom management methodology, the effectiveness of various management systems will be examined with emphasis on understanding the role and responsibilities of teachers and children in the process. Prerequisites: successful completion of Block I and 2.5 cumulative GPA. 250L Teaching�Learning and Classroom Management—0 hours. 259 Measurement and Evaluation in the Elementary School—2 hours. This course is designed to assist the classroom teacher in developing skills to: gather information in a variety of ways (including observation, teacher�made tests, and standardized tests); critique and select appropriate assessment methods and materials; relate evaluation results to instruction; and foster effective communication of evaluations to parents. Prerequisites: 272 Introduction to Classroom Computer Use—3 hours. Designed to familiarize education students with the microcomputer as an instructional tool. The student is expected to become familiar with the various uses teachers make of computers in classrooms, what characteristics to look for when selecting educational software, and how the hardware and software can be incorporated into the instructional process. General Education Credits [GE2000: Information Technology Literacy] 324 Emergent Literacy—3 hours. This course focuses on the study of young children’s development of listening, speaking, reading, and writing abilities from a holistic approach and examines the implications for practice. Field experience is required which involves on-going classroom teaching experiences with young children. Prerequisite: admission to BCP-I. 335 – Early Childhood: Teaching & Learning in Kindergarten – 3 hrs The student who desires to be an elementary teacher must remain in good standing in the Teacher Education Program and complete the program outlined below which will satisfy requirements for the bachelor of science degree or the bachelor of arts degree provided the foreign language requirement is fulfilled. Satisfactory completion of the program will also make the individual eligible for the Standard Instructional License in the state of Indiana provided that the individual satisfies the test requirements. Upon completion of this degree, the holder can be licensed in the elementary, primary, and intermediate school setting. 392 The Teaching of Elementary School Social Studies—3 hours. An overview of the social studies curriculum of the elementary school with emphasis on teaching�learning techniques and experiences, selection of content, skill development, and uses of instructional materials. Required laboratory work involves experiences with elementary children. Prerequisites: successful completion of Blocks I and II and admission to BCP-I. 392L The Teaching of Elementary School Social Studies—0 hours.


394 The Teaching of Elementary School Mathematics—3 hours. An overview of the mathematics curriculum of the elementary school with emphasis on activities, materials, devices, and teaching-learning techniques appropriate for children. Required laboratory work involves experiences with elementary pupils. Prerequisites: Mathematics 205 and 305 and admission to BCP-I. 394L The Teaching of Elementary School Mathematics—0 hours. 397 Teaching Developmental Reading and Other Language Arts—3 hours. Emphasis is placed on teaching-learning techniques and uses of instructional materials for developing foundations of reading skills instruction and oral and written language programs in the elementary school. Required laboratory work involves experiences with elementary pupils. Prerequisites: successful completion of Blocks I and II and admission to BCP-I. 398 Corrective Reading in the Classroom—3 hours. Analysis, diagnosis, prescription, and correction of reading problems in the elementary school classroom with emphasis on types of treatment and methods for aiding children with learning difficulties. Required laboratory work involves experiences with elementary pupils. Prerequisites: 397 and admission to BCP-I. 451 Supervised Teaching—6 hours. This course provides an opportunity for students majoring in elementary education and elementary/special education to apply the knowledge, skills, and dispositions into an elementary school setting. Students actively provide instruction to elementary aged students in a supervised setting. Prerequisites: concurrent enrollment in 453 and 457 and admission to BCP-II. 453 Supervised Teaching—3 hours. Supervised teaching and analyses of teaching in the elementary school. Prerequisite: admission to BCP-II. 457 Elementary and Special Education Capstone—3 hours. This seminar serves as the General Education Capstone requirement for teacher candidates in Elementary Education and Special Education Programs. Students will utilize the content knowledge from their teacher preparation, professional judgment from the supervised teaching experience, and critical thinking skills emphasized in their Liberal Studies courses to assess the effectiveness of their teaching and pupils’ learning in their classrooms. Prerequisites: concurrent enrollment with 451, 453, and admission to TEP II; at least 78 credit hours and seven of nine required Liberal Studies courses. See General Education section of the Catalog for a complete description of the capstone requirement. General Education Credits [GE2000: Capstone Course]


B. Content Standards Matrix

Content Standards Matrix for Teachers of Early and Middle Childhood

Standards

Courses

ELED 100

ELED 250

ELED 259

ELED 324

ELED 335

ELED 392

ELED 397

ELED 394

ELED 398

ELED 451

ELED 453

ELED 457

1

T 8

T 6

T 2, 3

T 8

T 8

T 2, 3

2

T 1, 8

T 8

T 1

T 2

T 8

T 2, 6,

7

T 1,

6, 7, 8

T 1, 4,

8

T 8

T 8

T 2, 3, 6,

7

3

T 8

T 8

T 3, 6

T 8

T 2, 6, 7

T 1,

6, 7, 8

T 1, 4,

8

T 8

T 8

T 2, 3, 6,

7

4

T 8

T 1

T 1,

6, 7, 8

T 1, 4,

8

T 8

T 8

T 2, 3, 6

5

T 8

T 2

T 3

T 8

T 2, 6,

7

T 8

T 8

T 2, 3, 6,

7 T= Teacher Standard Addressed Performance Assessment Examples: (1) test, (2) paper, (3) project, (4) portfolio artifact, (5) labs, (6) lesson plan, (7) teaching, (8) other.




When is it Assessed






Praxis II Prior to Student Teaching

Praxis II Results Pass Rate = 92% N= 89

Tutoring made available

1, 2, 3, 4

Student Teaching Performance


Final Student Teacher Evaluation (Eled 451)

Pass Rate = 99% N = 319

1 - 5


Dispositions Assessment

Midpoint Dispositions Pass Rate = 97% N = 257

Development of a professional semester

5

Writing Unit Midpoint

Unit Writing Folio Pass Rate = 99% N = 288

2, 3, 5


Student Teaching


Pass Rate = 99% N = 324

1 - 5


Teacher Work Sample

During student teaching

Teacher Work Sample

Pass Rate = 98% N = 326

Addition of student learning data

1 - 5


Assessment 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009

Number Pass Rate Number Pass

Rate Number Pass Rate

Praxis II 82/89 92%


110/112 98% 80/80 100% 127/127 100%

Dispositions 170/177 96% 79/80 99%

Unit Writing Folio 95/97 98% 104/104 100% 87/87 100%


110/112 98% 82/84 98% 126/128 98%

Teacher Work Sample 112/112 100% 83/87 95% 126/127 99%

2. Assessment instruments and scoring guides/rubrics for assessments included on the assessment descriptions are available in Livetext and TK 20. 3. Assessments in student teaching have been revised to reflect student learning through the addition of the impact report on pupil learning. The template for this has been added to the teacher work sample. 4. Through discussions at retreats and faculty meetings it was determined that some students were not fully prepared for student teaching. A semester of intensive practicum experience has been added to the program.


D. Faculty Section Faculty Name Highest

Degree Attained









17

Bolinger, Kevin

Ph.D. History ELED 144 ELED 259 ELED 392

Undergrad advisor

2

Cutter, Lisa Ph.D. Early Childhood Elementary

ELED 324 ELED 335

Undergrad advisor

9

Leinenbach, Marylin

Ph.D. Mathematics ELED 394

Undergrad advisor

14

Nail, Melissa Ph.D. Generalist Technology

ELED 100 ELED 272 ELED 259 ELED 392 ELED 457

Undergrad advisor

5

Quatroche, Diana J

Ph.D. Reading Language Arts Elementary

ELED 397 ELED 250 ELED 451/453


Watkins, Sharron

MA Elementary Education

ELED 100 ELED 451/453 ELED 457

Director of Field Placement; Undergrad advisor

20

Wheeler, Patricia

PhD Supervision, Language Arts, Social Studies

ELED 100 ELED 250 ELED 259 ELED 392 ELED 397 ELED 398 ELED 451/453 ELED 457

Graduate Advisor

15

Whitaker, Beth

Ph.D. Language Arts Educational Administration


Undergrad advisor


Type of Visit:

First Continuing

Combination Probation X Focused

Accreditation Visit to:

IIIINDIANA NDIANA NDIANA NDIANA SSSSTATE TATE TATE TATE

UUUUNIVERSITYNIVERSITYNIVERSITYNIVERSITY Terre HauteTerre HauteTerre HauteTerre Haute,,,, IndianaIndianaIndianaIndiana March 2March 2March 2March 2----4, 20084, 20084, 20084, 2008

NCATE Board of Examiners Team John M. Nagle, Chair Rhogenia McMillan Janet S. Penner-Williams Indiana State Team Robin Fankhauser, Chair Marsha Turner-Shear Indiana State Consultant Mary Glenn Rinne, Assistant Director of Educator Preparation, Indiana Department of Education

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page I. Introduction 4 II. Conceptual Framework 6 III. Findings for Each Standard

Standard 2 8 Summary of Stengths 14 Areas for Improvement 15 Corrections to the Institutional Report 18 IV. Sources of Evidence

Documents Reviewed 19 Persons Interviewed 21

3

SUMMARY FOR PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION UNIT National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education

Institution: Indiana State University

Standards

Team Findings

Initial

Advanced

2

Assessment System and Unit Evaluation

M

M

M = Standard Met NM = Standard Not Met

4

I. INTRODUCTION The Institution Indiana State University (ISU) is located in Terre Haute, Indiana, approximately one hour west of Indianapolis on Interstate 70 close to the Illinois border. Terre Haute is a small city of approximately 60,000 persons. Mirroring the demography of the state, approximately 85 percent of its population is white; 10 percent of its minority population is African American. The university was established by the Indiana legislature in 1865 as Indiana State Normal School with a primary mission of preparing “teachers for teaching in the common schools of Indiana.” The institution’s first bachelor’s degrees were awarded in 1908, its first master’s degrees in 1928, and its first doctoral degrees in 1965, when the institution achieved “university” status and its name was changed to Indiana State University. ISU is today a comprehensive, doctoral-granting institution with a Carnegie Doctoral 2 classification and a special focus on community engagement. It offers a full array of academic programs in a College of Arts and Sciences; in professional schools in Education, Business, Technology, and Nursing, Health, and Human Performance; and in a School of Graduate Studies. Following two years of campus-wide deliberations, the university very recently adopted in February 2008 a revised mission statement and a revised set of guiding values. The institutional mission statement now reads:

Indiana State University, a doctoral research university, combines a tradition of strong undergraduate and graduate education with a focus on community and public service. We integrate teaching, research, and creative activity in an engaging, challenging, and supportive learning environment to prepare productive citizens for Indiana and the world.

The university’s revised values emphasize high standards, a well-rounded education, integrity, diversity, personal growth, responsibility as a university citizen, and stewardship of a global community. In the past two years, the university has begun a program to identify and increase funding for particularly “promising programs.” The College of Education is a recent recipient of this designation and additional funding. The university’s current enrollment totals approximately 11,000 students, 9,500 at the undergraduate level and 1,500 at the graduate level. Nearly 20 percent of all students in the university, including 40 percent at the graduate level, are enrolled in programs for teachers and other school professionals. With an enrollment of more than 700 students, the Department of Elementary, Early, and Special Education in the College of Education is the largest undergraduate department in the university. The Professional Education Unit The professional education unit at ISU is housed in the College of Education and in selected departments in the Colleges of Arts and Sciences, Business, Technology, and Nursing, Health,

5

and Human Performance. The dean of the College of Education is the head of the unit, and the university’s Teacher Education Committee is the principal governance committee for the unit. This committee is charged with overall responsibility for planning, approving, and coordinating programs that prepare licensed educators. The unit offers 18 initial teacher education programs, 15 advanced programs for teachers, and a small number of advanced programs for other school professionals in speech communication, counseling, school psychology, educational administration, library media, and reading. The number of advanced programs for teachers will soon be reduced to six programs as a result of a university-wide “program prioritizing process” and subsequent mergers and reorganization. Four programs for P-12 educators are offered through distance learning modalities, three in part and one entirely. The curriculum in each of these distance learning programs is exactly the same as the curriculum in their on-campus counterparts, and the assessment data collected in them are the same as the assessment data collected on campus. The College of Education has four departments: Elementary, Early, and Special Education; Curriculum, Instruction, and Media Technology; Educational Leadership, Administration, and Foundations; and Communication Disorders and Counseling, School, and Educational Psychology. It also has a dozen administrative, research, and service centers that cut across early childhood education, mathematics education, professional development schools, counseling, interdisciplinary studies in special education, and other professional areas. In 2007-08, the unit enrolled approximately 1,300 candidates in initial programs and 300 candidates in advanced programs. In 2006-07, 200 candidates in initial undergraduate teacher education programs and 249 candidates in advanced programs completed their programs. In fall 2007, the unit had 73 tenured or tenure-track faculty, most in the College of Education, and 47 nontenure-track faculty, most of whom supervised candidates in field experiences. The Visit The NCATE/Indiana protocol guided this Focused Visit focused on Standard 2. It was, therefore, a joint visit that involved a single team of three persons appointed by NCATE and two persons appointed by the Indiana Department of Education. Throughout the visit, the team was very ably assisted by the Assistant Director of Educator Preparation in the Indiana Department of Education. The visit began on Sunday, March 2, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. and concluded at 12:00 noon on Tuesday, March 4. No unusual circumstances affected the visit.

6

II. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The conceptual framework for the professional education unit is derived from the mission and values of the university and from the mission, vision, and values of the unit. The new, revised mission and values of the university are cited above. The current mission of the unit, which will soon be reviewed and possibly refined in light of the revised university mission, is “to prepare, promote, and advance educational and human service professionals for a diverse and ever-changing world.” The vision of the unit addresses the priorities of the unit as a learning community, its physical space, its expanding “sphere of influence,” and its attention to consistent leadership, clear objectives, adequate resources, diversity and social justice, coherence, and collegiality. The essence of the unit’s conceptual framework is three “components” related to the theme “Becoming a Complete Professional” and seven undergirding “values.” The three components are:

• Educator as Expert or Mediator of Learning: This first component “deals with an educator’s professional skill as a mediator of students’ learning and/or of the progress individuals make in achieving their potential.”

• Educator as Person: This second component “represents the traits and dispositions that

make a successful educator justifiably respected and emulated by students.”

• Educator as Member of Communities: This third component “reflects the necessity of contributing to the various communities of which educators, as professionals, are members.”

The seven values that undergird the conceptual framework are:

• Honesty: We have integrity and are trustworthy, ethical, and fair. • Collegiality: We enjoy being a collaborative team in a positive environment that

communicates well and works together for the greater good of all.

• Caring for Others: We are compassionate and supportive of others.

• Responsibility: We are dedicated, dependable, and hard working.

• Student Success: We bring to bear scholarship, professionalism, respect, and high expectations for all students.

• Openness to Change: We prize creativity and support continual improvement. • Social Justice and Diversity: We work to create environments that support and enable all

members of our community to thrive.

7

The knowledge base that supports these three components and seven values in the conceptual framework is based on the ten INTASC principles for beginning teachers, and it is described in detail in a 100-page, stand-alone document entitled, Becoming a Complete Professional: A Knowledge-Base Statement in Support of the INTASC Principles with Suggested Learning Activities and Performance Assessments. Aligned to the three components in the conceptual framework are the program and content standards defined for each licensure area by the Indiana Department of Education, the 10 INTASC principles for beginning teachers, the five NBPTS core propositions for experienced teachers, and the standards of specialized professional associations (SPAs) or accrediting agencies for teachers and/or other school professionals. In addition, the unit’s key assessments in initial and advanced programs are aligned with the three components of the conceptual framework. This alignment of key assessments with conceptual framework components is described in the IR appendix entitled, “Alignment of Key UAS Performance Assessments to Standards.”

8

III. STANDARDS STANDARD 2. ASSESSMENT SYSTEM AND UNIT EVALUATION The unit has an assessment system that collects and analyzes data on the applicant qualifications, the candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate and improve the unit and its programs.

Level: Initial and Advanced Information reported in the institutional report for Standard 2 was validated in the exhibits and interviews. X Yes _ No

Elements of Standard 2 Unacceptable Acceptable Target 2a. Assessment System

Initial Teacher Preparation

X

2a. Assessment System

Advanced Preparation

X

Summary of Findings Since the last NCATE visit in fall 2005, a variety of stakeholders, including faculty from throughout the unit and representatives from school sites used for field experiences and clinical practice, have been involved in redesign, implementation, and further revision of the Unit Assessment System (UAS). The first redesign was completed in 2006 and approved by the unit’s Teacher Education Committee (TEC) in December of that year. This is the version that guided the first Unit Assessment Day in January 2007. Following this assessment day, the UAS was further revised and approved by the TEC in April 2007, and this is the UAS design that guided the second Unit Assessment Day in September 2007. Subsequently, the UAS design was further revised and approved in December 2007. Key components or elements in the UAS design include the following: 1. The UAS design is based on the overarching theme that defines the unit’s conceptual

framework, “Becoming a Complete Professional,” and its three components, “Educator as Expert or Mediator of Learning,” “Educator as Person,” and “Educator as Member of Communities.” Key assessments in the design align with both the conceptual framework theme and components and state and national program standards, including INTASC

9

principles for beginning teachers and NBPTS core propositions for experienced teachers. 2. The UAS design identifies five transition points for data collection and use in initial

programs (admission, entry to professional experience, completion of professional experience, exit from program, and post-graduation) and four transition points for data collection and use in advanced programs (admission, entry to professional experience, exit from program, and post-graduation).

3. The UAS design includes multiple assessments selected from both internal and external sources, including faculty, applicants, candidates, recent graduates, and principals at the initial level and faculty, candidates, and employers at the advanced level.

4. The UAS design identifies data elements that relate to applicant qualifications, candidate proficiencies, the competence of graduates, and program quality. More specifically, the UAS design identifies 17 data elements relevant to candidate performance in initial programs, 12 data elements relevant to candidate performance in advanced programs, and eight data elements relevant to unit operations at both levels of programs.

5. Candidates must meet assessments at an acceptable level at each stage in their programs before going on to the next stage, and the level of proficiency expected becomes more comprehensive and requires greater skill at each successive stage.

6. Predictors of success in the UAS design include academic advisement, the use of clear rubrics, and Praxis I and II scores.

7. The UAS design was originally dependent on multiple information technologies for collecting, storing, aggregating, and reporting data. The design is now moving away from dependence on these multiple technologies to implementation of Tk20 as its comprehensive data management system.

8. The UAS design requires programs to prepare annual reports that are based on aggregated assessment data regarding both candidate performance and program operations. These reports are presented to the unit’s stakeholders during annual Unit Assessment Days.

9. The UAS design includes a database for maintaining records of formal candidate complaints and their resolution.

10. Responsibility for implementing and revising the UAS design rests with the unit’s TEC and its two assessment sub-committees, one at the initial level and the other at the advanced level. The sub-committees make recommendations to the TEC, but the TEC has ultimate responsibility for managing the UAS and making final decisions about it.

11. Finally, a critical characteristic of the UAS design is its development of a common assessment language that can be used by faculty and others in all programs.

10

2b. Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation


X

2b. Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation


X

Summary of Findings

Descriptive material in the IR, electronic links to specific documents and tables of data, hard copy files in the Exhibit Room, and conversations with faculty, candidates and others during the on-site visit indicate that the UAS design approved in December 2006 and its revisions approved in April 2007 have been implemented and made operational in the following ways: 1. To varying degrees within specific programs, candidate performance data are now being

collected from the desired internal and external sources: faculty, applicants, candidates, recent graduates, and principals at the initial level, and faculty, candidates, and employers at the advanced level.

2. The unit is collecting the data specified at different transition points in the UAS design, although it is having more success relative to collecting data about applicant qualifications, candidate proficiencies, and the competence of graduates than it is collecting data on program quality and unit operations. More specifically, data have now been collected and compiled for 14 of the 17 data elements identified for initial programs, partially collected and compiled for one element, and not yet collected for two other elements. In advanced programs, data have now been collected and compiled for four of the 12 identified data elements, partially collected and compiled for three elements, and not yet collected for two other elements. In terms of the eight data elements relevant to unit operations across initial and advanced programs, data have now been collected and compiled for six of the eight elements at the initial level, but for only two of the eight elements at the advanced level. At this point, therefore, data have not yet been collected and compiled for all identified data elements, particularly those related to unit operations.

3. At this point, only 12 of the unit’s 20 programs have submitted program reports in which faculty present, analyze, and reflect on candidate performance data and develop recommendations for program improvement based on those data.

4. The unit has held two successful Unit Assessment Days since the last NCATE visit, one in January 2007 and the other in September 2007. The first assessment day led to substantial revision of the UAS design. Data were subsequently submitted by programs in May to the two assessment sub-committees of the TEC, one at the initial level and the other at the advanced level. These two sub-committees compiled and summarized the data for presentation at the second Unit Assessment Day in September 2007. Six guiding questions on candidate performance and seven guiding questions on unit operations were developed to guide analysis of the data. For reports on candidate performance in initial programs, data were compiled, summarized, and analyzed for five guiding questions. For reports on candidate performance in advanced programs, data were compiled, summarized, and

11

analyzed for three of six guiding questions. For the reports on unit operations, data relative to initial programs were compiled, summarized, and analyzed for all seven guiding questions, but data relative to advanced programs were compiled, summarized, and analyzed for only four of the seven questions.

5. As evidenced in the minutes of the TEC, recommendations from these two Unit Assessment Days were subsequently presented to the committee for review and decision. For instance, recommendations relevant to candidate performance in initial programs dealt with the need to develop a common dispositions assessment, develop a common diversity assessment, develop an operational definition of diversity, better communicate and share program reports and data needs, and decide how to deal with programs that did not complete program reports. Recommendations relevant to candidate performance in advanced programs dealt with the need to use surveys on advising and faculty effectiveness, develop assessments on technology and diversity, adopt an educator work sample, modify the rating scale for dispositions, articulate data submission needs from programs, and decide how to deal with programs that did not complete program reports. Some of the results of these recommendations are reported in Element 2c.

6. Interviews with members of the TEC indicate that the work of the committee now has clearer purpose in terms of using assessment data, improving data collection, processing recommendations, and monitoring candidate grievances and petitions.

7. The unit has an operational database for maintaining records of formal candidate complaints and their resolution. This database is maintained in the Dean’s Office.

8. Finally, during the past two years, a variety of information technologies have been used to support the UAS: Excel, Access, BANNER, LiveText, and PowerPoint. For instance, most of the data shared with faculty during the two Unit Assessment Days were presented by means of PowerPoint presentation that included bulleted summaries of data results, charts, and graphs. The unit is now beginning a transition to Tk20, which in the future will be its comprehensive data management system for collecting, storing, aggregating, summarizing, and reporting both candidate performance data and data about program and unit operations.

12

2c. Use of Data for Program Improvement


X

2c. Use of Data for Program Improvement


X

Summary of Findings Since the NCATE visit in fall 2005, the unit has sponsored two Unit Assessment Days, the first in January 2007 in the middle of the 2006-07 academic year and the second in September 2007 at the beginning of the 2007-08 academic year. Two assessment sub-committees of the Teacher Education Committee (TEC), one focused on initial programs and the other focused on advanced programs, set the agenda for each assessment day and conducted each day’s activities. The ultimate goal of each assessment day was to use assessment data at program and unit levels to improve candidate performance, the Unit Assessment System, and program and unit operations. Presented below are examples of how the unit has used assessment data since the last NCATE visit to achieve these goals: 1. Data Used to Improve Candidate Performance

a. In response to their performance on Praxis I, applicants are now advised to take the test as early as possible while their high school math and writing skills are still relatively fresh. In addition, initial programs now offer applicants a 1-credit course focused on pre-professional knowledge and skills and designed to help them pass Praxis I.

b. In response to data collected about candidate dispositions in initial programs, the one-semester professional seminar prior to student teaching has been redesigned to emphasize dispositions.

c. In response to 2005-06 data, faculty in the initial program in Family and Consumer Science have changed the timing of the program’s microteaching assignment and have developed new rubrics for the assignment.

d. In response to assessment data collected during student teaching regarding candidates’ ability to deal with diverse students, initial programs now use more low income schools for student teaching.

e. In response to candidates’ performance on Praxis II, initial programs now have a faculty member who offers a remedial course on the test, conducts workshops, and provides individual tutoring.

f. In response to candidates’ performance on Praxis II, the initial program in reading now uses a new textbook that is better oriented to the content of the test.

g. In response to teachers needed in P-12 education, the initial program in elementary education is being re-designed to provide candidates with licensure additions in special education, reading, English as a Second Language, middle school math, and early childhood.

h. Given a lack of data on candidates’ impact on P-12 student learners and learning environments, candidates in both initial and advanced programs are now required to

13

complete work samples that have common elements across all programs. i. Given a lack of good data on candidates’ professional dispositions, these are now more

purposively presented to candidates, included in handbooks, and assessed during programs. Specifically, disposition assessments have been incorporated in field experiences in advanced programs.

j. In response to data collected on the SRI2 teaching effectiveness survey, faculty in the advanced program in educational leadership have made changes in textbooks and in how they use distance education. In addition, a consultant facilitated a workshop on continuous improvement, a template has been created for course syllabi, the language on diversity has been clarified, and syllabi have been sharpened.

k. Data generated by the ETS School Leadership Licensure Assessment (SLLA) indicated a relative weakness in problem solving, so curriculum in the advanced program in educational leadership were changed to incorporate problem solving in every class through the use of case studies and other methods. Subsequent data on the SLLA indicated a slight increase in ISU scores, while scores in other universities remained static.

l. Based on disposition data collected and analyzed in spring 2007, faculty in the advanced program in educational leadership have revised the program’s handbook to place greater emphasis on dispositions, and, in September 2007, they conducted a seminar for administrative interns that stimulated them to reflect on dispositions and their importance.

m. Based on data that showed that candidates were knowledgeable about diversity, but not sure how to apply their knowledge to counseling situations, candidates in the advanced program in counseling are now required to complete a multicultural course.

2. Data Used to Improve the Unit Assessment System

a. To increase the usefulness of data for individual program areas and their faculty, those responsible for the UAS are working to disaggregate Praxis I and Praxis II test scores, diversity data, and information about advising and technology by program area.

b. A common dispositional assessment has been created for use in all programs. c. To provide better data about candidates’ impact on P-12 student learning and learning

environments, all programs will now use an educator work sample that will be assessed with a common rubric.

d. A common diversity assessment based on a common operational definition of diversity is now being created, along with recommendations for the kinds of diverse experiences that should be included in all programs. By June of each year, programs are expected to submit a faculty and field experience report focused on diversity.

e. A common technology assessment has been proposed. f. Based on experiences during the unit’s two assessment days, especially with respect to

interpreting data generated on student teaching and internship evaluation instruments, the unit has now adopted a 3-point scale for all key assessments and common terminology for the three points on the scale: “Exceeds Expectations,” “Meets Expectations,” and “Does Not Meet Expectations” (EMD).

g. To increase inter-rater reliability, cooperating teachers in initial programs are being trained to use the unit’s student teaching evaluation instrument so that they correctly and consistently interpret its items and rubrics.

h. To improve program reports and better identify data needs, two meetings involving 21

14

faculty members were held in October 2007. i. To increase the number of program reports submitted, better follow-up procedures have

been implemented. j. To collect, aggregate, and report data at the unit level, as well as at candidate and

program levels, the unit is replacing its LiveText database with a Tk20 database at both initial and advanced levels.

3. Data Used to Improve Program and Unit Operations

a. To deal more effectively with the number of petitions received from secondary education candidates, faculty have requested policy changes that will admit candidates earlier into these initial teacher education programs.

b. To increase sharing among candidates in the advanced program in special education, the unit now enable them to share online the activities and products they create in classes.

c. In response to diversity data presented during the second Unit Assessment Day, the unit is conducting “a culture/diversity audit.”

d. In response to data that indicate the need for more faculty scholarship, the unit has increased funding for those faculty who make presentations at professional conferences.

e. To increase the quality of data about candidate advisement and faculty effectiveness, the unit plans to develop a common survey that will be completed by candidates online.

Summary of Strengths 1. Among faculty and administrators, there appears to be a significant and genuine shift in the

culture of the unit that now places increased value on and commitment to assessment—from assessing the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of candidates and the effectiveness of programs and the unit to using assessment data to increase candidate performance, refine the Unit Assessment System, and improve program and unit operations.

2. There has clearly been a shift from program considerations to unit considerations—from

viewing individual programs and departments as the important units of analysis to viewing the unit as the primary unit of analysis. This is clearly evident in the responsibilities and activities of the associate dean who serves as the unit’s assessment coordinator, in the responsibilities and activities of the Teacher Education Committee and its sub-committees responsible for unit assessment issues in initial and advanced programs, and the organization of Unit Assessment Days in January and September 2007.

3. Faculty members speak openly and enthusiastically about new levels of collaboration, not

only across programs in the same department, but also across programs throughout the unit—all in the interest of benefiting the unit.

15

Areas for Improvement Corrected Areas for Improvement from the Last Visit: 1. The unit has not identified a systematic and continuous process for data collection,

aggregation, dissemination, and analysis of candidate performance at the unit level.

Rationale: The 2005 BOE Report noted that the unit’s assessment system did not really function at the unit level. Since 2005, the unit has made significant progress in efforts to move from program assessment to unit assessment. This shift is clearly seen in the content of its first two Unit Assessment Days. For instance, the first assessment day in January 2007 focused on programs, and faculty had a chance to hear from and learn about individual programs in the unit. During the second assessment day in September 2007, the focus of conversation shifted from sharing information about individual programs to sharing and analyzing data across the unit and to identifying common key assessments, common transition points, common scales, and common terminology for the points on that scale. Moreover, during the second assessment day, the two assessment sub-committees of the Teacher Education Committee (one for all initial programs in the unit and the other for all advanced programs in the unit) jointly prepared for and presented the data to those who attended and subsequently provided recommendations based on the assessment day discussions to the TEC. After the full committee discussed and acted on the recommendations, the recommended modifications and revisions were communicated by the unit’s Assessment Coordinator to all faculty, and when necessary, follow-up meetings and workshops were held to discuss the changes. A second example of the shift from program to unit focus is the unit’s shift from LiveText, which facilitates candidate assessment in individual courses, to Tk20, which is a comprehensive data management system that cuts across courses and programs and facilitates unit-wide data collection, analysis, and reporting. While LiveText is most useful for candidate assessment in individual courses, Tk20 is most useful at the unit level, and faculty who are just now beginning to use it report that it forces departments and programs across the unit to speak the same language. In addition, Tk20 extends data collection about a unit’s candidates beyond graduation. In interviews throughout the visit, unit personnel indicated that data had been collected in the past, but not systematically shared. Increasingly today, the flow of communication is much more circular from programs to the unit, then across programs, and ultimately from the unit back to programs.

2. Management and oversight responsibilities related to the Unit Assessment System are not clearly identified and implemented.

Rationale: The 2005 BOE Report noted that, although the Teacher Education Committee (TEC) had oversight responsibility for managing program changes, no specific individual or office had responsibility for coordinating these functions across all programs. Since 2005,

16

the unit has taken several major steps to assign management and oversight responsibilities for its Unit Assessment System. First, the TEC developed a set of by-laws and guidelines in 2006 clearly delineating that it will “maintain primary responsibility for the College of Education’s Unit Assessment System.” To make this responsibility operational, the TEC also established two assessment sub-committees, one to manage and review assessment data for initial programs and the other to manage and review assessment data for advanced programs. It also charged these two sub-committees with responsibility for presenting data and recommendations during future annual Unit Assessment Days. Second, the job description of the unit’s associate dean for academic and student affairs was revised to include responsibility for coordinating all functions of the Unit Assessment System. The current job description specifies that this individual is expected to periodically review academic policies and procedures, coordinate periodic review of programs, coordinate periodic self-studies and on-site reviews, and serve as the unit’s principal contact with external accrediting agencies. Third, the unit appointed a faculty consultant for assessment to assist the TEC and its two assessment sub-committees as they manage, review, analyze, and report assessment data.

3. The unit does not appropriately track formal complaints and their resolution.

Rationale: The 2005 BOE Report noted that the unit needed to create a more effective system for tracking complaints and their resolution. In 2006-07, a formal database was created to track both complaints and petitions brought to the unit. This database, which is maintained in the dean’s office in the College of Education, tracks each student’s name and major, the date when a complaint or petition was received, its content, its resolution, and the date of its resolution. The current database includes 32 entries between April 2006 and December 2007. The database is organized by academic year, and, once a year, with candidates’ names removed, the database is shared with the Teacher Education Committee (TEC). In addition to this database of complaints and petitions, the staff in the college’s Education Student Services Office maintain a regular petition database of student appeals and petitions. These too are shared annually with the TEC. Periodically sharing the databases with the TEC has increased consistency in how candidate complaints, petitions, and appeals are handled, and it has also enabled the committee to identify patterns that may suggest the need for policy changes.

17

Areas for Improvement Continued from the Last Visit (slightly revised): 1. The unit has not fully implemented a system for regularly compiling, summarizing, analyzing,

and using data from the assessment system to improve unit operations.

Rationale: First, although the Unit Assessment System identifies eight data elements relevant to unit operations that affect both initial and advanced programs, data have thus far been collected, aggregated and reported for only six of these eight data elements at the initial level and only two of them at the advanced level. Second, only 12 of the unit’s 20 programs have submitted program reports that include sections of data and data analysis relevant to program and unit operations. And third, whereas initial programs have summarized and analyzed data in their program reports on all seven guiding questions relevant to unit operations, advanced programs have summarized and analyzed data on only four of the seven questions. Given this relative lack of aggregated data about program and unit operations at both initial and advanced levels, only a few limited examples of the use of assessment data to improve unit operations have been cited in the “Summary of Findings” for Element 2c. The most significant use of data to improve unit operations during the past year or two has been the institution’s “program prioritizing process,” which has occurred largely outside the unit, been used to identify and eliminate programs with low enrollments, and led to substantial merger and reorganization of the unit’s advanced programs for teachers.

New Areas for Improvement: 1. The unit does not have regular and systematic procedures for ensuring that its assessment

measures and assessment procedures are fair, accurate, consistent, free of bias, and good predictors of candidate success.

Rationale: As indicated in the “Summary of Findings” for Elements 2a, 2b, and 2c, the unit has made some beginning efforts to ensure the psychometric integrity of its assessment instruments and procedures. For instance, it has trained cooperating teachers in their use of the student teaching evaluation instrument in order to increase inter-rater reliability; it has developed rubrics and a common 3-point scale in order to increase fairness, consistency, and comparability on its key assessment instruments; and it has identified a few measures that may be good predictors of candidate success. What the unit has not yet developed, however, is a comprehensive plan for and detailed schedule of systematic procedures for regularly assessing the validity, reliability, fairness, accuracy, consistency, and lack of bias in all its key measures and key assessment procedures, and for then revising these key measures and procedures on the basis of empirical data. Similarly, the unit has not yet systematically conducted empirical studies on which of its key assessment measures are particularly good predictors of candidate success.

Recommendation: Standard 2 is Met.

18

Corrections to the Institutional Report The following is not a correction in the IR, but rather a point of clarification:

The Unit Assessment System (UAS) design described on pages 19-23 of the IR is not the same UAS design used by the unit to prepare documents and other exhibits for this Focused Visit. The version of the UAS design used to prepare documents for the visit was the version approved in April 2007. The UAS design described in the IR is the version approved in December 2007. Documents describing both versions of the UAS design were available during the on-site visit.

19

IV. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE Documents Reviewed Hard Copy Documents Reviewed in the Exhibit Room General Institutional and Unit Documents: Institutional mission Working draft of the revised university mission A list of distance learning programs The university’s Program Prioritization Report presented to trustees College of Education Fast Facts The unit’s conceptual framework Standard 2 Documents: The Unit Assessment System document TEC Bylaws and Guidelines Members of the TEC An email soliciting membership for UAS committees UAS activities approved by TEC Notes from meetings of the “forms committee” Notes from the second meeting of the “forms committee” TEC minutes ITP diversity assessment ITP disposition rubric ADV work sample rubric ADV Faculty Effectiveness Survey ADV Technology and Diversity Assessments ADV Advising Survey Student Teaching Evaluation Form Student Teaching Survey Principal Survey Unit Assessment Day 2007 Presentation Notes Unit Assessment Day 2007 Presentation Unit Assessment Day 2007 Data (weblink only) Unit Assessment Day 2006 Data and Presentations (weblink only) Tk20 memo 2006-07 student complaint database shared with TEC Full database of student complaints with names removed Notes of meetings of the Advanced Assessment Committee Notes of meetings of the Initial Assessment Committee Email invitation to a working lunch of advanced program faculty members An email communication to university stakeholders Unit Assessment Day 2006 participants Unit Assessment Day 2007 participants Expanded Table 2 of programs in the unit

20

The units response to the 2005 AFIs Handbooks A synopsis of key assessments in the Unit Assessment System Initial rubrics for key assessments Advanced rubrics for key assessments Syllabi of initial program courses in which key assessments occur Syllabi of advanced program courses in which key assessments occur Hard Copy Documents Requested and Reviewed During the Visit The 2005 BOE Team Report The ISU Rejoinder to the 2005 BOE Team Report A description of the Unit Assessment System (UAS) approved September 9, 2006 A description of the Unit Assessment System (UAS) approved April 17, 2007 A notebook of materials that document the use of data to impact unit operations A memorandum dated March 2, 2008, from a faculty member: “How I’ve used data to make

changes in the graduate SPED program” A memorandum dated March 3, 2008, that lists examples taken from University Curriculum Forms that illustrate the use of data to justify curriculum changes between 2006 and 2008 Professor Steve Gruenert’s notes on TEC agendas A notebook from Assessment Coordinator Susan Powers that documents changes in the

elementary education program based on assessment data The university’s course proposal form that includes a section in which faculty justify a course or

course change with assessment data The unit’s standards matrix The Elementary Education Program Report for the Unit Assessment Day in September 2007 Documents on a Flash Drive Reviewed Prior to and During the Visit The Accreditation Action Report from the last visit The Institutional Report for this visit Specific responses to Areas for Improvement from the last visit The revised DPS Protocol (November 2007) An expanded list of initial and advanced programs in the unit A revised list of hard copy exhibits A list of acronyms Key Assessments in the Unit Assessment System Six handbooks 13 sets of rubrics and assessments for initial programs 24 sets of rubrics and assessments for advanced programs Syllabi for 21 Key Assessment Courses in initial and advanced programs The Master Schedule for the visit

21

Persons Interviewed University Administrators C. Jack Maynard, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs Karen Schmid, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs Elliot Robins, Assessment and Accreditation Coordinator, Office of Academic Affairs Jay Gatrell, Acting Associate Dean, College of Arts and Sciences Unit Administrators Bradley Balch, Dean, College of Education Susan Powers, Associate Dean for Academic and Student Affairs, College of Education Rebecca Libler, Associate Dean for Educational Research and Outreach Programs, College of

Education Michele Boyer, Chair of the Department of Communication Disorders and Counseling, School,

and Educational Psychology Sue Kiger, Interim Chair of the Department of Curriculum, Instruction, and Media Technology Joshua Powers, Chair of the Department of Educational Leadership, Administration, and

Foundations Diana Quatroche, Chair of the Department of Elementary, Early, and Special Education Staff in the Office of Education Student Services in the College of Education Judy Sheese, Director, Educational Student Services Brian Coldren, Assistant Director, Educational Student Services Ken Coleman, Advisor, Educational Student Services Program Coordinators and Department Chairs Programs for Teachers Kathryn Bauserman, Elementary, Early and Special Education

Michele Boyer, Communication Disorders and Counseling, School, and Educational Psychology

Dan Clark, Social Studies Education Vicki Hammen, Communication Disorders and Counseling, School, and Educational

Psychology Sue Kiger, Curriculum, Instruction, and Media Technology Karen Liu, Elementary, Early, and Special Education Yasenka Peterson, Health, Safety, and Environmental Health Science Brad Venable, Art Education Pat Wheeler, Elementary, Early, and Special Education

Programs for Other School Professionals

Tonya Balch, Communication Disorders and Counseling, School, and Educational Psychology

Michele Boyer, Communication Disorders and Counseling, School, and Educational Psychology

Steve Gruenert, Educational Leadership, Administration, and Foundations

22

Damon Krug, Communication Disorders and Counseling, School, and Educational Psychology

Terry McDaniel, Educational Leadership, Administration, and Foundations Josh Powers, Educational Leadership, Administration, and Foundations

Teacher Education Committee (TEC) Dan Clark, Social Studies Education Hema Ganapathy-Coleman, Communication Disorders and Counseling, School, and Educational

Psychology Steve Gruenert, Educational Leadership, Administration, and Foundations Eric Hampton, Communication Disorders and Counseling, School, and Educational Psychology Debra Knaebel, Elementary, Early, and Special Education Susan Kiger, Curriculum, Instruction, and Media Technology Feng-Qi Lai, Curriculum, Instruction, and Media Technology Susan Latta, English Education Myung-Ah Lee, Physical Education Maury Miller, Elementary, Early, and Special Education Diana Quatroche, Elementary, Early, and Special Education Judy Sheese, Director, Educational Student Services Initial Programs Assessment Committee (a sub-committee of the TEC) Kathy Bauserman, Elementary, Early, and Special Education Eric Hampton, Communication Disorders and Counseling, School, and Educational Psychology Susan Kiger, Curriculum, Instruction, and Media Technology Maurice Miller, Elementary, Early, and Special Education Della Thacker, Curriculum, Instruction, and Media Technology Beth Whitaker, Elementary, Early, and Special Education Advanced Programs Assessment Committee (a sub-committee of the TEC) Tonya Balch, Communication Disorders and Counseling, School, and Educational Psychology Noble Corey, Curriculum, Instruction, and Media Technology Steve Gruenert, Educational Leadership, Administration, and Foundations Vicki Hammen, Communication Disorders and Counseling, School, and Educational Psychology Eric Hampton, Communication Disorders and Counseling, School, and Educational Psychology Damon Krug, Communication Disorders and Counseling, School, and Educational Psychology Karen Liu, Elementary, Early, and Special Education Participants in Unit Assessment Day 2 in September 2007 Participants in Initial Program Sessions

Robin Burden, Elementary, Early, and Special Education Chia-An Chao, Business Education Dan Clark, Social Studies Education Hema Ganapathy-Coleman, Communication Disorders and Counseling, School, and

Educational Psychology Rebecca Hinshaw, Elementary, Early, and Special Education Marylin Leinenbach, Elementary, Early, and Special Education

23

Rebecca Libler, Associate Dean for Educational Research and Outreach Programs, College of Education

Karen Liu, Elementary, Early, and Special Education Larry Tinnerman, Curriculum, Instruction, and Media Technology Brad Venable, Art Education Sharon Watkins, Elementary, Early, and Special Education Diana Quatroche, Elementary, Early, and Special Education Brian Coldren, Assistant Director, Educational Student Services Ken Coleman, Advisor, Educational Student Services

Participants in Advanced Program Sessions Michele Boyer, Communication Disorders and Counseling, School, and Educational

Psychology Angie Nellis Bright, Graduate Student, Curriculum, Instruction, and Media Technology Robin Burden, Elementary, Early, and Special Education Matt Draper, Communication Disorders and Counseling, School, and Educational

Psychology Hema Ganapathy-Coleman, Communication Disorders and Counseling, School, and

Educational Psychology Rebecca Hinshaw, Elementary, Early, and Special Education Susan Kiger, Curriculum, Instruction, and Media Technology Feng-Qi Lai, Curriculum, Instruction, and Media Technology Rebecca Libler, Associate Dean for Educational Research and Outreach Programs,

College of Education Diana Quatroche, Elementary, Early, and Special Education Elliot Robins, Assessment and Accreditation Coordinator, Office of Academic Affairs Judy Sheese, Director, Education Student Services Larry Tinnerman, Curriculum, Instruction, and Media Technology Catherine Tucker, Communication Disorders and Counseling, School, and Educational

Psychology Faculty Consultant on Assessment Eric Hampton, Communication Disorders and Counseling, School, and Educational Psychology Faculty Participants in Development and Refinement of Instruments and Forms (The “Forms Committee”) Kathryn Bauserman, Elementary, Early, and Special Education Hema Ganapathy-Coleman, Communication Disorders and Counseling, School, and

Educational Psychology Susan Kiger, Curriculum, Instruction, and Media Technology Diana Quatroche, Elementary, Early, and Special Education Della Thacker, Curriculum, Instruction, and Media Technology Larry Tinnerman, Curriculum, Instruction, and Media Technology Sharron Watkins, Elementary, Early, and Special Education Beth Whitaker, Elementary, Early, and Special Education

24

Teacher Participants in Development and Refinement of Instruments and Forms Laura Hughes Julie McLaughlin Kathryn Spelman Participants in Implementation of Tk20 The Tk20 Implementation Team

Susan Powers, Associate Dean for Academic and Student Affairs, College of Education Jim Johnson, Director of Instructional and Information Technology Services Ryan Hamilton, Educational Student Services Susan Hagood, Physical Education

Tk20 Faculty Users

Larry Tinnerman, Curriculum, Instruction, and Media Technology Hema Ganapathy-Coleman, Communication Disorders and Counseling, School, and

Educational Psychology Candidates Involved in Design and Implementation of Work Samples Candidates in Secondary and K-12 Programs Currently Working on Work Samples

Kathleen Davis Recent Graduates of Elementary and Special Education Programs

Linda Biggs Kim Kelly

Recent Graduates of Secondary and K-12 Programs

Tammy Fish Eric Graves Ashley Higham Shawn Nevill Michele Puller Robin Smith

Indiana State University 1

BOARD OF EXAMINERS REPORT

N C A T E

___________________________________________________ National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education

ACCREDITATION VISIT TO:

Indiana State University Terre Haute, IN

November 12-16, 2005

NCATE Board of Examiners Team:

Pamela K. Fly, Chair Michael Plumley

Linda Quinn Patricia B. Shoemaker

State Team:

Jill Shedd, Chair Diane Maletta Neva Schwartz

State Consultant: Mary Glenn Rinne

Indiana Division of Profession Standards

NEA or AFT Representative: Cynthia Miller

Indiana State Teachers Association

Type of Visit First ___ Continuing _X_ Combination ___ Probation ___ Focused ___

Indiana State University

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page I. Introduction 4 II. Conceptual Framework 8 III. Findings for Each Standard

Standard 1 10

Standard 2 22

Standard 3 33

Standard 4 38

Standard 5 45

Standard 6 51 IV. Sources of Evidence 56 V. Corrections to the Institutional Report 74


3

SUMMARY FOR PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION UNIT National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education

Institution: Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN

Standards

Team Findings

Initial

Advanced

1

Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions

M

M

2

Assessment System and Unit Evaluation

NM

NM

3

Field Experiences and Clinical Practice

M

M

4

Diversity

M

M

5

Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development

M

M

6

Unit Governance and Resources

M

M

M = Standard Met NM = Standard Not Met


4

INTRODUCTION A. The institution Indiana State University (ISU) was established as the Indiana State Normal School in 1865 with the primary mission of preparing teachers for the schools in Indiana. Located in Terre Haute in the rolling hills of western Indiana, it is very near the Illinois border, approximately one hour west of Indianapolis by interstate highway. Terre Haute is a community of more than 58,000 residents. Over 86 percent of the population is white, with the next largest ethnic group, African American, nearly 10 percent of the population. These figures are very similar to the entire state, with Terre Haute having slightly more African Americans and fewer Hispanics than the state as whole. From its early beginnings as a normal school, ISU began to grant bachelor’s degrees in 1908, master’s degrees in 1928, and doctorates in 1965. It has grown into a comprehensive, research intensive university that serves over 11,200 full and part-time students. Of these, 9,300 are undergraduates with the remaining students in graduate programs. Nearly 18 percent of all undergraduate students are in the College of Education (COE) or related teacher preparation programs across the institution. Other colleges involved in teacher education include the College of Arts and Sciences, the College of Business, the College of Health and Human Performance, and the College of Technology. The COE department of Elementary, Early, and Special Education is the largest undergraduate department in the university with 700+ majors. At the graduate level, 39 percent of the institution’s graduate students are in education. The institution has recently revisited its mission and purpose, given changes in the Indiana post-secondary education system and the rapid increase of career-technology centers and community college sites. Rather than serving as an open-enrollment institution, ISU is re-conceptualizing its purpose with an emphasis on engagement and experiential learning. It hopes to attract potential students who will be attracted to specific programs of distinction. B. The unit The unit’s programs serve approximately 1,600 initial candidates, with the majority preparing to be early childhood, elementary, and special educators. The graduate level programs enroll approximately 725 candidates, nearly two-thirds of whom are part-time candidates and working professionals. These candidates are served by 52 full-time and 37 part-time professional faculty who teach full-time in the institution and are administratively housed in other academic units. These faculty generally teach the content methods courses. Clinical faculty, who serve for the most part as supervisors, include an additional 31 faculty. COE faculty generally teach at both the initial and advanced levels, depending upon the need of each program, and their area of expertise. The unit is led by the dean of the College of Education who has authority over all programs and six departments. Since the last NCATE visit in fall 1999, the unit has had three deans: none have served more than two years with the current dean serving as an interim acting during the 20043-20054 year, before serving this the past year and a half as full dean. He is assisted by an interim acting associate dean for academic and student affairs. The position of associate dean for outreach and research programs is currently vacant. Two Three of six department chair positions


5

are considered interim. This transitory situation in the administrative positions is primarily a result of advancements of unit faculty to serve at institutional levels and unfilled positions. The unit is authorized to offer the following programs:

State Approved Programs

Program Name

Degree/Award Level

Program Level (ITP or ADV)*

Number of Candidates EOS Spring 2005

Other Accreditation

Business Education (General) B ITP 13 Family and Cons. Science B ITP 27 AAFCS M ADV 9 Computer Education M and ND ADV 0 Driver/Traffic Safety ND 1 Exceptional Needs: Mild Intervention B ITP 73 Visually Impaired ND ADV 4 Graduate Special Education M ADV 14 Fine Arts: Visual Arts B ITP 18 Music B ITP 106 NASM M ADV 2 Theater Arts Concentration ITP Foreign Languages: Spanish, German,

French B ITP 9

Generalist: Early Childhood B ITP 4 M ADV 6 Generalist Elem: Primary B ITP 191 M ADV 21 Gifted and Talented ND ADV Health B ITP 15 M ADV 2 Physical Education B ITP 137 M ADV 1 Language Arts B ITP 81 M ADV 3 Library Media B ITP 2 ND ADV Mathematics B ITP 73 M ADV 1 Reading Teacher M ADV 16 Science B ITP 35 M ADV 5 Social Studies B ITP 145 Speech Language Pathologist M ITP 12 ASHA Technology Education B ITP 34 M ADV 2 Transition to Teaching, Sec. ND ITP 13 Curriculum and Instruction M ADV 14 Building Administrator M and ND ADV 80 District Administrator: Superintendent Ed.S. ADV 26 Dir. of Exceptional Needs ND ADV 1 Dir. of Career/Tech Ed ND ADV 0 School Counselor M ADV 44 CACREP School Psychologist Ed.S. ADV 18 NASP


6

While many programs offer one or two courses via distance technologies or at off-campus locations, only the library media program has a large number of courses online. ) There are currently only two candidates enrolled in this program. All courses originate and are under the authority of the unit; there are no branch campuses. Major unit changes since the last NCATE visit include

x revision and affirmation of the conceptual framework. x frequent changes in administrative leadership including the dean, associate dean, and

several department chairs. x formation of an Education Student Services office that coordinates advising, licensures,

and other administrative roles for undergraduate teacher education programs. x collaborative revision of the clinical aspects of the undergraduate and continuing

preparation programs through a USDE Title II Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant from the U.S. Department of Education: “Project PRE: Partnering to Reform Education: An All-University/High Needs Schools Partnership.”

x enhancement of technology integration in pre-service teacher preparation supported by a PT3 grant.

x awarding of the Christa McAuliffe Award for Excellence in Teacher Education, one of three institutions honored by America Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU).

C. The visit The visit was a joint visit with a team that included both state and national members who worked, deliberated, and wrote together. One national member cancelled late Tuesday afternoon prior to the visit, and the NCATE staff members were unable to identify a replacement. Thus, the team totaled four national members, three state members, an NEA observer/participant, and the state consultant. The absence of a team member made it difficult to observe classes, resulted in heavy interview schedules, and also caused the writing load to shift. All team members worked very hard to pick up the additional responsibilities caused by a missing person. The team reviewed the institution using the NCATE standards; SPA reviews are not required in Indiana. However, the unit conducted self-studies in many content areas based on the SPA standards. The team had access to these self-studies although they were varied and therefore somewhat limited in their usefulness. Programs initiate from the Terre Haute campus, and team members had the opportunity to visit with faculty and candidates who participate in distance course-delivery through two-way audio / conference call interview. One of the administrative interviews with campus instructional technology personnel was also conducted through a two-way video over IP connection. Several changes during the preparation and site review process may cause confusion for UAB members. Over the summer, Indiana reconfigured its independent standards board, Indiana Professional Standards Board, (IPSB) according to a new state law. The independent board became advisory, and the authority for institutional program approval now rests solely with the state superintendent of public schools. Staff personnel previously associated with the IPSB are now affiliated with the Department of Professional Standards (DPS), an entity under the Indiana


7

State Department of Education. UAB members may notice various references reflective of these changes throughout the Institutional Report and BOE Report. Finally, the team experienced a myriad of other situations that emphasized the “real world” elements of an accreditation site visit. Beyond the additional work caused by the team member cancellation, the hotel’s internet service provider was not functioning for much of Sunday, Monday, and part of Tuesday evening (erratic). This lack of service was difficult since the most recent institution exhibits were electronic, and the team hoped to refer to them during its evening discussions. Once team members determined that internet access was probably a lost cause, we compensated for this challenge by bringing many of the paper exhibits back to the hotel. On Tuesday, two team members barely missed being “locked down” in a local middle school during a search with drug dogs, and later that day, the entire team had to descend 12 flights of stairs late Tuesday afternoon because of a tornado warning. This weather delay then cost the team one to two hours of valuable discussion and writing time Tuesday evening. After the tornado passed, snow flurried on Wednesday morning. The team knows that as educators, UAB members will appreciate the extenuating circumstances of “The computer didn’t work,” “The dog ate my homework,” “My homework blew out of my backpack,” and “Isn’t today a snow day?”


8

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The unit at Indiana State University has adopted a conceptual framework with the theme of Becoming a Complete Professional. This theme includes three elements:

1. Educator as Expert or Mediator of Learning 2. Educator as Person, (and) 3. Educator as Member of Communities.

At the previous visit, the conceptual framework included five elements – the three above and at the advanced level, two additional elements: 4. Educator as Leader, and 5. Educator as Researcher. Unit faculty indicate that after discussion, the two additional elements were dropped as separate categories and subsumed under the first three sometime between 1999 and 2002. Documentation of these discussions and changes is limited, thus making it difficult for team members to discern the timeline and process for this change. Constituent groups including P-12 practitioners and arts and sciences faculty have been involved in all phases of the revision process. In 2001, the unit adopted the ISTE NETS standards for candidate performance and use of technology to support student learning. In spring 2004, the unit and its constituents met again to discuss and review the conceptual framework. Becoming a Professional Educator (BCP) was reaffirmed as the framework during this time. The BCP framework is based upon solid research and a knowledge base that reflects best practice. Performance indicators for the areas of the conceptual framework have evolved over the past six years. In 1998, the unit included unique indicators for each of the three elements, but with changes in state licensure regulations and assessment requirements, the unit has adopted the INTASC standards for the initial certification areas, and SPA or national standards such as NBPTS, ISSLC, NASP, and CACREP at the advanced preparation levels. All programs are consistent with Indiana licensure requirements. Documents delineating the alignment between the national standards and the unit expectations for knowledge, skills, and dispositions vary a great deal across programs. At the initial level, the INTASC principles are integrated with the conceptual framework as follows: The teacher as an expert or mediator of knowledge INTASC 1 possess content knowledge

2 understands developmental teaching 3 provides instructional variety 4 uses assessment


9

The teacher as a person INTASC 5 addresses and understands diversity

6 provides motivation 7 has effective communication skills

The teacher as a member of communities

INTASC 8 knows and uses the community 9 provides reflective evaluation

10 builds relationships At the advanced levels, standard alignment varies across programs. For example, in educational administration programs, the alignment with ISLLC standards is articulated for candidates. Other programs are less explicit in their alignment with national standards. Candidate responses to questions about the framework or the type of educator that ISU was preparing them to be are similarly varied, but for the most part adequate. The BCP framework is consistent with and relates to the institution’s and unit’s goals of experiential learning early and frequently in the degree program. The unit assessment of candidate proficiencies is based solely on the INTASC, NBPTS and/or SPA standards, and documentation that integrates these standards and the subsequent assessment activities with the conceptual framework is not available. Overall, candidate dispositions are the least clearly defined, and assessment of those dispositions is currently left to programs; evidence of unit-level aggregation of data related to dispositions is not readily available. At this time, nearly all assessment activities are initiated, conducted, and reviewed at the program and department level with the unit level assessment procedures not clearly articulated in regards to what assessment information is reviewed and what unit entity or agent is responsible for unit-level coordination. For most advanced programs, with the exception of the school administration, evidence that indicates the unit has fully implemented the current assessment procedures is not available.


10

STANDARD 1: CANDIDATE KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND DISPOSITIONS Candidates preparing to work in schools as teachers or other professional school personnel know and demonstrate the content, pedagogical, and professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Assessments indicate that candidates meet professional, state, and institutional standards. Level: Initial and Advanced As indicated in the introduction, programs in institutions of higher education in Indiana are not required to submit program reports to the national professional organizations. However, prior to the visit, several programs did complete a program report document modeled on the SPA reports and others completed a report using an ISU template:

x Elementary Education (UG) x Elementary Education (G - Diversity, Action, Research, Technology or DART) x Science Education (UG) x Mathematics Education (UG) x Foreign Languages (UG) x Business Education (UG) x English Teaching (UG, and G) x Social Science Education (UG) x Reading Education (UG) x Physical Education (UG) x Art Education (UG) x Family and Consumer Sciences (UG) x Industrial Technology Education (UG)

Several of the reports list a set of assessments identified as “key” candidate assessments and several also include results of the course-based assessments. There is a great deal of variation in the types of candidate performance data cited in the reports with a few programs reporting GPA, Praxis I and II, and results of course-based candidate assessments related to content knowledge. Evidence in these reports does indicate, however, that candidates demonstrate an understanding of content knowledge. The ISU Department of Music is an accredited institutional member of the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM). Programs in school counseling and communications disorders are accredited by CACREP and ASHA respectively. The Family and Consumer Sciences program is accredited by the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences and the school psychology program is nationally recognized by the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). This approval was set to expire in December 2005, but has been extended until December 31, 2006 at the request of the institution.


11

A. Content knowledge for teacher candidates Initial Teacher Preparation Programs The sources of evidence of the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of initial candidates are associated with the requirements for admission, continuation in, and completion of programs. Candidates must earn a cumulative GPA of 2.5 or better to be admitted to the program. Candidates in all-grade and grades 5-12 programs must also be recommended by content area faculty. In 2004-2005, the mean overall GPA of all undergraduate teaching majors was 3.23 compared to the mean GPA of 2.95 for all ISU undergraduate students. Candidates must achieve a score of “C” or better on core content courses in order to be eligible to apply for the teacher education program. Transition to Teaching (T2T) candidates must satisfactorily complete all content deficiencies identified by content area faculty through review of their academic records to be eligible to apply to the teacher education program. Faculty in content areas confirm that candidates’ content knowledge in the content courses in which they must make a “C” or better is assessed based on IPSB or DPS and, in some cases, national standards. One process for confirming that candidates have addressed IPSB or DPS content standards is that faculty teaching these courses complete an assessment form on each candidate, checking whether or not the candidate performed at the unsatisfactory, satisfactory, or proficient level with regard to the standard. The form is kept in the candidate’s file. In those content areas such as social studies that involve courses from many different departments, the content faculty use another process. Since using a single form is prohibitive, faculty use the Becoming a Complete Professional list of assessments in which candidates complete specific assessments in content courses which are recorded through the LiveText system. BOE members reviewed several of the course-based assessments and reports available. Reports indicate variation in the performance of candidates. Most perform within the satisfactory or proficient ranges while some candidates perform unsatisfactorily on some assessments. Program reports for most, but not all, undergraduate teacher preparation programs include descriptions of what happens when candidates cannot meet the content requirements. Candidates needing remediation based on poor performance must retake courses or show improvement through an individual remediation plan and must ultimately earn a “C” or better in these courses. Student teaching assessments also include an item “command of subject matter.” The mean rating for the 418 candidates (2001-2004) was 1.15 (1 = proficient). Candidates, on average, perform within the “proficient” or “satisfactory” area on the indicators within this category: “displays an understanding of the subject matter, shows enthusiasm for the subject matter, conveys multiple perspectives toward content, and engages students in testing hypotheses.” (Note: inter-rater reliability measures indicate there are no significant differences between ISU and non-ISU raters. In addition, the instrument demonstrates internal validity, with scores in the lower range [1-2, proficient and satisfactory] being highly correlated with final evaluation scores [sig. = .000]. Evaluations of supervised teaching experiences of candidates in early childhood, elementary, and special education (EESE) programs also include an evaluation of knowledge of subject matter (“displays accurate and current knowledge of subject matter, encourages students to see, question, and interpret ideas from diverse perspectives, incorporate interdisciplinary strategies


12

when teaching content, and locate and teaches information beyond the traditional text”). The mean ratings of the 372 student teachers across 2001-2004 is 2.75-2.85 (1-3 scale with 3 = proficient). Candidates in elementary, early childhood, and special education, in grades 5-12 programs, and in all-grade programs are expected to pass Praxis II Content Knowledge exams at the state level in Indiana for licensure. Candidates in the Transition to Teaching program are required to pass Praxis II prior to student teaching. Pass rates for candidates in teacher education programs for 2002-2003 and 2004-2004 range from 90 -100 percent (Appendix B in the IR, page 94). At the post-graduation level, results of the “New Teacher Survey” assess how well prepared new teachers (elementary, special education, early childhood, junior high/middle school, and secondary) feel regarding the following (scale = 1-4 with 4 = very well prepared):

x Design units of instruction that focus on the content standards for schools in Indiana (mean = 3.14 - 3.44, 2003-2005)

x Design classroom assessments that are aligned with Indiana content standards (mean = 2.93 – 3.22, 2003-2005)

x Create meaningful learning experiences based on content knowledge (3.22 – 3.45, 2003-2005).

Survey results of student teachers and of principals (rating the performance of new teachers) indicate similar ratings of 2.81-3.25. Interviews of candidates, graduates, cooperating teachers, and school administrators indicate that they believe candidates are well-prepared and sometimes very well-prepared in content knowledge. Advanced Teacher Preparation Programs The Masters of Education programs include specializations in early childhood, elementary, and special education (EESE) and in curriculum, instruction, and media technology (CIMT). Candidates must maintain a 3.0 GPA and an updated program of study. Programs establish learner outcomes based on the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). Upon request, faculty provided the BOE team some data regarding ratings of candidate performance course-based assessments regarding NBPTS 1-5 (assumed to be the five principles). For example, across six courses in the elementary education program, 104 of 105 candidates perform in the satisfactory or proficient range on Principle #2: Teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students. M. Ed. graduate candidates, alumni, and principals were surveyed regarding how well prepared candidates are in areas related to content knowledge (scale = 1-5 from very poorly prepared to very well-prepared for the student and employer surveys and the scale for the alumni surveys is 1-4). Mean and median ratings are reported below: Survey Number

responding/number surveyed

Using knowledge of subject matter and curriculum design to design developmentally appropriate lessons across

disciplines Graduate Student M.Ed) 17/24 (71%) Mean = 3.58 Mode = 4.00 Alumni (M.Ed) 9/25 (36%) Mean = 3.33 Mode = 4.00 Employer (M. Ed.) 7/not available Mean = 4.29 Mode = 4.00


13

B. Content knowledge of other school personnel Sources of evidence of the knowledge, skills and dispositions of candidates in programs preparing other school personnel include the following:

x GPA x Graduate entrance exams (required for Communication Disorders, School Psychology,

and all Educational Administration programs) x Praxis (School psychology) x SLLA (for program completion in Educational Administration) x Graduate student survey x Graduate alumni survey x Graduate employer survey

In addition, several advanced programs also implement course-based candidate performance assessments and clinical evaluations. (Generally, assessment results indicating how many and what percentage of candidates perform at what level as well as mean and median ratings are more informative than those assessment results that only report mean or median scores or ratings.) Admission requirements for Educational Leadership, Administration and Foundations (ELAF) include a bachelor’s degree in an appropriate major with a minimum grade point average of 2.5 and Graduate Record Examination (GRE). In addition, candidates must submit a personal narrative statement of professional experience and educational goals, and hold or be eligible for an Indiana teaching license. The key assessment for ELAF candidates is the culminating internship portfolio. The assessment rubric for this portfolio is based on the six ISLLC Standards. In addition, ELAF is the only advanced program that requires candidates to complete an exam for state licensure. Candidates for principal licensure must have a 3.25 grade point average, hold or be able to hold a current Indiana teaching license, and two years teaching experience. Superintendency candidate requirements include holding a current building administrator license and three years of experience. Forty-two examinees in ELAF passed the state licensure exam in 2003-2004 with scores ranging from 164-193. These test results are an indicator that these candidates have the necessary content knowledge competency in educational administration. Surveys of recent graduates of educational leadership program show strong ratings of several phases of preparation in ELAF. A high degree of satisfaction is evidenced with program content courses and research classes. Median responses for those items are above 4 on a 5 point scale. Survey responses of alumni and graduate employers of ELAF educational specialist candidates show consistently high ratings as well, with most median scores at or above 4.0 on a 5.0 scale. Interviews and conversations with recent ELAF graduates indicate that these graduates believe that the unit is providing excellent preparation during coursework for the licensure exam. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the ELAF program functions well and is supported by many stakeholders of the unit. The school counseling program is accredited by CACREP, and candidate assessment is based on CACREP standards. These standards align with Indiana DPS standards, Indiana School Counselor Content and Developmental Standards, and Standards for School Counseling


14

Professionals as evidenced in syllabi. Summative assessment points are delineated and assessed with a check-off document as candidates complete benchmarks. Admission to the program includes an undergraduate grade point average of 2.50 and a minimum score of 450 on each section of the general tests of the GRE. Other requirements include interview evaluations and Graduate School admission letters. Candidates proceed through four benchmarks culminating with graduation and licensure. Graduation and licensure decisions are based upon feedback from on-site supervisors, feedback from university instructors and supervisors, formative and summative performance assessments based upon the published rubric, candidate portfolio and candidate self-assessment. The School Psychology program displays limited statistical evidence of candidate performance based on data from 2002, 2003, and 2004 program evaluations. This program delineates twelve points which outline expected outcomes with clearly identified benchmarks. The School Psychology Internship Evaluation form details candidate expectations with indicators for assessment. In response to feedback provided by the American Psychology Association, the School Psychology Committee has raised expectations for GRE scores and has focused more attention to the stated professional goals of applicants. The team found no evidence that graduate surveys or employer surveys have been completed in this program. The Communication Disorders program is accredited by ASHA, but limited aggregated data are available for content knowledge and skills although individual candidate performances are tracked. Primary assessments for candidates are field experience and clinical supervisors’ evaluations. Surveys of alumni suggest that program completers are confident of their content knowledge and skills. Library Media is a distance-learning program housed under the Curriculum, Instruction, and Media Technology (CIMT) department. Since most candidates entering the Library Media program are already licensed teachers, this program provides expanded licensure. Candidates are assessed through course work that has been aligned to INTASC standards at both the initial and advanced levels. The team did not find evidence that these course-based assessments have been aggregated for program quality evaluation. The Library Media program includes 120 hours of practicum that are supervised by a library media specialist. Data related to those practicum assessments were not available to the team. C. Pedagogical content knowledge for teachers Initial Teacher Preparation Programs Assessments of candidates’ professional knowledge and skills while they are progressing through the program (BCP2 and BCP3) occur primarily through course-based assessments in the 300- and 400-level CIMT courses and in the evaluation of the performance of candidates during early field experiences and in student teaching. The criteria listed on the assessment forms for CIMT 301/302 and400L include elements related to content pedagogy (e.g., 301/302: “knowledge of content-related pedagogy,” and 400/400L: “explains content effectively,” “shows enthusiasm for the subject”) but results for the assessments are only reported for “content knowledge.” Results of one assessment for CIMT 301 showed that six of six candidates (100%) were able to explain content effectively. This is the extent of the aggregated data that the team was able to access for this element.


15

Student teachers are surveyed toward the end of their student teaching to determine how well-prepared they are regarding professional knowledge and skills. The mean rating on question six (“design units of instruction that focus on the content standards for school in Indiana”), question seven (“design assessments aligned with Indiana content standards”) and question nine (“create meaningful learning experiences based on content knowledge”) for the years 2002-2005 range from 2.93 to 3.67 (1 = poorly prepared and 4 = very well prepared). Surveys of principals on the same items indicate similar ratings of candidates’ content pedagogical knowledge (2.92 – 3.39). Advanced Teacher Preparation Programs Surveys of graduate students in the M.Ed. programs in 2004 and 2005 reveal mean ratings of candidates’ specialized knowledge of how to covey a subject to student that ranged from 3.0 – 3.79 (scale: 1-5 with 5 being very well prepared: n = 41). At the graduate level, some programs use an expert panel to determine candidate efficacy at the end of his/her preparation. The Expert Panel Report also indicates that candidates feel well-prepared to “use pedagogical content knowledge to contribute to school effectiveness.” Interviews with cooperating teachers indicate that most candidates are well-prepared or very well prepared in using a variety of strategies in conveying content knowledge. D. Professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills for teachers Initial Teacher Preparation Programs The bulk of the assessments in the initial and continuing teacher preparation programs relate to professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills for teachers as reflected in the INTASC standards (human development and learning, student diversity, instructional strategies, classroom organization, behavior management, communication, instructional planning, assessment, and professional commitment and responsibility). Summary reports of CIMT student teaching assessments for 2001-2004 show that mean ratings of candidate performance in all categories range from 1.13 – 1.25. Reports did not show how many candidates were performing at what levels (1 = proficient, 2 = satisfactory, 3 = unsatisfactory) though minimum and maximum scores range from 1 - 3. Mean ratings are similar for Early Childhood, Elementary, and Special Education (EESE) student teachers across INTASC indicators: 2.75 – 3.0 (3 = proficient). Pedagogical, course-based assessments and clinical experiences, which are recorded in the LiveText system, do reveal the number and percentage of candidates performing at the proficient, satisfactory, and unsatisfactory levels although minutes and other unit operation documents are limited in explaining how unit faculty use this information. The rubrics and criteria on most of the assessments are aligned with the INTASC standards. The number of candidates performing at the satisfactory/proficient levels and at the unsatisfactory levels varied across these assessments, with very few (1-2%) to more significant numbers (10-15%) performing at the unsatisfactory level. If a candidate does not perform at the satisfactory level, it is unclear how this performance impacts the course grade. Candidates must earn a “C” or better in these courses (and these assessments contribute to the grade in the course).


16

Mean responses of student teachers on the Student Teaching Survey on items related to pedagogical and professional skills range from 2.85-3.66 (4 = very well prepared). Mean ratings by principals of new teachers’ performance on the same set of professional knowledge and skills range from 2.83-3.62 for 2004-2005 (265 principals responded). Principals’ open-ended comments indicate their desire that ISU student receive more instruction on the use of assessment data in teaching and in classroom management, especially in respect to student discipline. Surveys and assessments indicate an increase in the use of technology among candidates over the past five years, which faculty attribute to the success of a PT3 grant. This change is also reflected in the results of the New Teacher Survey and Principal Survey. Advanced Teacher Preparation Graduate students, on average, rate their preparation regarding professional knowledge and skills as being moderately well prepared to well prepared (3-4 on a 5 point scale) on such items as using knowledge of child/adolescent development and relationships with students and families to plan instruction; using a variety of methods, strategies, and materials (including technology); working with parents and families; establishing caring, inclusive, safe environments, etc. The alumni survey of M.Ed. candidates indicates that they felt moderately well prepared to well prepared in these areas (2.56 – 3.11 mean ratings in a 4-point scale). Principals also rate the performance of teachers as being moderately well prepared to well prepared (3.43 – 4.14 on a 5-point scale). This variation of instruments and scales makes comparative assessments and triangulation of data somewhat more difficult. E. Professional knowledge and skills for other school personnel ELAF candidates are scored by internship supervisors according to rubrics within the culminating internship portfolio. Standard 3 of that rubric states, “A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students and staff by ensuring management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.” Satisfactory completion of this standard is an indicator of professional knowledge and skills.

School Counseling candidates exhibit professional knowledge and skills as based on Indiana Professional Standards. Candidates are required to join state and national school counseling organizations. They attend four days of approved professional development per academic year. Course syllabi document field experiences and course assignments requiring candidates to actively engage with PK-12 students, families, and communities although data from those instruments is not available in a summarized form. The counseling internship (COUN 739B) requires that the candidate work under an Individual Internship Educational Plan which outlines the number of hours expected in field activities. Institutional administrators report that graduates of the school counseling program are frequently hired as a result of internships. No survey data are available to indicate knowledge related to graduates’ preparation related to professional knowledge and skills.


17

Interviews with Ed.S. candidates in School Psychology reveal that they begin field experiences at the first semester by shadowing school psychologists, and continue in field experiences throughout their course of study. Candidates report that they have open communication with the faculty. School Psychology candidates have many opportunities to participate in experiences beyond school settings, thus helping them know the communities in which they will serve. Within the Educational Psychology program, the School Psychology annual program evaluations for spring 2004 indicate a satisfaction rate with preparation as related to professional knowledge and skills with an overall mean score of 1.98 on a 3-point scale for Ph.D. candidates.

Program graduates from 2001-2004 in Communication Disorders responded to a questionnaire in January 2004. To the question “Do you feel that the education in communication disorders at ISU prepared you professionally to perform a satisfactory job as a speech-language pathologist or audiologist?” Of 12 responses, 11 answered “yes.” One person gave no response. Other questionnaires and surveys indicate that candidates are given opportunities to evaluate both the program and clinical supervisors; however, there is no consistently aggregated data to evidence professional knowledge and skills. In the Library Media program, the portfolio assignment addresses 16 practicum standards for CIMT 459/659. School-based faculty supervisor evaluations for practicum experience utilized for candidate performance assessment are in evidence for candidates for 2003-2005, with no accompanying rubric provided for interpretative value. Mean performances range from 2.32 to 2.74 on a 3 point scale for most items. Items for which performance is below a 2 included planning a professional activity and participation in a distance learning experience. No survey data are available to indicate knowledge of candidates’ preparation related to professional knowledge of study, and skills. No candidates were available for interviews during the team visit. F. Dispositions Initial Teacher Preparation The dispositions of candidates are assessed throughout the professional education sequence with an emphasis on the early field experience and student teaching supervisor reports, host teacher assessments, and evaluations by instructors of EESE, CIMT and content methods courses. EESE candidates’ dispositions are assessed in the following areas: professional behavior, facilitator of learning, teacher as learner, and member of the community. The following is the checklist for dispositions for CIMT candidates: Professional Deportment: The Educator as a Person

Educational Philosophy: The Educator as Mediator of Learning

Commitment to Ethical Practice: The Educator as a Member of Community.

Dress/Appearance Research Consumer Academic Integrity Attendance/Punctuality Reflection/Flexibility Credible Citizen Preparedness Assumptions Trustworthiness Courtesy/Respect/ Demeanor Organizational Learning Commitment to Safety Climate Critical Inquiry Empathetic/ Responsive

Collegiality


18

Candidates are informed of the expectations early in their program and sign a form indicating that they understand the expectations and consequences for failure to demonstrate the stated dispositions. Upon request, the BOE team was provided with a record of the evaluation ratings individual EESE students received in several elementary and special education courses in fall 2004. The team found no evidence that these individual ratings are aggregated for use in program improvement Results of several assessment items from the Student Teacher Surveys, the New Teacher Survey, the Principal Survey, and the Student Teaching Evaluation are reported as evidence of dispositions in Exhibit 1.68 though these are not cited in the conceptual framework or in the exhibit documents that outlined dispositions for candidates. Examples include: assess your own professional growth and develop a meaningful professional development plan; work collegially with peers to improve student learning; reflect on your teaching to improve student learning; potential for growth as a professional; refine instruction based on learning outcomes; seek feedback from other professionals; demonstrates commitment to the profession. Ratings by candidates on the teacher surveys assessing how well prepared they felt in these areas range from 1 (not well prepared) to 4 (very well prepared) with average ratings ranging from 2.0 to 4.0. Median ratings by principals of new teachers’ performance on such items range from well-prepared (3.0) to very well-prepared. Art education has also developed a “Dispositional Survey” that is aligned with all INTASC standards. This is administered at the beginning, mid-point and end of a candidate’s career in the art education program. Data were not available at the time of the visit. Advanced Teacher Preparation Dispositions expected of candidates in advanced teacher education programs are based on NBPTS standards. Evidence regarding the quality of dispositions demonstrated by candidates in the advanced teacher preparation referenced in the IR (page 33) were not located in Exhibit 1.74 (this exhibit included the outline of dispositions expected of candidates in the educational administration program). Table 16 (p. 34) in the IR displays mean ratings of advanced teachers’ performance related to NBPTS performance standards. These are not specifically identified as dispositions expected of candidates in the conceptual framework or elsewhere. Mean ratings on these items ranged from 3.13 to 3.88 on a 4-point scale, with 4 equaling very well prepared. G. Dispositions for Other School Personnel Dispositions for candidates in ELAF are evaluated as part of the culminating internship portfolio. The assessment rubric for the portfolio cites “A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students and staff with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner.” Satisfactory completion of this element of the portfolio is an indicator of appropriate disposition. University supervisors provide written feedback to candidates on this assessment to reinforce the candidates’ knowledge and demonstration of professional disposition of educational administration candidates. Follow up surveys of ELAF educational specialist alumni indicate that they believe they exhibit appropriate dispositions of “Acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner.” Of 14 respondents, the mean score is 4.71 on a 5 point scale. Interviews with school principals indicate that candidates demonstrate the expected dispositions, as do follow-up


19

surveys of graduates. The team had difficulty discerning the currency of these assessment instruments since they are not dated. Additionally, an instrument entitled Identification and Assessment of Student [candidate] Dispositions was approved for all licensure programs in August 2004, and was implemented in September 2004. This dispositional assessment rubric references the conceptual framework and articulates the dispositions expected for the advanced candidate in alignment with INTASC and ISLLC standards. Specific behaviors, implementation procedures, and enforcement of dispositions are clearly defined. Remediation status and removal procedures are in place and are delineated by a flow chart that explains the due process procedure. Dispositional assessments are included for candidates in School Counseling. Professionalism is addressed in the CACREP Standards documented within syllabi for course work. A Discussion Board document indicates that in 2002 one candidate experienced remediation for inappropriate dispositional characteristics, and in 2004 two candidates were counseled out of the program because of dispositional issues. Surveys and other evidence are not available to document dispositional behaviors. Intern evaluations for Ed.S. in School Psychology (Spring 2003) include a component “Interpersonal Communication, Consultation, and Collaboration.” Addressing dispositional characteristics of the three program interns of that term, candidates scored consistently high with average scores of 4.67 to 5.0 on a 5 point scale. Dispositions are also addressed within course syllabi. More recent data are not available. Communication Disorders candidates are assessed for dispositional characteristics through clinical supervisors’ narrative comments on program evaluation instruments. Although individual candidate performances are monitored, aggregated data are not available. Library media candidates are assessed for dispositional characteristics throughout coursework with assessments aligned with INTASC performance standards. Aggregations of these dispositional assessments are not available. No survey data completed by clinical supervisors, candidates, or university supervisors are available to indicate dispositional assessments of library media candidates. H. Student learning for teacher candidates Initial Teacher Preparation Evidence of candidates’ ability to “design and use formative, classroom assessments” is documented in the Student Teacher Survey, the New Teacher Survey, and the Principal Survey. Ratings range from 1 (poorly prepared) to 4 (very well prepared) with mean ratings ranging from 2.00 to 4.00 (well-prepared to very well-prepared). Final evaluations of student teaching experiences for 2001-2004 candidates also provide evidence of candidates’ skills in assessing learners, using a variety of assessments, maintaining useful records of student performances, adjusting plans, reflecting on effects of instructional decisions, refining instruction based on learning outcomes, and encouraging self-assessment by students. Evaluations range from a minimum of 1 (proficient) to 3 (unsatisfactory) with mean ratings in the “proficient” range (1.08 – 1.40).


20

Interviews with candidates, current students and alumni, cooperating teachers, faculty, and school administrators indicate that candidates do demonstrate the ability to develop and implement assessments. A common recommendation, cited in the summary analysis of the Principal Survey, is to provide more preparation in this area. Evidence from student teaching evaluations and from the interviews also indicates that candidates adjust instruction based upon assessments of student learning. However, there is a lack of consistent, direct evidence of candidates’ positive effect on student learning I. Student learning for other school personnel Student learning is assessed in the culminating portfolio for ELAF candidates. Standard 2 of the portfolio rubric states, “A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students and staff by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.” To successfully complete this component, candidates provide three or more sources for assessment of students and these data indicate student learning. Employer, candidate, and alumni surveys provide mean scores ranging from 4.20 to 4.77 on key indicators of “sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning” and “ensuring a safe, efficient and effective learning environment.” School counseling candidates demonstrate positive learning environments within the guidelines of their Individual Internship Educational Plan. Candidate understanding and application of the knowledge of developmental levels are assessed through evaluations during field experiences. Evidence regarding school psychology candidates’ work in schools is not readily apparent, but they participate in experiences beyond school settings, thus helping them know the communities in which they serve. These experiences include work with autism clinics, work with clients in low socio-economic areas, and work at the Porter School Psychology Center. Candidates’ ability to use technology to enhance learning environments is assessed through the departmental Technology Applications Proficiency assessment tool. This tool assesses for competency in word processing, data analysis and management, presentation, internet/database searches, and e-mail. Data indicating systematic use of this instrument were not available to the team at the time of the visit. In the Communication Disorders program, there is survey evidence of appropriate services provided to students in multiple areas of communication disorders. These areas include articulation, language, fluency, autism, hearing impairment, and Downs syndrome. No consistent evidence is found for student learning in Library and Media. Overall Assessment of Standard Expectations for candidate performance in programs are aligned with national and state standards and most evaluations of candidate performance include criteria aligned with these standards, particularly in the area of content knowledge and professional knowledge and skills (with the exception of library media). While measures of central tendency regarding candidate performance are consistently high in areas of content knowledge and professional knowledge and skills, assessment results available also indicate that candidate performance ranged from the


21

lowest level (e.g., poorly prepared or unsatisfactory) to the highest level (e.g., very well prepared to proficient) in most assessments. The articulation, alignment, and assessment of dispositions are not clear in programs in library media, advanced teacher preparation programs, school counseling and school psychology. Evidence of candidates’ ability to develop and implement a variety of assessments related to their field of practice and to modify instruction or interventions based upon assessments of students and clients is available; however, there is a lack of direct evidence of candidates’ impact upon student learning or upon environments impacting student learning. Recommendation: MET Areas for Improvement: New: 1. Candidate dispositions are not clearly articulated and assessed across all programs. Rationale: Program documents and assessments vary in quality and depth in their treatment and assessment of candidate dispositions. Without a clear articulation of these dispositions, candidates are not aware of the unit’s expectations and the unit is not able to clearly assess whether its programs appropriately prepare candidates in these critical areas. Aggregation of unit data with regards to candidate dispositions is limited and inconsistent. 2. Candidate effect on student learning is not clearly assessed across all programs. Rationale: The lack of consistent data sets regarding student learning suggests that the candidate impact on student learning is not clearly assessed across all programs. While initial programs use survey results to assess candidate knowledge of student assessment techniques, the candidates’ abilities to effectively apply those techniques is less clear. At the advanced and continuing preparation level, variation across programs highlights a similar concern. Data indicate that educational administration candidates are effective in this area, but data sets are limited or not available for other advanced programs.


22

STANDARD 2. ASSESSMENT SYSTEM AND UNIT EVALUATION The unit has an assessment system that collects and analyzes data on the applicant qualifications, the candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate and improve the unit and its programs.

Level: Initial and Advanced A. Assessment System The unit assessment system is comprised of two components at both the initial and advanced levels. One component of the system addresses the identification, collection and analysis of individual candidate performance, while the second component addresses the collection and analysis of aggregated candidate performance data for the assessment of program quality. The individual candidate performance component is presented graphically identifying the four stages, the assessments reviewed at each stage, the purpose and nature of each assessment, and when it is analyzed. The four stages model candidate progression ghroughthrough the programs and reflect the unit’s conceptual framework, Becoming a Complete Professional, as well as state standards and professional standards. The assessments identified at each stage represent comprehensive and multiple assessments, from standardized test scores to assessments of candidate performance in specific key courses or program requirements. The purpose of each assessment is documented in meeting specific standards, while the nature of each measure is noted to verify the multiple forms of assessment. The candidate performance component reflects an annual timeline, indicating when each assessment is collected and analyzed. Initial For initial programs, there is evidence that a large number and variety of individuals were involved, as noted in the table below, in determining the use of the conceptual framework as the foundation for the candidate performance system.

Table 2.1

Committee or Group

Category of Stakeholder

Education Faculty or Admin.

Content Faculty or Admin.

P-12 Faculty or Admin.

Candidates in program Alumni Other

Teacher Education Committee X X X X K-12 Committee X X Executive Committee for Secondary Programs X X X School of Education Congress X X X X PDS Steering Council X X X


23

Category of Stakeholder

Committee or Group

Education Faculty or Admin.

Content Faculty or Admin.

P-12 Faculty or Admin.

Candidates in program Alumni Other

Project Management Team – IPSB Title II grant: Project PETE X X X

Community Provost

Transition Committee X X X Stakeholder meetings – large group sessions held 2 – 3 times per year. X X X Professional Development Assessment Committee X X Clinical Faculty Development Committee X X X Departmental / Program Specific committees X X X X Stakeholder involvement is structured to be both formal and informal. Teacher Education Committee, School College of Education Congress, the Professional Development Schools Steering Council, and many departmental committees are formal governance structures that provide for extensive, ongoing stakeholder involvement. As needed, the unit will appoint task forces or committees that are less formal and advisory in nature to continue to provide several levels of involvement and perspectives in the ongoing implementation and monitoring of the UAS. June 2002, the unit presented to the Indiana Department of Education Division of Professional Standards (DPS) a report outlining the plan for its unit assessment system. The education faculty, along with a range of stakeholders who were members of various committees, aligned the INTASC principles with the three elements of the conceptual framework, Becoming a Complete Professional. Since 2002, these committees have been engaged in the determination of the four stages and the specific assessments appropriate for analysis at each stage. The COE Teacher Education Committee (TEC) is charged with overall responsibility to assist in planning, approving, and coordinating the various changes in programs that prepare licensed educators for preschool through high school settings. TEC carries the responsibility for ensuring the institution meets the regulations of the DPS and the standards of NCATE and other relevant accrediting bodies and thus has responsibility for the management of the unit assessment system. The TEC voting members include 18 faculty representing all five of the involved academic units, an undergraduate and graduate student, and a P-12 school representative, with the majority of the votes in the COE. Items passed by the TEC are routed through the COE Dean for action. In September 2005, the TEC discussed an Assessment Summary: Teacher Candidate Learning Outcomes document that exhibits the multiple assessments the unit plans to collect to document meeting the indicators of NCATE Standard 1. Beyond identification of the responsibility of the


24

TEC, there was not evidence of one individual or office which had responsibility as the manager or coordinator of the unit assessment system. In the initial programs, candidate performance is assessed at four stages: entrance to the program, pre-student teaching phase, entrance to student teaching and exit from the program. The Assessment Committee, created in 2004, established a timeline for the annual collection, aggregation and analysis of assessment indicators. The transition points and assessments for Becoming a Complete Professional (BCP) include: BCP1: Admission

x application x Praxis I score at above state licensure requirement x GPA: 2.5 of higher overall x Grades of “C” or better in identified key courses or review of content background for

Transition to Teaching (T2T) candidates x Limited criminal history check clearance x Recommendation of content department (5-12 and all grade) or recommendation from

instructors in initial experience courses (elementary/early childhood) x Standards report (elementary/early childhood) x Satisfactory completion of content courses as specified by content department (5-12 and

all grade) x ELED 100 or ELED 110, professional GPA 2.5 and no grade less than “C”

(elementary/early childhood)

BCP 2: Pre-student teaching Elementary/Early Childhood

x Application x Recommendation from EECE faculty in BCP 1 courses x Standards report x Overall 2.5 GPA x Professional GPA 2.5 and no grade less than “C”

5-12 x Grade of “C” or better in CIMT 301/302 x Satisfactory rating on specified rubrics in CIMT 301/302 fieldwork x Satisfactory recommendation(s) by CIMT 301/302 instructors

All Grade x Grade of “C” or better in ELED 225 x Satisfactory rating on specified rubrics in ELED 225 fieldwork x Satisfactory recommendation(s) by ELED 225 instructor

BCP 3: Entrance to Student Teaching Elementary/Early Childhood

x Application to student teaching x Recommendation from EECE faculty in BCP 2 courses x Standards report and documentation of completed remediation if applicable x Overall 2.5 GPA x Praxis II


25

x Professional GPA 2.5 and no grade less than “C” 5-12

x Grade of “C” or better in CIMT 400L fieldwork as related by clinical faculty on specified rubrics

x Satisfactory recommendation(s) by course instructor in CIMT 400 and content methods instructors if applicable

All Grade x Grade of “C” or better in CIMT 301, 302 and 350 x Satisfactory performance in CIMT 350 field work as rated by clinical faculty on specified

rubrics x Satisfactory recommendation by CIMT 350 instructor x Satisfactory recommendation by content methods instructor if applicable

For both 5-12 and All Grade: x Application for student teaching x Grade of “C” or better for SPED 226, EPSY 341 or approved equivalent, and content

methods courses x Praxis II x Grade of “C” or better in identified key content courses x Overall 2.5 GPA in content area and in all Professional Education and approved

multicultural course(s) taken x Any special requirements for student teaching originating in the content major satisfied

(see specific major) x Recommendation of content department or interview for secondary T2T candidates

BCP 4: Exit from Program For elementary/early childhood:

x Recommendation from faculty in student teaching x Portfolio assessment x Praxis II score at state licensure level x Overall 2.5 GPA x Qualify for degree

For 5-12 and All Grade: x Satisfactory or better rating in student teaching x Satisfactory or better rating on performance assessment (Report/Portfolio)

Candidates must meet the stated assessments at each stage in their respective programs before they are permitted to advance to the next stage. Candidates who do not meet the respective assessment requirements within a stage meet with their respective program faculty/advisors to discuss the unmet requirements. Resolution is reached on a more individual level relative to the specific issue. Examples include test re-takes, revisions to required assignments and identification of appropriate remediation contracts. Candidates who cannot meet the assessment criteria at any one stage may be removed from the program and directed to a different academic career. Key assessments contain questions that directly reflect INTASC and DPS standards. An example at the initial level is the Final Evaluation of Supervised Teaching Experiences. The


26

team found evidence of reports completed regarding candidates’ performance on specific key course assessments and that individual or program faculty have reviewed those reports. Yet, there was not evidence that such reports are systematically collected and analyzed by either the Assessment Committee or the Teacher Education Committee. Overall, the responsibilities and accountability for unit assessment activities in collection, analysis, and sharing of data are unclear and not articulated across programs. The initial level program assessment process also includes the regular administration of alumni and employer surveys. To date, the university Office of Assessment and Accreditation has prepared data analysis reports for review at the program level. Individual examples identified from some programs during the BOE visit indicate that the assessment results reflect candidate success in their employment and employer satisfaction with candidate preparation. Advanced For advanced programs, the stakeholder committees noted earlier similarly determined the conceptual framework as the foundation for the candidate performance system. The alignment of the conceptual framework and the unit’s use of the NBPTS standards in the assessments of continuing preparation candidates were not evident nor explicit in unit documents. For the advanced programs for other school personnel, the respective national standards were the foundation of the program assessments, but again documentation that integrates these standards with the conceptual framework is not available. In all cases, the BCP framework seemed to be independent from the specified standards for continuing and advanced preparation. While evidence is available that the stakeholder committees approved the conceptual framework, the team could not verify stakeholder involvement in the identification of the stages and assessments for advanced program transition points. The four stages of the individual candidate performance assessment components at the advanced level include: admissions, mid-point, completion of the program, and post completion/graduation of the program. The first three stages address the candidates’ progress through their respective programs. At the point of admissions, candidates’ admissions data and entrance examination are reviewed. Data reviewed at the mid-point include candidates’ GPA, Praxis, and portfolio and standards analysis, specific to the respective advanced programs. At the third stage, there are three assessments: candidates’ performance on applicable licensure examinations (if required), graduate student surveys, and relevant professional association or expert faculty reports, as appropriate for respective advanced programs. The final stage of the advanced process includes survey data from the alumni and employers. Candidates must meet the stated assessments at each stage in their respective programs before they are permitted to advance to the next stage. Candidates who do not meet the respective assessment requirements within a stage meet with their respective program faculty/advisors to discuss the unmet requirements. Resolution is reached on a more individual level relative to the specific issue. Examples include test re-takes, revisions to required assignments and identification of appropriate remediation contracts. Candidates who cannot meet the assessment criteria at any one stage may be removed from the program and directed to a different academic career. The assessments required at each of these stages are specific to the respective advanced level program. For programs for continuing preparation of teachers at the advanced level, the


27

assessments address NBPTS standards. The assessments for the advanced programs for other school personnel derive from and address the standards of the respective professional associations, such as ISLCC, CACREP, NASP. In addition to these individual candidate assessments, selected programs at the advanced level prepare annual program reviews for their advisory boards. Programs with such advisory boards and annual reviews include educational leadership administration, special education, and school counseling. Furthermore, in 2005 faculty in the EESE and CIMT departments requested formation of an expert panel to review the student performance on a number of specific student learning objectives in the M.Ed. and Transition to Teaching programs. The panel talked with faculty in January 2005 as to their assessment of student performance with respect to NBPTS and program standards. The panel’s final report addressed specifically student learning with respect to the standards sets noted above and five themes that emerged from the discussions with faculty: practice beyond knowledge, collaboration across disciplines, diversity, creativity and risk-taking, and workplace. The panel’s report was discussed by the graduate faculty in spring 2005. At both the initial and advanced levels, assessments are made at admission into the programs, midpoint, at program completion, and following program completion/graduation. New teacher/alumni and principal/employer survey data provide evidence of candidate success. Yet, the system does not provide evidence about the assessments used in terms of being predictors of candidate success. A recent addition to the unit’s assessment activities is the adoption of an electronic database for tracking and monitoring candidate achievement. Utilizing LiveText, the unit is able to prepare reports related to inter-rater reliability on the elementary INTASC assessments. Given the relative newness of the LiveText system, evidence of systematic review and/or analysis of these data is unavailable. Instrument validity and reliability analyses have been conducted on the principal, new teacher, and student teacher surveys that were used in the 2004-2005 academic year, as well as the Final Evaluation of Supervised Teaching Experiences. The reliability, using Cronbach’s Alpha, ranged from .928 to .964. For the Final Evaluation of Supervised Teaching Experiences instrument, further reliability testing has been conducted between unit and non-unit evaluators. Construct validity of the instruments has been completed by means of factor analysis of the individual questions. B. Data Collection, Analysis and Evaluation Data collection, analysis and evaluation are conducted for both components of the unit assessment system; individual candidate performance assessment and program assessment. The collection and use of data for improvements of unit operations are not well defined. Initial Since June 2002, the unit has identified the data to be collected and analyzed at the four decision points within each of the initial programs to monitor candidate progress. The Assessment Committee, established in 2004, established a timeline for the annual collection, aggregation and analysis of assessment indicators. While this timeline identifies the purpose and nature of the assessments collected, at this time it does not reflect to whom and by whom the data are analyzed


28

and discussed. It is not clear whether the data for each initial program are directed to the program/department faculty, the Assessment Committee, or the Teacher Education Committee for review. Assessment Committee members indicate that they are in the process of “institutionalizing” elements of the assessment system to determine clearly to whom reports will be directed and who has the responsibility for monitoring the annual completion of reports, as indicated on the timeline. This lack of clarity regarding responsibility results in great variance of coverage across and among programs. Evidence of data reports for some, but not all assessment indicators, nor for all initial programs is available. The university Office of Assessment and Accreditation provides data analysis reports of such indicators as student teacher and new teacher surveys. At the program review level which involves analysis of aggregate data, the assessment system component was developed in 2004 by the COE Assessment Committee that includes representatives of the Dean’s Office and COE departments. The proposed process was shared with the departments for review and edited in its present form based on department suggestions. This final process was shared with the Teacher Education Committee in 2005 and is ready for implementation. Evidence of this Committee’s review and discussion of programmatic data were found in minutes of fall 2005 meeting minutes which took place shortly before the BOE visit. At the initial level, the program assessment system includes five stages: entry (admission) into the program, at two points during the course of each program, at graduation/completion of each program, and following graduation/completion as alumni. The unit has identified assessments that are to be collected and analyzed at each stage, along with indications of the measures’ purpose and nature. The stages of the program assessment system reflect information about applicant qualifications, candidate proficiencies, graduates competence, and program quality. The assessments’ purpose specifies their focus. For example, assessments informing program quality include data aggregation of individual candidate assessments in key courses, final evaluations of supervised teaching experience, Praxis II, and surveys from alumni and principals. As the examples illustrate, multiple assessments are utilized. The assessments collected are not comprehensive in terms of reflecting both internal and external sources. While the documentation indicates that candidates, recent graduates and principals complete assessments, the team found no evidence of evaluations collected and analyzed from faculty or additional members of the professional community. Current assessment practices yield data at the program level for the assessment of candidate performance, yet no process or system is identified to bring these data to the unit level. Additionally, activities do not consistently include assessments that address aspects of the unit operations including measures that address clinical experiences and instruction. The graphic presentation of the program assessment system indicates when the assessments will be analyzed and when the analyses will be presented either to the COE Dean’s Office, individual departments or Teacher Education Committee. Yet, as a unit assessment system, there is not evidence that data or summative analyses are systematically reviewed and analyzed at the unit level. Beginning in 2000, the unit began discussions with university technology personnel about the development of an information management system. Over the course of several years’


29

discussion, it was decided that the university did not have the resources to support the design of a database management system specific to this purpose. Thus in 2003, the decision was made to purchase LiveText and utilize this software for the management of the unit’s assessment system. Prior to the LiveText implementation, the COE relied on the university Office of Assessment and Accreditation. This office has provided a variety of analyses of survey data for the COE, such responses to 2001-2003 New Teacher Surveys, as well as Student Teacher Surveys 2003-2004. Additional analyses of data have been completed by COE offices, including the offices of the Dean and Education Student Services, as well as various departments. The system for sharing and discussing these analyses is not apparent prior to the timeline and system implemented in 2004 as noted above. With the implementation of LiveText in 2004, individual faculty members have the ability to prepare an extensive array of statistical reports concerning candidate performance on specific content course assignments, including the key courses and standards/portfolio assessments found in the assessment system. These statistical reports refer to candidate performance on rubrics, as well as to ways in which course activities/assessments address INTASC principles. Examples include student teaching reports, specific course lesson plans, and pre student teaching course activities; all from courses in CIMT, ELED, art, music, science education, as examples. While the availability of the reports is not in question, evidence of faculty review and discussion of these analyses was not available to the team. Advanced The program assessment system at the advanced level is presented as synonymous with the individual candidate performance assessment system. The data collected at each stage are specific to respective advanced programs, and are shared and analyzed within the respective departments. Information is collected about applicant qualifications and candidate proficiencies in terms of GPA, related Praxis test results, and programmatic assessments a part of course and/or program requirements. Competence of graduates is measured in several ways through student, alumni, and employer surveys. The system includes the use of faculty expert panels every three years to assess the quality of the continuing preparation programs at the advanced level. While not noted specifically in the program assessment system, the other school personnel advanced program seek professional association approval routinely, as a program quality assessment. There is no evidence of a systematic evaluation of unit operations at the advanced level. Similar to the development process described above, since June 2002, the unit has identified the data to be collected and analyzed at the four decision points within each of the advanced programs to monitor candidate progress. The Assessment Committee established in 2004 established a timeline for the collection, aggregation and analysis of assessment indicators annually. Advanced programs are not consistent in their generation or use of reports and not all programs have implemented a reporting process. The assessment timeline/chart identifies the purpose, nature of the assessments collected, and when the assessments are collected. While the chart includes a column to indicate to whom the analyses are presented, this information is not identified consistently for each of the stages and assessments within individual stages for all advanced programs. Again, while there are examples of thorough reports of individual candidate progress and performance for some


30

advanced programs (reports associated with respective professional association accreditation requirements), such reports are not available consistently nor as systematic reflections of aggregated programmatic performance. As noted above, it is not clear whether the data for each advanced program are directed to the program/department faculty, the Assessment Committee, or the Teacher Education Committee for review. During the BOE visit, members of the Assessment Committee indicated that they are in the process of “institutionalizing” elements of the assessment system to determine clearly to whom reports will be directed and who has the responsibility for monitoring the annual completion of reports, as indicated on the timeline. At the program review level which involves analysis of aggregate data, the assessment system component was developed in 2004 by the COE Assessment Committee that includes representatives of the Dean’s Office and COE departments. The proposed process was shared with the departments for review and edited in its present form based on department suggestions. This final process was shared with the Teacher Education Committee in 2005 and is ready for implementation. Evidence of this Committee’s review and discussion of programmatic data was found in minutes of a fall 2005 meeting that took place shortly before the BOE visit. Within the unit, there is not an approved formal process for the management of candidate complaints. A draft of such process is on the agenda of the COE Congress for this academic year. The proposed process outlines the course of actions recommended for candidates with a grievance. Should the matter not be resolved satisfactorily between the candidate and the faculty member, dean or appropriate faculty committee, the candidate presents in writing a formal grievance to the COE Congress. Appeals not resolved through the Congress are directed to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. C. Use of Data for Program Improvement As indicated above, the unit collects and analyzes data, including candidate and graduate performance information, primarily at the department or program level. In fall 2005, the EESE faculty discussed the reports provided by the Office of Assessment and Accreditation that summarized data from student teaching assessments and final evaluations of supervised teaching experiences and surveys received from new teachers (alumni) and principals. The faculty identified program strengths and weaknesses for continued discussion. In spring 2005, the CIMT faculty conducted a similar discussion, noting that the department’s programs seem to be strong. The CIMT faculty are considering creation of an assessment committee in the department to review data reports. Individual examples across programs can be identified in which data have been used to modify courses and/or programs although the limitation of inconsistent departmental analysis is reflected in the documentation supporting these changes. For example, while there are no systematic data available that address the efficacy of pre-student teaching and student teaching experiences at the initial level, such data are identified for clinical experiences in the advanced programs for other school personnel. In interviews, program faculty are able to identify course changes based on evaluations and survey data, but evidence of a consistent pattern or system of the use of data for program improvement is less clear.


31

Overall Assessment of Standard Evidence of candidate performance and program data collected and analyzed within each program at the initial and advanced levels is apparent, but cohesion at the unit level is missing. A structure/system for the collection of these data for unit use was established in 2004. Prior to this time, these data were used by program/department faculty to assess candidate performance, candidate success and program quality. Review and use of these data at a unit level were inconsistent. Since 2004, the unit has identified and begun to implement a system for data collection and analysis, and this effort has been facilitated with the purchase and implementation of LiveText. The unit is in the midst of “institutionalizing” this system. While the unit has collected and utilized data to review and to modify its programs as necessary, it only has begun to utilize a system of data analysis at the unit level. Recommendation: Not Met Areas for Improvement: New 1. The unit has not fully developed and implemented a system of data collection regarding unit operations. Rationale: Current assessment data and the system of analysis focus on candidate quality and program issues, but fail to address unit operations such as the quality of clinical experiences and instructional efficacy. Lacking this data and a unit-level system of analysis, the unit is unable to assess and consider coherence and efficacy in its delivery of programs nor can it identify structural and procedures changes for improvement. 2. The unit has not identified a systematic and continuous process for data collection, aggregation, dissemination and analysis at the unit level. Rationale: While a system of candidate performance and program assessment was established in 2004, the unit has not completed the “institutionalization” of the assessment system. . There is not evidence of systematic aggregation of program level data and department analyses. As a result, the assessment activities could be characterized as assessment silos with limited or no interaction or consistency across programs which limits the usefulness of the data collected for improvement of unit-level functions.

3. Management and oversight responsibilities related to the unit assessment system are not clearly identified nor implemented. Rationale: Faculty and other stakeholders cannot clearly articulate the process and/or responsible entities for the unit level management of the system. At the advanced level, the assessment timeline chart is particularly vague regarding responsible parts and how the information from candidate and program level assessment supports the unit in its decision-making processes. The inconsistency of information and the variance in availability highlights a need for more clearly defined roles and responsibilities related to the unit assessment system.


32

4. The unit does not appropriately track formal complaints and their resolution. The unit’s formal complaint process has yet to be approved by the COE Congress and no evidence of tracking of complaints and resolutions was available at the time of the visit. The absence of formal complaint system results in a lost opportunity for unit level and/or program improvement. Draft proposals available to the team indicate that the unit is working to resolve this concern, possibly as soon as the spring 2006 semester.


33

STANDARD 3. FIELD EXPERIENCES AND CLINICAL PRACTICE The unit and its school partners design, implement, and evaluate field experiences and clinical practice so that teacher candidates and other school personnel develop and demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Level: Initial and Advanced A. Collaboration between unit and school partners Indiana State University has developed and maintains a longstanding history of collaboration with school corporations throughout the state, particularly in the west central region of the state. During the past 13 years, the unit has engaged in formal partnerships with professional development schools and partner schools in Vigo, Clay, Southwest Parke, and Vermillion County School Corporations along with Indianapolis Public Schools. The purpose of the partnership is to “link renewal in schools to renewal in educator preparation.” The goals of the partnership are to: “(1) increase learning for all youngsters in PDS sites; (2) provide optimal learning environments for preservice educators; (3) provide meaningful professional development for university and school faculty; and (4) support school/university collaborative inquiry.” The partnership sets the stage for ongoing collaboration in developing, evaluating, and refining field experiences. This is accomplished through both formal and informal communication structures. Teachers, administrators, and ISU faculty serve on the PDS steering committee. Schools also have liaisons (principals or teachers) and the university also assigns a university liaison to school sites. Liaisons, teachers, principals and others are actively involved in such activities as: “matching” interns with highly qualified mentor teachers; refining field experience tasks and/or assessments; delivering professional development for preservice and inservice teachers that is aligned with school improvement goals; and collaborating on grant writing and other activities to locate additional resources to support student learning and preservice and inservice teacher development. PDS teachers and principals indicate that they have a very strong partnership with ISU which benefits all parties. K-12 faculty serve on unit committees including those responsible for evaluating and redesigning the conceptual framework of the unit and on COE search committees for faculty. Additionally, PDS faculty recommended program changes such as the addition of a course in classroom management. The unit responded to this recommendation and developed the course requirement. A third collaborative example includes a partnership to tutor middle school students who need additional academic support. Unit personnel work collaboratively with school corporation offices to facilitate the placements of candidates in schools for their preservice field observations and practica as well as the student teacher experiences and internships. Following the initial unit request to place candidates, the district offices contact the individual partner schools to relay the request. Placement is determined following the principal’s consultation with clinical faculty. At the advanced level, school administration interns’ placements are determined with input from both unit supervisor and partner administrator. Other advanced programs such as school counseling follow the recommendations of the individual’s committee regarding placement.


34

B. Design, implementation, and evaluation of field experiences and clinical practice All initial preparation programs require multiple field experiences, which occur in culturally and racially diverse schools. While not all district schools are characterized by diversity, through its partnerships, the unit works with district personnel to foster an understanding that candidates must be placed in diverse sites. Tracking of placements is done within programs and is accomplished through various technological and non-technological means, depending on program area. Candidates report and can explain placement policies that support diverse experiences. Availability of statistical representations and analyses of diverse placements varied by program, but BOE members were convinced, however, of the appropriate application of these policies through interviews with candidates and P-12 school personnel. For elementary, early childhood, and special education majors, the field experience components total more than 100 hours prior to student teaching. The middle level and junior high licensure programs have field experiences totaling more than 50 hours prior to student teaching. Student teaching for both licensure areas require a minimum of 15 weeks or 525 hours in the student teaching experience. Field experiences in the professional education sequence of courses are reflective of the conceptual framework in that they exemplify the ideal of “becoming a complete professional.” These experiences include peer teaching and coaching, observation of experienced teachers, grading papers and projects, working with individual students, small group instruction, whole class instruction, integration of technology into instruction, reflective practice, conducting classroom-based work samples, and any number of other professional responsibilities. During these field and clinical experiences, candidates are assessed by both supervising faculty and clinical faculty for demonstration of the dispositions and the proficiencies outlined in state and professional standards. The following table provides explicit requirements of the field experiences and clinical practice of all programs within the unit.

Table 3.1 Field Experiences and Clinical Practice by Program

Program Field Experiences

(Observation and/or Practicum)

Clinical Practice (Student Teaching or

Internship)

Total Number of Hours

ELED (BA/BS, Initial)

24 hrs of observation; Practicum 80-86

Minimum 15 weeks, 2 full-time placements in 2 settings, 525 hrs

629-635

Early Childhood (BA/BS, Initial)

146 hrs practicum Minimum 15 weeks, 2 full-time placements in 2 settings, 525 hrs

671

ELED/SPED – dual major



647-653

Secondary Professional Preparation


575

Business Ed (BA/BS, Initial)


575

FACS (BA/BS, Initial)


575


35




Internship)


Foreign Language (BA/BS, Initial)


575

Language Arts (BA/BS, Initial)


575

Math Education (BA/BS, Initial)

24 hrs ELED observation; 50 hrs of practicum


599

Science Ed (BA/BS, Initial)


605

Social Studies (BA/BS, Initial)


575

Technology Ed (BA/BS, Initial)


575

T2T Secondary (ND, Initial)


575

All-school settings Professional Preparation

16 hrs observation in elementary; 25 hrs of practicum


566

Choral (BA/BS, Initial)

21-25 hrs observation; 35-40 hrs practicum


581-590

Instrumental (BA/BS, Initial)

18 hrs observation; 31-36 hrs practicum


574-579

Health (BA/BS, Initial)


575

Library Media (BA/BS, Initial)

16 hrs observation; 170 hrs practicum


711

Physical Ed (BA/BS, Initial)



615

Visual Arts (BA/BS, Initial)

21 hrs ELED observation, 3 hrs observation special needs, 5 hrs general observation; 25 hrs practicum


579

Principal Prep. (M.Ed./ND, Adv.)

Internship 1 year, experiences at all school levels required

Minimum of 10 hrs per week for 30 weeks

300

Supt. Prep. (Ed.S., Adv.)

Summer Internship in a district office

10 hrs/wk for 10 weeks in one district

100

School Psychology Ed.S., Adv.)

Practica both university clinic and West Central IN school districts. Internship sites cover all of Indiana.

560 practicum hrs (minimum of 140 hrs per semester), one 1 year 1200 hour internship (at least 600 of which are in school settings)

1760

School Counselor (M.Ed./ND, Adv.)

NA 4 field experiences in 4 semesters, covering all school settings.

700

Library Media (Adv.)

120 hours practicum NA 120

Speech Lang. Path (MS, Initial)

NA 400 practicum hours (combination of practicum, student teaching, clinic

400


36

Candidates in all programs have opportunities to observe and use various technology-enhanced instructional hardware and software such as Smart Boards, PowerpointPowerPoint, and website building during their preparation. Additionally, candidates experience frequent use of laptops, handheld computers, and graphing calculators, and WebqQuest and LiveText in their teacher education courses. All candidates are placed in settings where technology is available, and assessment instruments for field and clinical experiences list “technology use as an instructional tool” as one component by which the candidates are consistently assessed. Clinical school-based faculty are licensed in the area in which they teach and are experienced public school classroom teachers. Although Indiana no longer requires that clinical teachers be credentialed at the Master’s degree level, principals stated they strongly attempt to place student teacher candidates with faculty who hold a Master’s degree and have a minimum of three years experience. Some principals seek to use classroom teachers with at least five years experience. For advanced programs, all internship supervisors hold at least a Master’s degree. Clinical school-based faculty who supervise student teacher candidates receive a Student Teaching Handbook that clearly articulates supervision expectations. Additionally, meetings are held each semester with the Field Placement Directors to update clinical faculty of any changes in supervisory expectations. Clinical and university supervisors conduct formal and informal conferences with candidates throughout their student teaching and internship experiences. Advanced candidates state their satisfaction with the personal and interpersonal positive experiences and feedback they have received from the unit faculty as well as the clinical faculty supervising their internships. Distance learning candidates also expressed their satisfaction with the level of support they had received not only from their clinical supervisor but from their involvement with unit faculty as well. Supervising clinical faculty state they consistently observe “awesome” displays of competencies, strengths and abilities from ISU students. Principals concur and say they try to hire as many ISU graduates as possible. Survey and other assessment data supporting these positive anecdotal reports were not available other than the items previously indicated in the Standard 1 narrative. C. Candidates’ development and demonstration of knowledge, skills, and dispositions to

help all students learn Data show that there were 229 undergraduate program completers and 30 post-baccalaureate completers for the 2002-2003 year. There were 245 undergraduate and 35 post-baccalaureate completers for the 2003-2004 year. Records show there were 284 undergraduate completers and 20 post-baccalaureate completers for the 2004-2005 year. Each teacher candidate and advanced candidate is assessed based on program, state, and national standards. At the initial level, assessment of teacher candidates’ classroom performances includes regular observations by a unit faculty supervisor. Ongoing reflection and writing are encouraged, required, and developed throughout the professional sequence of courses. Reflective thinking and writing are expected routinely during all pre-student teaching experiences. A reflective discourse is expected after each day of teaching with the host teacher as well as after each observation by a unit faculty supervisor. Two formal assessments of content knowledge, pedagogical skill and dispositions occur during the placement: one at mid-term and the other at the conclusion of the placement. The formal assessments are completed and submitted to the


37

respective Director(s) of Clinical Experiences and Field Placements. In addition to the assessments completed by the unit supervisor, the host teacher also completes the formal assessment. At the advanced level, school counseling candidates are evaluated using multiple assessment strategies that include videotapes, audiotapes, student self-evaluation, and review of P-12 student pre/post data. ELAF candidates are formally assessed using instruments contained within the candidates’ portfolios. Overall Assessment of Standard It is apparent through qualitative evidence that the field experiences and clinical practices of the ISU teacher candidates are beneficial agents that facilitate productive and continuous growth toward becoming complete professionals. Recommendation: Met Areas for Improvement: None Corrected: Field experience procedures do not consistently ensure that candidates study and practices in settings with culturally diverse and exceptional populations.

Rationale: Field experience policies and tracking procedures ensure that all candidates experience diverse learners and learning sites.


38

STANDARD 4. DIVERSITY The unit designs, implements, and evaluates curriculum and experiences for candidates to acquire and apply the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn. These experiences include working with diverse higher education and school faculty, diverse candidates, and diverse students in P-12 schools. Level: Initial and Advanced A. Design, implementation, and evaluation of curriculum and experiences Diversity is found in the conceptual framework, Becoming a Complete Professional, specifically under the Teacher as a Person component. Candidates at the initial level are introduced to this commitment to diversity through a range of courses that address diversity in the classroom, as well as diversity in society. All candidates take a U.S. diversity and international diversity course as part of the general studies requirement. Two professional education courses and a pedagogy course address diversity issues, and candidates are expected to achieve “satisfactory” or “proficient” on these INTASC standards, as evidenced by the rubrics within the courses. For example, lesson plans and teaching approaches are assessed for including adaptations including working with students with exceptionalities. Block one includes readings on poverty by Ruby Payne to prepare the candidates for their future field experiences as teacher candidates. In the Elementary Early Special Education (EESE) department, block three assesses candidates on most diversity standards. Blocks one and four also minimally assess candidates on diversity. Candidates have clearly outlined proficiencies related to diversity which they are expected to develop and demonstrate in specific courses for all initial programs. The programs at this level evaluate diversity in terms of INTASC Standard 3, Accommodation of Learner Diversity, which aligns with state standards. In some, but not all of the courses addressing diversity, candidates are expected to achieve ratings of “satisfactory” or “proficient” on the professional standards related to diversity, associated with assignments for courses. At the time of the visit, summary data for these course-based assessments was not available, but BOE team members were convinced of the efficacy of the activities and candidate proficiencies through interviews and other evidence. Required coursework and experiences enable teacher candidates and candidates for other professional school roles to develop awareness of the importance of diversity in teaching and learning as well as the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to adapt instruction and/or services for diverse populations. The Teacher Education Committee (TEC) initiated an ad hoc Diversity Subcommittee, which developed criteria and began to review course and program proposals for how departments would meet NCATE/INTASC diversity standards for teacher candidates. The Diversity Subcommittee sent department chairs information packets regarding the criteria and directions for preparing course/program proposals and planned the review to begin in August and continue throughout the 2001-02 academic year. Departments planned curricula to be in place by June 2002. The Diversity Subcommittee prepared an alignment chart that articulated how candidates met standards on diversity at all levels, initial and advanced, throughout their programs. The following courses address the INTASC Diversity Principle #3 (specifically 3K3, 3K4, 3P5, 3P7, and 6P4): EPSY 341, EPSY 202, SPED 226, CIMT 300, ELED 250, ELED 4/526, ELED 4/532, ELED 4/537, SPED 607, MUS 4/518, ELAF 200 and student teaching.


39

In addition to these curricular efforts, field placements in Professional Development Schools (PDS) offer opportunities for candidates to experience diversity first hand and implement curriculum in P-12 classrooms. Initial and advanced levels of preparation include an explicit and systematic field experience component in diverse P-12 school settings. Student teaching evaluations and student teaching reports reveal that candidates rate “satisfactory” or “proficient” in the area of diversity. Within the advanced level programs, candidates must meet the diversity standard again at the “satisfactory” or “proficient” levels. For example, in the Master’s of Education program, Diversity, Action, Research, Technology (DART), the theme is woven into all the major courses. Also, the School Psychology Program assesses candidates in the area of diversity through case studies, self-assessments, distance learning settings, and annual evaluation of candidate’s knowledge, skills, and dispositions toward diverse populations. Results of the case study assessment rubrics reveal that candidates achieved satisfactory or proficient ratings on all diversity components. Another area, Educational Leadership and Administration requires mentor teachers/supervisors to evaluate candidate skills and dispositions based on the extent to which they are able to help students learn to respect individual and group diversity. In a recent assessment, candidates scored 4.6 on a 1-5 scale, with 5 being “very well-prepared.”

Within the School Counselor program, multicultural and diversity related issues are incorporated within each course, as well as in a course specifically addressing multicultural issues in the school counseling setting. During the internship year, candidates present at least one case study that deals with multicultural issues that meet multicultural proficiencies delineated in developmental standards and CACREP content standards. In COUNC 793B, field work assessments include the development of multiculturally sensitive lesson plans. This ensures candidates’ understanding of the importance of diversity teaching and learning. Dispositions are assessed in COUNC 535, Introduction to School Counseling, during their discussion board assignments. Candidates in school counseling collect and analyze data that show what P-12 students have learned from their lessons, counseling sessions, etc. Then they reflect on the data related to their intervention. Program assessments administered to candidates that focus on their diversity knowledge, skills, and/or dispositions are as follows:

x Knowledge Base Diversity Quotient (KBDQ) assessment data and analysis show that

faculty in educator preparation courses place a high priority on these aspects of diversity: How to engage in culturally sensitive interactions with others (knowledge of cultures, verbal/non-verbal communication style differences) (2.81), effects of teacher expectations and teacher-student interactions on student performance (2.81), principles of culturally appropriate pedagogy, multicultural education, and curriculum development (2.73), and how to use authentic and alternate assessment techniques (2.72). These ratings are based on a Likert scale of 1-3.

x Employer/principal surveys show new teachers are “very well prepared” in the area of helping students learn to respect individual and group differences. The surveys reveal the perception that ISU teachers are “well-prepared” with regard to the use of teaching approaches that are sensitive to diverse learners.


40

Although the unit provides evidence of diversity in design, implementation, and evaluation of curriculum and experiences, it shows little evidence of using these assessments as feedback to candidates to improve their knowledge, skills and dispositions in diversity. B. Experiences working with diverse faculty COE candidates have experienced increased exposure to diverse faculty in the last five years. ISU’s Affirmative Action Office indicates the percentage of female faculty has increased by 15.4 percent from 2000 to 2005 and minority faculty has grown steadily during the same period with an overall increase of 5.8 percent to a current level of 13.3 percent. The unit recently hired two minority faculty for the 2005-06 academic year.

Table 4.1

COE, Institution, and School Faculty Demographics Fall 2004

Full time Unit,

Initial Teacher Programs

Full time Unit, Advanced Programs*

Full Time Institution, Part-time

Unit

School-based faculty1

All Faculty in the

Institution

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) American Indian or

Alaskan Native 0 0 0 0 3 (.4%)

Asian or Pacific Islander

5 (7.8%) 4 (6.3%) 1 (2.7%) 5 (.5%) 39 (5.6%)

Black, non-Hispanic 2 (3.1%) 4 (6.3%) 2 (5.4%) 16 (1.5%) 20 (2.9%) Hispanic 0 1 (1.6%) 0 2 (.2%) 12 (1.7%) White, non-Hispanic 56 (87.5%) 55 (85.9%) 32 (86.5%) 1023 (97.8%) 599 (86.7%) Two or more races 0 0 0 0 3 (.4%) Other 0 0 2 (5.4%) 0 5 (.7%) Race/ethnicity

unknown 1 (1.6%) 0 1 (2.7%) 0 10 (1.4%)

Total 64 64 37 1,046 691 Female 43 (67.2%) 37 (57.8%) 14 (37.8%) 814 (77.8%) 284 (41.1%) Male 21 (32.8%) 27 (42.2%) 23 (62.2 %) 232 (22.2%) 407 (58.9%) Total 64 64 37 1,046 691 *Faculty are counted in both initial teacher preparation and advanced programs if they teach in both. The unit has made concerted efforts in search and interview processes to recruit diverse faculty with the successes noted above. COE posts positions in specialized sources for minority faculty, calls potential and formal applicants to make a personal connection, contacts universities likely to graduate diverse individuals, and involves minorities in the search process. The college sends job postings to the NAME (National Association of Multicultural Education) Conference.

1 Numbers are from Indiana Dept. of Education and represent Vigo County School Corporation numbers where all of students have multiple placements.


41

Recruitment efforts in the Gary, Indiana and Indianapolis regions, areas more ethnically diverse than Terre Haute, are continuous. The faculty search process has been completely revised to eliminate obstacles to equal opportunity and to insure as much fairness in the consideration of candidates as is possible. The institution’s affirmative action officer, as a third party neutral, reviews each stage of the search process. The key elements for judgment based on merit and not prohibited biases are: objectivity, consistency, rationality, and transparency. These have been built into the faculty hiring process to reduce bias and minimize subjectivity. COE now uses strategies for on-campus interviews that include providing diverse interviewees with a packet of materials reflective of community diversity, inviting persons of diverse backgrounds to join the luncheon conversation, making efforts to present the department’s program and collegiality as attractive, including the African American Cultural Center as part of the campus tour, including in the community tour information for outlets for diverse interviewees and arranging a real estate tour with an agent of their background. Once hired, the college mentors the new faculty of diverse backgrounds as well as provides professional development for the existing department faculty on issues of diversity prior to new faculty beginning employment. The COE Diversity Summit held in January 2005 provided departments the opportunity to write their collective diversity plan and further prepare for the review of materials of diverse candidates and on-campus interviews of diverse candidates. Presently, two courses taken by each teacher candidate are taught by diverse faculty. Specifically, initial program candidates have the opportunity to work with diverse higher education faculty in EPSY 202 /341 as well as CIMT 272/202, which are taken by all candidates depending on their certification level. Other opportunities for candidates to relate with faculty from diverse backgrounds are through the organization WIN (Women in NAACP), which is active in the community, as well as through guest lectures offered by international faculty on topics of their expertise to candidates through seminars or distance learning settings. Most candidates interact with faculty in schools in Vigo County. The district includes forty public schools and several private/parochial schools within a geographic area of 800 square miles in west central Indiana. Diversity statistics for P-12 faculty reflect those of the geographic area. P-12 faculty data highlighting exceptionalities, language background, or socio-economic status are not available from districts or other sources. Unit faculty have been recognized for their efforts in the area of diversity. The institution awards the Faculty Diversity Award to an ISU faculty member each year; several COE faculty have been recognized. Additional recognition for faculty in the area of diversity include grant funds of approximately one million dollars to support the Blumberg Center for the Deaf-blind Family Learning Weekend. These funds allowed five ISU candidates and 20 additional school staff in October 2004-05 to aid in the implementation of the Deaf-blind Family Learning Weekend. C. Experiences working with diverse candidates


42

The following is a compilation of the demographics of all COE candidates at ISU during Spring 2005.

Table 4.3 Candidate Demographics

10 Day Enrollment Count - Spring 2005 Candidates in

Initial Teacher Preparation Programs

Candidates In Advanced Preparation Programs

All Students

in the Institution

Demographics of Geographical

Area Served by Institution2

N (%)

N (%) N (%) % American Indian or

Alaskan Native

3 (0.2%)

3 (0.4%)

36 (0.4%)

0.3% Asian or Pacific

Islander 4 (0.3%) 12 (1.6%) 101 (1%) 0.9%

Black, non-Hispanic 71 (4.8%) 41 (5.4%) 1090 (10.8%) 3.9% Hispanic 7 (0.5%) 14 (1.9%) 139 (1.4%) 0.9% White, non-Hispanic 1360 (92%) 634 (84.0%) 8069 (79.9%) 94% Multiracial 9 (0.6%) 1 (0.1%) 87 (0.9%) 0.9% Other 5 (0.3%) 44 (5.8%) 373 (3.7%) -- Race/ethnicity

Unknown 19 (1.3%) 6 (7.9%) 200 (1.9%) --

Total 1478 (100%) 755 (100%) 10,095 Female 993 (67.2%) 527 (69.8%) 5287 (52.4%) NA Male 485 (32.8%) 228 (30.2%) 4808 (47.6%) NA Total 1478 (100%) 755 (100%) 10,085 1 Data from Workforce Region 7 Profile - http://www.stats.indiana.edu/profiles/prwipr7.html

The unit has made efforts to provide opportunities for candidates to interact with diverse candidates, as well as to recruit and retain diverse candidates. Examples include x International Education Week takes place in November on the ISU campus, and according to

candidates, ISU invites organizations to get involved with this special week so they may have opportunities to interact with diverse candidates. Candidates associate with other students on campus from countries and backgrounds from countries other than their own.

x The LLL (Linking Language with Learners) is an exchange student group which encourages the service of tutoring these exchange students in the speaking of English. In addition, the exchange students may teach a foreign language to candidates.

x The PRE, Too! Project, a collaboration between ISU, Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS) and

Ivy Tech (area career-technical school), allows for an increase in the number of ISU teacher candidates from underrepresented groups in IPS in three high needs areas: Special Education, English as a Second Language, and the sciences and math programs.

2 Data from Workforce Region 7 Profile - http://www.stats.indiana.edu/profiles/prwipr7.html


43

x Through PDS high schools, field experiences and clinical experiences allow for exposure of ISU candidates to high school students in hopes of encouraging them to consider attending ISU as teacher candidates. One of the high school sites has a 94 percent minority enrollment.

x Through the MRRC-VCSC (Minority Recruitment and Retention Committee – Vigo County

School Corporation) grant beginning in 2004, COE attempts to increase minority recruitment and retention of candidates from the VCSC FEA (Future Educators of America).

D. Experiences working with diverse students in P-12 schools Candidates participate in field experiences and clinical experiences with P-12 students beginning in their first education methods class and continuing through the program each semester. The candidates participate in Block 3 field experiences in schools with students who come from a variety of ethnicities, races, and socioeconomic groups. The P-12 schools range in ethnicity from 0 to 44 percent, with all candidates experiencing at least one semester in a school of students with a minority population between 20 and 44 percent. In addition, all candidates experience at least one semester of field experience with student populations in which 67 to 94 percent qualify for free or reduced lunch. In the EESE program, candidates take the Block 3 field experience component in one of four schools that has students of diverse backgrounds. In the CIMT and advanced programs, there is a concerted effort to place candidates in schools of diverse population for at least one field placement and/or student teaching experience. In fact, in the School Psychology program, there is a required practicum placement in the first semester of the program at Vigo County Headstart, and practicum placements with children who have disabilities. Field experience evaluations demonstrate the candidates’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions related to diversity. Further, candidates use the evaluation feedback from peers and supervisors to reflect on their skills in working with diverse students in a variety of ways. Assigned lesson reflections completed in field experiences and student teaching indicate that candidates are sensitive to the needs of diverse learners. Overall Assessment of Standard Programs at both the initial and advanced levels have required course assignments that address diversity as aligned with INTASC principle #3. Candidates demonstrate knowledge, skills and dispositions related to diversity through various class and field experience, clinical experience and internship assignments. Efforts to recruit and retain diverse faculty have proven beneficial and fruitful, with a minority faculty percentage in the COE comparable to the university’s minority faculty, and higher than the community’s minority percentage. Some effort has been made to increase candidates’ opportunities to work with diverse candidates, but the unit’s ethnic diversity is still less than the institution as a whole. All candidates participate in field and clinical experiences with P-12 students from diverse backgrounds in schools and/or clinical settings. Recommendation: MET


44

Areas for Improvement: 1. Continued: Candidates represent limited cultural diversity. Rationale: The diversity of candidates in the unit is less than that of the entire university, even though the number of candidates in the unit makes up a large portion of the entire ISU student population. Corrected: (Initial) Professional and pedagogical studies do not systematically include content on working with culturally diverse and exceptional populations. Rationale: The unit’s curriculum includes multiple opportunities for candidates to learn and demonstrate knowledge and skills for working with students from low socio-economic backgrounds, from ethnically and racially diverse backgrounds, and who exhibit learning differences and challenges. The unit assesses candidates regularly regarding their knowledge and abilities in working with culturally diverse and exceptional populations. Corrected: (Advanced) Professional studies do not systematically include content on developing competencies that support learning for culturally diverse and exceptional populations. Rationale: As indicated in the rationale for the correction of this area for improvement at the initial level, the unit has revised its curriculum, assessments, and clinical experiences to enhance the knowledge and skill of advanced candidates in work with diverse students and in diverse settings.

Corrected: Faculty in the unit represent limited cultural diversity.

Rationale: The unit has reviewed and revised its recruitment, search, and hiring procedures to better attract minority candidates. Initiatives by the unit to recruit diverse faculty have resulted in two minority hires in the 2005-06 academic year.


45

STANDARD 5. FACULTY QUALIFICATIONS, PERFORMANCE, AND DEVELOPMENT

Faculty are qualified and model best professional practices in scholarship, service, and teaching, including the assessment of their own effectiveness as related to candidate performance; they also collaborate with colleagues in the disciplines and schools. The unit systematically evaluates faculty performance and facilitates professional development.

Level: Initial and Advanced A. Qualified faculty There are 52 full-time and 31 part-time professional faculty in the Indiana State University (ISU) College of Education (COE). COE faculty generally teach at both the initial and advanced levels depending upon the need of each program, and their area of expertise. Additionally, 37 full-time content faculty in other colleges at the institution teach part time in COE programs. Approximately 90 percent of all faculty hold terminal degrees in their disciplines. Full-time faculty without terminal degrees are generally former university lab school faculty or are doctoral candidates with expertise and/or a current teaching license in their respective disciplines. Part-time professional education faculty must have, at a minimum, a Master’s degree and a current professional license in their area (i.e. licensed speech pathologist, school counselors, licensed psychologists, licensed mental health counselors, or juvenile probation officers). Full-time faculty who teach methods courses, supervise interns or practicum candidates, and serve as Professional Development School liaisons have P-12 teaching and clinical experience. A newly instituted policy regarding tenure and promotion provides for departments to emphasize the importance of faculty roles and functions in public school settings. School practitioners involved in supervising ISU teacher education candidates are expected to hold a masters degree and have at least three years of experience. Cooperating teachers are selected by their school principals and are encouraged to participate in clinical faculty training provided by ISU teacher education faculty. Faculty competency in and knowledge of area of their area of expertise are demonstrated through a review of vita. Higher education clinical faculty have first-hand understanding of school contexts and student populations. B. Modeling best professional practices in teaching ISU’s Mission, “. . . to educate students to be productive citizens,” is fulfilled in the unit by making the knowledge and expertise of its faculty available and accessible. The mission underscores the importance that unit faculty place on a “living plan” to deliver programs that evolve and respond to changes in the educational landscape. Faculty live the tenets of the conceptual framework as they create teaching/learning environments guided by the axiom “Good Learning is a Function of Good Teaching.” This idea is at the core of the unit Conceptual Framework, Becoming a Complete Professional, and is manifested in ISU classrooms, public school contexts, and in scholarly undertakings. Course syllabi reflect faculty efforts to offer


46

candidates opportunities to develop expert knowledge of content and pedagogy through methods such as:

x jigsaw activities in which candidates become experts in a specific topic and teach it to peers in the class (ELED 250)

x preparation of a work sample that includes candidate understanding of academic standards, ability to reflect on the effectiveness of a lesson, and ability to analyze student achievement

x collaboration with candidates in physics to design lessons on building catapults to be taught to university physics students (ITE 605)

x discussion of problem situations arising in classroom in terms of theories of child development. (EPSY 202)

x use of technology as an advocacy tool by presenting the findings of a research project to appropriate stakeholders

To prepare candidates to become productive members of professional communities, faculty design activities that involve candidates in real-world, educational situations. These include:

x videotaping and critiquing team-taught lessons in a public school setting x collaborating with child care providers in developing curriculum and resources x participating in service learning activities with elementary school students x developing a cultural map of a community for a specific school district, considering a

school’s ISTEP performance on ASAP data sets and speculate on student performance relative to their social conditions in the community

x giving parent presentations and referrals x completing a school budget describing the connection between what resources are needed

to maintain and develop learning programs x participating in after-school tutoring programs

To prepare candidates as individuals who demonstrate the behaviors expected of thoughtful, caring professionals, faculty include learning activities that allow candidates opportunities to

x reflect on personal learning gleaned from tutoring experiences x review teacher dispositions and ISU COE Professionalism Agreement x attend professional development conferences x consider legal, moral, and ethical issues that pertain to ethical and professional behaviors

Faculty use a variety of teaching and assessment strategies including but not limited to reflection papers, candidate presentations, PowerPoint presentations, and teacher work samples. ISU continues its work in becoming an experiential learning, clinically-based program as evidenced by the 2005 Institute for Transforming Teacher Education that offered professional development opportunities for faculty to develop inquiry-based learning environments in teacher education and general education coursework. By designing field experiences for candidates early in their programs, requiring candidates to teach units in public school settings, and by systematically assessing these candidate reports, faculty encourage the development of candidate reflection, critical thinking, problem solving, and professional dispositions. Through direct involvement in PDS improvement, faculty help promote quality experiences for teacher education candidates. One field experience reflection assignment for candidates to construct a cultural map indicates an understanding of the role


47

culture, community, and diversity play in the social, emotional, and intellectual experiences of children, young adolescents, and adolescents. The increase of distance education course offered by faculty in the unit provides candidates with a wide range of access to content and pedagogical knowledge. Candidates also use technology by submitting projects and lesson plans through the LiveText system adopted by the unit to track and analyze candidate progress. On a scale of 1-4, senior teacher education candidates indicated a 3.11 level of satisfaction on their entire educational experience, and a satisfaction of 2.73 for academic advising at the institution on the 2005 National Survey of Student eEngagement (NSSE). Candidate evaluations of faculty teaching performance are collected for at least one course each year. Raw data from these evaluations (2003-2004) indicate a high level of student perceptions of the teaching effectiveness of unit faculty. According to the institutional retention and graduation rates, the COE had the highest one-year retention rates of student matriculating to the Academic Opportunity Program (2003-2004). Students with the COE as the last college of record had the highest 5- and 6-year graduations rates (54.2 and 59.6 percent respectively). Interviews with candidates indicate that unit faculty are of high quality and student oriented. In addition to end-of-course evaluations, unit faculty conduct daily “minute” papers to see if candidates have achieved the objectives for each class, and conduct mid-semester evaluations of candidate perceptions of course instruction. Faculty report a process of department peer evaluation and syllabus review to improve instructional performance through “observation and conversation” on teaching. Faculty reflect on their teaching performance when writing annual reviews. C. Modeling best professional practices in scholarship ISU expects scholarly activity related to teaching, research, scholarship, and creativity. Faculty submit scholarly efforts for professional review and evaluation and finalize such work in publications and presentations at local, state, national and international meetings of professional associations. In 2004 unit faculty authored five books, and 18 individual book chapters. Four monographs were authored by unit faculty, 57 manuscripts were published in professional journals, and faculty made 165 presentations at professional meetings. Some of the book chapters, articles, and presentations included candidates as co-authors or co-presenters. The scholarly activity reported here was generated by over 90 percent of the tenure/tenure-track faculty. Six faculty also edit professional journals. Unit faculty engage in a variety of research and scholarly activities related to teaching and learning. During 2004 and 2005, 28 unit faculty received instructional technology mini grants to increase the application of technology in teacher education courses. Faculty across departments and colleges often co-directed these grants in combining content and pedagogical knowledge through the application of current trends in use of technology tools for candidate performance. Of 29 grant proposals submitted between October 2003 and March 2005, 25 received funding. Many of the grant proposals and awards focused on PDS activities and helped support improvement in instructional practices at the school sites as well as the quality of experiences for candidates and P-12 students. The unit received a Title II, US DOE Teacher Quality Enhancement-Partnership Grant in 2003. The project proposed by this grant, Project PRE, is


48

designed to link renewal and transformation of the teacher education program to renewal of high-need partner schools, and to impact teacher quality at the pre-service, induction and professional development levels of school personnel through professional development activities. The grant supports workshops conducted by faculty for classroom teachers (i.e., Mentor Teacher Preparation; Extending Teacher Creativity: Integration, Collaboration, and Computer Technology; Writing Through the Arts; Developing Leader Institute; and ISTEP Workshop). D. Modeling best professional practices in service Participation in service activities at the departmental, college, and university level is expected of all unit faculty. Unit faculty are well represented on ISU academic governance committees. Twenty faculty have been involved in project/program evaluation for schools, states, in other institutions of higher education, course evaluations, and 17 faculty have participated in professional association accreditation review. Faculty and staff are continuously involved in P-12 schools. Faculty are also represented in a wide range of professional organizations at local, state, national, and international levels (i.e., Wabash Valley Educational Cooperative, ISTEP Indiana Statewide testing for Educational Progress Pilot Item Review Committee, Indiana State FACS Advisory Committee, Hoosier Association of Science Teachers, and Indiana APHERD, National Association of School Psychologists, National School Counselor Standards Board of Directors, Association for Children with Learning Disabilities, Vice President of the Society of International Chinese in Educational Technology, NAEYC Diversity Panel member, and International Reading Association). More than 90 percent of faculty are actively involved in these various types of service activities. Faculty service through activities at The Blumberg Center help provide professional development for school-based teams of teachers, school psychologists and school administrators to develop intervention plans for the shortage and training of teachers of students who are deaf or hard of hearing. The Porter School Psychology Centers provide assessment and consultation services. The Rowe Center for Communicative disorders provides speech and hearing therapy for members of the community. Off-campus service is provided in local hospitals and nursing homes. E. Collaboration Faculty collaborate with colleagues from across campus and with P-12 educators. The Teacher Education Committee membership includes representation from all content areas and from PDS faculty. The CIMT Department consistently collaborates with content areas in other colleges to assure the seamless connection between pedagogy and secondary content courses. Collaboration between the COE and the College of Arts and Sciences is was at one time supported by Project 30, a national organization dedicated to improving higher education. A majority of the grants received by the professional education unit are collaborative efforts that include teachers, schools, school districts, and faculty from other disciplines on campus. The PDS partnership initiated 13 years ago in an effort to replace the ISU Laboratory School has grown into a large-scale, 20-school collaboration concentrating on the professional development of teachers and school improvement. The PDS collaboration was awarded a Christa McAuliffe Award for Distinguished Programs in Teacher Education, and served as a vehicle for receipt of


49

the Title II, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant and subsequent creation of Faculty Learning Communities, cross-disciplinary groups of faculty engaged in collaborative, year-long programs to enhancing teaching and learning. Partnerships with professional organizations have resulted in co-sponsorship of local and state conferences on school improvement and teacher professional development. Last year the COE offered university credit to PDS teachers for their attendance at the fall conference (Using Assessment to Improve Instruction) of the Indiana North Central Association - Commission on Accreditation and School Improvement (NCA-CASI). Faculty organize competition days for high school and middle school students to demonstrate their use of technology. These “Tech Track” and “Hands on High Tech” events serve to help recruit future candidates and involve current candidates in working with public school students. F. Unit evaluation of professional education faculty performance A new policy for promotion and tenure was adopted by the COE in 2001. This policy revisits the importance of faculty involvement in Professional Development Schools for the purposes of faculty advancement in the academy, stresses regular and systematic evaluation by multiple sources for all pre-tenure faculty, and places a greater responsibility on departments to determine final outcomes of faculty evaluations and to determine specific evaluative criteria and performance standards for faculty of each department. Because of the highly specialized nature of faculty expertise, departments are assigned a major role in assessing the significance and quality of discipline-specific faculty achievements leading to reappointment, promotion, and tenure decisions. The standards for achievement for each faculty rank listed in The Indiana State University Handbook serve as the basis for the COE Promotion and Tenure Committee's evaluation of candidates and promotion and tenure decisions. The handbook further stipulates that each academic department must publish discipline specific criteria and performance standards to be used in departmental faculty personnel decisions. The evaluation of a candidate's total performance is a shared responsibility. Faculty are evaluated annually. Each faculty member submits a document detailing professional accomplishments over the past 12 months. These annual reports are reviewed by a department committee, the department chair, and the Dean. Each pre-tenure faculty member meets with the department chair and Dean individually to discuss evaluations results and set goals for the next year. Faculty note that these annual reports serve as a starting place for increasing and directing faculty improvement in teaching, scholarship, and service, and for establishing need for individual faculty professional development. Procedures for annual and comprehensive reports for probationary faculty are clearly delineated. Only one faculty member has failed to achieve promotion and tenure in the COE since 2001. G. Unit facilitation of professional development There is evidence of the unit conceptual framework, Becoming a Complete Professional, in the professional development activities of faculty. Faculty attend workshops, lecture series, and travel to professional conferences to continually update their knowledge of content and research in their fields. The constructivist nature of the use of technology at the institution encourages


50

faculty to increase their personal skill in using a variety of technology tools. The Teaching and Learning Center on campus offers stipends to faculty working to transform campus-based courses to distance education delivery through participating in a Course Transformation Academy, and also provides one-on-one training in the use of computers for individual faculty who require special assistance. Instructional and Information Technology Services (IITS) training workshops provide support for the instructional technology needs of the faculty and candidates in the unit, and Instructional and Research Technology Services (IRTS) helps faculty utilize the latest in software and hardware resources for educational, instructional, and research purposes. Funds from the Academic Affairs office are available for faculty travel for the purposes of professional development, and visiting scholars are brought to campus through established lecture and colloquium series as well as by special invitation from department sponsored programs. A newly established Reitzel Faculty Research Award for noteworthy research provides financial support for faculty research. Faculty are involved in professional development activities with PDS teachers and administrators and collaborate with candidates to improve teaching and research. Overall Assessment of Standard Unit faculty have extensive academic backgrounds with over 90 percent of full-time and part-time faculty holding terminal degrees in their field. They are effective teachers who model best teaching practices in their areas of expertise. They are productive scholars who have produced an array of publications and presentations to disseminate their research activities and findings to a wide professional audience. Unit faculty engage in the governance of the institution and are involved in local, state, and national professional organizations. Faculty participate in annual evaluations of their progress toward becoming complete professionals and engage in professional development activities to improve their knowledge and skills. Faculty collaborate with local school personnel and candidates through established partnerships and through efforts to create optimal learning-to-teach experience for teacher education candidates at ISU. Recommendation: MET Areas for Improvement: None


51

STANDARD 6. UNIT GOVERNANCE AND RESOURCES The unit has the leadership, authority, budget, personnel, facilities, and resources, including information technology resources, for the preparation of candidates to meet professional, state, and institutional standards. Level: Initial and Advanced A. Unit leadership and authority Grounded in its roots as the Indiana State Normal School, the institution has long supported and been committed to the preparation of teachers and other professional educators. The College of Education (COE) is the professional education unit on campus, and is responsible for the leadership role for governance, planning, resources, and operating programs for the initial and advanced preparation of teachers and other school personnel. It provides professional preparation courses and collaborates with four colleges on campus for the development of curriculum, delivery of coursework and assessment of candidate quality. Reporting to the Provost / Vice President for Academic Affairs, the dean of the College of Education serves as the head of the unit and oversees all professional preparation programs for teachers and other school personnel. Since the last NCATE visit in fall 1999, the unit has been led by three deans: none have served more than two years with the current dean serving as an interim during the 20043-20054 year before serving this year as full dean. After many years of service at the institution and with the unit, the current dean intends to retire at the end the academic year. The president and provost indicated that a national search will begin shortly. The Teacher Education Committee (TEC) serves as the policy advisory board and includes representation from all education preparation programs outside the COE as well as undergraduate candidates, graduate candidates, and public school/community representatives. Minutes from the TEC indicate that curricular proposals are frequently considered. In additional to the Teacher Education Committee, professional community members and constituent groups provide input through other means. For example, the Educational Leadership program regularly convenes an advisory panel that suggests changes in curriculum. The Professional Development Schools committeeSteering Committee, comprised of representatives of 20 schools and the University, meets regularly to discuss programs and joint opportunities for professional development, initiatives, and grant proposals that impact K-12 students. Arts and sSciences faculty, bBusiness faculty, Technology faculty, and hHealth/pPhysical eEducation faculty meet regularly as well, but separately and with unit faculty. Advising services for candidates begin with an evaluation and orientation through the Education Student Services (ESS) office. Candidates and advisors review requirements and schedules to facilitate the candidate’s progress through the program. The unit has developed an instrument for the ESS that assesses staff reception, advisor empathy and knowledge, and outcomes. Results indicate that in all twelve items, 95 percent of 177 candidates rated their experience positively – strongly agree or agree on a 4-point Likert scale.


52

For content advisement, the number of candidates that faculty advise in COE ranges from five to 31 with most faculty working with 10-16 candidates. This distribution affords faculty with adequate time and candidates with appropriate access. Data for content advisor loads were unavailable at the time of the visit. The department of Elementary, Early, and Special Education (EESE) evaluated its faculty advisement activities in fall 2005 using an instrument that included ten questions with a 4-point Likert scale in a format similar to the ESS instrument. Results summarized for the team were difficult to interpret since the number of participants was not identified, the numerical results were not explained (did not appear to be means), and the dates and distribution information were hand-written on the document. There was no similar evaluation of content advisors other COE departments or the content advisors in other colleges. Unit publications distributed internally (such as the student teaching handbook and assessment information) are frequently undated which makes currency difficult to determine. However, institutional catalogs are printed every year and unit administrators review these items for accuracy prior to publication. B. Unit budget The unit’s budget includes funds generated from student credit hour tuition, student fees, and other external sources including competitive grants and foundational monies. Budget figures from the last five years indicate that the unit’s operating budget generated by credit hours has been comparable to similar units on campus and has remained relatively stable in the percentage of allocation despite state budget decreases and losses in faculty and administrative lines across all institutional units. Most recent figures for the FY 04-05 year show that the unit receives 13 percent of the operating budget. Recent budget declines in state allocations have impacted all units on campus, including the COE. ISU’s budget has been reduced over $5 million for the next two years. In some cases, established faculty lines have been replaced through attrition by full-time temporary or adjunct faculty. In other situations, funds for supplies or other administrative expenses have been shifted to cover losses. All institutional units, both academic and administrative, have lost funding. Fortunately, the external funding the COE enjoys has offset some of those losses to allow the unit to continue to support programs as needed. Student fee monies also flow to the unit although specific data regarding those monies was not available. These funds are strictly limited in their use by state regulation, but allow special instructional needs such as manipulatives, technology, and classroom consumables to be met. The unit has been extremely successful in obtaining external grants to further the work of faculty and the unit. Recent grants include the following:


53

2005 Title II: Teacher Quality Partnership Grant $768,712 USDE 2005 Upward Bound Math & Science 222,916 USDE 2004 Writing Through the Arts 239,736 IN Comm Higher Edu 2004 Title II: Teacher Quality Partnership Grant 997,927 USDE 2003 Lilly Fellows Teachers’ Academy 35,747 Lilly Endowment, Inc. 2003 Title II Teacher Quality Partnership Grant 1,503,002 USDE Figures from the Office of Sponsored Programs indicate that between 1997 and 2005, unit faculty applied for 262 grants and received 192 for a success rate of 73 percent. Both unit and supplementary funds are available to support faculty travel. Departments receive an allocation equal to $400 per faculty member to distribute among faculty members. In cases where departmental faculty do not travel in a particular year, those funds are available for re-distribution in the department to further assist others. In addition to these funds, institutional funds are available from the Office of Academic Affairs. Allocations from the Blumberg Center fund provided $5000 to $8400 for six to 16 faculty in the past few years. Faculty report that travel is sufficiently funded. C. Personnel Institutional faculty workload policies specify a 12-hour equivalent load for all faculty. While not formally stated in policy, practice reveals that load calculation provides for weighted consideration of graduate courses so that a semester load equals nine (9) hrs graduate credit or 12 hours undergraduate credit. Further course reductions are made to accommodate those serving in roles as PDS liaisons, university supervisors, and dissertation chairs. Faculty workload assignments are consistent with NCATE expectations in both course instruction and field supervision. Workloads allow faculty to be productive and actively engaged in teaching, scholarship, and service. Advisement responsibilities have been eased by the establishment of the Education Student Services office which provides preliminary advisement for candidates who are in the early phases of their programs. This advisement service allows faculty to focus on candidates who are nearing the end of their programs and need more specialized content-specific advisement. Faculty receive stipends for designing on-line courses. When taught, these courses are figured into workloads as traditional face-to-face courses. The unit has been fortunate to recruit and retain a cadre of part-time faculty who are able to support and contribute to the unit’s mission and programs. These faculty are evaluated regularly. Department chairs are responsible for ensuring the proper balance of part-time and full-time faculty and for providing the appropriate training and development to ensure that curriculum is delivered in an appropriate manner. Currently, the unit’s faculty ratio of part time to full time mirrors the institutional numbers and is in line with institutional administrators’ figures of approximately 30 percent part-time to 70 percent full-time faculty.


54

The unit has a full contingent of support personnel including administrative secretaries, instructional technology support, professional staff such as certification officers and development and outreach directors. Administratively, the unit is in a state of transition with a current dean who has served one year in an interim acting role and one year as full dean, an acting associate dean, two three interim department chairs, and a vacant associate dean for outreach. D. Unit facilities The unit is housed in the College of Education building, one tower of a twin tower complex that had formerly been a dormitory. The facilities are adequate, and the building has classroom space, private offices, and other general purpose areas that serve the colleges needs. The building provides a wireless environment for laptop usage and technology enhanced classrooms. The unit is anticipating a change in facilities with the Indiana General Assembly authorizing the renovation of University Hall (the former lab school) to house the College of Education. This new space will provide improved clinical space for programs in school counseling, school psychology, communication disorders, and other specialized services. Faculty offices, classrooms, and demonstration classrooms will support the unit in its mission of service and collaboration. E. Unit resources including technology As indicated earlier, the unit has been very successful in garnering external funds to support its programs, but none of the core programs or services relies on external resources for survival. The unit has been able to institutionalize support for key programs such as Professional Development Schools and other outreach programs that initially began as grant projects. This commitment runs across the institution so that even in other academic units such as the College of Arts and Sciences, faculty release time for service as a PDS liaison or for special projects related to educator preparation are supported. In both personnel and other resources, the unit has had adequate support. Monitored by the college’s Instructional Technology Advisory Committee, all faculty have access to current hardware, software and periphery devices as needed to plan and deliver effective instruction. New faculty are provided with a laptop and PDA that are updated regularly. Support services include help-desk resources and technology specialists are assigned to the college. Every semester faculty enroll in workshops focused on technology which are offered at the institutional level through the Office of Informational Technology and through the college’s own Instructional and Information Technology Services. COE technology usage rates is among the highest on campus according to the 2005 ISU Technology Profile. Faculty are able to model appropriate uses of technology in instructional settings. Attendance and participation rates in professional development are tracked. Teacher candidates and candidates for other school personnel have access to public computer labs, an education-specific lab, the COE building’s wireless environment, and multiple support systems as detailed above. The unit has adopted and included the ISTE NETS standards as essential competencies for all candidates. In addition to these standards, teacher candidates


55

demonstrate their abilities to use technology in manipulating the LiveText electronic portfolio software which the unit has adopted to better manage its assessment activities. Library and curricular resources are current and accessible to candidates. The library subscribes to several databases which, combined with other services such as interlibrary loan, support the undergraduate and graduate research needs of the unit’s faculty and candidates. Department allocations for the purchase of books show that education receives more funding than any other department listed. Each new faculty member has a $500 book allowance to order specialized books that support his/her research agenda. Overall Assessment of Standard The unit, in collaboration with its institutional partners, holds the authority to plan, deliver, and operate the teacher education program at ISU. Facilities are adequate and scheduled to improve with a refurbished building in the near future. While budget lines have been stagnant, successful external grant funding has allowed the unit to continue its outreach and collaborative work. Strengths of the unit include its instructional technology use at both the candidate and faculty levels. Recommendation: MET Areas for Improvement: None Corrected: Heavy advisement, service, and field experience supervision responsibilities strain faculty effectiveness in teaching, scholarship, and service. Rationale: The addition of the Educational Student Services offices has eased the advising load on faculty so that they can better balance the requirements of teaching, scholarship and service.


56

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE


Exhibit Center 2005

Numerical Order

Exhibit

Number

Exhibit Title

OV.01 Mission of ISU

OV.02 ESS Web site

OV.03 IITS Website

OV.04 PDS web site

OV.05 Porter school Psychology Center - Not viewed

OV.06 Rowe Center - Not viewed

OV.07 Blumberg Center

OV.08 Blumberg Newspaper article on ISTEP – Not viewed

OV.09 Early Childhood Education Center

OV.10 Campus Connection article on ISUCCC – Not viewed

OV.11 ISEAS

OV.12 North Central Association

OV.13 Upward Bound

OV.14 Upward Bound Math and Science

OV.15 Education Talent Search

OV.16 Project PRE Grant Application and Letter

OV.17 PRE Newsletters and Information Packets

OV.18 US News and World Report Ranking - PDF

OV.19 Christa McAuliffe Application and Award Letter

OV.20 Miller Elementary Award Email

OV.21 PT3 Grant Application and Award Letter

OV.22 AACTE-Microsoft Application and Award Letter

OV.23 Award winning teachers

OV.24 Sycamore Educator Magazine

OV.25 Campus Connection on Jill Hall

OV.26 FCS Teacher of the Year

OV.27 Campus Connection article Outstanding Educators


57

CF.01 Conceptual Framework Documents

CF.02 Notes from 9/13/04 Conceptual Framework meeting

CF.03 Early version of Conceptual Framework

CF.04 Programmatic Breakdowns of Conceptual Framework

CF.05 ISU - Fulfilling the Promise: Pathway to Preeminence

CF.06 Departmental disposition statements – electronic version contains only the signature

page; paper version includes CIMT (secondary) and ELAF (Ed Admin) but no others.

CF.07 May 2001 TEC Minutes for Approval of Technology Standards

CF.08 Technology Competencies Memo

CF.09 STaR chart letter and analysis

CF.10 April 2003 TEC Minutes for Re-examination of Technology Standards

CF.11 Facilitating Activities Book

CF.12 Conceptual Framework alignment activity with standards

CF.13 PRE Planning Documents

CF.14 PRE Newsletters and Information Packets

1.01 Standards map by programs

1.02 Program Reports

1.03 ELED 100 and CIMT 301/302 syllabi and assessments

1.04 LiveText examples/rubrics reports

1.05 Portfolio Handbooks EESE

1.06 LiveText reports related to content knowledge

1.07 CIMT 401 Student Teaching Report 2004-05 in LiveText

1.08 Student Teaching Evaluations - CIMT and EESE

1.09 Syllabi and standards reports from courses

1.10 T2T Informational Session Flyer

1.11 T2T program materials

1.12 New Teacher, Principal, Student Teacher Survey Cumulative Results

1.13 Title II reports and Praxis Pass Rates

1.14 M.Ed. Graduate Student Survey Results

1.15 M.Ed. Alumni Survey Results

1.16 M.Ed. Graduate Employer Survey Results

1.17 NBPTS 2 Report in LiveText

1.18 Standards report for School Counselor courses

1.19 School Counselor program requirements

1.20 Standards report for Educational administration and syllabi

1.21 2005 School Law Conference Brochure

1.22 Assessment rubrics for Educational administration

1.23 Graduate Catalog requirements


58

1.24 SLLA Institutional Summary Report 2004

1.25 School Psychology Student Outcomes

1.26 School Psychology Outcomes Reports

1.27 EESE capstone course syllabus, rubric and data

1.28 Student teaching data

1.29 CIMT Professional Education sequence of classes

1.30 Content methods courses

1.31 Procedures for evaluating unit reports

1.32 LiveText reports on service courses

1.33 TEC minutes - sharing of service course data

1.34 Course syllabi for practica courses

1.35 LiveText reports on practica assessments

1.36 Unit reports and reflections in LiveText

1.37 Intern pass rates

1.38 Principal survey results

1.39 New teacher and student survey results

1.40 Student teaching evaluations - CIMT

1.41 Facilitate Learning Use of Technology Report

1.42 Course syllabi for M.Ed programs

1.43 NBPTS 4.1 report

1.44 Expert Panel Report

1.45 PT3 Mini Grants - Occasional Papers

1.46 Facilitating Activities - Occasional Papers

1.47 Syllabi for ELED and CIMT 272

1.48 Assessment rubric related to technology

1.49 Assessment rubric for technology in student teaching

1.50 EESE Technology Profile Report

1.51 CIMT 400 WebQuest assessment rubric and report

1.52 PT 3 evaluation reports and surveys on LiveText use

1.53 Full NSSE report for Teacher Education

1.54 Report on Teacher Candidates Facilitate Student Learning through the use of

Technology

1.55 Principal, new teacher, and student teacher surveys

1.56 LiveText syllabi and assessment results

1.57 Family projects assessment report

1.58 NBPTS 3 multiple methods report

1.59 NBPTS reports for professional and pedagogical skills

1.60 Assessment rubrics for field experiences for School Counseling

1.61 School Psychology Technology Competencies


59

1.62 Administration Internship Portfolio Rubric

1.63 Administrator portfolios and assessment results

1.64 Ed.S. and Principal Surveys for Alumni, Student and Employer and results

1.65 Report and materials from Dispositional Committee

1.66 Disposition Retreat attendance and handouts

1.67 CIMT Disposition Assessment Process

1.68 Dispositional item analysis from surveys and student teaching evaluations

1.69 EESE Disposition Agreement of Understanding

1.70 CIMT Professionalism Agreement

1.71 CIMT student disposition observation form

1.72 CIMT student alert form

1.73 COE student grievance procedures - Congress policies

1.74 Administrator disposition assessment

1.75 ELAF minutes on disposition approval

1.76 Superintendent and Principal Employer Survey Results

1.77 Survey Results and Student Teaching evaluations that focus on Student Learning

1.78 ELED 259, CIMT 301/302, and student teaching assessments and LiveText reports

1.79 Syllabi, rubrics and LiveText reports for CIMT 301/302, CIMT 400, and ST Unit report,

and LiveText reports

1.80 Assessment rubric and reports for student assessment

1.81 Report on Student teaching Unit Report and EESE portfolio - LiveText reports

1.82 Syllabi for advanced teaching courses

1.83 Assessment summary, and meeting minutes from CIMT and EESE for April 2005

1.84 Blumberg ISTEP article

1.85 School Psychology Multicultural Self Assessment

1.86 School Psychology Multicultural Case Study

2.01 Petition example and CIMT Contract for Student Exceptions

2.02 TEC Minutes of Feb 15,and March 15 2005

2.03 2005 Final Evaluations of Supervised Teaching Experience Report

2.04 TEC minutes on discussion on PSU number order

2.05 Previous and current versions of assessment instruments - CIMT

2.06 Handout used in clinical faculty training to define PSU, handed out at TEC for continued

PSU discussion

2.07 Principal and Superintendent Preparation Summative Points

2.08 M.Ed. EESE and CIMT graduate student, alumni and principal surveys

2.09 Expert Panel results

2.10 School Psychology Student Outcomes Assessment Plan

2.11 Teacher Education Transition Workshop Materials


60

2.12 UAS Timeline provided to partners

2.13 December 9, 1999 Teacher Education Program Development Meeting Materials

2.14 COAS Memo November 1, 1999 regarding UAS and Program Development

2.15 Planning Fiesta invitation

2.16 Stakeholder Meeting February 27, 2001

2.17 Transition Workshop May 31 2001 and June 7, 2001

2.18 Congress minutes from March 6, 2002 showing approval of UAS

2.19 May 18, 2000 CIMT, Content and PDS Meeting on Portfolio

2.20 Invitation to UAS Work session

2.21 Sample developmental UAS documents

2.22 January 19, 2001 notes for assessment in subject matter areas

2.23 COAS Chairs Council Presentation Sept. 17, 2002

2.24 Dept. of Counseling minutes related to UAS and Outcomes Assessment

2.25 2000-01 Stakeholder Database

2.26 Draft of Summative Decision Points

2.27 Report on UAS Development to IPSB, October 2002

2.28 TEC minutes relative to UAS and TEC member lists

2.29 COE Advisory Committees membership lists

2.30 Assessment committee membership and meeting notes

2.31 Student teacher, New teacher surveys

2.32 Evaluation of Supervised Teaching Experiences Instrument

2.33 Graduate Student, Alumni and Employer Surveys

2.34 Interview guide and questionnaire for expert panel

2.35 Departmental Outcomes Assessment Plans

2.36 Assessment summary and EESE and CIMT dept. meeting minutes

2.37 CIMT meeting minutes April 15, 2005

2.38 All-grade program discussion

2.39 Report on Proceedings of Teacher Quality Development Academy

2.40 ISU PDS Partnership Clinical Faculty Workshop June 26 and 27 2001

2.41 TEC Minutes Fall 2004 - Summative decision points

2.42 Correlation and regression analyses on instruments in programmatic assessment

2.43 Reliability Analysis of Surveys

2.44 Analysis of reliability on student work samples

2.45 TEC Minutes, Assessment committee minutes

2.46 Assessment Summary which identifies themes that emerged when several assessments

are compared.

2.47 CIMT discussion on surveys

2.48 Educational Administration program work on rubrics

2.49 TEC Minutes


61

2.50 Discussion documents regarding MIS

2.51 Sample LiveText standards reports

2.52 EESE minutes, CIMT minutes, ELAF minutes, TEC minutes, PowerPoint presentations

2.53 Focus Group Discussions January 27, 2005

2.54 School Psychology Faculty Meeting Minutes

3.01 PDS Website

3.02 PDS Materials

3.03 February 5, 2005, ISU PDS Stakeholders Meeting

3.04 Vita for Corey and Watkins

3.05 Sycamore Educator's Day Materials

3.06 NCA/CASI Conference Materials

3.07 Learning Alliance II Summer Institute

3.08 Preliminary School Psychology Internship Sites

3.09 Teacher Education Dispositions

3.10 Practica Placement Papers

3.11 Student Teaching Placement Papers

3.12 ISU and School Corporation Contractual Agreement

3.13 School Counselor Interview and Feedback of on-site supervisors

3.14 Student Teaching Handbooks

3.15 Manual for Field-Based Clinical Faculty

3.16 PDS Contract

3.17 PDS Steering Committee Members list

3.18 Christa McAuliffe Award materials

3.19 Miller Elementary School Award Email

3.20 Project PRE Grant Materials

3.21 Other PDS Related grants

3.22 PDS Steering Committee Minutes

3.23 CIMT 301/302 Syllabi

3.24 PDS and Learning Alliance Network Schools Accomplishments: 1992-2005

3.25 Student Teaching Placement Annual Reports

3.26 Student Teacher Surveys

3.27 Analysis of student teacher surveys

3.28 Clinical faculty Workshop, June 26 and 27, 2001

3.29 Faculty Vita

3.30 Syllabi for CIMT 603, CIMT 604, and CIMT 501

3.31 T2T program materials

3.32 Rowe Center Clinic Summary

3.33 Undergraduate Catalog


62

3.34 Placement Data and School Demographics

3.35 EESE Course Syllabi

3.36 Departmental Summary of Syllabi for program Website

3.37 CIMT Professional Education Syllabi

3.38 Content Area Syllabi with Field experiences

3.39 Student Teaching Materials

3.40 Field experience Placements

3.41 Student teaching evaluation matrix

3.42 Dispositional Materials and Processes

3.43 Early Field Experience Placement Materials

3.44 Student Teaching Placement Materials

3.45 Technology Use Data

3.46 Student Teaching Handbooks

3.47 Student teaching feedback by Academic Major

3.48 Early field experiences data set

3.49 Student teaching data set

3.50 Data Licensure Recommendations

3.51 CIMT 501 Course Syllabi

3.52 Graduate Catalog, p. 159

3.53 ELAF Internship evaluations

3.54 Student Teaching Materials

3.55 CD 696 Course Syllabus

3.56 Graduate Catalog, p. 130-132

3.57 CIMT 4/659 Course Syllabus

3.58 CIMT 4/659 Practica Materials


3.60 Graduate catalog p. 152-153

3.61 Report on School Psychology Outreach and Practicum Hours

3.62 Director of Exceptional Needs Program

3.63 Technology Use data set

3.64 Final Report Teacher Quality Initiative

3.65 Evaluation of Supervised teaching experiences 01-04

3.66 Faculty Vita University supervisors

3.67 Faculty vita advanced program supervisors

3.68 Student teaching BlackBoard Course Site

3.69 Undergraduate catalog, p. 190 and 196

3.70 Recommendation for Licensure Process


3.72 Portfolios and Student teaching Integrate unit reports


63

3.73 EESE student teaching evaluation data

3.74 TEC minutes on direction of PSU

3.75 Principal Survey Results - Question 9, 11, 14, and 15


3.77 EESE and CIMT course syllabi that focus on reflection in the field

3.78 Rubric for EESE ST portfolio

3.79 Rubric for CIMT Integrated Unit

3.80 Reviews of portfolios and Integrated Unit Reports

3.81 School Counseling student evaluations of clinical practice

3.82 Principal Survey Results, Question 16

3.83 CIMT Student teaching evaluations - 9

3.84 EESE student teaching evaluations - 9

3.85 Student teaching surveys - #21

3.85 Early Field experience rubrics

3.87 EESE Portfolio and CIMT Integrated Unit report rubrics

3.88 Advanced programs rubrics on providing professional services to all clients

3.89 SPED 226 Course Syllabi

3.90 Tables on partner school demographics

3.91 COUN 739B syllabi

3.92 School Placement demographics

3.93 COUNT 739B syllabi and diversity case study information

3.82 Principal Survey Results, Question 16

3.83 CIMT Student teaching evaluations - 9

3.84 EESE student teaching evaluations - 9

3.85 Student teaching surveys - #21

3.85 Early Field experience rubrics

3.87 EESE Portfolio and CIMT Integrated Unit report rubrics

4.01 Teacher Education Transition Workshop Materials

4.02 Ad Hoc Committee on Diversity from TEC 2000-01 Materials

4.03 LiveText report on Diversity standards

4.04 Emporia State Grant Project Description

4.05 Participating Faculty in Emporia State Grant

4.06 Final report of Emporia State Grant Project

4.07 KBDQ Instrument and Results

4.08 NSSE Analysis for Technology and Diversity

4.09 MCCT-E Instrument

4.10 MCCTE Results

4.11 Meeting minutes that show discussion of MCCT-E Results


64

4.12 2005 Report on Student Teaching Unit Data

4.13 Elementary Student Teaching evaluations

4.14 Principal Survey - Question 5

4.15 NBPTS 3.2: Teachers Orchestrate Learning in Group Setting - Employer Survey

4.16 School Psychology Multicultural Case Study

4.17 School Psychology Multicultural Self Assessment

4.18 School Psych annual program evaluations 2002-04

4.19 Ed.S. Mentor Survey Results - ELAF

4.20 Interview materials reflective of community diversity

4.21 Diversity Summit Website and materials

4.22 AC Minutes Sept. 23, 04

4.23 US DOE Minority Student Recruitment Grant

4.24 MMRC VCSC Materials

4.25 Becoming a Culturally Responsive Teacher Assignment (CIMT 301/302)

5.01 CIMT 350 Cultural Map

5.02 SIR II Analysis

5.03 Technology Mini-grant Recipients

5.04 2005 NSSE Teacher Education Mean Comparison

5.05 Spring 2005 Retention and Graduation Rates

5.06 Faculty Vita - Project Evaluation

5.07 Faculty Vita - Accreditation for Professional Associations

5.08 Faculty Vita - Journal Editor responsibility

5.09 Faculty vita - students as co-authors

5.10 Office of Sponsored Programs Newsletters

5.11 Faculty Vita

5.12 Hinton nomination for award, Liu vita

5.13 Faculty vita - service with professional organizations

5.14 Technology Workshop Materials - PRE, PT3, CAPE

5.15 Project PRE Mentor Teaching Training

5.16 ETCW Materials

5.17 Lilly Fellows Teachers' Academy

5.18 Kiger and Balch Vita

5.19 Smaller Learning Community

5.20 Writing through the Arts Materials

5.21 Article on Writing Through the Arts

5.22 Math Teacher Academy Materials - PRE

5.23 Developing Leader Institute Materials - PRE

5.24 Blumberg Article on ISTEP


65

5.25 CIMT Student teaching Rubric

5.26 Meeting minutes/agendas on collaboration

5.27 PDS Steering Committee Meetings and Agendas

5.28 PDS School Improvement

5.29 PDS Notebook materials

5.30 Project 30

5.31 ICHE Grant for Math and ELED

5.32 Christa McAuliffe Award Materials

5.33 Project Pre Grant Materials

5.34 PRE Newsletters and Information Packets

5.35 Institute for Transforming Teacher Education Materials - PRE

5.36 NCA CASI Conference Materials

5.37 COE RPT document

5.38 3/12/01 Draft of RPT Document

5.39 Work documents on RPT revision

5.40 ISU Faculty Handbook

5.41 Annual Report on Faculty Activities

5.42 Departmental Faculty Travel Policies

5.43 Reitzel Faculty Research Award

5.44 COE Honors Day Program

5.45 IITS Training

5.46 IRTS Training

5.47 CTL Training

5.48 Diversity Summit Website and Materials

5.49 Willey Colloquium Materials

5.50 Van Til Lecture Series

5.51 Departmental Guest Lectures

6.01 Faculty Handbook section on Teacher Education

6.02 TEC Information in Faculty Handbook

6.03 CAPS Manual

6.04 TEC Minutes

6.05 Congress Minutes

6.06 Administrative Council Minutes


6.08 Graduate Catalog

6.09 Sycamore Advantage Materials

6.10 ESS Academic Advising Evaluation – form only – no data

6.11 Education Scholarship Award List


66

6.12 Spring 2005 Rhapsody - Dept. of Music newsletter

6.13 Screen Capture of MyISU portal Account

6.14 Student Teacher Survey results on Unit Performance Data.

6.15 ESS Advising Plan

6.16 PDS website

6.17 Miller Elementary School Award Email

6.18 Title II Project PETE Grant materials and correspondence

6.19 First Title II grant report

6.20 Second Title II grant report

6.21 Third Title II grant report and materials

6.22 ISU PDS Partnership Clinical Faculty Workshop June 26 and 27, 2001

6.23 Task force reports Project PRE

6.24 PRE Newsletters and Information Packets

6.25 Science Education Advisory Committee Materials

6.27 Sponsored Activity July 1 2004-March 31, 2005

6.28 AC minutes of Sept. 23 2004

6.29 Faculty handbook teaching load section, p. III-6

6.30 COE Congress Policies

6.31 Blue Ribbon Panel on Distance Education Report

6.32 Faculty Deployment Reports

6.33 Fall 2004 Workload reports

6.34 OEO/OERE Manual

6.35 Plans for remodeled University Hall

6.36 ITAC Website

6.37 Technology Plan – dated 00-03 paper version; electronic is current 05-08

6.38 IITS Website

6.39 Multimedia Lab

6.40 IITS Resources

6.41 COE Computing Inventory

6.42 Handheld computing initiative

6.43 OIT Labs in COE

6.44 Technology Fee

6.45 Student Technology Guide

6.46 IRTS Brochure

6.47 Faculty/Staff Technology Guides

6.48 Technology mini-grants

6.49 Library Liaison Email - Anthony Kaiser


67

Persons interviewed:

Sunday November 13, 2005 Dr. Jack Maynard, Provost Gallery Walk Leslie Barratt, Faculty Robin Burden, Faculty Lisa Cutter, Faculty Deborah Flurkey, Graduate Candidate Pat Wheeler, Faculty Marylin Leinenbach, Faculty Kathy Bauserman, Faculty Beth Whitaker, Faculty Heidi Hoke, Candidate Scott Buchanan, Faculty Ryan Weir, Candidate Donna Choi, Faculty James Boland, TH North Vigo High School Chuck Mayer, Faculty Jim Jacobs, Faculty Rob Perrin, Faculty Julie Lockett, Staff Stan Henderson, Faculty Jennifer Mishler, Candidate Liz Brown, Faculty Tiffany Dickson, Alumni Dennis Ballard, Faculty Amy Cates, Student Tony Gilberti, Faculty Sue Berta, Faculty Chris MacDonald, Faculty Mark Stimley, Faculty Kevin Bolinger, Faculty Jennifer Freeland, Faculty

Heidi Earnhart, Candidate Brad Balch, Faculty Christi Fenton, DeVaney School Kathy Spelman, DeVaney School Bridget Roberts-Pittman, Faculty Ann Bolinger, Alumni Irene Brock, Faculty Heather Millick, Candidate Addie Smith, Candidate Peggy Hines, Faculty David Lisman, Alumni Jessica Burch, Candidate Steeven Wakefield, Candidate Lindsey Miller, Candidate Karen Hamilton, Faculty Elena Veach, Candidate Callista, Keeney, Candidate Linner NeulehLeah Nellis, Blumberg Center John Pinson, Alumni Ross Martin, Alumni Brian Heaton, Candidate Brian Mancuso, Alumni Lyn Norris, Alumni Jay Gatrell, Faculty Dan Clark, Faculty Carol Roberts, Candidate Melissa Ullenbruch, Alumni Jerad Adler, Alumni

Monday, November 14, 2005

CIMT 400 class (Secondary Education, pre-student teaching) Mike Gant Lindsey Miller Milanda Johnson Aaron Reckelhott Emily Cooper Aaron Senesac Jake Foster Alison Nicholson Carol Roberts Adrie Koehler

Jennifer Mishler Chris Hill Tina Bedel Jamie Wagner David Bohnert Seth Sickbert Callista Keeney Jordan Fife Lee Anna Bond Jared Brown

Joe Pearcy Stacy Burch Tina Beckman Kenneth McMahan Doug Myers Deborah Kean


68

COE Department Chairs Diana Quatroche, Elementary, Early, and Special Education Brad Balch, Educational Leadership, Administration, and Foundations Michele Boyer, Counseling Eric Hampton, Educational & School Psychology David Hofmeister, Curriculum, Instruction, & Media Technology COE Congress Kristin Agnew, Student Vanessa Coonrod, Faculty Robin Burden, Faculty Scott Davis, Faculty

Linda Sperry, Faculty Josh Powers, Faculty David Gilman, Faculty Kandace Hinton, Faculty

Advanced Program Coordinators Maury Miller, Elementary, Early, and Special education Bob Boyd, Educational Leadership, Administration & Foundations Steve Gruenert, Educational Leadership, Administration & Foundations Linda Damer, Music Liz Brown, Math Liz Jones, Math Charles Amlaner, Life Sciences Peggy Hines, School Counseling Tonya Balch, School Counseling Pat Wheeler, Elementary, Early, & Special Education Laren Liu, Elementary, Early, & Special Education Jennifer Freeland, Educational & School Psychology Harriet Hudson, English Field Directors Sharron Watkins ??? Noble R. Corey NCATE Steering Committee Diana Quatroche Jay Gattrell Susan Powers David Hofmeister

Chris McDonald Sean McKitrick Brad Balch

College Deans Meeting W. Tad Foster, Technology Ron Green, Business Tom Sauer, Arts & Sciences Doug Timmons, Health & Human Performance John Ozmun, Health & Human Performance


69

EPSY 202 Class, Candidates at beginning of program Ginger Hathaway Rachel Miller Terri Morin Susan Young Jonathan Sellack Mickie Danforth Andrea Hyden Ashley Landry Sarah Sullivan Heather Judy Amber R. Hasinour Libby Allen Ashley Walker Ashlee Conway Rachel Jackson Kristin Ann Rumph Lee Allen Johnny Walkin

Sarah Schweir Matthew Helfen Heather Brakel Corinne Nordin Bethany Naughgle Lycane Lay William Blundell Courtney Schaffer Jason Fair Kelly Ring Cory J. Hopkins Kyl Shafter Susan Salmond Justin Wilson Matthew Edwards Lee Booker Tiffany Gray

David E. J????David E. Jensen Casey Debroofe Cary Dularent Nathan Hopf Cale Kim Jennifer Stemle Chase A???Hilland Sadie Samoura Bethany Cole Kristin Butrum Sarah Stapleton Jaclyn Johnson Whitney Westfall Randy McCoy Jocelyn Moore Kyle Haslew Jonathan Herbert

University Student Teaching Supervisors Robin Burden Eileen Ziegler Bob DeFrance Millie Vaughn

Carole Waltman Linda Viakere Sandy Kassis Tom Telby

Distance Ed Faculty Eric Hampton, Ed & School Psych Chris MacDonald, Ed & School Psych Jennifer Leeland, Ed & School Psych Peggy Hines, School Counseling Tonya Balch, School Counseling Bob Boyd, ELAF Steve Gruenert, ELAF Pat Wheeler, Elementary Karen LieLiu, Early Childhood Larry Gambaianiani, ELAF Brad Balch, ELAF

Karen Hamilton, CIMT Debra Leggett, Counseling Edu David Gilman, CIMT Feng-Qi- Lai, CIMT Karen Goehl, Blumberg Linda Sperry, EDPS Denise Collins, ELAF Sue Kiger, CIMT Joyce Fulford, ELAF Jim Lawson, EESE Fannesse Vanessa L. Coonrod, SLPD & CD

Sponsored Programs, COE Grant Work Mark Green Dawn Underwood Josh Powers Assessment Committee David Hofmeister Chris MacDonald Mark Stimley

Sean McKitrick Julie Shulman Will Barratt


2

Susan Powers Dr. Kevin Bolinger, Acting Director, COE Professional Development Schools and Office of Educational Outreach. Dr. Kuhlman, Graduate School Assistant Dean Content Program Coordinators and Methods Faculty Jay Gatrell, Social Science Edu Sue Berta, Science Edu Matthew Riley, Health Science Liz Jones, Math Edu Liz Brown, Math Edu Dennis Ballard, Music, methods Tony Gilberti, Industrial Tech Edu Linda Damer, Music – general music Rob Perrin, English Edu

Leslie Barratt, Lang, Lit, & Ling Lisa Calvin, Lang, Lit, & Ling Brad Venable, Art Edu Barbara Clauss, FAMCS Molly Hare, Physical Education Scott Buchanan, Music Charles Amlaner, Ecology & Bio Meredith Beilfuss, Science

School Superintendents Steve Miller, South Vermillion Daniel TansosTanoos, Vigo County Leonard Orr, Southwest Parke Douglass Anne KinhodeKincaide, Indianapolis Public Schools Bill Schadd, Clay Community Schools COE Tenure and Promotion Committee Sharron Watkins Chris MacDonald (EDPS) Michael Shuff (Counseling) Mark ??? Stimley (Communication Disorders) Bob Boyd (ELAF) Content Department Chairs Jeff Edwards, Physical Education Frederica Kramer, FAMCS Charles, Amlaner, Ecology & Biology Sue Berta, Geog./Geol/Anthro John Conant, Economics Bhaskara Kopparty, Math/Computer Science

Todd Sullivan, Music Education Jay Gatrell, Social Science Education Rob Perrin (for Ron Baker), English Joe West, Physics Chris Olsen, History

Distance Ed Students Nancy Stansberry, Director of Exceptional Needs, Principal Licensure Educational Student Services Judy Sheese, Director Brian Coldren, Associate Director Recent Grads – Undergraduate Tisha Schad Amber Gentry


2

John Stephens Sheri Roach – current Block II candidate Gretchen Oehler – current Block II candidate

Lara Catlin Joshua Kusey Shane Reese – T2T

Recent Grads – Graduate Kathy Spelman Phil Bender

Janel Bonomo Valerie Marietta

School Principals Sharon Pitts Jim Freese Student Council for Exceptional Children Heather Walenga Katie Kinman

Ryan Hanson Heidi Hoke

Current Grad Students Troy Fears Scott M. Moone Stacy Mason Dee Coulter Debbie Flurkey Amber Borgert Esther Kim

Katie Askew Kristen Lantto Chavez Phelps Laura Coen Angie Caskey Deana Spence

Mentor Teachers / Supervisors Nichole Daniels Nichole Messmer Ashley Evans Holly Byram

Ashley Tovissi Laura Kay Watkins Marie Putnam Kristen Brown

Student Teachers Haley R. Salitros Bernie Rhoden Abby Jo Bruggenschmidt Ashley Tovissi Suzanne Marrs

Sara Zenor Ian Britton William Bailey Eric Rasley Boone Rinkbiner

Lloyd W. Benjamin III, ISU President

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 Deming Elementary Patricia R. Mollet Jodie Smith Kim Ricketts Rachael Nickel, recent ISU graduate, entry-year teacher Betty Lacer, student teacher


2

Devany Elementary Sign in sheet missing Chauncey Rose MS Sign in sheet missing – drug dogs and lock down Terre Haute North HS Sign in sheet missing Staunton Elementary School Sign in sheet missing Dr. McAllister, Dean of Library, and Anthony Kaiser, COE Library Liaison COE ITAC Jim Campbell Mark Stiney Stimley(?) Judy Sheese

Steve Gruenert Julie Lockett

Diane McKee, Academic Affairs budget Bob Jefferson, Academic Affairs budget Susan Moss, ISU Affirmative Action Officer Open Candidate meeting 8 participants – chose not to sign in for confidentiality 1 math education 3 school psychology 1 elementary – Block I 3 elementary – pre-Block I COE and ISU Technology Ed Kinley, Associate Vice President and Chief Information Officer Ken Janz, Director, Instructional and Research Technology Services Julie Lockett, Computer Support TechnicianDirector, COE Instructional and Information Technology Services Open Faculty Meeting Jay Gatrell Bridget Roberts-Pittman Eric Hampton (EDPS) Beth Whitaker (ELED) Linda Sperry (EDPS) Melissa Nail (ELED) Tonya Balch (School Counseling) Brad Balch (ELAF)

Debra Leggett (Counselor Education) Karen Liu (ESSE) Scott Buchanan (Music) Linda Damer (Music) Liz Brown (Math) Meredith Beilfausse (SCED) Liz Jones (Math)

PDS Steering Committee

Indiana State University 1

Yvette Ellis Denise Ulm Amy Norris Patty Curley Kathy Spelman Janelt Bonomo Jennifer Richards Diana Spence Sarah Kelty Karen Kiu

Jeff Raissle Mike Myers Shirley Chen Susan Pickard Susan Kiger Irene F. Brock Sharron Watkins Kathy Ripperger Kevin Bolinger

Teacher Education Committee Sign in sheet missingFrom approved minutes Tonya Balch Brad Balch Eric Hampton Molly Hare Hema Ganapathy-Coleman Maury Miller Beth Whitaker Marylin Leinenbach Karen Hamilton Liz Jones Deborah Myers Deb Knaebel Dan Clark Bill Wilhelm Amanda Solesky Linda Damer

Formatted: Font: 12 pt
















2

CORRECTIONS TO THE INSTITUTIONAL REPORT NOTE: Please include any factual corrections to information found in the Institutional Report. This includes information such as corrections to tables, percentages, and other findings which may have been incorrectly stated in the Institutional Report. Pg. 6 – Under Major Unit Changes, third bullet. Education Student Services was not recently formed, it has been in existence for decades. However, what did occur since the last visit was that ESS assumed the advising for EESE students during the first two years of their program to lighten the load of faculty advisors. A professional advisor has been added to the staff to assist with this. Pg. 29, prior to LiveText implementation and the creation of the Office of Assessment and Accreditation, data was analyzed and managed within programs and when appropriate, the Dean’s Office. P. 42 – PRE Too! Project has been proposed, but not yet funded.

Program Report for the Preparation of Elementary School Teachers

Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI)Option A

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR ACCREDITATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION

COVER SHEET

1. Institution NameIndiana State University

2. StateIndiana

3. Date submitted MM DD YYYY

09 / 14 / 2011

4. Report Preparer's Information:

Name of Preparer:Diana J. QuatrochePhone: Ext.

( ) -812 237 2854 E-mail:[email protected]

5. NCATE Coordinator's Information:

Name:Denise CollinsPhone: Ext.


6. Name of institution's programElementary Education

7. NCATE CategoryElementary or Childhood Education

8. Grade levels(1) for which candidates are being prepared

(1) e.g. K-6, K-3

K-6

9. Program Typenmlkj Advanced Teachingnmlkji First Teaching Licensenmlkj Other School Personnelnmlkj Unspecified

10. Degree or award levelnmlkji Baccalaureatenmlkj Post Baccalaureatenmlkj Master'snmlkj Post Master'snmlkj Specialist or C.A.S.nmlkj Doctoratenmlkj Endorsement only

11. Is this program offered at more than one site?nmlkj Yesnmlkji No

12. If your answer is "yes" to above question, list the sites at which the program is offered

13. Title of the state license for which candidates are preparedElementary Generalist

14. Program report status:nmlkj Initial Reviewnmlkj Response to One of the Following Decisions: Further Development Required or Recognition with Probationnmlkji Response to National Recognition With Conditions

15. Is your unit seekingnmlkji NCATE accreditation for the first time (initial accreditation)nmlkj Continuing NCATE accreditation

16. State Licensure requirement for national recognition:NCATE requires 80% of the program completers who have taken the test to pass the applicable state licensure test for the content field, if the state has a testing requirement. Test information and data must be reported in Section III. Does your state require such a test?nmlkji Yesnmlkj No

SECTION I - CONTEXT

1. Description of any state or institutional policies that may influence the application of ACEI standards. (Response limited to 4,000 characters)

2. Description of the field and clinical experiences required for the program, including the number of hours for early field experiences and the number of hours/weeks for student teaching or internships. (Response limited to 8,000 characters)

3. Please attach files to describe a program of study that outlines the courses and experiences required for candidates to complete the program. The program of study must include course titles. (This information may be provided as an attachment from the college catalog or as a student advisement sheet.)

4. This system will not permit you to include tables or graphics in text fields. Therefore any tables or charts must be attached as files here. The title of the file should clearly indicate the content of the file. Word documents, pdf files, and other commonly used file formats are acceptable.

5. Candidate InformationDirections: Provide three years of data on candidates enrolled in the program and completing the program, beginning with the most recent academic year for which numbers have been tabulated. Report the data separately for the levels/tracks (e.g., baccalaureate, post-baccalaureate, alternate routes, master's, doctorate) being addressed in this report. Data must also be reported separately for programs offered at multiple sites. Update academic years (column 1) as appropriate for your data span. Create additional tables as necessary.

(2) NCATE uses the Title II definition for program completers. Program completers are persons who have met all the requirements of a state-approved teacher preparation program. Program completers include all those who are documented as having met such requirements. Documentation may take the form of a degree, institutional certificate, program credential, transcript, or other written proof of having met the program's requirements.

Program:Elementary Education

Academic Year# of CandidatesEnrolled in the

Program

# of ProgramCompleters(2)

2009/2010 574 85

2008/2009 548 74

2007/2008 572 84

6. Faculty InformationDirections: Complete the following information for each faculty member responsible for professional coursework, clinical supervision, or administration in this program.

(3) e.g., PhD in Curriculum & Instruction, University of Nebraska. (4) e.g., faculty, clinical supervisor, department chair, administrator (5) e.g., professor, associate professor, assistant professor, adjunct professor, instructor (6) Scholarship is defined by NCATE as systematic inquiry into the areas related to teaching, learning, and the education of teachers and other school personnel. Scholarship includes traditional research and publication as well as the rigorous and systematic study of pedagogy, and the application of current research findings in new settings. Scholarship further presupposes submission of one's work for professional review and evaluation. (7) Service includes faculty contributions to college or university activities, schools, communities, and professional associations in ways that are consistent with the institution and unit's mission. (8) e.g., officer of a state or national association, article published in a specific journal, and an evaluation of a local school program. (9) Briefly describe the nature of recent experience in P-12 schools (e.g. clinical supervision, inservice training, teaching in a PDS) indicating the discipline and grade level of the assignment(s). List current P-12 licensure or certification(s) held, if any.

Faculty Member Name

Highest Degree, Field, & University(3)

Assignment: Indicate the role of the faculty member(4)

Faculty Rank(5)

Tenure Track YESgfedc

Scholarship(6), Leadership in Professional Associations, and Service(7):List up to 3 major contributions in the past 3 years(8)

Teaching or other professional experience in P-12 schools(9)

SECTION II - LIST OF ASSESSMENTS

In this section, list the 6-8 assessments that are being submitted as evidence for meeting the ACEI standards. All programs must provide a minimum of six assessments. If your state does not require a state licensure test in the content area, you must substitute an assessment that documents candidate attainment of content knowledge in #1 below. For each assessment, indicate the type or form of the assessment and when it is administered in the program.

1. Please provide following assessment information (Response limited to 250 characters each field)Type and Number of Assessment Name of Assessment (10) Type or Form of Assessment (11) When the Assessment Is Administered (12)

Assessment #1: Licensure assessment, or other content-based assessment (required)

Praxis II State Licensure

Norm-Referenced Test

Completion of Program

Assessment #2: Assessment of content knowledge in elementary education (required)

Grades Final Grades

(10) Identify assessment by title used in the program; refer to Section IV for further information on appropriate assessment to include. (11) Identify the type of assessment (e.g., essay, case study, project, comprehensive exam, reflection, state licensure test, portfolio). (12) Indicate the point in the program when the assessment is administered (e.g., admission to the program, admission to student teaching/internship, required courses [specify course title and numbers], or completion of the program).

Required Courses(Math: ELED394,

MTH205, and MTH305; Reading

& Lang. Arts: ELED397; Science: SCED393; Social

Studies: ELED392; Art: ARTE290;

Music: MUS325; Physical Education and Health: PE348

and HLTH327)Assessment #3: Assessment of candidate ability to plan instruction (required)

Instructional Planning Lesson Plans Completion of

Internship

Assessment #4: Assessment of student teaching (required)

Supervised Student Teaching Evaluation

Comprehensive Evaluation


Assessment #5: Assessment of candidate effect on student learning (required)

Work Sample Portfolio Completion of Program

Assessment #6: Additional assessment that addresses ACEI standards (required)

Technology Project

Required Course (ELED 335-Early

Childhood: Teaching and Learning in

Kindergarten)Assessment #7: Additional assessment that addresses ACEI standards (optional)

Parent Involvement ProjectRequired Course

(ELED 324-Emergent Literacy)

Assessment #8: Additional assessment that addresses ACEI standards (optional)

SECTION III - RELATIONSHIP OF ASSESSMENT TO STANDARDS

For each ACEI standard on the chart below, identify the assessment(s) in Section II that address the standard. One assessment may apply to multiple ACEI standards.

1. DEVELOPMENT, LEARNING AND MOTIVATION #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8

1.0 Development, Learning, and Motivation--Candidates know, understand, and use the major concepts, principles, theories, and research related to development of children and young adolescents to construct learning opportunities that support individual students’ development, acquisition of knowledge, and motivation.

gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedc

2. CURRICULUM STANDARDS #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8

2.1 Reading, Writing, and Oral Language—Candidates demonstrate a high level of competence in use of English language arts and they know, understand, and use concepts from reading, language and child development, to teach reading, writing, speaking, viewing, listening, and thinking skills and to help students successfully apply their developing skills to many different situations, materials, and ideas;

gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedc

2.2 Science—Candidates know, understand, and use fundamental concepts of physical, life, and earth/space sciences. Candidates can design and implement age-appropriate inquiry lessons to teach science, to build

gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedcb gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

student understanding for personal and social applications, and to convey the nature of science;2.3 Mathematics—Candidates know, understand, and use the major concepts and procedures that define number and operations, algebra, geometry, measurement, and data analysis and probability. In doing so they consistently engage problem solving, reasoning and proof, communication, connections, and representation;

gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedcb gfedc gfedc

2.4 Social studies—Candidates know, understand, and use the major concepts and modes of inquiry from the social studies—the integrated study of history, geography, the social sciences, and other related areas—to promote elementary students’ abilities to make informed decisions as citizens of a culturally diverse democratic society and interdependent world;

gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

2.5 The arts—Candidates know, understand, and use—as appropriate to their own understanding and skills—the content, functions, and achievements of the performing arts (dance, music, theater) and the visual arts as primary media for communication, inquiry, and engagement among elementary students;


2.6 Health education—Candidates know, understand, and use the major concepts in the subject matter of health education to create opportunities for student development and practice of skills that contribute to good health; gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedcb gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

2.7 Physical education—Candidates know, understand, and use—as appropriate to their own understanding and skills—human movement and physical activity as central elements to foster active, healthy life styles and enhanced quality of life for elementary students.


3. INSTRUCTION STANDARDS #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8

3.1 Integrating and applying knowledge for instruction—Candidates plan and implement instruction based on knowledge of students, learning theory, connections across the curriculum, curricular goals, and community; gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedc gfedc

3.2 Adaptation to diverse students—Candidates understand how elementary students differ in their development and approaches to learning, and create instructional opportunities that are adapted to diverse students;

gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedc gfedc

3.3 Development of critical thinking and problem solving—Candidates understand and use a variety of teaching strategies that encourage elementary students’ development of critical thinking and problem solving; gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedcb gfedc

3.4 Active engagement in learning—Candidates use their knowledge and understanding of individual and group motivation and behavior among students at the K-6 level to foster active engagement in learning, self motivation, and positive social interaction and to create supportive learning environments;


3.5 Communication to foster collaboration—Candidates use their knowledge and understanding of effective verbal, nonverbal, and media communication techniques to foster active inquiry, collaboration, and supportive interaction in the elementary classroom.

gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedc

4. ASSESSMENT STANDARDS #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8

4.0 Assessment for instruction—Candidates know, understand, and use formal and informal assessment strategies to plan, evaluate and strengthen instruction that will promote continuous intellectual, social, emotional, and physical development of each elementary student.


5. PROFESSIONALISM STANDARDS #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8

5.1 Professional growth, reflection, and evaluation—Candidates are aware of and reflect on their practice in light of research on teaching, professional ethics, and resources available for professional learning; they continually evaluate the effects of their professional decisions and actions on students, families and other professionals in the learning community and actively seek out opportunities to grow professionally.

gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedcb gfedc

5.2 Collaboration with families, colleagues, and community agencies—Candidates know the importance of establishing and maintaining a positive collaborative relationship with families, school colleagues, and agencies in the larger community to promote the intellectual, social, emotional, physical growth and well-being of children.

gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedc

SECTION IV - EVIDENCE FOR MEETING STANDARDS

DIRECTIONS: The 6-8 key assessments listed in Section II must be documented and discussed in Section IV. Taken as a whole, the assessments must demonstrate candidate mastery of the SPA standards. The key assessments should be required of all candidates. Assessments and scoring guides and data charts should be aligned with the SPA standards. This means that the concepts in the SPA standards should be apparent in the assessments and in the scoring guides to the same depth, breadth, and specificity as in the SPA standards. Data tables should also be aligned with the SPA standards. The data should be presented, in general, at the same level it is collected. For example, if a rubric collects data on 10 elements [each relating to specific SPA standard(s)], then the data chart should report the data on each of the elements rather that reporting a cumulative score..

In the description of each assessment below, the SPA has identified potential assessments that would be appropriate. Assessments have been organized into the following three areas to be aligned with the elements in NCATE’s unit standard 1:• Content knowledge (Assessments 1 and 2)

• Pedagogical and professional knowledge, skills and dispositions (Assessments 3 and 4)• Focus on student learning (Assessment 5)

Note that in some disciplines, content knowledge may include or be inextricable from professional knowledge. If this is the case, assessments that combine content and professional knowledge may be considered "content knowledge" assessments for the purpose of this report.

For each assessment, the compiler should prepare one document that includes the following items:

(1) A two-page narrative that includes the following:a. A brief description of the assessment and its use in the program (one sentence may be sufficient);b. A description of how this assessment specifically aligns with the standards it is cited for in Section III. Cite SPA standards by number, title, and/or standard wording.c. A brief analysis of the data findings;d. An interpretation of how that data provides evidence for meeting standards, indicating the specific SPA standards by number, title, and/or standard wording; and

(2) Assessment Documentatione. The assessment tool itself or a rich description of the assessment (often the directions given to candidates);f. The scoring guide for the assessment; andg. Charts that provide candidate data derived from the assessment.

The responses for e, f, and g (above) should be limited to the equivalent of five text pages each , however in some cases assessment instruments or scoring guides may go beyond five pages.

Note: As much as possible, combine all of the files for one assessment into a single file. That is, create one file for Assessment #4 that includes the two-page narrative (items a – d above), the assessment itself (item e above), the scoring guide (item f above, and the data chart (item g above). Each attachment should be no larger than 2 mb. Do not include candidate work or syllabi. There is a limit of 20 attachments for the entire report so it is crucial that you combine files as much as possible.

1. CONTENT KNOWLEDGE: Data from licensure tests or professional examinations of content knowledge. ACEI standards addressed in this entry could include but are not limited to 2.1-2.7. If your state does not require licensure tests or professional examinations in the content area, data from another assessment must be presented to document candidate attainment of content knowledge.

Provide assessment information as outlined in the directions for Section IV.

Assessment 1: PRAXIS II

See Attachments panel below.

2. CONTENT KNOWLEDGE: Assessment of content knowledge in the language to be taught. ACEI ACEI standards addressed in this entry could include but are not limited to Standards 2.1-2.7. Assessments that address Standards 2.1-2.4 are required. (The assessments of the different content areas of elementary education may entail multiple attachments; however, they will be considered in their entirety as Assessment #2.) Examples of assessments include comprehensive examinations; written interpersonal/presentational tasks; capstone projects or research reports addressing cross-disciplinary content; philosophy of teaching statement that addresses the role of culture, literature, and cross-disciplinary content; and other portfolio tasks.


(15) For program review purposes, there are two ways to list a portfolio as an assessment. In some programs a portfolio is considered a single assessment and scoring criteria (usually rubrics) have been developed for the contents of the portfolio as a whole. In this instance, the portfolio would be considered a single assessment. However, in many programs a portfolio is a collection of candidate work—and the artifacts included

Assessment 2: Grades


3. PEDAGOGICAL AND PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND DISPOSITIONS: Assessment that demonstrates candidates can effectively plan classroom-based instruction. ACEI standards that could be addressed in this assessment include but are not limited to 1, 2.1-2.7, 3.1-3.5, 4, and 5.1-5.2. Assessments that address Standards 2.1-2.4 are required. (The assessments that address planning of instruction in the content areas of elementary education may entail multiple attachments; however, they will be considered in their entirety as Assessment #3.) Provide assessment information as outlined in the directions for Sections IV.

Assessment 3: Instructional Planning


4. PEDAGOGICAL AND PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND DISPOSITIONS: Assessment that demonstrates candidates' knowledge, skills, and dispositions are applied effectively in practice. ACEI standards that could be addressed in this assessment include but are not limited to 1, 2.1-2.7, 3.1-3.5, 4, and 5.1-5.3. The assessment instrument used in student teaching and the internship should be submitted.


Assessment 4: Supervised Student Teaching Evaluation


5. EFFECTS ON STUDENT LEARNING: Assessment that demonstrates candidate effects on student learning. Standards ACEI standards that could be addressed in this assessment include but are not limited to 2.1-2.7, and 3.1. Examples of assessments include those based on student work samples, portfolio tasks, case studies, follow-up studies, and employer surveys .


Assessment 5: Work Sample


6. Additional assessment that addresses ACEI standards. Examples of assessments include evaluations of field experiences, case studies, portfolio tasks, tutoring assignments, and follow-up studies. (Answer Required)

Provide assessment information as outlined in the directions for Section IV

Assessment 6: Technology


7. Additional assessment that addresses ACEI standards. Examples of assessments include evaluations of field experiences, case studies, portfolio tasks, tutoring assignments, and follow-up studies.


Assessment 7: Parent Involvement




SECTION V - USE OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS TO IMPROVE PROGRAM

1. Evidence must be presented in this section that assessment results have been analyzed and have been or will be used to improve candidate performance and strengthen the program. This description should not link improvements to individual assessments but, rather, it should summarize principal findings from the evidence, the faculty's interpretation of those findings, and changes made in (or planned for) the program as a result. Describe the steps program faculty has taken to use information from assessments for improvement of both candidate performance and the program. This information should be organized around (1) content knowledge, (2) professional and pedagogical knowledge, skill, and dispositions, and (3) student learning.

(Response limited to 12,000 characters)

SECTION VI - FOR REVISED REPORTS OR RESPONSE TO CONDITIONS REPORTS ONLY

1. For Revised Reports: Describe what changes or additions have been made to address the standards that were not met in the original submission. Provide new responses to questions and/or new documents to verify the changes described in this section. Specific instructions for preparing a Revised Report are available on the NCATE web site at http://www.ncate.org/Accreditation/ProgramReview/ProgramReportSubmission/RevisedProgramReports/tabid/453/Default.aspx

For Response to Conditions Reports: Describe what changes or additions have been made to address the conditions cited in the original recognition report. Provide new responses to questions and/or new documents to verify the changes described in this section. Specific instructions for preparing a Response to Conditions Report are available on the NCATE web site at http://www.ncate.org/Accreditation/ProgramReview/ProgramReportSubmission/ResponsetoConditionsReport/tabid/454/Default.aspx

(Response limited to 24,000 characters.)

1. Alignment of assessment criteria, and the analysis and interpretation of data, must be more clearly connected to ACEI standards.Response: In this rejoinder assessment rubrics have been revised to more clearly reflect alignment with the ACEI standards. The rubrics which were revised are: Assessment 1 - Praxis II; Assessment 2 - Grades; Assessment 3 - Instructional Planning; Assessment 4 - Supervised Student Teaching Evaluation; Assessment 5 - Work Sample; Assessment 6 – Technology; and Assessment 7- Parent Involvement. One assessment has been eliminated because the standards are met in other assessments. Revised descriptions, rubrics, data charts, along with analysis and interpretation of data for each assessment can be found in Section IV.Assessment 1 now specifically describes how the Praxis assessment aligns with the ACEI standards. The analysis and interpretation of data indicate what we have done to improve scores and the data includes percentiles rather than quartiles.

2. Provide evidence that candidates are able to use or apply the content embedded in standards 2.5 to 2.7.Response:The final assessment of student teaching performance, assessment 4, is a cumulative assessment that evaluates performance in an elementary classroom at several grade levels for a whole semester. During that time candidates are expected to teach all subjects along with units of instruction which include infusion of the arts and appropriate student movement. In addition, health is taught at the elementary level as part of the curriculum.

3. Assessment 2 requires course descriptions to gain a comprehensive perspective of the alignment between individual courses and the identified standards. Response:NCATE guidelines have been followed in the revision of assessment 2. In this rejoinder, assessment 2 has been revised to include course descriptions and a rationale for choosing these courses. In addition, courses have been aligned with specific ACEI standards using a matrix. Data tables now provide grade distributions and mean course grades. Data have been analyzed using the institutional grading scales. All candidates must achieve a C or better in all selected coursework.

4. More detailed alignment between assessment 3 and assessment 4 with the standards is required. Activities or requirements within assessments must be set off in such a way that each task or requirement is specifically designed to measure competency on a single standard or standard element. Response:Assessments 3 and 4 now focus on assessing pedagogical and professional knowledge, skills and dispositions. In addition, standards have been mapped to the assessment rather than repeating the standard without any alignment indicated.Assessment 4, the Supervised Student Teaching Evaluation is a final evaluation of the student teaching placement and as such is a cumulative assessment designed to reflect all of the standards. ACEI standards have been indicated for each area of the evaluation. The data chart reflects the ACEI standards and is linked to the final evaluation. The assessment is now more clearly described to indicate that it is a final cumulative assessment. In the original submission, this assessment consisted of several separate documents. All separate documents have been combined into one document in a more organized manner.Assessment 3 now focuses on assessing pedagogical skills along with candidates’ professional knowledge, skills and dispositions. The rubric for instructional planning reflects the criterion for the lesson planning and is now linked to the ACEI standards. Each component of the lesson plan is now evaluated through the rubric and specific standards are being measured.

5. More detailed alignment between assessments and standards is required for assessment 5.Response:Assessment 5 is the work sample and is focused on teaching pedagogy, assessment, and reflection. In completing the work sample, candidates design instruction based on assessment and reflect on the results. All separate documents have been reorganized into one document. A clearer description of the work sample has been provided. The assessment and the data have been specifically aligned with the standards. A more detailed analysis and interpretation of the data and how the standards have been met is provided.

6. Report data on program graduates was noted as an area for consideration.Response:The information on the number of program graduates was reported in the initial report as part of Section I - Context, #5 Candidate Indormation. It is again reported in this document in Section I - Context, #5 Candidate Information.

Please click "Next"

This is the end of the report. Please click "Next" to proceed.


NCATE

Institutional Report

Focused Visit – Standard 2

December 20, 2007

1 ISU Institutional Report: Focused Visit Standard 2

OVERVIEW

A. The institution

1. What is the institution’s historical context?

The origins of Indiana State University date back to December 20, 1865, when

Indiana State Normal School was created by the Indiana legislature. The primary

mission was the “preparation of teachers for teaching in the common schools of

Indiana.” The first bachelor’s degrees were awarded in 1908, the first master’s

degrees in 1928, and the first doctorates in 1965. “University” status was achieved in

1965 and the name was changed to Indiana State University.

Today, Indiana State University (ISU) is a comprehensive, research intensive

university that includes a College of Arts & Sciences, professional colleges of Business,

Education, Technology, Nursing, Health & Human Performance and the School of

Graduate Studies. Institutional accreditation has been achieved from 27 accrediting

bodies. The current mission of the University is “to educate students to be productive

citizens and enhance the quality of life of the citizens of Indiana by making the

knowledge and expertise of its faculty available and accessible. These purposes are

served when the University disseminates knowledge through instruction and extends

and applies knowledge through research, creative and scholarly activities, and public

service.”

2. What is the institution’s mission?

O. 1 Current Mission

O.2 Working Draft

The current institutional mission is at this time undergoing a significant

modification. The present mission is long and cumbersome and holds little that is

unique. The revision of the mission statement will be presented to the Board of

Trustees at its February meeting. At this time, the campus is engaged in web-based

feedback and open community sessions to gather feedback for the final version to be

presented. At the time of the BOE visit, the mission statement will have been

presented and presumably approved by the Board of Trustees and will be provided to

the Examiners. At this time, there is no indication that the mission statement will

stray from ISU’s strategic initiatives which are: 1) develop a culture that values,

celebrates and delivers experiential learning opportunities for students, 2) achieve a

national reputation for engaging in local, state, national, and international

communities in ways that improve the communities, enhance student learning, and

utilize university resources, 3) develop and invest in selected nationally recognized

distinctive programs, 4) attract and retain productive faculty and staff.

3. What are the institution’s characteristics?

Indiana State University is a public, doctoral degree-granting institution, with a

Carnegie classification of Doctoral 2. Located in west central Indiana, ISU serves the

rural student population of west central Indiana and east central Illinois, as well as a

population with more urban characteristics within Terre Haute. ISU was recognized in

2006 by the Carnegie Foundation to the new classification of colleges and university


that focuses on community engagement.

B. The unit

1. How many candidates are enrolled in programs preparing them to work in P-12

schools?

From Fall 2007 Official Headcount data – 1,302 ITP and 318 ADV (see Table 2 for

Breakdown for program).

2. How large is the faculty, including clinical supervisors, and administrators. How

many of them are full-time, and part-time? How many graduate assistants teach

education courses?

For Fall 2007, there were 73 tenured and tenure-track faculty working in

professional education, one of who was part-time at the university. Of this number, 4

hold assignments as full-time administrators, but teach part-time in the Unit. The Unit

additionally had 9 full-time instructors as part of professional education. An additional

42 part-time adjuncts work as instructors and/or supervisors. Professional education

programs utilize 8 graduate teaching assistants as instructors for professional

education.

3. What is the academic rank of the professional education faculty?

Table 1

Academic Rank of Professional Education Faculty For Academic Year: Fall 2007

Academic Rank

# of Faculty with Tenure

Non-tenured Faculty # on Tenure

Track # Not on

Tenure Track Professors 16 0 0

Associate Professors 20 0 0

Assistant Professors 3 34 0

Instructors 0 0 13

Lecturers 0 0 38

Graduate Teaching Assistants 0 0 8

Other

Total 39 34 55

4. What programs are offered for the preparation of school professionals?

See Table 2 in Appendix

5. What programs are offered off-campus or via distance learning technologies?

What alternate route programs are offered?

O.3 Distance Programs The Library/Media license as part of the M.S. in Educational Technology is offered

via the web. The Secondary T2T is offered via the web (although some content

methods require a face-to-face class). The T2T is an alternate route program for initial

licensure (18 credit hours for secondary, 24 credit hours for elementary). School


Administration is available at a distance through web and desktop videoconferencing. The Visual Impairment license program is available through the web with selected evening and weekend sessions, it is offered as part of a consortium with Ball State University, Project Vision and the Indiana Department of Education. The non-degree Special Education program is available through DVD, web, with some campus interaction for those teachers who want to add the Special Education teaching license in the area of mild interventions to the school setting of their existing license.

6. (Continuing Visits) What substantive changes have taken place in the unit since

the last visit (e.g., added/dropped programs/degrees; significant increase/decrease in enrollment; major reorganization of the unit, etc.)? (These changes could be compiled from those reported in Part C of the AACTE/NCATE annual reports since the last visit.)

O.4 Program Prioritization

A new dean, Dr. Brad Balch, was appointed in Fall 2006. He previously served one semester as Acting Associate Dean, and for 5 years as Department Chair for Educational Leadership Administration and Foundations, and three years as Assistant Professor in ELAF.

The university has undergone a process of Program Prioritization in order to eliminate low enrolled programs. At the initial level, the bachelor’s degree in Early Childhood is being eliminated and a minor in Early Childhood is being added. At the advanced level, all the advanced teaching degrees across campus were pegged for reorganization or elimination. Program revisions for all of these programs are currently in process and under discussion. All action is to be completed by the end of this academic year.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

This section provides an overview of the unit’s conceptual framework(s). The overview should include a brief description of the framework(s) and its development. 1. Briefly summarize the following elements of the unit’s conceptual framework:

a. the vision and mission of the unit

CF. 1 COE Fast Facts The mission is to “prepare , promote, and advance educational and human service professionals for a diverse and ever-changing world.”

The vision is: Our College is a learning community where teaching and learning are enjoyable.

Faculty and staff are constantly researching new methods and modeling the best pedagogical practices. A cooperative, supportive culture exists among the faculty within the College and across campus. Faculty members are chosen carefully and mentored well. We employ continuous improvement tools and philosophies on a daily basis, using data to make decisions and improve our instruction and processes in a timely manner. Students experience the genuine support they are getting from the faculty and staff, as it shows in their retention and achievement.


We have excellent facilities for our work. The layout of our physical space is

conducive to effective communication and enhances the work we do. We have

appropriate technology to support the teaching, scholarship, and service enterprise.

The sphere of influence of our learning community is growing. Our administrators,

teachers, and human service professionals are recognized for their educational

contributions, including outreach services to the children, individuals, and families as

well as to schools and other agencies, meeting their needs and the needs of those

whom they serve. Our faculty works collaboratively with schools and agencies to create

rich, supportive, and healthy teaching and learning environments. Support for the

mission is clear—the state wishes to increase its investment in what we do, alumni tell

us how much they value their education, stakeholders and agencies seek our faculty for

their expertise, granting agents seek us out, employers seek our graduates, increasing

numbers of capable students desire an education with us, and we receive regional and

national recognition for our achievements.

With stable and consistent leadership, our objectives are clear and our work

flexible and agile as we organize ways to be most effective, requesting and receiving

the resources needed. We are dedicated to promoting social justice, embracing

diversity, fostering a spirit of inquiry, and supporting a commitment to excellence for

ourselves and our students. As one coherent organization, our collegial team

recognizes and achieves the full potential of working together as we take pride in our

work and feel fulfilled.

b. philosophy, purposes, goals, and institutional standards of the unit

CF. 2 Conceptual

Framework

The overarching theme of Indiana State University’s educator preparation

programs is “Becoming a Complete Professional.” Initially adopted in 1991, the theme

has undergone significant modifications over time and been reaffirmed In its original

rendering the theme encompassed five broad areas that framed program outcomes. As

the profession moved to adopt standards developed by professional organizations and

learned societies to guide its development, the theme and three outcomes emerged as

the conceptual framework. Today our theme encompasses three broad areas that

recognize essential areas of the work of an educator:

¾ Educator as Expert or Mediator of Learning,

¾ Educator as Person, and

¾ Educator as Member of Communities.

c. knowledge bases, including theories, research, the wisdom of practice, and

educational policies that drive the work of the unit

As a moral imperative, the right to learn is perhaps more important today than ever

before in our history. As Darling-Hammond (1997) notes, “Never before has the

success, perhaps even the survival, of nations and people been so tightly tied to their

ability to learn.” But, the moral imperative extends beyond the ability to learn and

moves to a vision of a good and just society. A society where education is central and

the role of the school is to bring this education equitably to all, ensuring that all

children and youth reach high levels of intellectual, practical, and social competence.

This is a vision that provides the moral grounding of the educator preparation mission

at Indiana State University and gives direction to those responsible for designing

coherent programs for the education of educators (Goodlad, 1994).


d. candidate proficiencies related to expected knowledge, skills, and professional

dispositions, including proficiencies associated with diversity and technology,

that are aligned with the expectations in professional, state, and institutional

standards

Inherent to Becoming a Complete Professional (BCP) is the Unit’s commitment to

diversity, technology and professional dispositions. For technology, our programs

utilize national educational technology standards and we work hard to provide

professional development for faculty on the integration of technology and have

excellent resources to support technology utilization for teaching and learning. The

Unit is committed to diversity within itself and the diversity proficiencies of our faculty,

staff, and candidates. The College of Education is currently engaged in an extensive

cultural audit to ensure we create and maintain an environment that encourages and

supports diversity. The Unit has also worked hard to create dispositional assessments

that are in alignment with the conceptual framework, are legally defensible, reflect the

state standards, and are indicative of indicative of the candidates, faculty and staff who

represent the institution.

e. summarized description of the unit’s assessment system

S2.1 UAS Document The UAS has been designed and supported by the professional community to

ensure that it supports and reflects the aspects of the Conceptual Framework.

Comprehensive and integrated assessments such as the dispositional assessments have

been structured based on Becoming a Complete Professional. BCP has formed the

foundation of congruence for the advanced program unit assessments as well.

2. (Continuing visits) What changes have been made to the conceptual framework

since the previous visit?

No revisions have been made the Conceptual Framework since the last visit.

Instead, the mission and vision statements were both revised by the faculty as a whole

and our commitment to “Becoming a Complete Professional” factored into the mission

and vision development.

STANDARD 2. ASSESSMENT SYSTEM AND UNIT EVALUATION

The unit has an assessment system that collects and analyzes data on the applicant qualifications, candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate and improve the unit and its programs.

2a. Assessment system

1. How is the unit assessment system evaluated and refined? Who is involved?

S2.2 TEC Bylaws &

Guidelines

The Teacher Education Committee (TEC) holds ultimate responsibility for the

UAS. New Bylaws & Guidelines for TEC, created and approved in Spring 2006

delineate the role TEC plays regarding the UAS. Its most direct role found within


S2.3 Proposed Amended

Bylaws & Guidelines

(to be presented January

TEC).

S2.4 TEC Membership

S2.5 Invitations for UAS

Committee Membership

two subcommittees for the UAS – the Initial UAS Subcommittee and the Advanced

UAS Subcommittee. These two subcommittees hold representations from the

programs that fall in that domain from across the entire unit.

Both subcommittees hold the responsibility to review the UAS annually and

determine where the data collection is strong and where there are gaps. As

discussions occur in these subcommittees, the members bring feedback from their

programs on recommended changes as part of the refinement process. The

subcommittees analyze the collected data and prepare the report and presentation

for Assessment Day to the Unit. Following Assessment Day, the subcommittees

reconvene to synthesize the discussion held and provide formal recommendations

for action to TEC.

TEC membership comprises faculty, administrators, students, and a P-12

partner representative. When appropriate and additional feedback is needed for

data interpretation, recommended outcomes, or modifications to the UAS, issues

may also be referred to the PDS Steering Committee for comment, although TEC

holds the final authority for action.

2. How does the unit ensure that the assessment system collects information on

candidate proficiencies outlined in the unit’s conceptual framework, state

standards, and professional standards?

S2.6 Summary of UAS

Activities Approved by

TEC 2007

All educator-related programs that make course modifications and program

modifications are required to funnel the proposals through TEC as part of the

curriculum review process. TEC requires that significant program and course

changes include a new program assessment matrix to indicate how all standards

are assessed.

The Unit is also working to establish better communication channels to ensure

that everyone is aware of modifications made to assessment rubrics, processes, or

newly approved rubrics to ensure that the appropriate data is collected.

3. What are the key assessments used to monitor candidate performance on

standards and at what points are they administered in programs?

S2.1 UAS Documentation Please see the Initial and Advanced tables in the UAS Document appended.

4. What are the major transition points during programs, what assessments are

used, and how are candidates performing on the assessments not reported in

national/state program reports or Standard 1 (e.g., performance on

admissions assessments)?

See Table 5 in Appendix

5. What process has the unit adopted to ensure its assessment procedures are

fair, accurate, consistent, and free of bias?

S2.7 Notes from Forms

Congruency Meeting

S2.8 Notes 2 from Forms

The two assessment committees (initial and advanced) are working to have

common assessment items to ensure that all candidates are measured in a

consistent manner. With the more common assessments in place, plans are to

conduct interrater reliability evaluations. A separate group from ITPs met in Fall


Congruency Meeting S2.9 TEC Minutes x 4/17/07

2006 to bring ITP assessments to a greater level of consistency. Programs also take responsibility to provide an orientation to the assessment

instruments and the Unit’s Conceptual Framework to ensure fair and accurate assessments. A recently approved modification to all assessment rubrics was the language change for the levels in the rubrics. All rubrics were to be 3 level – Proficient, Satisfactory and Unsatisfactory. It was found that field evaluations were almost entirely coming in with Proficient markings. Discussion in the assessment committees focused on the problems within the language the underlying biases in Proficient versus Satisfactory. The recommendation was made and approved by TEC to change the 3-level rubrics to Exceeds Expectations, Meets Expectations, and Does Not Meet Expectations.

6. What assessments and evaluations are used to manage and improve the

operations and programs of the unit?

S2.1 UAS Document S2.10 ITP Diversity Assessment S2.11 ITP Disposition Rubric S. 2.12 ADV Work Sample Rubric S. 2.13 ADV Faculty Effectiveness Survey S. 2.14 ADV Technology & Diversity Assessments S2.15 ADV Advising Survey S2.16 Student Teaching Evaluation S2.17 Student Teacher Survey S2.18 Principal Survey

The Unit is moving quickly from a process where every program had its individual student performance assessments and surveys, to a more standardized approach which will allow us to aggregate data across the unit. The Initial programs have met and come to agreement on a standard format for student teaching evaluations, dispositional assessments, and a targeted assessment on diversity skills. The initial group will continue work in Spring 2008 to use a common format and assessment for their work sample. The advanced programs have made significant efforts at collecting more common data for unit-level information. A common disposition form was adopted Spring 2007 and new assessments were created following the September 2007 Assessment Day for Technology and Diversity student assessments, as well as a common rubric for a new educator work sample to be implemented in 2008. Additionally, common survey questions were created for advising and faculty effectiveness for advanced programs to append to existing survey forms.

The attached UAS documents the assessments and evaluations forms that are used to pull together unit level data.

2b. Data collection, analysis, and evaluation

1. What is the unit’s timeline for collecting key assessment data related to candidates meeting standards and unit operations.

S2.9 TEC Minutes x 1/17/06 x 2/21/06 x 3/21/06 x 4/18/06 x 9/19/06 x 11/21/06 x 12/19/06 x 1/16/07 x 2/20/07

Following the Fall 2005 BOE visit, the TEC began work immediately to rectify issues with the UAS. Spring 2006, the TEC Bylaws and Guidelines were developed and approved. In Fall 2006, TEC established the two Assessment Committees (Initial and Advanced) and these 2 groups worked with programs to begin collecting data from programs in order to initiate the first Assessment Day in January 2007. Following the January 2007 Assessment Day, the assessment committees were reconstituted as prescribed in the TEC Bylaws and Guidelines (many members continue). The committees began analysis of the results of the first Assessment Day, the lessons learned from this pilot process, what next steps were necessary to ensure continued success, what modifications need to be made immediately, and to begin the process of data collection for the second Assessment Day in Fall 2007.


S2.2 TEC Bylaws & Guidelines S2.1 UAS Documentation

Data for the academic year was submitted as requested by the Associate Dean for Academic and Student Affairs and the assessment committees following the end of the spring semester, the assessment committees met for a day long retreat to organize their data analysis and in turn fine-tuned the UAS document to include the guiding questions for data analysis. During summer 2007, the committees analyzed data and prepared their presentations. Fall 2007 began with the second successful Assessment Day. Following the event, the assessment committee met to provide recommendations to the TEC for changes to the UAS, rubrics, and curriculum and unit operations based upon aggregated results from the first two Assessment Days. The committees worked quickly to ensure that recommended changes could be put in place no later than spring 2008. The assessment committees will be reconstituted again in January 2008 and the cycle established will be continued.

2. What are the process and timeline used by the unit to collect summarize, and

analyzed data? x How are the data collected? x Whose responsibility is it to summarize and analyze the data? (Dean,

assistant dean, data coordinator, etc.) x In what format are the data summarized and analyzed? (Reports, tables,

charts, graphs, etc.) x How often are the data summarized and analyzed? x What information technologies are used to maintain the unit’s

assessment system?

S2.19 Assessment Day Presentation (with notes) S2.20 Assessment Day 2007 Presentation Web link: S2.21 Assessment Day 2007 Data Web Link: S2.22 Assessment Day 2006 Data and Presentations S2.23 TK20 Memo

Candidate-level performance data are collected by faculty and field supervisors as a regular part of the curriculum and course instruction. Additional data for unit level performance are collected by different entities as indicated on the UAS document. Wherever possible, the Dean’s office attempts to facilitate data collection through central administration of surveys. Data are collected at this point in time in a variety of forms (paper, web-based, LiveText, etc.). The move to TK20 will centralize more of the data collection within that system to facilitate data entry and analysis.

The responsibility to summarize and analyze the data is shared. The two assessment committees for the initial and advanced programs work with the Dean’s office to identify specific data analysis that is desired. The Dean’s office gathers the data that at this moment (pre-TK20) resides in many different locations and places the raw data in a web-based environment that is available to the committee. The Dean’s office has committed resources to assist the two committee on the analysis of data by paying a summer stipend to a faculty member to serve as Assessment Coordinator to consult with the committee as they summarize and analyze data and provide statistical assistance; additionally, a graduate research assistant is provided to the Assessment Coordinator to help with data input and analysis that might be necessary.

Data are summarized and analyzed in a variety of ways with an emphasis on descriptive and statistical analysis. Each assessment committee (initial and advanced) is required to provide an oral report during Assessment Day and to provide a PowerPoint presentation of their report. The Associate Dean for Curriculum and Student Affairs provides the template for the presentation materials and compiles all slides sent to the office. Members of the assessment

http://files.indstate.edu/faculty/spowers/UAS2007/

http://files.indstate.edu/faculty/spowers/UAS2007/

https://files.indstate.edu/faculty/spowers/UAS2007/




committees determine how the data they are summarizing to the stakeholders are best presented for clear understanding. As part of the report, tables, charts, and graphs have all been used.

Data are summarized and analyzed on an annual basis for the unit. The timeframe for specific data collection is a part of the UAS documentation. All data for the academic year is to be made available no later than the end of May so the assessment committees can begin the analysis process in June to prepare for Assessment Day at the beginning of the following academic year.

A variety of technologies are currently being used to maintain data for the UAS – the University Student Information System (Banner), LiveText for some candidate performance data, spreadsheets and databases for other performance data, and a variety of databases for other unit level data. Beginning in Spring 2008, Indiana State University’s professional education unit will begin a rapid implementation of TK20. TK20 will interface with Banner to provide analysis and reporting of data against institutional student data. Key surveys, beginning and end student assessments, and a number of other selected databases will be moved to TK20 beginning in January 2008; all data management will be moved to the system by Fall 2008. While it is an aggressive planned adoption cycle, faculty are willing to make this change and several have indicated an interest in transitioning sooner.

3. How does the unit maintain records of formal candidate complaints and their

resolutions?

S2.24 2006-07 Data presented to TEC S2.25 Full Database with Names removed

Complaints put in writing by candidates to the institution are maintained in the Office of the Associate Dean for Academic and Student Affairs. A database for each academic year is maintained that tracks student name, date of originating complaint, the matter of issue, and the resolution of the issue. Copies of all documents relating to the complaints are also maintained in paper form (electronically during the academic year). Each fall, the database of complaints and resolutions is shared with TEC as an information item and a point of discussion.

Matters that do not rise to the level of complaint, i.e. petitions to policy, are not maintained in the Associate Dean’s office, rather Educational Student Services maintains a database of appeals and decisions for initial programs, and advanced programs maintain records for those matters that are not specific to School of Graduate Studies appeal. If a matter is not successfully resolved to a student’s satisfaction at the petition level, students do have the option to appeal up through the Dean’s Office, as per the College of Education Congress policies, in which case an appeal is logged in the database as a complaint.

2c. Use of data for program improvement

1. What are assessment data indicating about candidate performance on the

main campus, at off-campus sites, and in distance learning programs?

Weblink only S2.22 Assessment Day 2006 Presentation S2.20 Assessment Day

Data presentations conducted during the last two Assessment Days have indicated that our candidates are performing well overall. However, when the Unit has looked at the data in terms of specific questions faculty want to know about candidate performance, the Unit has discovered holes in the aggregatable data that allows us make the conclusions needed to make about our candidates. Specifically,

http://coe.indstate.edu/tec/assessment_day_2006.htm

http://coe.indstate.edu/tec/assessment_day_2006.htm


2007 Presentation the Unit can speak in generalities about how our candidates perform at impacting P-12 student learning, but not at enough detail level to be able to consider programmatic implications. The same held true for our assessments of our candidates in diverse learning environments.

2. How are data used by candidates and faculty to improve their performance?

Departmental level or program level data is used regularly for candidate and

faculty improved performance. In content areas, faculty use content assessments and content methods assessments to identify strengths and weaknesses in the content delivery. Faculty in professional education courses do the same by using reflections from students and data collected within classes. Faculty also model the use of reflective feedback by collecting periodic informal assessments on their teaching performance. Whenever possible, there is student representation on committees to review programmatic performance.

Pretenure faculty in the College of Education are required to create goals on an annual basis as part of the Promotion and Tenure process. These goals work to form the basis for the next year’s review. Goals are jointly developed with department chairs and are based on previous year’s information, such as SIRs, informal student feedback, candidate performance, etc.

At the candidate level, all programs have remediation plans to use when candidates do not satisfactorily meet standards. Consultation on remediation extends beyond the one instructor and if necessary will extend beyond one class. Candidates are also encouraged to use the data they have collected on their practice teaching with P-12 students to identify strengths and weaknesses in the candidates’ performance for targeted improvement.

3. How are data used to discuss or initiate program or unit changes on a regular

basis?

S2.26 ADV Assessment Committee Meeting Notes x 1/10/06 x 1/23/06 x 2/14/06 x 2/28/06 x 4/6/06 x 4/5/07 x 4/10/07 x 4/12/07 x 4/19/07 x Retreat Notes x 8/20/07 x Recommendations

S2.27 ITP Assessment Committee Meeting Notes

Data are the central core of program and unit changes. At each Assessment Day, UAS performance based on the data is presented to the stakeholders (faculty, students, field representatives, and university administrators). The assessment committees lead and facilitate the discussions but allow for issues to be raised from the participants. The first two Assessment Days have had participation levels at over 30 for every session. The assessment committees use these discussion points to provide a series of recommendations to TEC that are directed to either programmatic changes, or unit changes, and most often at this point, revisions to the UAS (i.e. assessments used, processes, etc.).

At another level, programs that bring forth programmatic changes are challenged by the governing bodies, as part of the program approval process, to describe and justify changes based on data. For example, with current programmatic changes that are being implemented as part of Project PRE, program coordinators and department chairs are being asked how they are considering programmatic and unit level data findings in their revisions. Additionally, when programs make changes, governing bodies are asking how changes to curriculum will in turn impact candidate assessment and the collection of aggregatable data for unit analysis.

When relevant, data that indicate an issue that needs more immediate


x 2/13/06

x 2/28/06

x 3/22/06

x 4/12/06

x 4/24/06

x 3/12/07

x 4/5/07

x 4/10/07

x 4/17/07

x 5/1/07

x Retreat Notes

x 8/16/07

x Recommendations

S2.28 Email invitation to ADV working lunch

attention (rather than wait for Assessment Day) Is addressed immediately. For example, when Praxis I results received in the middle of the year indicated an issue related to scores, the Unit discussed ways to help students with Praxis I with the outcomes being an invitation for faculty to take the Praxis I exam (paid for by the College of Education; several faculty did), and the establishment of a course to assist students with Praxis I.

4. What data-driven changes have occurred over the past three years?

S2.29 Communication to University stakeholders Email message S2.6 Memo attachment for email S2.9 TEC Minutes x 12/19/06 x 1/16/07 x 3/20/07 x 4/17/07 x 9/18/07 x 10/16/07

Date Modification Made Based Upon

Spring 2006

TEC Bylaws Approved NCATE visit and report, reflection by UAS teams

Fall 2006 Forms Committee temporarily created to work on initial program assessments

Aggregation of data for first Assessment Day revealed disparate forms that made aggregation impossible.

Spring 2007

Added three level dispositional assessment in Advanced Programs

Missing data points - Dispositional data for all advanced programs that can be aggregated

Spring 2007

Change of PSU (Proficient, Satisfactory, Unsatisfactory) to EMD (Exceeds Expectations, Meets Expectations, Does Not Meet Expectations)

Problems in data on internship evaluations, clear definition of PSU among all programs and cooperating teachers. Change effective with Fall 2007


Spring 2007

Identification of guiding UAS questions

Frustration from faculty presenting for first Assessment Day and trying to determine how best to make meaning from data.

Fall 2007 New dispositional assessment for ITP to be placed in TK20, assessed by EPSY 202 instructor, content faculty & field supervisor.

Lack of aggregatable data to make meaningful conclusions, placing dispositional assessments where feedback is most needed. Change effective Spring 2008.

Fall 2007 New diversity assessment for ITP assessed at least twice by faculty and field supervisor.

Current assessments did not provide enough candidate information on working with diverse populations.

Fall 2007 Common student teaching evals, field evals, and work sample rubric evals for ITP.

Difficulty aggregating unit level data. Effective Spring 2008.

Fall 2007 New advising and faculty effectiveness survey items to be added to other surveys for ADV programs.

Lack of data in these areas. Effective Spring 2008.

Fall 2007 New technology and diversity assessments for ADV programs.

Lack of data in these areas across all programs. Effective Spring 2008.

Fall 2007 New Educator Work Sample for ADV programs.

Lack of systematic way for ADV programs to evaluate impact on P-12 student learning and student environments. Effective 2008.

In process Ongoing changes in ITP to increase intensive field experience prior to student teaching.

Program level data showed a need for additional intensive fieldwork. Feedback from partner schools requested more intensive that would be less disruptive to schools.

5. How are assessment data shared with candidates, faculty, and other stakeholders?

S2.20 Assessment Day 2007 Presentation Web link: S2.22 Assessment Day 2006 S2.30 Assessment Day 2006 Participants S2.32 Assessment Day

Starting on January 13, 2007, the unit instituted an annual Assessment Day where all the stakeholders gather for a day-long event of presentation on the annual data gathered, comparison to previous data, and discussion of implications. The first Assessment Day was held in January in order to have the process begin, subsequent Assessment Days are held in early September to allow time for recommendations that come out of Assessment Day to be implemented during the current academic year. Students, faculty (T/TT, full-time, part-time, clinical supervisors), and our P-12 partners are all invited to Assessment Day. Furthermore, all analyzed and synthesized data results are posted on a public website for referral by all professional community partners involved in making decisions about educator preparation.

http://coe.indstate.edu/tec/assessment_day_2006_presentations.htm

http://coe.indstate.edu/tec/assessment_day_2006_presentations.htm


2007 Participants S2.28 Email Invitation to ADV Working Lunch


Optional

1. What does your unit do particularly well related to Standard 2?

The faculty are truly taking ownership of the assessment process. Given the reasons behind this Focused Visit, it is overwhelming and quite impressive the level to which all of our programs have developed an interest in working together to look at how well the candidates perform overall and how well the Unit is performing overall. Conversations are happening in meetings now that go beyond anecdotal data and focuses on the data for continual improvement. The faculty have stopped asking the questions “what do we need to do for NCATE” and are instead asking “what do we need to do better.” This is a tremendous shift in a short time and honestly would not have been possible without the unmet expectations on the last visit on Standard 2.

The faculty have always been highly concerned about candidate performance within their own programs. The degree to which those programs related to the unit as a whole was incidental and not intentional. Assessment of candidates and the Unit is being approached in a positive nature, and in point demonstrated well with the positive reception with which the move to TK20 is being approached. Chairs, program coordinators and faculty are now asking questions and wanting data to answer those questions as it relates to unit and candidate performance, and are asking for new ways to be able to see and look at data. Professional education faculty are asking for help and are asking for meetings to be able to help them progress in their understanding of the data and performance.

2. What research related to Standard 2 is being conducted by the unit?

At the point of writing this Institutional Report, no specific research is being

collected as relates to Standard 2; however, it is not unusual to hear discussion about plans and possibilities. In particular, the advanced faculty, who approached their task with due diligence to be able to generate aggregatable data beyond their program specific data, have recently come to realize that the assessments, concessions, and common work sample rubric that they have created and plan to implement is not typical of all advanced programs. There is interest in exploring research related to this new level of collegiality and its impact on program design and revision.


Appendixes

Table 2 Programs and their Review Status – Fall 2007

Program Name

Award Level

Program Level

(ITP or ADV)

Number of Candidates

Enrolled or

Admitted

Agency or Association Reviewing Programs (e.g., State

or NAEYC)

Program Report

Submitted for Review (Yes/No)

State Approval

Status (e.g., approved or provisional)

National Recognition

Status by NCATE

ELED Bachelor’s ITP 373 State No Approved NA Early Child. Bachelor’s ITP 26 State No Approved NA Spec. Ed. Bachelor’s ITP 173 State No Approved NA ELED T2T ITP 0 State No Approved NA Sec. Ed. T2T ITP 11 State No Approved NA Business Ed. Bachelor’s ITP 18 AACSB No Approved NA Visual Arts Ed Bachelor’s ITP 36 NASAD No Approved NA English Ed Bachelor’s ITP 60 State No Approved NA FCS Bachelor’s ITP 28 State No Approved NA Language Ed Bachelor’s ITP 27 State No Approved NA Math Ed Bachelor’s ITP 62 State No Approved NA Music Ed Bachelor’s ITP 115 NASM No Approved NA Science E Bachelor’s ITP 41 State No Approved NA Social Studies Bachelor’s ITP 135 State No Approved NA Tech. Ed Bachelor’s ITP 26 ITEA No Approved NA Health Ed Bachelor’s ITP 8 State No Approved NA Physical Ed Bachelor’s ITP 105 State No Approved NA SLP Master’s ITP 29 ASHA No Approved NA School Couns. Master’s ADV 38 CACREP No Approved NA School Couns. ND ADV 1 CACREP No Approved NA School Psych Ed.S. ADV 21 NASP No Approved NA C&I Master’s ADV 17 State No Approved NA Library/Media Master’s ADV 43 State No Approved NA Dir. Except. Needs ND ADV 1 State No Approved NA Building Admin Master’s ADV 54 State No Approved NA Superintendent Ed.S. ADV 47 State No Approved NA Building Admin ND ADV 13 State No Approved NA Ed. Admin. Ph.D. ADV 32 State No Approved NA English Ed Master’s ADV 1 State No Approved NA Math Ed Master’s ADV 1 State No Approved NA Music Ed Master’s ADV 0 NASM No Approved NA Science Ed Master’s ADV 2 State No Approved NA Tech Ed Master’s ADV 0 ITEA No Approved NA Health Ed Master’s ADV 1 State No Approved NA Physical Ed Master’s ADV 1 State No Approved NA Driver Ed ND ADV 0 State No Approved NA Special Ed Master’s ADV 12 State No Approved NA Visual Impairment ND ADV 7 State No Approved NA Special Ed ND ADV 4 State No Approved NA Early Child. Master’s ADV 5 State No Approved NA ELED Master’s ADV 14 State No Approved NA


Reading Master’s ADV 3 State No Approved NA

Table 5 Unit Assessment System: Transition Point Assessments

BCP 1

Admission BCP 2

Entry to clinical practice

Exit from clinical practice

BCP 3 Program

completion

BCP 4 Post- program

completion Initial Teacher Education Programs Early Childhood-Bachelor’s

x GPA 2.5 x EPSY 342, ELED 110,

SPED 226-C or better x Praxis I Passed

x 2.5 GPA x Recommendation from

faculty x C or better in all

professional education courses

x Completion of inclusionary and multicultural courses with C or better

x Clear criminal history

Successful Student Teaching

x All standards met

x 2.5 GPA x University

degree req. met

Praxis II Criminal history check completed CPR Certification

Elementary-Bachelor’s









x All standards met


degree req. met


Secondary T2T

x Successful content area review

x Successful application interview

x Candidate Statement x 3 Recs. x Bachelor’s with 3.0 or

2.5 and 5 yrs exp. x Praxis I Passed

x Recommendation from faculty

x C or better in all professional education courses

x SPED 607 C or better x Passing Praxis II x Clear criminal history


All standards satisfactorily met

Criminal history check completed CPR Certification

Secondary-Bachelor’s All Grade Programs

x GPA 2.5 x EPSY 202, ELED 225-C

or better x Praxis I Passed







x All standards met


degree req. met


Secondary-Bachelor’s Jr High/Middle/

x GPA 2.5 x EPSY 202 -C or better x Praxis I Passed




x All standards met

x 2.5 GPA



High Programs professional education courses



x University degree req. met

Special Education






x Completion of multicultural courses with C or better



x All standards met


degree req. met


Advanced Programs for Licensed Teachers Elementary Ed.

Meet SOGS admission requirements Hold or be eligible for an Indiana teaching license in program area

3.0 Cum GPA Meet all standards University degree req. met

Special Ed. Hold or be eligible for an Indiana teaching license in program area


Library/Media Hold a current teaching license Meet SOGS admission requirements

Student must have successfully completed 21 hours in the certification to enter practicum

Successfully complete practicum

All standards met

Application for license

Curriculum & Instruction

Meet SOGS admission requirements

Successful completion of the research project.

3.0 Cum GPA University Degree req. met.

Communication Disorders

Bachelor’s degree in CD or equivalent Meet two of the following: Undergrad GPA of 2.5 or better Minimum score of 450 on each section of GRE GPA of 3.25 on at least nine hours of Grad Work

Completion of Disposition Assessment

Successful student teaching and completion of hospital practicum Completed Disposition Assessment C or better in all clinical practicum

Meet all standards Passing Score on Praxis II or departmental comprehensive exam All program requirements met

Praxis II Clear Criminal History Check CPR Certification

Early Childhood

Meet SOGS admission requirements Hold or be eligible for an Indiana teaching license in program area



Advanced Programs for Other School Personnel School Administration (M.Ed)

Meet SOGS admission requirements

Satisfactorily complete ELAF 650, 655 & 681. Three letters of recommendation. Two years teaching experience.

Successfully complete long-term project, portfolio, dispositional assessment. Satisfactory mentor assessment

Meet all university requirements for graduation.

Pass SLLA

School Psychology

Hold a master’s degree Undergrad GPA of 2.5 Grad GPA of 3.25 Minimum score of 450 on each section of GRE 3 letters of recommendation Personal narrative

School Counseling

Meet two of the following: Undergrad GPA of 2.5 or better Have scores on the general test of GRE or MAT GPA of 3.25 on at least nine hours of Grad Work

Recommendation from faculty B or better in all counseling related courses Clear criminal history Membership in ASCA & ISCA

Successful internship Minimum of 4 days of professional development

Minimum of 3.0 GPA All standards met

Application for licensure

School Administration (Ed.S.)

Hold a master’s degree Undegrad GPA of 2.5 Grad GPA of 3.25 Complete GRE 3 letters of recommendation Be eligible for standard school administration license

All courses must be successfully completed prior to summer internshiop.

Successfully complete summer project. Satisfactory internship evaluation.

Meet University graduation requirements

Pass SLLA



Unit Assessment System

Educator Preparation

Revised 2007-08

Accepted by TEC December 11, 2007


Guiding Questions of the UAS

Initial Data Sources Advanced Data Sources

How Well Do Our Candidates.. Support P-12 Student Learning?

CIMT & EESE Work Samples IMAP Survey (TBD) Principal Survey (1, 2, 3, 6-17) Student Teacher Survey (6-8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17-23)

Educator Work Sample

Use technology to support learning?

EESE & CIMT Technology Profiles IMAP Survey (TBD) Principal Survey (12) Student Teacher Survey (10) NSSE

Technology questions on Field Evaluations

Use Appropriate Dispositions?

Dispositional Assessment IMAP Survey (TBD) Principal Survey (4,8,10,18,16) Student Teacher Survey (9,16,18,21,23) Student Teaching Evals (INTASC 9 & 10)

Dispositional Assessment

Work With Diverse Learners?

EPSY 341 & SPED 226 Performance Data Student Teaching Eval (INTASC 3) Diversity Field Assessment

Diversity Assessment Diversity Question from Dispositional Assessment

Perform Overall? Praxis I & II Data Program Reports

Compressed Standards Eval into BCP Field Evaluations National Exam Results Alumni Surveys Employer Surveys Exit Surveys

Communicate? NA Field Evaluations Dispositional Assessment

How Effective Are Our Unit Operations In Terms Of…

Faculty Effectiveness? Digital Measures Data PDS Liaisons Faculty/Adjunct K-12 Exp. SIR Student Teacher Survey (24, 26,31) Principal Survey (19)

Digital Measures Data Faculty/Adjunct Exp. SIR Faculty Effectiveness Survey

Diversity of Faculty and Students?

Faculty and Student Demographic Data (Student exit and entry)

Faculty and Student Demographic Data (Student exit and entry)

Field Operations? Field Survey Field Demographics Average Hours of Field Work

Field Survey Field Demographics Average Hours of Field Work

Advising? Advising Survey Student Teaching Survey (26,27,28)

Advising Survey Signed program of study %

Placement and Retention of our Graduates?

PRE Database Student Teaching Eval (INTASC 3)

NA

Retention of Our Students? University Retention Data Appeal Database Demographic Data (entry to end)

Percentage retained from Fall to Spring Demographic Data (entry to end)

Reliability of Assessments? Interrater reliability Interrater reliability


Data Elements Collected Transition Points and Candidate Assessment

Initial Programs (Undergraduate and Post-Baccalaureate Initial Licensure) BCP 1

Admission to Program BCP 2

Midpoint Assessments Entry to Professional Experience

Completion of Professional

Experience

BCP 3 Exit from Program and

Graduation

Post Graduation

x Praxis I Analysis x Petitions for Admission to

BCP 1 x BCP Acceptance Rates x Matriculating student

demographics x NSSE Freshman Data x Dispositional

assessment (EPSY 202)

x Grades/EMD from Exceptionality Class (SPED 226, ARTE 491, MUS 418, PE 497)

x Performance evaluations of early field experiences with emphasis on P-12 student learning

x Dispositional Assessment

x Final evaluation of supervised teaching experience

x

x Student teacher surveys

x NSSE Senior Surveys x Praxis II Analysis x Demographic data

x IMAP Surveys from State (Internship Completers)

x Principal Surveys (Internship Completers)

x 5-year alumni survey

Advanced Programs Admission to Program Midpoint Assessments

Entry to Professional Experience Exit from Program Post Completion

x Candidate demographics x Signed program of study by end

of first semester x Self-assessment dispositions

x Classroom-based disposition assessment

x EMD on Standards as per program.

x Work Sample x Evaluations of Field Experience

(as applicable) x Field-based dispositional

assessment

x Employer Surveys x Alumni Surveys (5 years out) x Exit Survey/Self Evaluation x Graduate Demographics

Additional Data Collection and Analysis to Assess Unit Level Performance x Academic Advising Evaluations (Student Teacher Survey Unit Operations; Advising Survey) x Field Placement (Placement data, Host teacher evaluation of experience/process and University Supervisor) x Diversity (Faculty Diversity, Student Diversity, Field Placement/Experiences, Candidate Skills) x Student Retention (University retention data by program) x Consistency of performance data (correlation study of performance assessments) x Program summaries submitted to TEC x Faculty effectiveness (Digital measures data on service, K-12 experience, scholarship, Adjunct vitas on degrees, K-12 experience, scholarship, SIR,

Faculty Effectiveness Survey)

Alignment of Key UAS Performance Assessments to Standards

Performance Assessment Conceptual Framework Elements Assessed

Initial Praxis I Expert/Mediator of Learning Praxis II Expert/Mediator of Learning Exceptionality Performance Expert/Mediator of Learning Performance evaluations of early field experiences with emphasis on P-12 student learning

Expert/Mediator of Learning Person Member of Community

Dispositional Assessment Person Candidate Skills with Diversity Expert/Mediator of Learning

Person Final Evaluation of Student Teaching Experience

Expert/Mediator of Learning Person Member of Community

Advanced Cumulative GPA Expert/Mediator of Learning Course level assessment Expert/Mediator of Learning Problems in Practice/Action Research Expert/Mediator of Learning

Person Member of Community

Field Evaluations Expert/Mediator of Learning Person Member of Community

Dispositional Assessment Person

Revision Presented to and accepted by TEC on Dec. 11, 2007.

Responsibility for Data Collection, Analysis, and Action

Data Element Responsibility for Collection

Responsibility for Analysis and Presentation

Responsibility for Action (Presented at Fall TEC

Assessment Day) Initial

Praxis I Analysis (Spring) Dean’s Office (Title II) Dean’s Office Initial Subcomm. to TEC Petitions for Admission to BCP 1 (Spring)

Dean’s Office – ESS Dean’s Office Initial Subcomm. to TEC

BCP Acceptance Rates (Spring) Dean’s Office – ESS Dean’s Office Initial Subcomm. to TEC Matriculating student demographics (high school, GPA, rank, SAT, Gender, Ethnicity, County/State) (Fall)

Dean’s Office Dean’s Office Initial Subcomm. to TEC

NSSE Data (Every other year - Fall) OSPIRE/Assessment Coordinator

Dean’s Office/Assessment Coordinator

Initial Subcomm. to TEC

Grades/EMD from Exceptionality Class (SPED 226, ARTE 491, MUS 418, PE 497) (Summer)

Programs Dean’s Office Initial Subcomm. to TEC

Performance evaluations of early field experiences with emphasis on P-12 student learning (Fall)

Programs Programs & Dean’s Office


Dispositional Assessment (Fall) Programs Programs & Dean’s Office


Student Teacher Survey (Every semester)

Programs (given forms by Dean’s Office)

Dean’s Office Initial Subcomm. to TEC

Student Teaching Evaluation (Every semester)

Programs Programs Initial Subcomm. to TEC

Praxis II (Spring) Title II Data (Dean’s Office)

Dean’s Office Initial Subcomm. to TEC

IMAP Survey (Spring) State Dean’s Office Initial Subcomm. to TEC Principal Survey (Spring) Dean’s Office Dean’s Office Initial Subcomm. to TEC 5-year alumni Survey (Spring) Dean’s Office Dean’s Office Initial Subcomm. to TEC Advising Survey Programs Programs Initial Subcomm. to TEC

Advanced Candidate Demographics (Fall) Dean’s Office Dean’s Office Adv. Subcomm. To TEC Signed program of study (Fall) Programs Programs Adv. Subcomm. To TEC Course Level Assessment (EMD) (Fall)

Programs Programs Adv. Subcomm. To TEC

Dispositional Assessment Programs Programs/Dean’s Office

Adv. Subcomm. To TEC

Problems in Practice/Action Research Programs Programs Adv. Subcomm. To TEC Field Evaluations Programs Programs Adv. Subcomm. To TEC Employer Surveys (Spring) Programs Programs Adv. Subcomm. To TEC Alumni Surveys (Spring) Dean’s Office Dean’s Office Adv. Subcomm. To TEC Exit Survey/Self-Evaluation (Spring) Programs Programs Adv. Subcomm. To TEC Graduate Demographics (Fall) Dean’s Office Dean’s Office Adv. Subcomm. To TEC

Revision Presented to and accepted by TEC on Dec. 11, 2007.

Unit Data Academic Advising Evaluations (Spring)

Dean’s Office Dean’s Office Adv. Subcomm. To TEC

Field Placement – Placement Data

Programs Dean’s Office

Field Placement - PDS Principal Survey (Summer)

PDS Office PDS Office PDS Steering to TEC

Field Placement - Host Teacher Survey (Fall)

Dean’s Office Dean’s Office

Faculty Diversity Data (Spring)

Dean’s Office Dean’s Office TEC

Student Diversity Data (Fall)


Field Placement Diversity Data (Spring)

Dean’s Office with help from FE Offices

Dean’s Office

Candidate Diversity Skills (Fall)

Programs Programs & Dean’s Office PDS Steering to TEC

Student Retention Data (Summer)

OSPIRE Dean’s Office TEC

Consistency of Performance Data (Summer)


Program Summaries Spring

Programs Programs Initial & Adv. Subcomm. To TEC

Faculty Qualifications (Summer)

Programs Dean’s Office TEC

INSTITUTIONAL SELF-STUDY REPORT

FOR

INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

SUBMITTED TO

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR ACCREDITATION OF TEACHER

EDUCATION (NCATE)

NOVEMBER 2005

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. OVERVIEW OF THE INSTITUTION .................................................................................. 3 Brief History ............................................................................................................................... 3 College Organizational Structure ................................................................................................ 3 Students and Faculty ................................................................................................................... 4 Professional Education Unit and Programs ................................................................................ 5 Centers and Services ................................................................................................................... 6 Examples of Professional Education Highlights......................................................................... 8

II. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................... 9 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 9

A Moral Imperative: The Right to Learn ................................................................................ 9 Mission Statement of the Conceptual Framework ...................................................................... 9 Goals, Objectives, Outcomes of the Conceptual Framework ................................................... 10 Vision and Mission Statements of the College and Unit .......................................................... 11

Mission of the College of Education .................................................................................... 11 Goals of the College of Education ........................................................................................ 11 Indiana State University Mission and Goals ......................................................................... 12

Evidence of the Conceptual Framework ................................................................................... 13 Conceptual Framework: A Guide to Instruction, Assessment, Field Experiences, and Clinical Practice .................................................................................................................... 13 Professional Commitments and Dispositions ....................................................................... 15 Commitment to Diversity ..................................................................................................... 16 Commitment to Technology ................................................................................................. 16 Candidate Proficiencies Aligned with Professional and State Standards ............................. 17 Conceptual Framework: The Future ..................................................................................... 19

III. EVIDENCE FOR MEETING EACH STANDARD ........................................................ 21 STANDARD 1: CANDIDATE KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND DISPOSITIONS ................ 21

Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates (Initial and Continuing Preparation of Teachers) ............................................................................................................................... 21 Content Knowledge for Other Professional School Personnel ............................................. 24 Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates (Initial and Continuing Preparation of Teachers) ....................................................................................................... 25 Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates (Initial and Continuing Preparation of Teachers) .................................................................................... 29 Professional Knowledge and Skills for Other School Personnel .......................................... 31 Dispositions for All Candidates ............................................................................................ 33 Student Learning for Teacher Candidates (Initial & Continuing Preparation of Teachers) . 34 Student Learning for Other Professional School Personnel ................................................. 35

STANDARD 2: ASSESSMENT SYSTEM AND UNIT EVALUATION .............................. 37 Assessment System ............................................................................................................... 37 Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation ........................................................................... 44 Use of Data for Program Improvement ................................................................................ 45

STANDARD 3: FIELD EXPERIENCES AND CLINICAL PRACTICE ............................... 46 Collaboration between Unit and School Partners ................................................................. 46 Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Field Experiences and Clinical Practice ......... 47

2

Candidates’ Development and Demonstration of Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions to Help All Students Learn........................................................................................................ 57

STANDARD 4: DIVERSITY................................................................................................... 59 Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Curriculum and Experiences ........................... 59 Experiences Working with Diverse Faculty ......................................................................... 65 Experiences Working with Diverse Candidates ................................................................... 67 Experiences Working with Diverse Students in PPK-12 Schools ........................................ 68

STANDARD 5: FACULTY QUALIFICATIONS, PERFORMANCE, AND DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................... 70

Qualified Faculty .................................................................................................................. 70 Modeling Best Professional Practices in Teaching ............................................................... 71 Modeling Best Professional Practices in Scholarship ........................................................... 75 Modeling Best Professional Practices in Service.................................................................. 75 Collaboration......................................................................................................................... 77 Unit Evaluation of Professional Education Faculty Performance ........................................ 79 Unit Facilitation of Professional Development..................................................................... 80

STANDARD 6: UNIT GOVERNANCE AND RESOURCES ................................................ 81 Unit Leadership and Authority ............................................................................................. 81 Unit Budget ........................................................................................................................... 87 Personnel ............................................................................................................................... 88 Unit Facilities ........................................................................................................................ 90 Unit Resources including Technology .................................................................................. 91

Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 93 Appendix B ................................................................................................................................... 94 Appendix C ................................................................................................................................... 96 Appendix D ................................................................................................................................... 97 References ..................................................................................................................................... 98

3

I. OVERVIEW OF THE INSTITUTION

Brief History The origins of Indiana State University date back to December 20, 1865, when Indiana State Normal School was created by the Indiana legislature. The primary mission was the “preparation of teachers for teaching in the common schools of Indiana.” The first bachelor’s degrees were awarded in 1908, the first master’s degrees in 1928, and the first doctorates in 1965. “University” status was achieved in 1965 and the name was changed to Indiana State University. Today, Indiana State University (ISU) is a comprehensive, research intensive university that includes a College of Arts & Sciences, professional colleges of Business, Education, Health & Human Performance, Nursing, and Technology; and the School of Graduate Studies. Institutional accreditation has been achieved from 27 accrediting bodies. The current mission of the University is “to educate students to be productive citizens and enhance the quality of life of the citizens of Indiana by making the knowledge and expertise of its faculty available and accessible. These purposes are served when the University disseminates knowledge through instruction and extends and applies knowledge through research, creative and scholarly activities, and public service” (Exhibit OV.01). The main ISU campus adjoins the north side of Terre Haute’s downtown business district and covers about 91 acres in the heart of the city. The south campus, a 15 acre site less than one mile south of the main campus, is occupied by two family housing apartment complexes and the ISU Childcare Center. The east campus, leased in 1966 for 99 years, includes the 20,500-seat Memorial Stadium and a nine-hole golf course. It is located on Wabash Avenue, two miles east of the main campus and covers 51.6 acres. ISU has no branch campuses. In the fall, 2004, ISU enjoyed an enrollment of 11,200 full- and part-time students. Of the 9,321 undergraduate students, 1,653 or 17.7% were in the College of Education and related teacher preparation programs. Elementary, Early, and Special Education was the largest undergraduate department with a total of 713 declared majors. Graduate student enrollments were 1,879 with 725 or 38.6% in education. Of all students, 1,660 or 14.8% were U.S. minority students, and 3.8% (427) were international students.

College Organizational Structure

The current organizational chart is available in Appendix A.

4

Students and Faculty

Table 1 Students Enrolled, EOS Spring 2005

Full-time Part-time Undergraduate 1333 157 Graduate 247 538 Female 1070 473 Male 510 222

Table 2 Ethnic/Racial Composition of Candidates Enrolled in the Unit

Undergraduate Graduate FT PT FT PT American Indian/Alaskan Native 2 1 1 2 Asian/Pacific Islander 4 0 1 11 African American, not Hispanic 64 9 16 30 Hispanic 6 0 3 11 White, not Hispanic 1220 144 191 462 Multiracial 11 1 0 1 Non-Resident Aliens 5 0 32 16 Data Unavailable 21 2 3 5

Table 3 Academic Rank of College of Education Faculty, 2004-05

Academic Rank

# of Tenured Fac.

Non-tenured Faculty # on Tenure Track # Not on Tenure Track

Professors 23 0 0 Associate Professors 14 0 0 Assistant Professors 4 21 0 Instructors 0 0 43 Graduate Teaching

Assistants 0 0 0

Other 0 0 0 Total 41 21 43

Table 4 Faculty Members Employed, Spring 2005

FT in Unit PT Unit

FT Institution PT Unit

PT Institution American Indian/Alaskan Native 0 0 0 Asian/Pacific Islander 4 1 0 African American, not Hispanic 3 2 2 Hispanic 0 0 2 White, not Hispanic 65 32 30 Other 0 2 0 Non-Resident Aliens 0 0 0 Data Unavailable 0 0 0 Total 72 37 34

5

Professional Education Unit and Programs

Table 5 tate Approved Programs

Program Name

Degree/Award Level

Program Level (ITP or ADV)*

Number of Candidates EOS Spring 2005

Other Accreditation

Business Education (General) B ITP 13 Family and Cons. Science B ITP 27 M ADV 9 Computer Education M and ND ADV 0 Driver/Traffic Safety ND 1 Exceptional Needs: Mild Intervention B ITP 73 Visually Impaired ND ADV 4 Graduate Special Education M ADV 14 Fine Arts: Visual Arts B ITP 18 Music B ITP 106 M ADV 2 Theater Arts Concentration ITP Foreign Languages: Spanish, German,

French B ITP 9

Generalist: Early Childhood B ITP 4 M ADV 6 Generalist Elem: Primary B ITP 191 M ADV 21 Gifted and Talented ND ADV Health B ITP 15 M ADV 2 Physical Education B ITP 137 M ADV 1 Language Arts B ITP 81 M ADV 3 Library Media B ITP 2 ND ADV Mathematics B ITP 73 M ADV 1 Reading Teacher M ADV 16 Science B ITP 35 M ADV 5 Social Studies B ITP 145 Speech Language Pathologist M ITP 12 ASHA Technology Education B ITP 34 M ADV 2 Transition to Teaching, Sec. ND ITP 13 Curriculum and Instruction M ADV 14 Building Administrator M and ND ADV 80 District Administrator: Superintendent Ed.S. ADV 26 Dir. of Exceptional Needs ND ADV 1 Dir. of Career/Tech Ed ND ADV 0 School Counselor M ADV 44 CACREP School Psychologist Ed.S. ADV 18 NASP, APA *ITP = Initial Teacher Preparation; ADV = Advanced Preparation

6

Centers and Services

The College of Education has a number of centers that are supported and contribute to the mission. Education Student Services--Licensure The Office of Education Student Services serves an all-University coordinating and service role for undergraduate and graduate students in teacher education as well as for alumni in the field and prospective students in education. The office also provides an all-University coordinating and service role for departments providing programs for educators. The office administers the University Teacher Education program process. The director and associate director act for the dean of the College of Education in regard to College of Education matters. They also serve as the University’s channel of communication with the Indiana Professional Standards Board and serve as the local legal authority on all matters related to teacher licensure, teacher testing, and teacher education (Exhibit OV.02). Instructional and Information Technology Services The purpose of Instructional and Information Technology Services is to facilitate the utilization of instructional and informational technologies by the faculty, staff, and students in the College of Education (Exhibit OV.03). This mission includes:

1. Supporting the technology needs of faculty and students as they relate to learning, instruction, and research, as well as the initiatives designed to help faculty infuse relevant information technology into the professional education programs.

2. Offering instructional delivery systems and current digital technology for educational productions to College of Education faculty, staff, and students.

3. Coordinating all facets of technology in the College of Education, including the procurement, installation, utilization, and management of the information technology resources and facilities.

4. Providing technical support to the College of Education--Information Technology Advisory Committee.

Professional Development Schools The Professional Development Schools program is a collaborative effort between the University and five area school districts. It is currently made up of 20 public schools and Indiana State University. In any given semester, this award-winning partnership touches the lives of over 14,500 children and youth, 950 professional educators in 20 schools, 60 University faculty, and 850 pre-service teacher education candidates (Exhibit OV.04). CLINICS Counseling Clinic The Counseling Clinic is operated by the Department of Counseling. Opened in 1982, the clinic has served residents of the Wabash Valley for over 20 years. The goal is to assist individuals, couples, and families to strengthen relationships, explore concerns, and solve problems in a confidential manner. Clinic staff is committed to providing professional services that honor

7

unique aspects of clients' lives such as religious affiliation, ethnicity, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, and personal life philosophies. Porter School Psychology Center The Porter School Psychology Center provides intervention, consultation, evaluation, prevention, and educational services for children, youth, families, schools, and adults with learning, behavioral, social, and emotional difficulties. Services are provided by advanced graduate students supervised by faculty members and a licensed psychologist (Exhibit OV.05). Rowe Center for Communicative Disorders (Speech and Hearing Clinic) The Rowe Center offers assessment and treatment for communication disorders. The center's Speech and Language Clinic offers speech and language assessments and treatment for a wide range of speech (articulation/ESL, voice, stuttering) and language (delayed/disordered language development, aphasia, traumatic brain injury) disorders for preschoolers, school-age children, and adults at no cost. The center also offers hearing screening and provides audiologic rehabilitation services (such as speech reading training) (Exhibit OV.06). SPECIALIZED ACADEMIC CENTERS Blumberg Center for Inter-Disciplinary Studies in Special Education The Blumberg Center was established to encourage the interdisciplinary study of populations with special needs, ranging from persons with severe disabilities to those who are gifted and talented. The Blumberg Center includes faculty, students, and staff from the Department of Elementary, Early, and Special Education, the Department of Communication Disorders, and the Department of Educational and School Psychology at Indiana State University (Exhibit OV.07; Exhibit OV.08). Early Childhood Education Center The Early Childhood Education Center is a laboratory facility offering an experienced-based curriculum, emphasizing a developmental approach to learning, with the child as an active participant. Content areas stressed are: language development, music, movement, dramatic play, science, mathematics, and art. The center’s curriculum reflects its commitment to an anti-bias, multicultural environment. A whole language philosophy is also incorporated into the curriculum (Exhibit OV.09; OV 0.10). Indiana Special Education Administrators’ Services (ISEAS) Indiana Special Education Administrators’ Services is a statewide dissemination and technical assistance project. It is the mission of the project to support special education administrators in solution seeking (Exhibit OV.11). Indiana North Central Association Commission on Accreditation and School Improvement (NCA) The North Central Association is a nationally recognized regional accrediting organization whose purposes are to accredit schools and to support schools in their efforts for school improvement. It is a not-for-profit, voluntary membership organization of approximately 9,100

8

schools in a 19-state region plus schools of the Department of Defense Dependents and Navajo Nation (Exhibit OV.12). Upward Bound Program The Upward Bound Program is designed for first generation, low-income high school students who live within 60 miles of Terre Haute, Indiana. While still in high school, they participate in summer programs on the Indiana State University campus to help prepare them for college. In addition, Upward Bound provides Saturday and evening programs of academic support during the school year and assists twelfth grade students in gaining admission to colleges that meet their educational needs (Exhibit OV.13). Upward Bound Math and Science Program The Upward Bound Math and Science Program is for students participating in the Upward Bound Program who meet the general Upward Bound criteria and have a special interest in, or talent for, study in the area of mathematics and science. Students study a specialized curriculum and work on special science projects during their summers on campus (Exhibit OV.14). Educational Talent Search Program The Educational Talent Search Program is a federally-funded program which provides academic and financial counseling and information to low-income junior high and high school students and non-traditional students to age 27 throughout a six county area of west-central Indiana. Students in the program are given encouragement and assistance in planning for college enrollment (Exhibit OV.15).

Examples of Professional Education Highlights

� In 2003, ISU’s College of Education was awarded a Title II Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant from the U.S. Department of Education. The project “Project PRE: Partnering to Reform Education: An All-University/High Needs Schools Partnership” is engaged in activities that bring together content knowledge (faculty in Arts & Sciences and professional schools), with pedagogical expertise (professional education faculty), with clinical knowledge (faculty in partner schools) to transform teacher education into an experiential learning, clinically-based program, supporting educator development from pre-service through induction and continued professional development; and create rich school environments that support learning by all children; and serve as exemplary clinical settings for the preparation and continued development of professional educators (Exhibit OV.16; Exhibit OV.17).

� The graduate programs in the College of Education are ranked 93 on the top 100 2006 list of the US News & World Report Graduate Program Rankings (Exhibit OV.18).

� In 2002, ISU was awarded the Christa McAuliffe Award for Excellence in Teacher Education, one of three institutions honored by America Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) (Exhibit OV.19; OV.20).

� The College of Education was awarded a PT3 (Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology) grant with a focus on improving technology integration in pre-service education

9

and providing avenues for technology-rich field experiences. Additional software for field-based use has been made available through an AACTE-Microsoft Grant (Exhibit OV. 21; Exhibit OV.22).

� Our graduates continue to be lauded for their accomplishments, including many awards for outstanding teaching, such as multiple Indiana Teacher of the Year winners, Indiana Art Teacher of the Year, and a 2003 recipient of the Presidential Award for Excellence in Science (Exhibit OV.23; Exhibit OV.24; Exhibit OV.25; Exhibit OV.26; Exhibit OV.27).

II. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Overview

Of all the civil rights for which the world has struggled and fought for 5,000 years, the right to learn is

undoubtedly the most fundamental….

-- W.E.B. Du Bois, “The Freedom to Learn” ([1949] 1970, pp.230)

A Moral Imperative: The Right to Learn As a moral imperative, the right to learn is perhaps more important today than ever before in our history. As Darling-Hammond notes, “Never before has the success, perhaps even the survival, of nations and people been so tightly tied to their ability to learn” (Darling-Hammond, 1997). But, the moral imperative extends beyond the ability to learn and moves to a vision of a good and just society. A society where education is central and the role of the school is to bring this education equitably to all, ensuring that all children and youth reach high levels of intellectual, practical, and social competence. This is a vision that provides the moral grounding of the educator preparation mission at Indiana State University and gives direction to those responsible for designing coherent programs for the education of educators (Goodlad, 1994).

Mission Statement of the Conceptual Framework

When designing coherent programs that give action to the moral imperative, it is important to have a conceptual framework that links the components of curriculum, instruction, assessment, and organization, e.g. field experiences and clinical practice, within any educator preparation program in ways that ensure consistent and coherent actions across programs, but is not so rigid as to inhibit needed changes and revisions. In short, such a conceptual framework must be a “living” plan that evolves and is responsive to outcomes of research in teaching and learning and to the context of contemporary schools and universities. At Indiana State University our conceptual framework is such a plan and it serves as our guide for curricular, instructional, assessment, and organizational decisions, as well as the fulfillment of our mission, goals, and those of the University.

10

The overarching theme of Indiana State University’s educator preparation programs is “Becoming a Complete Professional.” Initially adopted in 1991, the theme has undergone significant modifications over time and been reaffirmed (Exhibit CF.01; Exhibit CF.02; Exhibit CF.03). In its original rendering the theme encompassed five broad areas that framed program outcomes. As the profession moved to adopt standards developed by professional organizations and learned societies to guide its development, the theme and three outcomes emerged as the conceptual framework. Today our theme encompasses three broad areas that recognize essential areas of the work of an educator:

¾ Educator as Expert or Mediator of Learning, ¾ Educator as Person, and ¾ Educator as Member of Communities.

The word complete in the title acknowledges that, to be truly successful, an educator must be effective in all three of these areas. Similarly, the word becoming is included in the title because a new graduate of one of the University’s educator preparation programs is not yet a complete professional as a teacher, counselor, school psychologist, speech language pathologist, principal, or superintendent. Each has only developed a solid foundation for becoming such a professional in the chosen role. The component “Educator as Expert or Mediator of Learning” deals with an educator’s professional skill as a mediator of students’ learning and/or of the progress individuals make in achieving their potential. The component “Educator as Person” represents the traits and dispositions that make a successful educator justifiably respected and emulated by students. The component “Educator as Member of Communities” reflects the necessity of contributing to the various communities of which educators, as professionals, are members. To be proficient, an educator cannot simply be skillful as a mediator of learning or simply be respected and emulated by students or simply be a contributing member of relevant communities. Instead, a truly successful educator must at the same time be a competent expert or mediator of learning, a person committed to social justice and viewed as worthy of respect and even emulation by students, and a contributing member of the communities in which educators are expected to function.

Goals, Objectives, Outcomes of the Conceptual Framework

The Teacher Education Committee voted, at its meeting of March 24, 1999 to retain “Becoming a Complete Professional” as an overarching theme for all of the unit’s programs. INTASC principles were explicitly incorporated as outcomes for all undergraduate teacher preparation. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards propositions were approved as outcomes for advanced level teacher preparation. Remaining educator preparation programs adopted standards of their respective accrediting agencies as specific outcomes expected for their graduates (i.e., ISLLC, ASHA, CACREP, and NASP). Exhibit CF.04 provides the representation of the curricular dimensions of our educator preparation programs and the connection of the components of the conceptual framework to the standards and outcomes of the educator preparation programs.

11

Vision and Mission Statements of the College and Unit

Mission of the College of Education Growing out of the moral imperative of a right to learn and guided by our conceptual framework, we project a distinctive mission wherein we assume that we must respond to the societal imperatives derived from the public trust to educate a nation. The character of our social fabric, the degree of our civic responsiveness, and the extent of economic vitality are inextricably tied to the quality of our elementary and secondary schools and the communities they serve. The quality of these schools and the community life they support in turn is directly tied to the quality of those who teach, counsel, and administer in those schools. For us the mark of excellence in a professional college of education then is its ability to simultaneously:

x Prepare prospective teachers and assume a significant role in providing professional development for experienced teachers;

x Prepare and provide continuing professional development for a variety of other educational leaders, including speech clinicians, counseling psychologists, school administrators, school psychologists, instructional supervisors, and university professors, and provide professional development for practitioners in these fields;

x Contribute to the research and scholarship necessary to better understand the complexities of teaching and learning under girding professional practice; and

x Provide service, outreach, and engagement to organizations associated with the education disciplines, to practicing educators through university-based support units, and to the public through centers, clinics, and partnerships.

Goals of the College of Education 1. The College of Education is a Learning Community. All persons, including faculty,

students, and colleagues with whom we collaborate professionally, should strive to be teachers, learners, and scholars. Our faculty should work with students, faculty, colleagues in the College and elsewhere on campus, as well as with colleagues in community schools, agencies, and professional organizations, in learning and teaching together. The nature of our inquiry, learning, and teaching should define our collaborations, not traditional boundaries of positions, departments, or institutions.

2. Individuals who are engaged in learning are our first priority; we are primarily a teaching institution and teaching and learning together call for quality engagement with learners. The focus of the College of Education's efforts is to prepare professionals who continue to learn and use their minds well. In the College, teaching and learning are personalized, but the content learned is unified. Our goals and outcomes, what individuals should know and be able to do, apply to all learners. The means to the goals and outcomes vary, just as learners themselves vary. We are committed to understanding, celebrating, and increasing diversity among learners and ourselves. We seek to facilitate in all learners the achievement of their full potential as individuals and, ultimately, as professionals. All learners are expected to be able to grapple with important educational

12

issues, and to be able to become active participants as they assume positions in schools, agencies, and organizations in the larger community.

3. Teaching is central to the Mission of the College of Education and Indiana State University. Indiana State University prides itself on the quality of teaching it provides students. As a faculty committed to the preparation of educators, we model pedagogical practice that reflects state-of-the-art teaching and learning that we seek to have our students use in their future professional settings. Therefore, faculty use teaching strategies that enable each student to actively participate in her/his own learning. Faculty continually renew and grow as professionals, remaining alive and vital as teachers, learners, and contributors to their fields of expertise.

4. Service to schools and the community to engage firsthand in challenges confronting them is an obligation to society. The College of Education increasingly engages in serious collaboration with our colleagues in schools and community agencies. We have established professional development schools and a partnership with the North Central Association for accreditation of Indiana's schools wherein we invest our resources for a sustained period of time. We seek to link reform in schools to reform in the preparation of teachers and other professionals. We believe that together we can discover ideas, create structures, and solve societal problems while meeting our obligations to society.

5. Scholarship is broadly conceived, reflecting respect for the wisdom of practice as well as insight derived from scientific study and philosophical inquiry. We seek to engage in collaborative inquiry with our partners in schools and with other organizations, addressing problems of practice. In addition, faculty will continue to conduct laboratory-based and other controlled investigations as part of ongoing research agendas addressing fundamental questions in educational theory and the foundations of education.

6. Preparation of educational leaders, including teachers, clinicians, counselors, school administrators, psychologists, and professors, requires a contemporary vision of shared leadership. We seek to involve a wide range of people in communication, discussion, and decision-making through a variety of informal and formal structures.

7. Assessment of the educational enterprise and of our work is our responsibility. The College of Education seeks to document and assess teaching, learning, and other work of faculty and students, through a variety of methods.

Indiana State University Mission and Goals In 2004, following two years of intense discussions campus wide, the University launched a course of action designed to shift our collective emphasis from a model centered on student access to learning toward the deliberate application of student learning to real-world issues and resolution of community problems. Guiding the efforts of the University in fulfilling this new vision and meeting the needs of our students and state over the next six years are three strategic initiatives, including experiential learning, community engagement, and programs of distinction (Exhibit CF.05).

13

The emerging mission defines experiential learning (EL) as the outcome of a range of pedagogical approaches that engage students in challenging, compelling, and enriching activities conducted in appropriate settings. EL necessarily integrates development of knowledge, skills, and dispositions, and fosters application of methods of critical inquiry and personal reflection in order to organize, interpret, and bring meaning and coherence to student learning. Community engagement (CE) is defined as the development of collaborative partnerships between education, business, social services, and government that contribute to the academic mission of the University and directly benefit the community. CE activities not only touch the instructional and teaching obligations of faculty, but also impact the research and service endeavors of faculty, students, and staff. The third strategic initiative, distinctive programs (DP), is defined as those activities, qualities, and accomplishments that enable an institution to enjoy a unique identity or academic reputation for which the institution is known, admired, and valued. Taken together these three strategic initiatives are helping Indiana State University to define its role and guide its action to fulfill the following Promise Statement:

Indiana State University is the pre-eminent public institution that integrates teaching and research for high-achieving, goal-oriented students who seek opportunities for personal, professional, and intellectual growth on a diverse, civically engaged campus. From their first day, our students are actively challenged by high-quality, experiential academic programs and are supported by personal attention from our dedicated faculty and staff who inspire students to create and apply knowledge through dynamic partnerships with the community and the world. Our graduates are valued for their demonstrated knowledge and expertise, active citizenship, and leadership qualities.

Evidence of the Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework is evident throughout the professional education programs at ISU in the following ways: Conceptual Framework: A Guide to Instruction, Assessment, Field Experiences, and Clinical Practice The mission and goals of the College of Education and the shared Conceptual Framework coupled with the newly defined mission and promise of the University have given rise to the instructional and organizational features of the professional educator programs. At root, the College of Education is a learning community and the imperative that frames and guides the work of our learning community is simple and straightforward – Good Learning is a function of Good Teaching. Yet in such a simple statement lies a great deal of complexity. First, good teaching requires that we engage our students in experiential learning, offering them multiple opportunities to construct and promote meaning out of the knowledge that is shared. But coupling classroom experience with those in school settings is not accomplished simply by parachuting students into random experiences in schools. Instead, students are placed in schools that are places where carefully constructed partnerships with the COE are in place. Such arrangements promote authentic experiences for students situating their experience in the on-going work of the partner site. Additionally, these arrangements encourage faculty from the

14

College to work with colleagues at the sites to think through problems of practice and to pose and initiate solutions, often linking student experiences to this work. In short, the interactions provided by these partnerships promote and sustain the learning of all involved contributing to our learning community. The following vignettes illustrate the complexity of this work. Students in the elementary education program are in teams during a class session reviewing their final plans for an early field experience in a PDS partner elementary school. Each team of students will assume teaching responsibilities of mathematics in classrooms in a partner school for the following week. The students have been working with graphing calculators and planning lessons for the use of these teaching tools for various grade levels. The faculty member in charge of the class has worked closely with site faculty so that the lessons being planned by the college students will fit the natural flow of the classroom instruction and contribute to needed learnings of the children. During the implementation of the experience the University faculty member observes the ISU students with the host teachers and provides needed feedback to the students as plans are altered based on classroom actions and assessments. A faculty member, licensed SLP in the Department of Communication Disorders, meets her students on the campus of St. Mary-of-the-Woods College to coordinate their work with preschool children. The students will conduct screenings for audiology problems and speech/language disorders with children from the Woods' daycare program. After the screenings are completed, the faculty member and students debrief together to identify what children should be referred to the Rowe Center for Communication Disorders at ISU to undergo further assessment and treatment. The faculty member also debriefs key learning points the students came to understand in working with young children with possible speech or hearing problems. The local Head Start agency collaborates with the School Psychology program to provide onsite assessment services to children. Orientation is held at the Head Start site with both Head Start teachers and administrators and ISU faculty and students. First year School Psychology students are trained to administer and score a standardized screening instrument by the ISU faculty member and are supervised in administering the instrument to children at Head Start. Discussion of specific cases and issues occurs both at the Head Start facility and in the classroom at ISU. A student teacher in a PDS partner middle school, the school supervisor, and the University supervisor are meeting to discuss the progress of the student teacher. He has been in the classroom for the past four weeks and has assumed increasing levels of responsibility for the multiple classes of the host school supervisor. The purpose of this meeting is to review performance of the student teacher over the last few weeks of teaching and to begin work on the Unit Report, a teacher work sample, required as part of this experience. In the unit report the student will be required to describe the classroom that will serve as his work sample, noting the characteristics of the students, the intent of his instruction, and how it will be assessed. Such work will call for him to put into practice the full range of knowledge he has acquired in his course work, putting that knowledge into action, and make numerous decisions in rapid succession as he implements his work. He will be required to monitor student progress and will analyze work submitted by the students making needed adjustments based on the analysis. In short, he will be required to behave as a reflective professional. All the while he will be in

15

discussions with his host school supervisor who has completed a mentor teacher preparation workshop sponsored by the University. This experience has helped her understand the nature of this reflective process required by our teacher education program. But most importantly, the student teacher will grow in his abilities to function as a professional educator. These vignettes are only illustrations of but a few of the multiple experiential learning activities that unfold in the Educator Preparation Programs over the course of the academic year. Each is unique and program specific, but contained in each are a number of characteristics that cut across the full range of experiential learning and give shape to how the COE fulfills its imperative that Good Learning is a function of Good Teaching. For example, the experiences are sequenced from entry into our programs and gradually increase in intensity and sophistication as our students develop. Each experience brings the knowledge gained in the college classroom into full application in real settings. Each experience is in an authentic location that offers the full range of challenges associated with the field of study, including the commitment and challenge of social equity. Each is an outgrowth of a partnership that promotes multiple points of contact between the University and school and school district. But most importantly, each experience offers an opportunity for the development of authentic assessment that provides evidence of not only what our students know, but also of what they can do. It is built on the belief that reflective practice is the mark of a professional educator and we take pride in the fact that our graduates are noted for their ability to make an immediate contribution in their work and that they have the capacity for continued improvement. Finally, our assessment process provides the data needed for continued program review and improvement. When data are aggregated across experiences in programs, faculty are better able to review program strengths and weaknesses with an eye towards continued improvement. Our connections through our partnerships enable us to stay abreast of the changes taking place in the practice of the multiple professions we serve and enable us to make adjustments to meet these changes. And our research and scholarship that grow from these partnerships enable us to shape the future changes of the professions we serve. Thus, we are a learning community that is capable of change and one that is capable of initiating change. Professional Commitments and Dispositions Today, the schools of Indiana and the nation are coming under close scrutiny and demands for enhanced student learning are rampant. No success can come from efforts to increase student achievement, however, without addressing the need for the next generation of caring and competent professional educators. Quality educators and schools are now needed that not only offer instruction to all students, but also ensure that all students achieve at high and rigorous levels of performance. Our information-age economy increasingly demands that our students possess not only basic reading and mathematical skills; they must also be adaptable to changing work environments, be able to think critically, have facility in problem solving, possess technological literacy, and be able to communicate in written and spoken forms to others. In short, in these changing times, educators must be able to do more than ever before, and they must meet high standards of performance in challenging classroom environments that:

x reflect increased racial, ethnic, cultural, and religious diversity in the society; x create heightened expectations for educating students with identified special needs, as

well as, other students who may learn differently, in regular classrooms; x contain larger numbers of students who lack basic proficiency in English;

16

x require greater attention to students at risk because of inadequate nutrition, housing, health and medical care, and because of other adverse conditions at home; and

x exist within a threatening context of violence in communities and in the homes of some students.

Meeting the multiple challenges of the 21st century classrooms is not an incremental undertaking. It requires quality teachers and other professional educators who understand deeply the content to be taught and powerful pedagogical strategies that enable all students to reach those high standards, coupled with an understanding of the needs of a diverse student population and how to meet those needs. Already we have described the curricular knowledge and standards required by our candidates. And while meeting these high and rigorous standards is necessary for the professional educator, they are not sufficient to produce the quality educator needed for the 21st century school and its classrooms. These educators must also exhibit a commitment to serve diverse children and youth. Individual programs have worked to elucidate the dispositions that are valued by the program and reflected in the standards (CF.06). Commitment to Diversity As noted above, today’s classroom can be characterized by increased racial, ethnic, cultural, and religious diversity in the society. Consider the following:

x The U.S. Bureau of the Census estimates that people of color make up 28% of the nation’s population.

x The Census predicts that they will make up 38% in 2025 and 47% in 2050. x More than six million legal immigrants made the U.S. their home between 1991 and

1996. x In 1995, 35% of the students enrolled in pupil schools were students of color. x In California, students of color have exceeded the percentage of White students since

1988-1989. Language diversity is also increasing among the nation’s school-aged population. In 1990, 14% of students lived in homes in which English was not the first language. In short, all teachers in the classroom today or in our educator preparation programs will have students from diverse ethnic, racial, and language backgrounds in their classrooms during their careers. Further, these data do not include the impact of poverty on learning, nor do they highlight the challenges of addressing the learning needs of students with special needs that are also included in today’s classroom. We must address diversity and assist current as well as future educators meet this challenge and fulfill the promise diversity offers. Commitment to Technology In May, 2001, the Teacher Education Committee (TEC) at Indiana State University (ISU) adopted the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) for Teachers as the set of standards to guide the integration of technology into the teacher education program (Exhibit CF.07; Exhibit CF.08; Exhibit CF.09). Shortly after this TEC decision, ISU was notified that it had been awarded a Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) Grant. To further the goals of the PT3 grant, in April, 2003, the TEC was asked to again re-examine the adoption of these standards by the grant implementation team (Exhibit CF.10). During this action, the TEC was more specific and

17

adopted the Technology Performance Profiles for Teacher Preparation (ISTE, 2002). A strategy was then needed to ensure that the Profiles were fulfilled, in particular, the Professional Preparation Profile. The approach chosen was to infuse these elements into the educator preparation courses related to methodology and pedagogy through the use of facilitating activities. While past technology integration activities have relied upon educational technology faculty for implementation, the philosophy behind the facilitating activities was to empower teacher education faculty, most of whom do not have a background in educational technology, to develop and implement the activities. By bringing the activities directly into the classroom, aligned with all course expectations and performance standards, technology is naturally presented as an integral piece of the conceptual framework to Becoming a Complete Professional (Exhibit CF.11). To further ensure this happens, published copies of the facilitating activities include commentary that draws upon the relevant research that includes, but is not limited to, educational technology’s relationship to constructivism (Jonassen, 2003), brain-based research (McKenzie, 2002), universal design, (Belson, 2003) and the development of learning skills (Cradler, 1994). In the past, the focus in education has been on students as knowledge consumers. They take in information and give it back out. Technology provides a vehicle for students to create new knowledge (Pellegrino & Altman, 1997). Candidate Proficiencies Aligned with Professional and State Standards Formed in 1992, the Indiana Professional Standards Board (IPSB) is composed of 19 members, 18 of whom are appointed by the governor for staggered, four-year terms: nine actively employed Indiana public school teachers, three representatives of higher education, two principals, one superintendent, one special education director, one school board member, and one representative of business. In 2005, the IPSB was placed under the Department of Education and renamed the Division of Professional Standards. From its inception the IPSB (now DPS) has been engaged in program redesign that encompasses the teacher development continuum from preservice preparation to induction through continued professional development. The redesign work of the DPS has been guided by three interrelated concepts.

1. Expectations for student classroom achievement should be linked to expectations for teacher performance in classrooms.

2. Teacher performance should in turn be linked to expectations for preparation and continuing education in order for a teacher to receive and renew a license.

3. Teacher preparation programs should be encouraged to develop innovative programs that focus directly on the competence of the candidates they produce, as opposed to state-mandated course requirements.

In short, the redesign requirements of the DPS hinge upon the linked concepts of standards-guided programs coupled with performance-based assessments. In 1994 the IPSB took its first major step toward fulfilling its program redesign vision by adopting the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) principles as the core standards for all of its work. The Board then began the process of developing standards specific to Indiana, but guided by the INTASC standards. Between 1995 and 1999, the Board established 21 standards committees composed of practicing teachers, administrators, higher education personnel, and IPSB members. Standards were drafted and presented to the

18

Board, disseminated for public review and comment, edited, and finally adopted by the Board over this period. Today, the standards are presented in four developmental and 17 content areas. The adoption of the nationally developed core standards for teachers, the creation of Indiana’s own content and developmental standards, and the shift from “licensure by credit” to “licensure by performance” generate enormous ramifications for how we at ISU prepare and recommend preservice educators for licensure. Our work since 1994 to meet the redesign requirements suggests a number of important changes that are being made in our approach and thinking regarding teacher education preparation. For example, we are shifting: From:

To:

Programs based on completion of prescribed credit hours

Programs based on the meeting of standards-guided, performance-based assessments reflecting mastery of both content knowledge and pedagogical strategies

Programs with the majority of the teaching being done through the transmission of content to passive learners

Programs that engage the learner in active learning, problem solving, and self-reflection in college classrooms and diverse school settings

Programs where content studies and pedagogical studies are segregated

Programs where content studies and pedagogical studies are integrated

Programs where teacher preparation is a function of the institution of higher education

Programs where teacher preparation is a function of the entire education profession through university–school, PK – 16 partnerships

Programs where professional studies emphasize only college-level academic content

Programs where content and pedagogical studies integrate standards and performances for PPK-12 students

Programs with limited exposure to and development of proficiency in modern communications technology

Programs rich in exposure to and development of advanced proficiency in use of pedagogical strategies that infuse modern communication technology

Faculty in departments across campus have been at work since 1994 addressing the standards in course content, planning sequences of field-based experiences that are aligned with the standards, and designing performance-based assessments that provide evidence of student ability to perform to the standards (Exhibit CF.12). Taken together the program redesign work will result in the Unit Assessment System (UAS) for ISU. The UAS is a document required by the

19

DPS that specifies the performances that all candidates must demonstrate prior to recommendation by the University for licensure. Conceptual Framework: The Future As noted above, the conceptual framework for the educator preparation programs at ISU is a “living” plan. As such, it will undergo changes, but will also assist in guiding those changes. A prime example of this relationship to promoting change is the dramatic revisions of the teacher education program now being planned through the work of Project PRE (Exhibit CF.13; Exhibit CF.14). In October 2003, the College of Education through its Professional Development Schools Partnership was awarded a Title II, Teacher Quality Enhancement – Partnership grant by the U.S. DOE entitled, “Partnering to Reform Education: An All-University/High Needs Schools Partnership.” The purpose of this project is to bring together the tripartite of teacher education – content knowledge represented by faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences and the professional schools of Business, Health and Human Performance, and Technology with pedagogical knowledge represented by faculty in the School of Education coupled with clinical knowledge represented by faculty in partner schools. Unique to the Partnership transformations will be Indiana State University’s commitment to the idea that “experience” is the best teacher. The initiatives envisioned in this proposal will build on and support the mission of the institution to “extend and apply knowledge through research, creative and scholarly activities and public service,” by facilitating multiple opportunities for merging academic endeavors with real life experiences for its students, faculty, and the community. From use of case studies in the classroom to an intensive professional clinical year in the schools, student learning will be dramatically enhanced by the educational “experience” proposed here. Characteristics of the Transformations The unique teacher education prototype envisioned by the Partnership will be characterized by: x standards-guided, performance-assessed preparation at the undergraduate level that will

result in an institution-wide assessment system that will ensure that all teacher candidates meet high and rigorous performance levels

x aligned national and state standards in content disciplines and professional education coupled with standards and proficiencies for PPK-12 students

x integrated preparation from the point of entry in the University in general education, through content area studies in the College and other professional schools, to professional pedagogy preparation in the College of Education.

x experiential learning opportunities through problem and case-based activities, expanded research opportunities, enhanced interdisciplinary course linkages and structured inquiry designed to develop critical thinking skills, problem-solving abilities, interpersonal and self-directional skills, all infused with modern communication and technology skill development

x compressed professional educational studies that promote use of intensive clinical experiences in diverse, high need school settings and delivered through vertical staffing

20

arrangements that bring teams of University faculty together with cohorts of candidates to form learning communities

x expanded, shared governance structure for the ISU PDS Partnership based on joint responsibility and authority of the executive officers, building and department faculty and administrators, and students and parents of ISU, the five partner school districts, and community agencies and businesses such as, LiveText, Inc.

Renewal of high-need schools will be characterized by: x standards aligned curricular and instructional programs that employ scientifically-based

pedagogical strategies and best practices designed to enhance the learning of all children and youth and close the achievement gap and digital divide

x continuous school improvement programming in which all within the school community engage in constructing a vision for school improvement, design a plan to achieve the vision, implement powerful professional development programs to ensure the continuous development of all professional educators, and employ a critical study process that utilizes student performance data for program decision making

x extend the teacher development continuum to include a powerful induction program that provides continued development of beginning teachers to better ensure retention in the profession aided by knowledgeable and competent mentor teachers created through a professional development program

x development of enhanced clinical field experience sites for preservice teachers in which candidates are supervised by trained clinical faculty who model learner-centered, experience-based instructional practices and teacher reflective instructional improvement assessments in classrooms infused with modern communication and technology enhanced environments.

In short, Project PRE will become the instrument that will lead our next step in the renewal of educator preparation in our quest to assist all of our graduates in Becoming Complete Professionals.

21

III. EVIDENCE FOR MEETING EACH STANDARD

STANDARD 1: CANDIDATE KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND DISPOSITIONS

Candidates preparing to work in schools as teachers or other professional school personnel know and demonstrate the content, pedagogical, and professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Assessments indicate that candidates meet professional, state, and institutional standards. Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates (Initial and Continuing Preparation of Teachers) Teacher candidates are assessed entering and exiting the program at the unit level. Additional collaborative assessment occurs within and between the professional education sequence and the content areas in elementary, secondary, and Transition to Teaching programs. The current Unit Assessment System (UAS) emphasizes performance based content standards and developmental standards as assessed in the professional sequence (particularly the pedagogy courses) as well as the content methods courses within the College of Education (COE) in the early, elementary, and special education programs or housed outside the COE in the all schools settings, middle level/junior high and senior high school programs. In addition to unit level performances, the COE and its partner units through the Teacher Education Committee (TEC) have identified key performance metrics including student performance in content courses, teaching methods, and related service courses, e.g. EPSY 341- Education in a Multicultural Society (Exhibit 1.01). At the secondary level, the content courses as well as any performance-based standards in them have been mapped to appropriate state and national standards. At the elementary level, content and pedagogy are blended in courses such as ELED 397 Developmental Reading and Language Arts. The current standard requires a 2.5 GPA with minimum performance guidelines overall and C or better in all content and professional classes. In 2004-05, all undergraduate teaching majors held a GPA average of 3.23 compared to the overall population with an undergraduate GPA of 2.95. Students needing remediation based on poor performance are required to repeat the course and/or address weaknesses through an individual remediation plan. Advanced programs in teacher education at both the elementary and secondary levels require a minimum performance level of 3.0 for satisfactory academic progress and a 2.7 undergraduate GPA for admissions. In addition to content area performances, the UAS of all undergraduate programs leading to teacher licensure has been organized around recognized development phases in their respective programs. These phases are aligned with the conceptual framework – Becoming a Complete Professional. At each of these stages, prior to advancing to the next stage, teacher candidates must meet specific testing criteria and/or have successfully completed sequenced course work. The ISU teacher education programs have based their assessments of teacher content preparation on national and state standards appropriate to the discipline. Content areas voluntarily participated in an activity to assess student content knowledge through the completion of

22

program reports (Exhibit 1.02). As part of the professional development of teacher candidates, students are introduced to the standards concept in foundational pedagogy courses (Exhibit 1.03). Upon completing the foundational courses, students demonstrate an ability to reflect on professional standards and indicate where state standards have been incorporated into their practice. Additionally, teacher candidates plan and teach content standards-based lessons in all subsequent course work and practica (Exhibit 1.04). At the close of the professional education sequence, candidates must demonstrate these competencies as part of student teaching performances, unit reports, portfolios (Exhibit 1.05), integrated units or other performance based capstone experiences (Exhibit 1.06). Student teaching evaluations indicate high levels of assessment on candidate content knowledge (Exhibit 1.07; Exhibit 1.08). The initial and advanced teaching preparation programs have been explicitly designed and mapped to the appropriate standards (Exhibit 1.09). As such, the standards are infused and assessed throughout the curricula of all programs. All advanced teaching programs are based on the unit conceptual framework, Indiana Content Standards, and national standards, i.e. NBPTS. Content knowledge guidelines for Transition to Teaching (T2T) are mandated by the state of Indiana (Exhibit 1.10). These mandates include a state recognized undergraduate GPA of either 2.5 or 3.0 depending upon experience. Additional admission requirements include transcript review by content area specialists to assure T2T candidates have completed content courses consistent with undergraduate programs. Transcript review assures the overall preparation of candidates in desired licensure areas. T2T is the only graduate-level program that serves initial licensure. See LiveText course assessments or course based projects in the document center (Exhibit 1.11). Survey results collected from first-year teachers, principals of first-year teachers, and student teachers indicate that ISU teacher candidates are prepared well with their content knowledge. In fact, the data accumulated on the New Teacher Survey indicates that feelings of preparedness in content knowledge has increased since 2000 and that these three items are significantly correlated with the ratings for overall preparedness (Exhibit 1.12).

Table 6 Content Knowledge Survey Results

Mean Scores Design units of

instruction that focus on the content standards for schools in Indiana

Design classroom assessments that are aligned with Indiana content standards

Create meaningful learning experiences based on content knowledge

Principal Survey 3.17 3.0 3.2 New Teacher Survey 3.05 2.7 3.05 Student Teacher

Survey 3.29* 3.09 3.34*

3= well prepared; 4=very well prepared * Median values were 4 Testing requirements for the UAS require students meet Praxis I minimum scores prior to enrolling in TEP I. In addition to Praxis I scores, ISU’s Title II reporting obligation provides

23

additional testing data (Praxis II) concerning the content preparation of ISU early, elementary, special education, all school settings, middle level/junior high, and secondary teachers (Exhibit 1.13). Based on a review of the data in Appendix B, it is evident that ISU students meet and exceed the 80% NCATE guidelines and outperform their Indiana peers in all categories over time. Table 7 shows summaries of the advanced teaching program structures. Students must maintain Satisfactory Academic Progress through their program. This consists of a 3.0 GPA, no outstanding incompletes, and an accurate and updated program of study developed in consultation with their program advisor and approved by the department chair.

Table 7 Summary of Advanced Program Structures

EESE The masters programs in EESE include a core of professional courses

along with specializations in literacy, early childhood education, special education, and elementary education. The graduate programs have been designed for in-service teachers seeking to expand (or renew) current licensure and to meet NBPTS standards. Initial licensure does not occur as part of the advanced programs. Program curricula include a core of professional education courses in the following areas: foundations, curriculum, educational psychology, and research. The remaining course work is in the area of specialization (elementary education, special education, literacy education, and early childhood education). In each of these areas, a student participates in and completes a culminating experience.

Secondary Education

The Masters of Education degree in Curriculum and Instruction is the primary program servicing in-service teachers. The program curriculum includes a core of professional education courses with coursework in the following areas: research, curriculum, social foundations, psychological foundations, which include activities and assessments incorporating the NBPTS standards. In addition to the core, students complete an instruction-supervision requirement designed to improve teacher practice. The remaining coursework is comprised of electives and/or areas of specialization (normally for teachers seeking to expand their current license only). Finally, all students complete an Integrative Experience. The experience can be a written comprehensive exam, an approved research project, or a culminating seminar.

Content Areas Most content area advanced programs are discipline-centered. In most cases, students complete a traditional thesis or an analogous culminating experience--usually a research project. In other areas, such as music education, students complete an oral exam in addition to a thesis or research project. The content programs outside of the COE do not offer initial licensure at the graduate level.

24

Library Media The licensure program in library media culminates in a 120 hours practicum supervised by a library media specialist. This license program provides expanded licensure. The program is coordinated by the Department of Curriculum, Instruction, and Media Technology.

Transition to Teaching

The post-baccalaureate program provides a student with course work that mirrors undergraduate program content, but at an advanced level. A student enters the program with all the content areas requirements met as well as passing the Praxis I exam. Before student teaching, the student must pass Praxis II. The programs are administered through Education Student Services in cooperation with the Department Early, Elementary, and Special Education or Curriculum, Instruction, and Media Technology.

Surveys of graduate students (Exhibit 1.14), alumni (Exhibit 1.15), and employers (Exhibit 1.16) of these advanced teaching programs indicate that these candidates command a specialized knowledge of their fields and are able to convey the subject to students (Exhibit 1.17). Furthermore, the analysis indicates that there has been a statistically significant increase in graduate student perception of the program’s ability to prepare students in this area. Content Knowledge for Other Professional School Personnel

Program requirements in licensure programs have been designed to ensure mastery of Indiana professional teaching standards. Within School Counseling, this expectation covers six sets of standards (two content and four developmental) required for licensure as a School Counselor in Indiana (Exhibit 1.18). In addition, students are required to attend 4 days of approved school counseling-related professional development per year to continue their content growth (Exhibit 1.19). School counseling students understand how course experiences relate to the DPS standards and the standards set forth by the Council for the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP). In addition, school counseling students understand how program experiences relate to the American School Counselor Association’s National Model for School Counseling Programs. All coursework and related activities in the administrator preparation program is framed around the standards (Exhibit 1.20; Exhibit 1.21). Course assessments and assignments demonstrate student knowledge of their content field (Exhibit 1.22). Candidates are required to maintain a 3.25 overall GPA to remain in good standing in the program. In fact, candidates within the superintendent preparation program held an average GPA of 3.98 in 2004-05 and 3.98 also within the principal preparation (3.97 ND and 3.98 M.Ed.). Additionally, principal preparation candidates are required to have an active teaching license and two years experience teaching, while superintendency candidates are required to hold a current Building Administrator license and three years of experience (Exhibit 1.23). Educational Administration is the only advanced program required to complete an exam for state licensure with a pass score of 165 which is the highest in the nation (Exhibit 1.24).

25

Table 8 Unit Pass Rates on Content Tests for Other School Personnel

For Period December 2001-June 2004

Program # of Test Takers

% Passing at State Cut Score

Overall Pass Rate for All Institutions

in the State Educational

Leadership 121 100% 99%

The School Psychology Program has 12 distinct outcomes on which students are assessed (Exhibit 1.25). Students are assessed on these outcomes in individual courses, practica and internships, and at an annual evaluation. Evidence for assessment and attainment of these outcomes is evident in several documents such as the 2002 student ratings on question 4-9, 2003 and 2004 student ratings on questions 4-7, and 2003 faculty ratings (Exhibit 1.26). For all of these documents, descriptive statistics are included, and higher ratings indicate more positive outcomes. The School Psychology program, in alignment with Nationally Certified School Psychologists as per NASP, is moving to have all students take the Praxis exam for school psychologists. Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates (Initial and Continuing Preparation of Teachers) Elementary, Early, and Special Education (EESE) teacher candidates receive professional and content pedagogy through their EESE courses with the exception of science education housed in the College of Arts and Sciences, which has primary responsibility for content pedagogy related to science education. In all other cases, EESE teacher candidates receive instruction in content pedagogy in the COE. During the capstone experience, the teacher candidates focus on infusing best practices into their teaching in all content areas (Exhibit 1.27). In addition, teacher candidates are assessed for content and pedagogical knowledge and skills during the student teaching experience. The data evaluated from these reports indicate that students are consistently rated as strong (Exhibit 1.28). All school settings, middle level/junior high and senior high teacher candidates normally receive professional and content pedagogy instruction in the COE and respective content unit(s). All school settings, middle level/junior high and senior high teacher candidates complete the appropriate professional sequence housed in the COE (Exhibit 1.29). Additionally, candidates complete content specific methods courses in their specialty area (Exhibit 1.30). At the completion of the final stages of the professional sequence, COE and faculty from the respective content unit (COAS, COB, COT, or CCHHP) assess teacher candidates collaboratively for both content and pedagogic performances (Exhibit 1.31). Appendix C shows the administrative units housing all program areas. The Transition to Teaching program is entirely collaborative from the admissions process through exit evaluation. Like the current undergraduate programs, teacher candidates must

26

demonstrate proficiencies in content knowledge, content pedagogy, and pedagogy in general. The graduate program assesses the content knowledge through undergraduate academic performance prior to admission. Content deficiencies must be completed prior to admission into the T2T Program. In addition, Praxis I passing scores are submitted as part of the application process along with evidence of their successful completion of an undergraduate degree. Further, the admissions process is guided by state mandates concerning undergraduate performance. Specifically, applicants will be admitted based on two GPA criteria: (1) applicants without appropriate professional experience must have earned 3.0 GPA or better, and (2) applicants with at least five appropriate professional experience in the field of licensure must have earned a 2.5 GPA or higher. As such, the 18-credit sequence focuses exclusively on pedagogy, content pedagogy and dispositions. Praxis II passing scores must be submitted prior to student teaching. Students in the T2T program are averaging a GPA of 3.92 (2004-05). Prior to admission to TEP I, students complete course work concerning the importance of developing a diverse collection of teaching approaches and development levels for diverse learners, SPED 226/ELED 437/SPED 102 and EPSY 202. These core knowledges are reinforced as part of the pedagogy sequence as well as additional course work in the area of multicultural learning (e.g., EPSY 341) and subsequent teacher education pedagogy courses (Exhibit 1.32). The standards achievement reports show the success of students within the pedagogy sequence. The results of these standards reports are shared as per the UAS with TEC (Exhibit 1.33). Knowledge of instructional strategies is assessed through performances during various practica including ELED 250L, 392L – 397, 394L -398; and SCED 393L as well as CIMT 302 and 400L (Exhibit 1.34). During student teaching, teacher candidates are assessed on their ability to provide instruction to diverse learners and to assess student learning. At the all school settings, middle level/junior high and senior high levels, a collaborative assessment with faculty in the content areas emphasizes established and emerging pedagogies based on observed performances. Reports accumulated in LiveText provide evidence of the extent of the pedagogy assessment and the success of the candidates (Exhibit 1.35). Teacher candidates assess their students in practica and student teaching to determine the overall efficacy of instruction. Teacher candidate performances are assessed based on teacher work samples such as unit reports. Additionally, teacher candidates must show evidence of student learning and show an ability to reflect on their practice and its implications for student learning. These issues are explicitly addressed as part of practica and the student teaching experience as well as previous methods course performances (Exhibit 1.36). Follow-up survey information from student teachers, teacher education graduates, and the principals who hire them, as well as pass rates from teacher interns (Exhibit 1.37), affirm that they are able to present content in clear and meaningful ways to help all students learn. Through the Principal’s Survey, question three measures the effectiveness of ISU teacher education graduates, which are rated an average score of 3.2 indicating them to be well-prepared and very well-prepared (Exhibit 1.38). Concomitantly, the New Teacher’s Survey and the Student Teacher’s Survey assess this issue through questions nine and eight, respectively. The aggregated average scores are 3.12 for new teachers and 3.35 for student teachers ranging between well-prepared and very well-prepared (Exhibit 1.39). Among university supervisors who evaluate

27

student teachers multiple times each semester, their aggregated score is a 1.2 on student teachers knowing their content with one being proficient (Exhibit 1.40). The data from these instruments were also analyzed in terms of the questions that were determined to most closely align with pedagogical content knowledge (Exhibit 1.41). The question items, which were found to be highly correlated with the general performance rating, show that candidates have been well-prepared, and indicate that statistically significant improvement has been noted in terms of candidate preparation on the design of units of instruction focused on content standards in Indiana schools. With graduate teacher preparation, coursework is designed to continue and enhance professional reflection and further develop pedagogical skills (Exhibit 1.42). Students in these programs have indicated a statistically significant increase in their preparedness by the program to use a variety of strategies, reflect upon practice, and to work with colleagues to enhance student learning (Exhibit 1.43). The Expert Panel Report states that the response average to the question “using pedagogical content knowledge to contribute to school effectiveness” was 3.63, to “using multiple methods to meet instructional goals” was 3.63, “understanding how students intellectually develop” was 4.0, and “comparatively analyzing instructional models” was 3.25. Graduate students know developmentally appropriate practice in teaching, especially once they acquire content knowledge and put such content knowledge in practice" (Exhibit 1.44).

Table 9 2005 Continuing Teacher Education Results

Mean Scores Using a variety of

methods, strategies, and materials (including technology) to promote development, learning, and cooperation

Working with colleagues to improve schools, programs, and practice

Reflecting on your teaching to improve student learning

Grad. Stud. Survey 3.79** 3.33** 4.21** Alumni Survey 3.11 2.89 3.22 Employer Survey 4.14 3.50 3.86 5 point scale, 1= low, 5=high ** Statistically significant difference from 2004 Over the past five years, ISU has undertaken an aggressive technology infusion campaign through the awarding and implementation of a PT3 grant through FY05 (Exhibit 1.45). This enabled professional development for faculty, the enhancement of classroom facilities, and allowed for closer partnership with faculty across campus through mini-grant competitions and campus-wide professional development programs. Functionally, the initiative has facilitated an increased emphasis on technology for teaching and assessment purposes throughout the colleges, the faculty, and students (Exhibit 1.46). Teacher candidates begin utilizing classroom technologies in their teaching practice initial coursework. Additionally, the COE has initiated a unit-wide technology assessment regime that addresses the ISTE-NETS Standard and Professional Profiles. As part of this assessment system, students enroll in either CIMT 272, ELED 272 (Exhibit 1.47), or complete a series of technology workshops independent of courses. Beyond technology literacy courses, teacher candidates are expected to infuse technology into

28

their unit plans, lesson plans, etc. (Exhibit 1.48). Finally, all teacher candidates are assessed using technology during their student teaching (Exhibit 1.49). In the EESE programs, this is submitted through LiveText and assessed with a technology rubric (Exhibit 1.50). The reports generated from these technology assessments provide faculty with invaluable information about programmatic needs, and technology issues that might be related to placements. In all grades, middle, and secondary programs, a separate assessment rubric is completed and compiled, such as with a webquest assignment (Exhibit 1.51). We are showing an upward trend on the use of the technology. One tool that we have used to major this change is through assessments completed by internal and external evaluators to the PT3 grant (Exhibit 1.52). The data indicates that student comfort and utilization of LiveText as an integral technology in their coursework has increased. Additionally, external evaluators have noted that ISU’s integration of technology has been exceptional. University assessment tools, such as the National Survey for Student Engagement (NSSE), also allow us to gauge performance indicators, such as technology (Exhibit 1.53). Results from the 2005 administration of NSSE will be available later in the fall. Senior teacher candidates report that they use computers in academic work more than freshman teacher candidates. Senior teacher candidates report that they use computing and information technology more often than freshman teacher candidates. This data indicates that as candidates progress through the program, technology plays a more active role in their success. The upward trend is also noted in the increased scores from the Student Teacher, New Teacher, and Principal surveys regarding facilitation of student learning through technology (Exhibit 1.54).

Figure 1 Use of Computers in Academic Work – 2003 NSSE Results

3.17 3.32

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Teacher Candidates

Freshmen

Seniors

29

Figure 2 Use of Computing and Information Technology - – 2003 NSSE Results

2.83 3.17

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Teacher Candidates

Freshmen

Seniors

Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates (Initial and Continuing Preparation of Teachers)

Based on lesson reflections as reported in the lesson plans and student teaching unit reports (Exhibit 1.08), students are able to critically reflect on their practice, student learning outcomes, and their assessments of these outcomes. Teacher candidates use the results of assessments to alter the learning environment to promote increased learning. In addition to LiveText artifacts, a variety of survey instruments have been developed to assess teacher candidates’ ability to facilitate student learning through professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills based on their ISU experience. These instruments include, but are not limited to: student teaching surveys, supervisor surveys, survey of first year teachers, student teacher evaluations, and assessments to evaluate student progress. See Tables 10, 11, and 12 (Exhibit 1.55).

Table 10 Survey Results for Candidates’ Ability to: “…create meaningful experiences based on

content knowledge.”

Survey Types 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Student Teaching Surveys ND ND ND ND 3.15 3.2 3.4 3.4New Teacher Surveys 3 3 3.2 3.05 3.25 3.05 3 NDPrincipal Surveys ND ND ND ND ND ND 3.21 3.3 Scale: 1= poorly prepared, 2 = somewhat prepared, 3 = well prepared, 4 = very well prepared

30

Table 11 CIMT Final Evaluation of Supervised Teaching Experiences

Evaluative Criteria 2001 2002 2003 2004Displays understanding of subject matter 1.22 1.18 1.1 1.14Explains content effectively 1.31 1.23 1.17 1.2Shows enthusiasm for the subject matter 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1Conveys multiple prespectives toward content 1.29 1.27 1.24 1.19Engages students in testing hypotheses 1.42 1.27 1.24 1.2

Scale: 1 = proficient, 2 = satisfactory, 3 = unsatisfactory

Table 12 EESE Final Evaluation of Supervised Teaching Experiences

Evaluative Criteria 2002 2003 2004 Student Development 2.89 2.79 2.79 Diverse Learner Needs 2.85 2.74 2.79 Classroom Management 2.80 2.72 2.76 Planning Instruction 2.87 2.74 2.81 Assessment Strategies 2.79 2.71 2.78 Building Relationships 2.87 2.76 2.81

Scale: 3=proficient, 2=satisfactory, 1=unsatisfactory ISU teacher candidates develop key competencies and awareness of the context in which student learning takes place. Teacher candidates complete early field experiences or other practica and reflect on the dynamics of the learning environment both internal and external to the school environment. These issues are addressed as part of the professional pedagogy sequence as well as part of the professional prerequisites including the prerequisite course work, i.e., EPSY 202 – Psychology of Childhood and Adolescence and EPSY 341- Education in a Multicultural Society (Exhibit 1.56). During the student teaching experience all EESE teacher candidates prepare and implement a caregiver/child project (Exhibit 1.57). Advanced programs have been created specifically to enable in-service teachers to facilitate and increase student learning in the school environment. In COE advanced programs, the emphasis is on articulating the linkage between professional development and practice in the classroom. For this reason, all program cores contain key professional sequences (See Table 6). In the content areas, (outside of COE) the emphasis is on discipline-centered experiences. All advanced programs improve student learning by enabling in-service teachers to acquire new knowledge and skills. Surveys from graduate, alumni, and employer surveys indicate that advanced program candidates are well prepared to apply their professional and pedagogical knowledge as a result of the program as shown in Table 9 (full analysis available in Exhibit 1.58). Data analysis shows candidate effectiveness with assessment of student progress and student engagement (Exhibit 1.59). Results from the Expert Panel indicate that on the question, “Using pedagogical content knowledge to contribute to school effectiveness”, the graduate faculty rated students on a median

31

of 4 (avg=3.63), and as mentioned above, feel that students are satisfactory in their use of pedagogical methods to enhance students' learning.

Table 13 Teachers Call on Multiple Methods – 2005 Results

Mean Scores Using a variety of

methods, strategies, and materials (including technology) to promote development, learning, and cooperation

Using varied materials, and other resources to support learning

Engaging students in learning across disciplines

Providing multiple paths to learning school subjects, themes, and topics

Grad. Student Survey

3.79** 3.83 3.67** 3.63

Alumni Survey 3.11 2.78 2.78 2.56 Employer

Survey 4.14 4.14 3.43 3.86

** Statistically significant difference from 2004 Professional Knowledge and Skills for Other School Personnel

School counseling students are steeped in the knowledge of their field through a carefully sequenced program of classes and field experiences designed to reflect the Indiana professional standards. In addition, students are required to join both state and national school counseling organizations and attend four days of approved professional development each academic year in the program. School counseling program field experiences and course assignments are designed to actively engage students with local PPK-12 students, their families, and the school community (Exhibit 1.60). For example, students are required to consult with parents and provide parent education experiences during COUN 739B - Internship. School counseling students have specific technology standards they master through program assignments and assessments. These include database development (COUN 535 - Introduction to School Counseling), presentation skills (COUN 739B - Internship), and spreadsheet data analysis (COUN 628 - Individual Appraisal). School counseling students, through case presentations and professional development presentations required in COUN 643 - Practicum, and COUN 739B - Internship, demonstrate the ability to acquire and synthesize current research to inform their practice. Students in the School Psychology Program are exposed to training with students, families, and communities in content courses, and they interact extensively with these individuals and community groups by virtue of practicum sites, such as the university-based Porter School Psychology Center and placements in Vigo County Schools. The School Psychology Program requires all students to complete technology competencies (Exhibit 1.61). Students demonstrate their competence by producing products and using software applications that are reviewed and signed off by faculty. Most students successfully complete all technology competencies in the first year of the program. The School Psychology Program adheres to a scientist-practitioner

32

model of training. Students take courses in research methodology (quantitative and qualitative), statistics, and single-case design. Students are evaluated on research competence in these courses and in the yearly program evaluation. Students pursuing the educational specialist degree produce a specialist project (SPSY 790 – Advanced Research and Study I & SPSY 792 – Field Research Project I) and doctoral students complete a dissertation (SPSY 899 - Dissertation). Research participants often include clients from the Porter School Psychology Center or public school pupils from practicum or internship sites. All candidates in the principal preparation are required to complete a professional portfolio (Exhibit 1.62). This portfolio addresses the candidate’s performance and reflection upon 35 performance standards and serves as a key assessment of candidate and program performance, as per the UAS (Exhibit 1.63). Additionally, the administrator preparation programs have begun to use alumni, employer and graduate surveys to assess their effectiveness of preparation (Exhibit 1.64). Data relevant to this element are presented below:

Table 14 Ed.S. Surveys Summer 2005

Facilitate a

vision of learning that is shared and supported

Collaborate with family and community

Act with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner

Understand and respond to larger context

Recommend and implement policies to guide district

Alumni Mean (n=14)

Mean=4.43 4.64 3.43 3.79 3.79

Employer Mean (n=13)

Med = 4.62 4.38 4.92 4.46 NA

Scale: 1=poorly prepared 5=very well prepared

Table 15 Principal Preparation Surveys

Summer 2005

Facilitate a vision of learning that is shared and supported

Collaborate with family and community

Act with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner

Understand and respond to larger context

Student Mean (n=32)

4.66 4.33 4.32 4.2


4.6 4.1 4.00 3.9

Scale: 1=poorly prepared 5=very well prepared

33

Dispositions for All Candidates Teacher candidates’ dispositions are evaluated in each professional course throughout the entire program. To help programs that were struggling with the concepts related to assessment of dispositions, a committee was formed comprised of COE, Content and school faculty which worked during summer of 2004 to provide recommendations to departments (Exhibit 1.65, Exhibit 1.66). In both CIMT and EESE courses, teacher candidates who do not exhibit professional dispositions are first informed by the evaluating faculty member and presented with a plan for growth (Exhibit 1.67). Outside of the COE, student dispositions are assessed by faculty in the content methods courses and as part of the advising process. As part of advising, potential teacher candidates are counseled with respect to appropriate behaviors and general disposition concerning the content they intend to teach and the profession more generally. If the teacher candidates fail to display appropriate growth, and/or an “incident” occurs that severely questions the candidate’s disposition for teaching, the teacher candidate may be subjected to a formal review process. Based on unit reports, student teaching reports, and supervisor reports, candidates display and model appropriate professional dispositions related to their work with students, families, communities, and other professionals internal and external to the school (Exhibit 1.68). In the EESE programs, teacher candidates sign a “Disposition Agreement of Understanding” (Exhibit 1.69). Based on the expectations outlined in the agreement, teacher candidates are formally reviewed in each block by faculty, and their individual reports are reviewed and archived. In the all grades, middle level/junior high, and secondary programs, students sign a “Professionalism Agreement” (Exhibit 1.70) in the first professional education course. Student dispositions are considered acceptable unless noted otherwise through an observation form (Exhibit 1.71). In the event two observation forms are noted on a teacher candidate, a “Student Alert” form (Exhibit 1.72) is completed and a program of growth is developed and monitored by teacher education faculty until improvement occurs. In the event there is no progress on the part of the teacher candidate, due process hearing begins as per College of Education policies (Exhibit 1.73). Students in advanced teacher preparation programs demonstrate professional dispositions delineated in NBPTS standards. Table 16 shows how the faculty expert panel rated the quality of student performance in respect to professional dispositions. Comments in the faculty expert panel (Exhibit 1.74) especially pointed out that students in advanced teacher preparation programs are licensed professionals with several years of teaching experience. In general, they care about their students, want them to succeed, are eager to work with families and communities, reflect on their practice, and have a good sense of professional participation and ethics.

34

Table 16 Advanced Teacher Candidates Dispositions

Mean Std.

Deviation N

Seeking advice of other professionals 3.75 .463 8 Appreciating how knowledge is linked to other disciplines

3.25 .707 8

Collaborating with other professionals to contribute to school effectiveness

3.88 .641 8

Collaborating with other professionals to improve knowledge in their field

3.25 .707 8

Recognizing individual differences in students and adjusting teaching methods accordingly

3.88 1.246 8

Developing a sense of participation in professional organizations

3.13 .991 8

Developing a recognition of professional ethics of their discipline

3.88 .641 8

Within administrator preparation, the dispositional assessment rubric (Exhibit 1.75) was developed by a faculty member and presented to the department for approval Fall 2004 (Exhibit 1.76). Dispositions are discussed with students during the internship orientation process. Additionally, employer surveys asked specific questions regarding graduate dispositions, as related through the rubric to the conceptual framework – Becoming a Complete Professional (The full report is in Exhibit 1.77).

Table 17 2005 Employer Surveys for Superintendent and Principal Preparation

Mean Scores Preparedness Courtesy and

Respect Climate

Superintendent Prep 3.8 4.0 3.9 Principal Prep 3.8 3.2 3.9 Scale: 3=well prepared, 4=very well prepared School counseling student dispositions are assessed during COUN 535 - Introduction to School Counseling through online discussions and during each of the four field practices courses through feedback from on-site and ISU supervisors. Student Learning for Teacher Candidates (Initial and Continuing Preparation of Teachers)

The assessment of student learning begins with an introduction to the theory and concepts surrounding assessment as well as formal and informal mechanisms as part of the professional course work. Teacher candidates demonstrate their understanding of assessment through supervised assessments delivered in practica settings with real students (Exhibit 1.78). Also,

35

they assess and monitor student understanding in each teaching experience. Additionally, teacher candidate reflections emphasize the linkage between assessment and learning and the ability to subsequently plan based on observed results. Formal appraisal of student assessment regimes occurs as part of supervision reports and formal course work in courses such as ELED 259, CIMT 301/302, and student teaching. All grades, middle, and secondary teacher candidates prepare content-centered assessments and these assessments are evaluated by content faculty for accuracy of content and effectiveness of evaluation in all content method courses (Exhibit 1.79).

Teacher candidates are required to include assessments in all lessons and reflect on student learning (Exhibit 1.80). All teacher candidates have culminating experiences in their student teaching practica that evidence the effectiveness of their teaching by indicating student learning based on assessment information, feedback, and quantified data (Exhibit 1.81). Advanced programs require additional curriculum and education psychology courses, which further develop the in-service teachers’ understanding and use of assessment to determine the efficacy of student learning under their direction (Exhibit 1.82). A review of the graduate student, alumni, and employer surveys, as well as the survey and qualitative information gleaned from the expert panel indicated that students performed well in respect to NBPTS criteria at advanced levels. Programs at the advanced level continue their focus on training students to work with parents/guardians and other professionals in school settings (Exhibit 1.83). The importance and emphasis on student learning extends to all aspects of the unit, including the centers and special programs (Exhibit 1.84). Student Learning for Other Professional School Personnel

As part of the administrator internship portfolio, candidates are asked to reflect upon their work related to creating an environment conducive to student learning (examples of student work, assessment rubric). Data collected through employer and student/alumni surveys also provides the program with key information on programmatic progress.

Table 18 Ed.S. Surveys Summer 2005

Sustaining a school culture

and instructional program conducive to student learning

Ensuring a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment

Alumni Mean (n=14)

4.79 4.71


4.66 4.77

Scale: 1=poorly prepared, 5=very well prepared

36

Table 19 Principal Preparation Surveys

Summer 2005

Sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning

Ensuring a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment

Student Mean (n=32)

4.20 4.67


4.20 4.6

Scale: 1=poorly prepared, 5=very well prepared School counseling students demonstrate the creation of positive student learning environments through the development, implementation and evaluation of developmental guidance units which address the ASCA National Student Standards in academic, career, and personal/social development. School counseling student understanding and application of the knowledge of developmental levels are assessed through level specific evaluations conducted during the four semesters of field experiences. School counseling students learn about diverse students, families, and communities through COUN 793B - Field Work and COUN 666 - Multicultural Counseling. They apply and demonstrate this knowledge through case notes and presentations in COUN 634 - Practicum and COUN 738B - Internship, and through lesson plan development in COUN 793B. School counseling students examine school policy for access and equity issues through assignments and field experiences in COUN 731 - Organization and Administration of Guidance Services. School psychology students are required to take a lift-span developmental psychology course (EPSY 621) in their first year. Practicum assignments over a two-year period ensure that students are exposed to a full-range of both developmental levels (i.e., early, middle, and late childhood; adolescence) and disability areas (i.e., learning, social-emotional, and sensory disabilities). School psychology students have substantial training with diversity. Required courses that directly address diverse student-family-community issues are the Seminar in School Psychology (SPSY 600), Child and Adolescent Psychopathology (EPSY 626), Multicultural Counseling (COUN 666), and School Psychology Consultation (SPSY 680). Students encounter diverse racial, ethnic, and social groups via their practicum experiences and internships. Assessments on knowledge and skill in diversity occur in SPSY 600 and SPSY 680 via a Multicultural Self-Assessment (Exhibit 1.85) and a Multicultural Case Study (Exhibit 1.86). To promote an understanding of the policy contexts in which they work, school psychology students are introduced to state/federal laws and the NASP Ethical Code, both of which govern the practice of psychologists. This occurs in the first semester of the program. Concurrently, students are assigned a practicum in which they “shadow” a school psychologist from the community for a minimum of 20 clock hours. This enables students to acquire quickly an understanding of the policies and procedures that guide practice in public schools.

37

STANDARD 2: ASSESSMENT SYSTEM AND UNIT

EVALUATION The unit has an assessment system that collects and analyzes data on applicant qualifications, candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate and improve the unit and its programs. Assessment System The College of Education has organized a programmatic assessment system that enables it to evaluate its ability to train students to become complete professionals, at both initial and advanced levels. The Unit Assessment System operates first at the candidate level to ensure careful, thorough assessment of candidate performance. Critical aggregated data is then fed from the candidate assessment system into the Teacher Education Program Assessment System and the Advanced Programs Assessment Systems. Initial level programmatic assessment enables the Teacher Education Committee (TEC), department chairs, the dean’s office, and faculty to review student performance, to view trends, and to address challenges and opportunities that arise from an analysis of these trends. For example, a review of the 2005 Final Evaluations of Supervised Teaching Experience Report (Exhibit 2.03) by the TEC led to discussion about a need to use the same scale (from one and three) on the assessment instrument used by university supervisors and mentor teachers (Exhibit 2.04); as a result of these discussions, the Department of Curriculum, Instruction, and Media Technology (CIMT) revised its instrument so the same scale was used on all evaluations of student teaching (Exhibit 2.05; Exhibit 2.06). Advanced level programmatic assessment likewise allows for the creation of meaningful information about student, candidate, and program performance (Exhibit 2.07). In January 2005, the departments of Elementary Education and Special Education (EESE) and CIMT created a number of assessment instruments that enabled systematic evaluation of graduate teacher education programs through the use of graduate student, alumni, and principal surveys (Exhibit 2.08), as well as through the use of an expert panel to review graduate student performance (Exhibit 2.09) in respect to the standards of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). As is true in respect to the assessment system for the initial level, the assessment at the advanced level is conducted to identify trends, challenges, and opportunities that enable the College of Education to maximize student learning and master objectives shared within the conceptual framework, using NBPTS and professional standards as reference for most of the assessments used, or other standards as appropriate by program. Advanced programs have their programmatic assessment systems that outline program goals and outcomes, identify assessment points, and discuss how data are used annually to enhance program quality (Exhibit 2.10).

38

College of Education Undergraduate Teacher Education Program Assessment System

1 Added to UAS Summer 2005 after TEC discussions and identified tracking problems with petitions 2 Added to UAS Summer 2005 following TEC discussion

Stage Assessment Purpose Nature When Analyzed When Presented BCP1 Entry

PRAXIS I Analyses To evaluate the performance of students wishing enrollment in the teacher education program in reading, writing, and mathematics

Standardized examination Annually, every January

In March to TEC by Dean’s Office

BCP 1 Petitions1 To determine number and nature of granted exceptions (Exhibit 2.01)

ESS Database Annually, every September

In Oct. to TEC & Depts. by ESS

BCP 1 Acceptance Rates2 To determine the rate of acceptance and identify problems that will arise

ESS Database Annually, every September

In October to TEC and Depts. by ESS

LiveText Analysis of EPSY 202

To keep all parties informed on assessment in EPSY 202 LiveText data Annually, every January


BCP 2 Middle

LiveText Analyses To evaluate teacher candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions in course work. Data aggregated from individual candidate assessments (see Table below)

Various exhibits demonstrating aggregate performance of students on selected assignments

Every semester Reviewed by each Department

LiveText Analyses of Service Courses

To keep all parties informed on work and assessment in service courses (Exhibit 2.02)

LiveText data Annually, every January


BCP 3 Middle

LiveText Analyses To evaluate teacher candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions in course work. Data aggregated from individual candidate assessments (see Table below)

Various exhibits demonstrating aggregate performance of students on selected assignments

Every semester Reviewed by each Department

LiveText Analyses of Service Courses

To keep all parties informed on work and assessment in service courses

LiveText data Annually, every January


BCP 4 End

Graduation

Student Teacher Surveys To evaluate the COE’s performance in respect to teacher candidate's knowledge, skills, and dispositions; also helps evaluate unit performance in respect to student teacher placement, advisement, etc.

Survey questions on Likert-scale with qualitative comment analysis

Annually--every August

Annually every September

Final Evaluations of Supervised Teaching

Experience

To evaluate the COE’s performance in respect to teacher candidate's knowledge, skills, and dispositions

Evaluations by University and Field Supervisor

Semi-annually (post semester)

Annually every August

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)

Analyses

To evaluate the COE’s performance in respect to technology and diversity

University-wide standardized student responses reporting questions on diversity and technology specific to ed. students at beginning and end of program

Every two years--administered Jan. through May; reports generated every August

Every two years in September

BCP 4 End

Licensure

PRAXIS II Analyses To evaluate the content knowledge of teacher candidates in the teacher education program

Standardized examination Annually--every January

Every March to TEC

Post New Teacher (Alumni) Surveys

To evaluate the COE’s performance in respect to teacher candidate's knowledge, skills, and dispositions




Principal Surveys To evaluate the COE’s performance in respect to teacher candidate's knowledge, skills, and dispositions




39

Assessment of Candidates

3 List of key courses

Stage Assessment Purpose Nature When Analyzed Application

to BCP 1 Entry

Praxis I scores Student must be within 1 SD of state cut scores

External standardized exam Banner data

Upon application

2.5 or higher cumulative GPA Ensure students can meet/exceed licensure requirements

Student data in Banner Upon application

Grades of C or better in identified key content courses3

Indicator of content knowledge


Limited Criminal History Check (LCHC) Ensure students meet licensure requirements and fulfill obligation to partner schools

University Portal and Banner Upon course entry

Recommendation of content area in initial experiences courses

Indicator of potential for “highly qualified teacher”

Departmental Student file Upon application

Satisfactory standards report (EESE) EESE program review of program standards LiveText Upon application

Satisfactory completion of specified content courses



Complete review of content background prior to admittance to secondary T2T


Departmental student file Upon application

Praxis II for Secondary T2T Ensure students meet licensure requirements Student data in Banner Upon application

Interview for Secondary T2T Ensure students meet dispositions Departmental student file Upon application

Application to

BCP 2 Middle

Satisfactory Faculty recommendation from professional education faculty

Ensure students meet dispositional expectations and standards for highly qualified teacher


Satisfactory standards report Program review for meeting program standards

LiveText Upon application



Grades of “C” or better and 2.5 GPA in professional education courses

Indicator of potential for “highly qualified” Student data in Banner Upon application

Satisfactory Field Report Indicates ability to meet all performance standards


Continued LCHC clearance Ensure students meet licensure requirements University portal and Banner Upon course entry

40

Application to BCP 3 Middle

Entrance to Student

Teaching

Satisfactory recommendation from professional education faculty and content methodology faculty (All Grade and Secondary)

Ensure capacity to meet INTASC and state standards


Satisfactory standards report; documentation of remediation if appropriate

Ensure capacity to meet INTASC and state standards

LiveText and departmental student file

Upon application

Satisfactory field report Ensure capacity to meet INTASC and state standards




Grades of “C” or better and 2.5 GPA in professional education courses

Ensure candidates have the capacity to be a highly qualified teacher


Continued LCHC clearance Ensure candidates meet licensure requirements and fulfill obligation to partner schools

University portal and Banner Upon course entry

Application to

BCP 4 End

Graduation

Recommendation from supervisors Ensure students meet/exceed INTASC and state standards

Departmental student file End of final semester

Satisfactory or better standards report in student teaching

Ensure students meet/exceed INTASC and state standards

LiveText (internal and external reports)

End of final semester

Satisfactory portfolio/report on student teaching assessment

Ensure students meet/exceed INTASC and state standards

LiveText and departmental student file

End of final semester

Cumulative GPA of 2.5 or higher Ensure students meet/exceed licensure requirements

Student data in Banner End of final semester

Grades of “C” or better and 2.5 GPA in Professional Education courses

Meet program requirements for evaluation for teacher effectiveness

Student data in Banner End of final semester

Meet all university graduation requirements University NCA expectations Student data in Banner End of final semester

Application to

BCP 4 End

Licensure

Praxis II at state licensure level(s) Meet licensure requirements Student data in Banner Upon application

Successful graduation Fulfill academic goal, meet licensure requirements


41

College of Education Advanced Programs and Candidate Assessment System Stage

Assessment Purpose Nature of Assessment When Analyzed Analysis Presented To…

BCP 1 Entry Graduate

admission data To ensure compliance with catalog and have balanced recruiting class

Student data in Banner and on Knowlijweb Summer

At departmental meetings by program coordinators in August/September

Graduate entrance examination Compliance with graduate catalog

Student data in Banner and Knowlijweb Summer


Candidate demographics Diversity of pool

Student data in Banner and Knowlijweb Summer


BCP 2 Mid GPA

Ensure good standing, provide remediation and assistance

Student data in Banner End of every term

Departmental committee by program coordinator

Praxis (SP) Ensure good standing and readiness for internship



Portfolio and Standards Analysis

Ensure good standing, provide remediation and assistance

Programmatic database During each term


BCP 3 Exit SLLA Score

Report Ensure good standing, preparation of internship and licensure



Graduate Student Survey

To review graduate students' evaluations of unit's ability to enhance students’ teaching abilities.

Survey questions on Likert-type scale with qualitative comment analysis Annually, report every May Annually every August

Graduate Faculty Expert Panel

To review and determine student performance on key objectives in graduate programs (teaching programs)

Focus groups, with some survey information

Focus groups conducted every three years (Jan./Feb.2005; 2008, etc.); report completed within two weeks after the focus group

March/April following focus group

Post

Graduate Alumni Survey

To review graduate students' evaluations of unit's ability to enhance students’ teaching abilities.

Survey questions on likert-type scale with qualitative comment analysis Annually, report every May Annually every August

Graduate Employer Survey

To review graduate students' evaluations of unit's ability enhance students’ teaching abilities.


Graduate Employer Survey

To review graduate students' evaluations of unit's ability enhance students’ teaching abilities.


42

There have been a large number and variety of individuals involved in the development of the UAS to date (Exhibit 2.11; Exhibit 2.12; Exhibit 2.13; Exhibit 2.14; Exhibit 2.15; Exhibit 2.16; Exhibit 2.17; Exhibit 2.18; Exhibit 2.19; Exhibit 2.20) and the development was an evolving process as stakeholders were involved and input sought (Exhibit 2.21; Exhibit 2.22; Exhibit 2.23; Exhibit 2.24; Exhibit 2.25). Stakeholder involvement is structured to be both formal and informal (Exhibit 2.26) in the evolving process (Exhibit 2.27). Teacher Education Committee, College of Education Congress, and Professional Development Schools Steering Council, and many departmental committees are formal governance structures that provide for extensive, ongoing stakeholder involvement. Other groups are formed specifically to accomplish specific tasks, as in the case of the development of the UAS (See Table 20).

Table 20 Stakeholder Involvement

Committee or Group Category of Stakeholder

Education Faculty or

Admin.

Content Faculty

or Admin.

PPK-12 Faculty

or Admin.

Candidates in program

Alumni Other

Teacher Education Committee

X X X X

PK-12 Committee X X Executive Committee

for Secondary Programs

X X X

School of Education Congress

X X X X

PDS Steering Council X X X Project Management

Team – IPSB Title II grant: Project PETE

X X X Community Provost

Transition Committee X X X Stakeholder meetings

– large group sessions held 2 – 3 times per year

X X X

Professional Development Assessment Committee

X X

Clinical Faculty Development Committee

X X X

Departmental / Program Specific committees

X X X X

The Teacher Education Committee is representative of all stakeholders. Stakeholders continued involvement in monitoring and modifying the UAS is evident through use of the TEC on an annual basis for review of program data and making recommendations to individual programs,

43

and review and update of the UAS. Content faculty, professional education faculty, and PPK-12 faculty are all involved in evaluation of performance assessments and continuous improvement of processes (Exhibit 2.28). The TEC also reviews assessments for appropriateness of use, as indicated in the above mention of its discussion of the scaling used in the Final Evaluation of Supervised Teaching Experiences. Additionally, many of the programs use advisory committees comprised of alumni and representatives from the field of study. These advisory committees work with programs to review data and assist with program and assessment improvement (Exhibit 2.29). Additionally, in 2004-05, the College of Education Assessment Committee was formed to review assessments and facilitate the College’s ability to review data for program improvement. Formed of COE faculty and content faculty, the assessment committee has worked with faculty and played an important part in reviewing assessments, commenting on appropriate question wording, sequencing of questions, etc. (Exhibit 2.30). The assessments system at both initial and advanced levels are grounded in INTASC, DPS, and NBPTS standards. Assessments surveys, such as the Student Teacher and New Teacher surveys (Exhibit 2.31), ask respondents to evaluate their educational experiences in respect to such standards. The Final Evaluation of Supervised Teaching Experiences instrument (Exhibit 2.32) contains questions that directly reflect INTASC, DPS, and NCATE standards. At advanced levels, the questions on the graduate student, alumni, and employer surveys directly reflect NBPTS standards (Exhibit 2.33). In addition, the interview guide and questionnaire used to facilitate and gather program data in the expert panel (Exhibit 2.34), used the same wording of departmental program objectives and NBPTS standards. As the above programmatic assessment tables attest, programmatic assessments are used at different levels in programs to evaluate programs’ abilities to deliver on state and national standards, as well as on departmental student learning objectives (Exhibit 2.35). In the undergraduate teacher education programs, data is collected throughout the program to assess to what extent students are meeting state and national teaching standards. In graduate programs, students are required to demonstrate a number of proficiencies prior to admission to the program. Assessments of graduate students, alumni, and employers are used to paint an accurate picture containing unifying themes upon which faculty can focus to improve program and individual performance. Program assessment is applied, therefore, to generate a number of summary statements about candidate performance based on the triangulation of assessment information. For example, an analysis of the student teacher, new teacher, principal, and final evaluations of supervised teaching experiences revealed a common theme of exceptional performance by teacher candidates in respect to content knowledge, and knowledge of pedagogical practice (Exhibit 2.36). Advanced program assessments mentioned much of the same, creating substantive information for faculty to reflect and act upon (Exhibit 2.37). Stakeholder groups representing All Grade programs (Exhibit 2.38), 5-12 programs, and elementary and early childhood programs have agreed to several summative decision points for monitoring candidate progress (Exhibit 2.39; Exhibit 2.40). These summative decision points

44

were approved by the TEC in the Fall of 2004 (Exhibit 2.41). As a reminder of the alignment with our conceptual framework and the belief that the purpose of teacher education programs is to move candidates along a continuum of “Becoming a Complete Professional,” each decision point is labeled with corresponding initials “BCP” referencing the conceptual framework upon which our programs are built, as demonstrated below with the initial programs.

BCP 1: Entrance to Program BCP 2: Pre-Student Teaching Phase One (5-12 and All-school settings) or Pre-Block II

(Elementary/Early childhood)

BCP 3: Entrance to Student Teaching: Pre-Student Teaching Phase Two (5-12 and All-school settings) or Pre-Block V (Elementary/Early childhood)

BCP 4: Exit from Program

Assessments have been used to evaluate overall satisfaction and success with the teacher education program. In the cases of the student teacher surveys, new teacher surveys, principal surveys, and final evaluation of supervised teaching experiences, overall satisfaction with the program (in reference to respondents’ perceived success in the teacher education program), was highly correlated between most question items and evaluations of satisfaction and success on these instruments; for example, the overall student teacher rating on the Final Evaluation of Supervised Teaching instruments is highly correlated with all general categories and most sub-categories listed on the evaluation instrument. In advanced programs, overall satisfaction/success scores on the graduate student, alumni, and employer surveys suggest high correlation with questions on the surveys that are based on NBPTS criteria (Exhibit 2.42). Reliability analysis of the student teacher, new teacher (alumni), and principal surveys, as well as the final evaluation of supervised teaching experience, indicate Cronbach’s alpha and Guttman split-half scores higher than .80, suggesting high reliability of assessment instruments at both initial and advanced levels (Exhibit 2.43). Inter-correlations have also been done to assess the inter-rater reliability on the assessment of student work samples (Exhibit 2.44). As mentioned above, there has been active discussion by the TEC and graduate faculty about the use of assessment instruments. The College of Education Assessment Committee as well as the TEC has discussed scaling of assessment instruments, question wording contained on such instruments, and whether or not questions on assessment instruments address INTASC, DPS, and NCATE criteria (Exhibit 2.45). For example, the graduate faculty reviewed graduate student surveys, alumni surveys, and employer surveys for accuracy and effective question wording, agreeing to change the scaling on the instrument from a 1 to 4, to a 1 to 5 scale. In addition, it created and approved the graduate program assessment system, changing evaluative scales to maximize the effectiveness of information gleaned from assessment instruments. Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation The program assessment system, as initially designed by the stakeholder groups shown in Table 20, and further revised by the College of Education Assessment Committee and TEC, is designed to stress periodic, not episodic programmatic assessment. The UAS shows when data are analyzed and presented to faculty and the TEC for discussion in the interest of monitoring and further enhancing student learning at initial and advanced levels. Unit operation data are also

45

generated through questions contained in specific assessment instruments summarized in this table. Multiple assessments from both internal and external sources are utilized to monitor and improve student, candidate, and unit performance. Data from these assessments are then triangulated for emerging themes that the faculty, TEC, and College of Education administrators discuss to either further enhance positive results, or to identify and act upon challenges that may become obvious through the triangulation process (Exhibit 2.46). As the initial and advanced programmatic assessment tables found above depict, assessments include data from both internal and external sources as they include information from students, alumni, employers, faculty, and other constituents. As the programmatic assessment tables indicate, the College of Education Assessment Committee, the TEC, and various departments within the College of Education, regularly and systematically compile, summarize, and analyze data at both initial and advanced levels (Exhibit 2.47; Exhibit 2.48; Exhibit 2.49). For example, at the initial program level, the assessment system includes nine assessments that are summarized and analyzed at different times throughout the year, with emphasis placed upon the faculty’s discussing and acting on emergent themes found in various assessments. At the advanced level, several assessments are also summarized and analyzed on a periodic basis in the interest of monitoring and improving student learning, although more on the programmatic level. The College of Education’s assessment system utilizes several information technologies to maintain and utilized its assessment system. The unit first investigated its own development of a management information system, to complement and interact with SCT Banner and the ISU Portal if possible (Exhibit 2.50). On a regular basis, surveys are inputted onto spreadsheets and analyzed using SPSS, a common statistical application. Moreover, the College of Education has worked closely with LiveText to create and analyze assessment information for candidates and the aggregation of that data for program improvement (Exhibit 2.51). Use of Data for Program Improvement The College of Education’s assessment system, with its use of student, alumni, and employer surveys, and with its direct observations of student learning (i.e., final evaluation of supervised teaching experiences at the initial level and mentor, supervisors, and expert panel at the advanced level), allows for a straightforward and triangulated analysis of student performance in the interest of further enhancing student learning and monitoring the College of Education’s performance in educating “complete professionals.” Emergent themes allow faculty to review the efficacy of courses, clinical experiences, and programs to reach these goals (Exhibit 2.52; Exhibit 2.53). The assessment system at both initial and advanced levels has enabled the faculty to initiate the following changes:

x M.Ed. program: Clearer identification of culminating experience and sequencing; ongoing revision to program to meet stakeholder needs

x Elementary Education program: Revisions to assessment rubrics to better differentiate candidate performance, revisions to All-school settings Special

46

Education sequence to provide better data and feedback on candidate performance at secondary levels. Discussion on the data that showed some concern regarding work with parents and community

x Secondary Education program: Revisions to assessment rubrics to better differentiate candidate performance.

Further, with an emphasis on both programmatic and candidate performance, faculty are able to analyze the program from a holistic view (Exhibit 2.54), while at the same time be able to access individual candidate performance to ensure appropriate remediation

STANDARD 3: FIELD EXPERIENCES AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

The unit and its school partners design, implement, and evaluate field experiences and clinical practice so that teacher candidates and other school personnel develop and demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Collaboration between Unit and School Partners

Indiana State University (ISU) has a long history of collaboration with school corporations throughout the state, particularly in the west central region of Indiana - especially the thirteen year history with Professional Development Schools and partner schools in Vigo, Clay, and Vermillion County School Corporations and Indianapolis Public Schools (Exhibit 3.01; Exhibit 3.02; Exhibit 3.03). The Directors of Clinical Experiences and Field Placements enjoyed distinguished careers as teachers in schools prior to appointment to their current positions in the Unit (Exhibit 3.04). These individuals are faculty and along with other faculty have maintained positive relationships with PPK-12 colleagues. Personal contact with school administrators and faculty continues through local and state meetings such as Sycamore Educators Day (Exhibit 3.05), the North Central Association’s state-wide conference (Exhibit 3.06), and Learning Alliances (Exhibit 3.07). Advanced programs take advantage of active and broad networks of partnerships for clinical experiences (Exhibit 3.08). These events and personal contacts by the directors, Professional Development Schools’ Liaisons, teaching faculty, and clinical faculty allow communication to facilitate clinical experiences prior to teacher candidates’ placement in the schools. ISU and area school corporations work together in making field experience and student-teaching experience placements. Teacher candidates preparing for initial teacher certification sign a Professionalism Agreement with dispositional statements guiding the expected behaviors in all practica and teacher education course work (Exhibit 3.09). In addition, the student teaching placement process involves the student, the respective Director of Clinical Experiences and Field Placements, teaching faculty, clinical faculty, the principal and cooperating teacher to ensure each placement meets university guidelines and contractual arrangements with the participating school corporation (Exhibit 3.10; Exhibit 3.11). A contract exists between the University and all locations where practica occur (Exhibit 3.12). The contract and the following characteristics

47

guiding the placement of students in area schools contribute to the success teacher candidates and advanced students have during practica.

� All placements are coordinated through the Director of Clinical Experiences and Field Placements program coordinators, or faculty in cooperation and consultation with the administration and faculty of the participating school corporation; and

� Teacher candidates and interns are subject to the policies and guidelines of the local school and school corporation as provided to them by the participating school and school corporation;

� Public school corporations and ISU mutually agree to appoint supervisors that meet the stated expectations in the Student Teaching Handbooks or other program documents;

� Local school corporations reserve the right to deny or terminate any and all student teacher placements; and

� ISU and its school partners maintain equal opportunity for all persons regardless of race, color, gender, creed, age, national origin, or handicapping condition.

School counseling program faculty interview on-site supervisors at the end each semester for feedback concerning the field experiences required during the semester. Feedback is then reviewed by the School Counselor Program Committee and applicable programmatic changes are made (Exhibit 3.13). For example, in January 2000 consistent feedback was received from on-site supervisors concerning the difficulty in providing appropriate individual counseling experiences for students in the fall COUN 634 - Practicum. These supervisors suggested that the Year 1 Fall semester experience should include shadowing activities and classroom teaching experiences that would enable the faculty to meet and develop a relationship with the school counseling student. Based upon this input, the School Counselor Program Committee revised the course sequence so that COUN 793B became the Year 1 Fall semester field experience course that incorporated both shadowing and classroom teaching (developmental guidance) activities that allowed the teachers to get to know the ISU students and feel more comfortable in referring students to them for individual counseling in the spring semester. Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Field Experiences and Clinical Practice

Each semester University supervisors meet with the public school host teachers and present an overview of the student-teaching program. Following a review of the Student Teaching Handbook (Exhibit 3.14) and program requirements, discussion focuses on the role of the host teacher, along with other day-to-day details of supervising student teachers (Exhibit 3.15). University supervisors serve as discussion leaders. Collaborative efforts between Professional Development Schools, partner schools, and Indiana State University are greatly reinforced through these discussions. ISU has longstanding relationships with designated Professional Development Schools (PDS) in the Vigo County School Corporation, Vermillion County School Corporation, Sullivan County School Corporation, Clay County School Corporation, and Indianapolis Public Schools (Exhibit 3.16). The partnership is guided by the Administrative Council composed of the five district superintendents, the Dean of the College of Education, and the interim partnership director in the College of Education. The Administrative Council establishes policies for the partnership and operates under a formal contract of agreement approved by the University Board of Trustees and

48

the school boards of the five partner districts. Operation of the partnership is coordinated by the PDS steering committee, which is composed of representatives from each of the PDS sites and the educator programs within the University (Exhibit 3.17; Exhibit 3.02). The 20 PDS schools and ISU were honored by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, as one of only three institutions in the nation to receive the 2002 Christa McAuliffe Award for Exemplary Programs in Teacher Education. This award is further evidence of the significant accomplishments that both organizations jointly offer and mutually benefit PPK-12 students as well as teacher candidates, in-service teachers, interns, and administrators (Exhibit 3.18; Exhibit 3.19). The Partnership is not an experiment conducted by a limited number of university faculty in selected classrooms. Instead, it is a partnership of significant proportions. In any given semester, the Partnership touches the lives of over 14,500 children and youth, 950 professional educators in 20 schools, 60 University faculty, and 850 teacher candidates. It is a Partnership of significant proportions in enhancing the learning of children and youth, as well as those who teach them. Furthermore, through the accumulative effect of thirteen years of internal and extramural funding (e.g., the current Department of Education’s Teacher Quality grant – Partners Reforming Education [Exhibit 3.20; Exhibit 3.21]), both faculties have benefited through ongoing professional development and research. The PDS and university faculties have conducted research through mini-grants; supported and conducted professional development in specified, articulated, approved, goal driven and assessed areas; celebrated accomplishments; and strategically planned to move the relationship forward. Such actions are approved by the Professional Development Schools’ Steering Committee which meets regularly each semester (Exhibit 3.22). An example of this collaborative partnership is evident through the initiative allowing site-based teacher education courses to have practica placing teacher candidates in small group tutorials to work with specific middle level populations. A PDS school’s faculty and staff realized an unmet need and contacted the University as a partner to address the need. Participating Sarah Scott Middle School students who need additional support to be academically successful meet in tutorial settings led by teacher candidates. The University teacher candidates provide tutoring sessions on MWF as well as continue to teach in their content majors as part of their preparation for licensure (Exhibit 3.23). This program initially slated for one school has extended to three middle schools and all sections of CIMT 301 and CIMT 302. Additional accomplishments of the PDS are too numerous to list in this writing (Exhibit 3.24). Similar beneficial arrangements between students, teacher candidates, in-service teachers, and administrators occur throughout Indiana and western Illinois where practica occur. These less formal arrangements allow teacher candidates and interns to experience a full range of activities from early field experiences involving classroom observation to more advanced professional work. In all instances, ISU undergraduate and graduate students are guided in their professional practices with host teachers and administrators familiar with the expectations of the various programs’ outcomes as well as faculty supervisors from the University (Exhibit 3.25). In many cases, host teachers with whom candidates have worked in early experiences continue to supervise candidates during the student-teaching experience. Faculty from PDS schools and ISU share teaching resources and classroom space at the schools. School corporation faculty collaborate with ISU faculty in courses related to the undergraduate teacher preparation program

49

and advanced programs (Exhibit 3.26). The following excerpt from an internal assessment report captures a portion of the effectiveness of the Teacher Education Program.

Two questions serve as general indicators of unit performance. Question twenty-four asks students to rate ISU on how well they think the College of Education prepared them for their student teaching assignments. Question thirty-one, which was included in the survey in latter 2004, asks students to rate ISU on how well they feel they were assisted in preparing for their student teaching assignments. On both cases, student teachers rated ISU on average over 3.0; median values were 4.0 on both questions. When questions twenty-six through thirty are tested for their independent correlation with student teachers’ general preparation rating (question twenty-four), all are highly correlated;4

This appears to indicate that student responses on the question items are associated with higher ratings on student teachers’ opinion of ISU’s ability to prepare them for student teaching – excerpt from the Student Teacher Survey Analysis, 2002-2004 (Exhibit 3.27).

The Unit regularly seeks feedback and suggestions for improving the quality of teacher preparation from PPK-12 colleagues (Exhibit 3.28). Unit faculty maintain a clear presence in the schools by supervising candidates engaged in field experiences and student teaching, consulting with host teachers, and communicating with school principals. Many ISU faculty members regularly serve in consultative roles to schools on various projects related to curriculum and school improvement (Exhibit 3.29). Further collaboration has been established with public schools through the Transition to Teaching (T2T) program. Through the state-mandated initiative, the Unit successfully recruits second career professionals in specific content areas such as math, science, health, business education, social studies, English, and modern languages. This program ensures that school corporations can meet the expectation that a qualified teacher is in middle level /junior high and high school classrooms. The distance education course work coordinates field experiences in specific courses: CIMT 603, CIMT 604, and CIMT 501 Student Teaching (Exhibit 3.30). In careful coordination between Education Student Services, content area program coordinators, and middle level and secondary teacher education faculty, advanced teacher education candidates have intense field experiences mirroring the undergraduate teacher education program (Exhibit 3.31). All initial preparation programs require multiple field experiences. Because of the size of the Unit and differences related to the content area majors, different patterns exist (Exhibit 3.32). Admission to the Teacher Education Program for all candidates is contingent upon successful completion of EPSY 202 Educational Psychology, Praxis I, and a 2.5 GPA (Exhibit 3.33). The duration and design of field experiences vary depending upon the student’s major. All candidates have field experiences in culturally and racially diverse schools (Exhibit 3.34).

4 Both Pearson’s and spearman’s rho tests of association revealed that all questions were significant below .01 (sig.<.01).

50

The following courses for Elementary, Early, and Special Education majors have field experience components totaling more than 100 clock hours prior to student teaching (Exhibit 3.35; Exhibit 3.36):

� ELED 100 Initial Experiences in Elementary Education � ELED 110 Introduction to Early Childhood Education � SPED 215 Behavior Management � ELED 225 The Elementary School Community � ELED 250 Teaching, Learning, and Classroom Management � ELED 315 Early Childhood: Creative and Affective Experiences � SPED 320 Instructional Principles � ELED 324 Emergent Literacy � ELED 392 Social Studies Methods � ELED 394 Language Art Methods � ELED 397 Teaching of Developmental Reading and Other Language Arts � ELED 398 Corrective Reading in the Classroom � CIMT 410M Teaching in the Middle School � ELED 426 Infants and Toddlers Care and Education � ELED 449 Parent- Teacher Relationships � ELED 451 Supervised Teaching � CIMT 451 Middle School Practica � ELED 453 Supervised Teaching � ELED 457 Elementary and Special Education Capstone

The following courses for middle level and junior high and high school licensure have field experiences totaling more than 50 hours prior to student teaching (Exhibit 3.37):

� CIMT 301 Teaching I � CIMT 302 Teaching II � CIMT 400 Teaching III � CIMT 400L Teaching III Field Experience

In addition, some departments have additional field experience requirements which vary from 10 to 50 clock hours depending on the major area (Exhibit 3.38). Student teaching for elementary, early, special education, middle level, junior high and senior high school licensures have a minimum of 15 weeks or 525 hours. All student teachers adhere to the school corporation calendar (Exhibit 3.39).

51

Table 21 Field Experiences and Clinical Practice by Program




Internship)


ELED (BA/BS, Initial)



629-635

All-school settings Professional Preparation

16 hrs observation in elementary; 25 hrs of practicum


566

Secondary Professional Preparation


575

Principal Prep. (M.Ed./ND, Adv.)

Internship 1 year, experiences at all school levels required

Minimum of 10 hrs per week for 30 weeks

300

Supt. Prep. (Ed.S., Adv.)

Summer Internship in a district office

10 hrs/wk for 10 weeks in one district

100

School Psychology Ed.S., Adv.)

Practica both university clinic and West Central IN school districts. Internship sites cover all of Indiana.

560 practicum hrs (minimum of 140 hrs per semester), one 1 year 1200 hour internship (at least 600 of which are in school settings)

1760

School Counselor (M.Ed./ND, Adv.)

NA 4 field experiences in 4 semesters, covering all school settings.

700

Early Childhood (BA/BS, Initial)


671

ELED/SPED – dual major



647-653

Math Education (BA/BS, Initial)

24 hrs ELED observation; 50 hrs of practicum


599

Business Ed (BA/BS, Initial)


575

FCS (BA/BS, Initial)


575

Instrumental (BA/BS, Initial)

18 hrs observation; 31-36 hrs practicum


574-579

Choral (BA/BS, Initial)

21-25 hrs observation; 35-40 hrs practicum


581-590

Visual Arts (BA/BS, Initial)

21 hrs ELED observation, 3 hrs observation special needs, 5 hrs general observation; 25 hrs practicum


579

Foreign Language (BA/BS, Initial)


575

Health (BA/BS, Initial)


575

Language Arts (BA/BS, Initial)


575

52

Library Media (BA/BS, Initial)



711

Library Media (Adv.)

120 hours practicum NA 120

Physical Ed (BA/BS, Initial)



615

Science Ed (BA/BS, Initial)


605

Social Studies (BA/BS, Initial)


575

T2T Secondary (ND, Initial)


575

Technology Ed (BA/BS, Initial)


575

Speech Lang. Path (MS, Initial)

NA 400 practicum hours (combination of practicum, student teaching, clinic

400

Field experiences are reflective of the conceptual framework in that they continue in the professional education sequence of courses. Additionally, they speak to collaboration among campus and school partners in determining competencies and assessment of those competencies. These experiences include peer teaching and coaching, observation of experienced teachers, grading papers and projects, working with individual students, small-group instruction, whole-class instruction, integration of technology into instruction, reflective practice, conducting classroom-based work samples, and a milieu of other professional responsibilities. These activities are conducted in various educational environments, allowing a candidate to practice a variety of instructional strategies. The candidate reflects on student learning and assessing outcomes related to their use. The opportunity exists for a variety of placements, including experiences in rural, suburban, and urban schools; with minority students of various socioeconomic backgrounds; and with students with a range of abilities and learning styles (Exhibit 3.40). Public school faculty share in the responsibility of evaluating candidate progress during field experiences, including student teaching. The evaluation is based on INTASC standards and has been implemented with the participation and input of University supervisors and University faculty (Exhibit 3.41). Teacher candidate dispositions are agreed to during the onset of field experiences in designated courses and continuously assessed (Exhibit 3.42). In an effort to ensure consistency in the evaluation process, evening seminars are conducted each semester with University supervisors and content area supervisors, and methods faculty to review the evaluation processes and instruments employed. Student teachers are supervised by Unit faculty members and adjunct supervisors who have professional backgrounds in public schools. Unit supervisors assist host teachers in documenting progress of field-based candidates and assist with problem solving as needs arise. Communication with teacher candidates occurs during classroom observations, on-site conferencing with the candidate, host teacher conferences, and University supervisors conferences; and communication is further developed through one-on-one and group discussions held during scheduled visits. Additionally, candidates maintain e-mail communication with University faculty and supervisors related to work samples and other

53

concerns that arise during student teaching. Teacher candidate self-report feedback from their student teaching experiences is delineated in Table 22.

Table 22 Student Teacher Survey Results, 2002-2004

N Min Max Mean5 Std. Dev 6

Q6: Designing units of instruction

182 1 4 3.29* .825 Q7: Designing classroom assessment 182 1 4 3.09 .839 Q8: Creating meaningful learning experiences based on content knowledge

183 1 4 3.34* .675

Q9: Assessing own professional growth needs

183 1 4 3.10 .822

Q10: Using technology 183 1 4 3.00 .908 Q11: Designing and using formative assessments

183 1 4 2.98 .795

Q12: Using teaching approaches that are sensitive to diverse learners

182 1 4 3.23 .820

Q13: Using information about community and student backgrounds

183 1 4 2.90 .842

Q14: Using multiple teaching strategies 181 1 4 3.34* .724 Q15: Designing learning environment to actively engage students

181 2 4 3.40* .672

Q16: Serving as a respected role model 181 2 4 3.66* .508 Q17: Designing developmentally appropriate learning tasks

181 1 4 3.40* .697

Q18: Working collegially with peers 181 1 4 3.32* .728 Q19: Mediating student learning 181 1 4 3.20 .736 Q20: Designing and using classroom assessments

180 1 4 3.07 .759

Q21: Reflecting on teaching 181 2 4 3.41* .641 Q22: Engaging students in problem-based 179 1 4 3.22 .729

Q23: Developing productive relationships with parents or guardians

179 1 4 2.85 .925

Valid N (listwise) 176 The Unit ensures that teacher candidates receive extensive and intensive clinical experiences to demonstrate their professional roles through thoughtfully developed field experiences during student teaching. Each teacher candidate placement in the Professional Development Schools and partner schools for field experiences is accomplished between an instructor and a school corporation administrator and/or teacher (Exhibit 3.43). Concomitantly, student teaching placements are made similarly (Exhibit 3.44). All placements are made with teachers who are

5 * means that median values were four; in all other cases, median values were 3. 6 All response averages where skewed negatively, meaning they were bunched up toward the positive end of the scale.

54

familiar with the expectations of ISU’s Teacher Education Program. In addition, teachers provide feedback with teacher candidates through detailed evaluation rubrics of their teaching and technology use as well as one-on-one reflective conversations (Exhibit 3.45). During student teaching, each University supervisor has been employed to ensure quality supervision of student teachers. Most student teachers experience two 7.5 week placements at two different developmental levels relative to their area(s) of licensure and content area specialization(s). Instances limiting dual placements are curricular in nature such as a business education major teaching only in a high school because middle level education does not typically offer business education in its curriculum or a Transition to Teaching student teacher who is employed full time through an emergency license in a critical area such as science. During student teaching, teacher candidates are visited a minimum of twice in each placement; however, most student teachers are visited three or more times (Exhibit 3.46). Each visit provides the opportunity to communicate with the host teacher, observe the teacher candidate with students, and provide feedback and guidance. The Directors of Clinical Experiences and Field Placements communicate with the appropriate parties when evaluations indicate areas of strengths and concerns. Teacher candidates also evaluate their teacher education program upon conclusion of student teaching, and feedback is forwarded to the appropriate department (Exhibit 3.47). Unit faculty and host teachers who supervise and mentor candidates’ field experiences assess teacher candidates’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions (Exhibit 3.48). For classes on campus and early field experiences, assessment is formative and cumulative and helps teacher candidates know where improvement is necessary. During student teaching, a placement decision is made cooperatively between Unit supervisors and public school colleagues and includes consideration of the candidates’ abilities and dispositions to facilitate the learning of all students (Exhibit 3.49). A decision is made as to whether a candidate should be recommended for licensure, contingent upon successful completion of student teaching, culminating project such as a portfolio or teacher work sample approval, and passing Praxis II (Exhibit 3.50). The Unit provides university supervision for candidates in the Transition to Teaching Program. Similar to the undergraduate program, teacher candidates student teach in two developmental levels when possible and are visited by University faculty (Exhibit 3.51). In several disciplines, namely math and science, teacher candidates are employed full time as a teacher meeting a critical need. These placements are supervised by both University faculty and a mentor in the public school. Candidates are observed a minimum of three times during the semester and given professional feedback and resource information for a developing teacher. Graduate, licensure programs in the area of School Administration include the Master of Education (M.Ed.), non-degree and post-master’s, and the Education Specialist (Ed.S.) degree programs. The M.Ed., non-degree, and post-master’s programs are designed for those seeking initial principal certification and covers all school settings. The Ed.S. degree is taken with a District-Level Superintendency emphasis, and this program allows candidates to meet initial superintendent certification requirements. Both of these programs include two six-credit hour internship courses. These courses and the associated field experiences serve as capstone events for students pursuing School Administration degrees and include extensive field experiences for students (Exhibit 3.52).

55

The internship courses for School Administration students include regular seminars on campus and ongoing directed field experiences with the assistance of administrative practitioners in the field over the course of two semesters (one academic year). The internship experience includes directed activities planned and supervised in collaboration between faculty members and administrative practitioner colleagues. Course objectives and learning activities related to the internship courses are aligned with the Interstate School Leader Licensure Consortium standards. Student evaluation includes administrative practitioner assessment and university supervisor assessment of the administrative candidate (Exhibit 3.53). Communication Disorders speech and language pathologists have a supervised 10 week teaching experience in schools with supervisors that meet the rigorous criteria set forth by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) (Exhibit 3.54). In addition, the University faculty has established contracts with hospitals and clinics throughout the state to place graduate interns in speech pathology and audiology practica. The advanced intern experience requires three registrations in the course CD 696 Clinical Practicum in Speech, Language, and Hearing (Exhibit 3.55). The practicum experience allows the candidate to function as a staff member providing diagnosis and treatment to patients with speech, language, swallowing, and hearing disorders. Internship supervisors must meet the rigorous criteria set forth by ASHA. Candidates experience department staff meetings and patient work-up sessions and carry out responsibilities similar to those practiced by a speech pathologist or audiologist (Exhibit 3.56). Advanced and undergraduate candidates pursuing certifications in school and/or public library media are required to complete a practicum in an approved school library media center and also a public library where they must spend a minimum of 120 hours “on the job” to earn three hours of credit. The CIMT 4/659 Library Practicum instructor coordinates practicum experiences with library media candidates and their supervisors (Exhibit 3.57). Candidates maintain a reflective journal addressing all 16 proficiencies completed during the practica and also submit a portfolio recapping how the 16 proficiencies were addressed during the completion of the course work needed for licensure (Exhibit 3.58). Undergraduates seeking an initial licensure in library media complete the All School Settings licensure requirements (Exhibit 3.59). Courses for library media licensure are offered through distance education and are commingled with undergraduate and graduate students enabling an enriched learning experience for each student who also provides a localized perspective in a national/international program of study. The School Psychology Program requires students to obtain an Educational Specialist degree or higher for licensure as a School Psychologist. Included in the student’s program of study is the course EPSY 686 Practicum in School Psychology. Those students who pursue the Doctor of Philosophy in Guidance and Psychological Services – School Psychology are required to complete a pre-doctoral 2,000 hour internship at a site approved by the individual’s doctoral committee, the director of internships, and the director of school psychology training. This internship follows the completion of all required course work. The course work and practica require the student to complete evidence-based interventions, psychological and educational measurement and evaluation, professional standards and ethics, cognitive and social aspects of behavior, theories and methods of assessment and diagnosis, and application of knowledge and skills in real-life contexts (Exhibit 3.60; Exhibit 3.61).

56

The non-degree licensure program, Director of Exceptional Needs, includes a required practicum. Two courses taken concurrently, SPED - 684 Internship in Administration and ELAF 759 - Seminar in School Superintendency provide advanced candidates with an internship supported through seminar experiences (Exhibit 3.62). Teacher candidates meet the University Information Technology Literacy requirement in the undergraduate General Education requirements. Most teacher candidates complete ELED 272 - Introduction to Computer Classroom Use or CIMT 272 - Introduction to Computer Classroom Use to meet the requirement. Technology use continues throughout the teacher candidates’ professional course work. Modeled by University faculty who are adept in technology use following the capacity building PT3 grant, teacher candidates have frequent use of laptops, handheld computers, and graphing calculators in their teacher education courses. In addition, teacher candidates are assessed on their use of technology in field experiences and student teaching. Host teachers and University faculty complete an extensive technology use rubric on each student (Exhibit 3.63). Supervision expectations for clinical faculty are clearly articulated through the Student Teaching Handbook which is routinely updated as changes in the Teacher Education Program are made. Meetings held each semester with University supervisors ensure that each University supervisor and content area methods instructor remains familiar with the teacher candidate expectations during practica. Additionally initiatives help school and university faculty come to agreement on evaluative criteria (Exhibit 3.64). In addition, each clinical faculty member receives information explicitly indicating her/his supervisory expectations. These expectations are reviewed by the University supervisor during an initial visit to the school. Similar expectations are articulated in field experiences. The placement of teacher candidates in PDS sites enables consistency of expectations for teaching by those who are familiar with the program. Examination of student teaching evaluations shows a high level of inter-rater reliability between University and school faculty (Exhibit 3.65). All clinical faculty members are experienced public school classroom teachers (Exhibit 3.66). They have both teaching and supervisory skills as well as a developmental understanding of teacher candidates and the students they teach. Clinical faculty members remain in close contact with the University through the Directors of Clinical Experiences and Field Placements, University faculty, and University supervisors. The quinary arrangement of the Director, University faculty, University supervisor, host teacher, and student teacher works providing a robust interaction to support the learning of the PPK-12 students through varying levels of professional growth for all involved. In advanced programs, the clinical faculty members are University faculty. They obtained their position at ISU in part because their expertise benefits advanced licensure candidates. Advanced University supervisors hold a terminal degree in a field of study, have professional experiences in the field, work with a practitioner who understands the program, and mentor the advanced candidate during the practica (Exhibit 3.67). The regular support provided to teacher and advanced candidates is through personal contact, phone calls, observations, and conferencing. Additional support is obtained through the use of e-mail made possible through a Blackboard web site that supports students in the All Schools Settings as well as the Middle Level/Junior High and Senior High Schools licensure programs. In

57

addition, University supervisors have access to e-mail students through professional e-mail accounts (Exhibit 3.68). Candidates’ Development and Demonstration of Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions to Help All Students Learn Teacher candidates must meet the criteria set for Teacher Education Program II prior to being placed for clinical practice. Upon completion of the clinical practice, student must successfully student teach in one or more supervised public school settings. In addition, elementary, early, and special education students must successfully complete a capstone experience; whereas, All Schools Settings, Middle Level/Junior High and High School Setting must successfully pass CIMT 402 - Integrated Experience or its equivalent with a grade of B or better (Exhibit 3.69). All teacher candidates and candidates for additional instructional and school services licensures are assessed on DPS licensure standards as well as INTASC standards and expectations articulated by Indiana State University and the Teacher Education Program. As an NCATE partner state, Indiana does not currently require teacher education programs to obtain national accreditation through the professional societies. Nevertheless, several programs are nationally accredited such as School Psychology, Industrial Technology Education, School Counseling, and Communication Disorders. Assessment of student performance occurs throughout the professional sequence as well as in the major courses (Exhibit 3.70). Assessments of teacher candidates’ classroom performances include regular observations by a University supervisor. Each observation includes an assessment and feedback on student performance (Exhibit 3.71). At the conclusion of each placement, a formal assessment is completed and submitted to the respective Director of Clinical Experiences and Field Placements. In addition, the host teacher also completes a formal assessment. During student teaching, teacher candidates compile a portfolio (Elementary, Early, and Special Education) or a teacher work sample (All Schools Settings, Middle Level/Junior High and High School Settings). The portfolio or teacher work sample is assessed to determine the effectiveness of the Teacher Education Program to prepare teacher candidates who have a positive effect on PK-12 student learning (Exhibit 3.72). School Counseling students are evaluated using multiple assessment strategies such as video tapes, audio tapes, student self-evaluation, and review of PPK-12 student pre/post data. The evaluation scores for student teachers in terms of utilization of appropriate assessment strategies have consistently been high. Within EESE, the last three years of data show that candidates are assessed as meeting these standards well with mean scores ranging from 2.73 to 2.79 (2=satisfactory and 3= proficient) (Exhibit 3.73). With All-school settings and secondary education, data indicates that student teachers are evaluated highly in terms of use of assessment strategies to promote student learning (mean = 1, median = 2; 1=proficient, 2=satisfactory, 3=unsatisfactory7

7 Spring 2005, a college wide examination of data revealed that not all assessments were using the same direction for numbers for Proficient, Satisfactory, and Unsatisfactory. This issue was resolved for Fall 2005 at TEC meeting (Exhibit 3.74)

). Median scores from surveys of principals of first-year teachers from our programs indicate our candidates are viewed as being well prepared to mediate student learning,

58

actively engage students in learning environments, and use a variety of assessment strategies that are formative and which accurately assess student learning (Exhibit 3.75). Each teacher candidate and advanced candidate is assessed based on program, state, and national/international standards. Evidence of candidate performance is compiled through various assessments, and the data collected are analyzed and discussed to improve upon program strengths and areas where changes are needed. Two cases in point, two data sets are compiled from assessments jointly scored by University faculty such as the portfolio (EESE faculty) or the Integrated Unit Report (assessed by both a content area faculty member and a teacher educator). In addition, school faculty members complete assessments which are added to a database (Exhibit 3.76). Candidate assessment is available through the student teaching survey noted above. The School Counseling students are evaluated each semester by program faculty, ISU supervisors, and on-site supervisors. In addition, student self-evaluation is an important part of the candidate performance assessment package. Reflective thinking and writing are encouraged, required, and developed through the professional sequence of courses. A reflective discourse is expected after each day of teaching with the host teacher as well as after each observation by a University supervisor (Exhibit 3.77). Additional reflective writing and thinking occurs through the portfolio (Exhibit 3.78) or the Integrated Unit Report (Exhibit 3.79). In both projects, teacher candidates are reviewed by faculty who provide detailed feedback regarding the teacher candidate’s project and her/his reflective writings. Teacher candidates who are not sufficiently detailed in their reflections are required to rewrite the reflections until they are sufficiently detailed. Details include addressing specific standards during instruction, attention to individual learning needs in the classroom, diverse student populations, and the like. Advanced practitioners provide details about their work in clinical and classroom settings as part of the program requirements. Clinical faculty review their writings and assess the impact of the work being conducted through the reflective activities (Exhibit 3.80). School counseling students are required to evaluate every clinical practice activity (Exhibit 3.81). This evaluation, along with ISU faculty and on-site supervisor evaluations provide important feedback for student reflection. This reflection is designed to lead to improved performance in future practice. Principal survey responses for new teachers indicate they find our candidates to be highly reflective (Exhibit 3.82). Evaluations from student teaching experiences agree our candidates effectively use reflection in their movement toward becoming a complete professional (Exhibit 3.83; Exhibit 3.84). Further triangulation is found within the student teaching surveys where our candidates report they were very well prepared to be a reflective practitioner (Exhibit 3.85). Specific expectations articulated through field experiences and clinical practices are to help all students learn. In early field experiences, teacher candidates are expected to detail in their culminating report how they helped student learning in their respective classrooms (Exhibit 3.86). This expectation is often met by students conducting explicit pre/post test activities on the goals and objectives for the unit. Less formal designs are also conducted which continue to drive expectations for teacher candidates that all students in the class learn and meet Indiana Academic Standards. Adherence to this expectation is reviewed by University faculty in teacher candidate reports after field experiences as well as University supervisors during student teaching. Teacher candidates are evaluated on this expectation (Exhibit 3.87). In the advanced programs, the

59

specializations associated with licensure also address the knowledge, skills, and dispositions, to help all students learn. University faculty and clinical faculty assess advanced candidates in their abilities to provide professional services to all clients (Exhibit 3.88). School counselor field experiences are designed to involve the ISU student in school improvement activities focused upon helping all students learn. Teacher candidates are prepared for teaching students with exceptionalities through their teacher education course work and specifically SPED 226 - The Exceptional Learner in the Regular Classroom (Exhibit 3.89). In addition, PDS and partner schools include diverse student populations including special education populations (Exhibit 3.90). Teacher candidates are placed in classroom settings where there are special education students who are part of the regular classroom or are included through inclusive practices and supported accordingly. In the special education major, teacher candidates’ field experiences include resource room teaching in various developmental settings. Speech and language pathologists work with specific populations needing speech and language services during their 10-week student teaching experience. In addition, they work in clinical settings with special populations during their extended study at the master’s level. Similarly, the school counselor, school psychology, administrator, and advanced teaching programs have experiences with students who have exceptionalities. School counseling students are required to work with students with a wide range of exceptionalities during their COUN739B - Internship (Exhibit 3.91). Field experiences for teacher candidates are specifically designed in schools with diverse populations. In the EESE Programs, teacher candidates are placed in urban school settings with racial, ethnic, economic, and gender diversity within the student populations. The All Schools Settings, Middle Level/Junior High and High School Programs also place teacher candidates in similar urban middle level or high school settings. Clinical practices in the Wabash Valley provide advance candidates with opportunities to serve clients in specific schools with diverse populations or social service locations whose clients are reflective of the diverse citizenry in the Wabash Valley (Exhibit 3.92). School counseling students are required to present a diversity-related case presentation during COUN739B - Internship (Exhibit 3.93).

STANDARD 4: DIVERSITY The unit designs, implements, and evaluates curriculum and experiences for candidates to acquire and apply the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn. These experiences including working with diverse higher education and school faculty, diverse candidates, and diverse students in PPK-12 schools. Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Curriculum and Experiences Candidates for initial licensure, are required to take a range of courses which specifically address diversity in society as well as diversity in the classroom and its implications on instructional planning and delivery (Exhibit 4.01). All students must take one U.S. diversity course and one international diversity course as part of their general studies requirement. Courses with specific pedagogical content which address the needs of students with diversity and classroom adaptations include:

60

1. EPSY 341 – Education in Multicultural Society 2. ELED 4/526 – Early Childhood: Educating Infants and Toddlers in an Inclusive

Environment 3. ELED 4/532 - Early Childhood: Teaching within a Diverse Society 4. ELED 4/537 – Theories and Practices in Working with Exceptional Children 5. SPED 226 – The Exceptional Learner in the Classroom 6. SPED 607 – Diversity and Disability in Today’s Schools (T2T) 7. MUSIC 4/518 – Music in Special Education

Beyond these required courses, content and issues related to diversity are also covered in other pedagogy and professional education courses (Exhibit 4.02). Candidates are expected to achieve ratings of “satisfactory” or “proficient” on professional standards related to diversity. A report that details in what courses diversity standards are assessed is available in Exhibit 4.03.

To ensure that diversity is adequately and appropriately addressed and assessed in the curriculum, in the spring of 2002, the Indiana State University College of Education, in partnership with Emporia State University, began a three year assessment project to identify and evaluate teacher candidate knowledge and skills in working with diverse populations (Exhibit 4.04). The ISU project included support from Emporia State through a federal grant which included nine universities from around the country. The goals of the project were to identify and develop assessment instruments which would provide teacher preparation programs with indicators of the level of knowledge and skills each teaching candidate had in the areas of diversity and multicultural education. Additionally, assessment data collected would be systemically introduced into a remediation cycle for program evaluation and improvement.

During that first summer of 2002, workshop faculty (Exhibit 4.05) identified three areas of assessment along with several potential instruments for gathering data. A task force of members representing each department in the College of Education worked in the ensuing two years of the project to develop and implement these instruments. The three foci of assessment which were implemented by the task force were: 1) Faculty Dispositions, 2) Student Knowledge Base, and 3) Curriculum Content. Data was collected on each of these assessment foci. The results of that data indicate some weaknesses in the program, but an overall strength in preparation for working in diverse environments (Exhibit 4.06).

The curriculum assessment tool, KBDQ (Exhibit 4.07), revealed that faculty in educator preparation courses place a high priority on two aspects of diversity (scale of 1-3, 3 being highest priority):

#3 Cultural differences in achievement motivation 2.80 #13 Methods of integrating multiculturalism throughout the curriculum 2.80

This priority is further emphasized with the 2003 results from the NSSE, that show that teacher candidates are exposed to more diverse perspectives in class discussions or writing assignments—more so as they are seniors than when they are freshmen, suggesting that diversity

61

in perspective increases as teacher candidates progress through the teacher education program (Exhibit 4.08).

Figure 3 NSSE Analysis on Diversity Perspectives

2.69

2.63

2.57

2.7

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Non-Teacher Candidates Teacher Candidates

Freshmen

Seniors

And further, senior teacher candidates report the institution contributes to a better understanding of people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds when compared to freshman teacher candidates; in addition, the average response rate for senior teacher candidates is higher than all non-teacher candidates and higher than the total for the entire University.

Figure 4

NSSE Results on University Contribution to Understanding

2.72

2.66

2.34

2.79

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Non-TeacherCandidates

Teacher Candidates

Freshmen

Seniors

62

In fall 2003 and again in spring 2004, the MCCT-E (a test of knowledge base) was given to both program beginners and program completers in elementary and secondary education (Exhibit 4.09). The program beginners were given the test in the developmental psychology course; the program completers were given the test in their student teaching seminars. The data was calculated for mean number of correct responses in each of the nine subscales of the test. A synopsis of the results is available in the table below and full results are available in the exhibit center (Exhibit 4.10).

Table 23 Comparison of Knowledge Base Score, Program Beginner and Student Teachers

Fall 2003 and Spring 2004 combined

Program Beginners

EESE Student Teachers

All Grade & Secondary Student Teachers

Family and Community 44.80% 60.8% 50.9% Pluralism and Ethnocentrism 42.9% 77.6% 52.2% Ability Grouping SPED 55.1% 71.0% 48.4% Policy and Philosophy 44.5% 53.8% 46.6% Sexism, Racism, and Gender Bias 53.2% 66.7% 49.3% ESL, Learning Styles 41.2% 61.0% 44.6% Assessment and Standardized Testing

47.9% 71.0% 37.8%

Attitude and Cultural Sensitivity 39.6% 57.0% 37.8% Teacher and Student Expectation 35.8% 53.1% 31.2% The chart shows significant change within the EESE students, and some advances for the secondary and All-school settings students, with some areas for focused attention as well. Results are used by the departments to determine where attention should be applied (Exhibit 4.11). Both the curriculum survey and the KBDQ results show the course content and the knowledge and disposition of the instructors teaching these courses have a high degree of compatibility with the targeted diversity content subscales of the MCCTE. Candidate results on this measure further demonstrate the alignment of undergraduate preparation for working with diverse populations and their curricular experiences in teacher preparation. A frequencies and descriptive analysis indicates the faculty that completed the survey felt the following items should have the highest priority in respect to learning outcomes (highest four responses reported below):

x How to engage in culturally sensitive interactions with others (knowledge of cultures, verbal/non-verbal communication style differences) (2.81)

x Effects of teacher expectations and teacher-student interactions on student performance (2.81)

63

x Principles of culturally appropriate pedagogy, multicultural education, and curriculum development (2.73)

x How to use authentic and alternate assessment techniques (2.72)

Faculty also reported they were most likely to (highest four reported below):

x Teach students about biased teacher practices in the classroom (70%) x Teach students about educational legislation (71%) x Teach students how communities impact the school environment (68%) x Teach students how to identify and incorporate students’ belief systems, values, and

expectations into pedagogy (67%) Evaluations from student teaching and student teaching reports demonstrate candidate competence with diversity. The secondary education Report on Student Teaching Unit indicates the majority of students were assessed as “Proficient” on INTASC 3 (Accommodation of Learner Diversity) and 96% scored at least “Satisfactory” (Exhibit 4.12). Within Elementary, Early, and Special Education, the mean score for student teaching candidates was a 2.79 (2=Satisfactory, 3=Proficient) on the appropriate developmental standards related to diversity (Exhibit 4.13). Employer and supervisor data also points to the degree to which our candidates are successful at addressing issues of diversity in the classroom. An analysis of principal surveys of graduates of the initial teacher preparation program indicate employers perceive ISU graduates to be “well-prepared” when asked how prepared the teacher was to use teaching approaches that are sensitive to diverse learners (Exhibit 4.14). The M.Ed. program in Elementary Education has taken a director focus on diversity with its DART program. DART stands for Diversity, Action Research, and Technology. These three strands are woven into all major courses in the program. Within the graduate teacher continuing education programs, employers were also asked how well the graduate of a M.Ed. program performs at helping students learn to respect individual and group differences. Although the response is low, the employers (principals) indicated overwhelmingly that the graduates were “very well-prepared” (Exhibit 4.15). The Expert Panel on advanced teacher preparation programs indicated that students in advanced programs perform satisfactorily in respect to recognizing individual differences and responding appropriately (Mean= 3.88) The same level of planning has gone into ensuring an emphasis on diversity in advanced programs. The School Counselor Program has consciously included multi-cultural and diversity related issues into each course. In addition, students are required to take COUN 666 - Multi-cultural Counseling. During the Internship year, students must present at least one case presentation that deals with multi-cultural issues. School counseling students must meet multi-cultural proficiencies as delineated in the developmental standards and appropriate content standards. In addition, school counseling students also meet the multi-cultural and diversity standard as set forth by the Council for the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Programs (CACREP). School counseling students’ understanding of the importance of diversity teaching and learning is ensured through COUN 793B field work assessments which include the development of multi-culturally sensitive lesson plans. School counseling dispositions

64

concerning educational equity issues are assessment during their COUN 535 - Introduction to School Counseling discussion board assignments. School counseling students are required to collect and analyze data which show what students have learned due to their interventions (lessons, counseling sessions, etc.). School counseling students are required to reflect upon data related to their interventions (lessons, counseling sessions, etc.) and apply this knowledge to their future practice. One of the School Psychology Program’s goals over the past five years has been to expand the number of diverse individuals and groups with whom students work. Toward that end, every student has a required practicum placement in the first semester of the program at Vigo County Headstart. This placement permits students to interact with a wide array of children and families from diverse racial/ethnic and social groups. Most students also complete a practicum at the 14th & Chestnut Community Center, which allows them to work with children and adolescents from primarily lower social-income, racially-diverse families. These are two examples of how the program ensures that students have contact with diverse children and their families. The School Psychology Program incorporates multicultural case studies on which students are assessed and given feedback (Exhibit 4.16). Such assessments require students to have knowledge of diverse groups and to demonstrate culturally-sensitive practices in working with diverse learners. In the School Psychology Program, students are required to complete a Multicultural Self Assessment, which enables them to understand their unique cultural background and identity development (Exhibit 4.17). This is typically done during the first semester in the program in a course (e.g., SPSY 600 - Introduction to School Psychology). The self assessment raises knowledge and awareness of cultural differences that potentially impact teaching, learning, and social behavior. Internships are based in the public schools and require that substantial interaction with children and adolescents with disabilities occurs for interns. In addition to courses, students in the School Psychology Program work extensively with individuals with disabilities. This includes practicum placements through the Covered Bridge Special Education District and the Porter School Psychology Center for School Psychology, which includes a specific clinic for children with autism. Many students also complete a practicum rotation through the ADHD Clinic in the Department of Psychology. Part of the annual student evaluation in the School Psychology Program includes the assessment of each student’s knowledge of, skill with, and value for diverse populations. Annual program assessments include data on diversity (Exhibit 4.18). Candidates in educational administration are exposed to coursework and activities related to urban education and changing schools (ELAF 681 – Leadership for Changing Schools). Mentors for the Superintendent preparation program (Ed.S.) were asked to evaluate the degree to which each candidate is able to help students learn to respect individual and group diversity. On a scale of 5 (very well-prepared), candidates were rated as 4.6, with the median score being 5 (Exhibit 4.19).

65

Experiences Working with Diverse Faculty

Table 24 COE and School Faculty Demographics

Fall 2004

Prof. Ed. Faculty in


Prof. Ed. Faculty

in Advanced Programs*

All Faculty in the

Institution

School-based faculty8

N (%)

N (%) N (%) N (%) American Indian or

Alaskan Native 0 0 3 (.4%) 0

Asian or Pacific Islander

5 (7.8%) 4 (6.3%) 39 (5.6%) 5 (.5%)

Black, non-Hispanic 2 (3.1%) 4 (6.3%) 20 (2.9%) 16 (1.5%) Hispanic 0 1 (1.6%) 12 (1.7%) 2 (.2%) White, non-Hispanic 56 (87.5%) 55 (85.9%) 599 (86.7%) 1023 (97.8%) Two or more races 0 0 3 (.4%) 0 Other 0 0 5 (.7%) 0 Race/ethnicity

unknown 1 (1.6%) 0 10 (1.4%) 0

Total 64 64 691 1,046 Female 43 (67.2%) 37 (57.8%) 284 (41.1%) 814 (77.8%) Male 21 (32.8%) 27 (42.2%) 407 (58.9%) 232 (22.2%) Total 64 64 691 1,046 *Faculty are counted in both initial teacher preparation and advanced programs if they teach in both.

Students in the College of Education have had increased exposure to diverse faculty in the last five years. ISU’s Affirmative Action Office indicates the percentage of female faculty has increased by 15.4% from 2000 to 2005 and minority faculty has grown steadily during the same period with an overall increase 5.8%. Most students interact with faculty in schools in Vigo County. The district includes forty public

schools and several private/parochial schools within a geographic area of 800 square miles in west central Indiana. Special education services are managed by the Covered Bridge Special

Education District which services four member school corporations with approximately 200 special education teachers. The number of students eligible for special education services on

December 1, 2003 was 3,765 students.

8 Numbers are from Indiana Dept. of Education and represent Vigo County School Corporation numbers where all of students have multiple placements.

66

Table 25 Professional Education Faculty Outside of COE

(Part-time Unit, Full-time Institution) Fall 2004

Prof. Ed. Faculty in Initial Teacher

Preparation Programs N (%) American Indian or Alaskan Native 0 Asian or Pacific Islander 1 (2.7%) Black, non-Hispanic 2 (5.4%) Hispanic 0 White, non-Hispanic 32 (86.5%) Two or more races 0 Other 2 Race/ethnicity unknown 1 (2.7%) Total 37 Female 14 (37.8%) Male 23 (62.2%) Total 37

Departments have been making concerted efforts in their search and interview processes to recruit faculty of color with the success indicated above. A 2005 survey of COE department chairs documents these efforts as well as articulates the challenges faced. The following responses are summarized below. Recruitment and Retention Efforts

x Search efforts: Departments report posting positions in specialized sources read by faculty of color, calling potential and formal applicants to make a personal connection, contacting universities likely to graduate diverse individuals, and involving of persons of color in the search process. Departments have sent job postings to the NAME (National Association of Multicultural Education) Conference. The faculty search process as been completely revised to eliminate obstacles to equal opportunity and to insure as much fairness in the consideration of candidates as is possible. This is achieved by a process where the affirmative action officer, as a third party neutral, reviews each stage of the search process. The key elements of fairness for judgment based on merit and not prohibited biases are: objectivity, consistency, rationality, and transparency. These have been built into the faculty hiring process to reduce bias and minimize subjectivity.

x On-campus interview strategies: Departments use strategies that include: providing interviewees with a packet of materials reflective of community diversity (Exhibit 4.20), inviting persons of color to join the luncheon conversation, making efforts to present the department program and collegiality as attractive, including the African American Cultural Center as part of the campus tour, including in the community tour information for outlets for persons of color (churches, haircuts, community groups, etc.), and arranging a real estate tour with an agent of color. One goal of the Diversity Summit in

67

January 2005 (Exhibit 4.21) was to ready departments for review of candidate materials and on-campus interviewing (Exhibit 4.22).

x Retention: Departments report mentoring the new faculty of color as well as providing pre-education of the department on issues of diversity prior to the new hire starts.

Experiences Working with Diverse Candidates

Table 26 Candidate Demographics

10 Day Enrollment Count - Spring 2005 Candidates in


Candidates In Advanced Preparation Programs

All Students

in the Institution

Demographics of Geographical

Area Served by Institution9

N (%)

N (%) N (%) % American Indian or

Alaskan Native

3 (.2%)

3 (.4%)

36 (.4%)

.3% Asian or Pacific

Islander 4 (.3%) 12 (1.6%) 101 (1%) .9%

Black, non-Hispanic 71 (4.8%) 41 (5.4%) 1090 (10.8%) 3.9% Hispanic 7 (.5%) 14 (1.9%) 139 (1.4%) .9% White, non-Hispanic 1360 (92.01%) 634 (84.0%) 8069 (79.9%) 94% Multiracial 9 (.6%) 1 (.1%) 87 (.9%) .9% Other 5 (.3%) 44 (5.8%) 373 (3.7%) -- Race/ethnicity

Unknown 19 (1.3%) 6 (7.9%) 200 (1.9%) --

Total 1478 (100%) 755 (100%) 10,095 Female 993 (67.2%) 527 (69.8%) 5287 (52.4%) NA Male 485 (32.8%) 228 (30.2%) 4808 (47.6%) NA Total 1478 (100%) 755 (100%) 10,085 The COE continues to work to ensure that minority students are interested in selecting teacher education as a career and that the unit is able to retain these students. One reported barrier is the Praxis I basic skills exam. In 2004-05, an African-America teacher from West Vigo Middle School began to work with interested African-American students to provide tutoring on the math portion of the exam. This effort was organized by students. In 2005, the COE applied for a U.S. Department of Education grant to focus in particular upon minority recruitment (Exhibit 4.23). The grant would recruit from urban areas of Indiana, provide scholarships for minority students, in particular African American men, to complete their teaching degree and return to urban teaching.

9 Data from Workforce Region 7 Profile - http://www.stats.indiana.edu/profiles/prwipr7.html

68

The COE also has a representative on a committee within the Vigo County School Corporation that is concerned with minority teacher recruitment and retention (Exhibit 4.24). One activity of this committee has been to work with the development of future teacher student groups in the middle schools with a particular focus on inviting minority students to participate. As the student organizations become further developed, they will begin to participate in University activities to increase their exposure and interest in the profession. Experiences Working with Diverse Students in PPK-12 Schools Efforts are made to give teacher education candidates at Indiana State University at least one placement in schools that are predominately diverse. Elementary candidates are guaranteed at least one placement in one of six schools during the last two years of their pre-service training (see Table 27). During these placements, candidates will either teach two 2-week units in math and reading, or teach a 2-week unit in social studies and tutor a student at least eight times, or engage in two 8-week student-teaching experiences. The School Psychology Program has established partnerships with schools and community agencies to ensure that graduate students interact and work with diverse children and their families.

Table 27 Socioeconomic, Minority, and Special Education Percentages for Guaranteed Elementary

Candidate Field Placements

School Free Lunch % Reduced Lunch %

Minority % Special Ed. %

Vigo-Davis Park 69 10 37 36 Vigo-Deming 76 14 20 19 Vigo-Devaney 44 11 19 20 Vigo-Fuqua 60 11 17 29 IPS-Brandes 80 16 40 17 IPS-Miller 90 10 45 26 Secondary and All-school settings students are preferentially placed in Vigo and Clay County schools due to their proximity to Indiana State University for their various early field experiences. Table 28 illustrates the socioeconomic, minority, and special education percentages for all of the local schools where students pursuing elementary, secondary, special education, communication disorders, and physical education, art, and music All-school settings licenses are placed for their early field experiences.

69

Table 28 Socioeconomic, Minority, and Special Education Percentages for Schools Used as

Guaranteed Early Field Placements for Secondary and All-school settings Students

School Free Lunch % Reduced Lunch %

Minority % Special Ed. %

Chauncey Rose MS 67 12 22 22 Honey Creek MS 15 8 6 12 Otter Creek MS 28 14 4 17 Sarah Scott MS 57 14 26 23 Woodrow Wilson MS 31 11 14 18 Terre Haute S. Vigo HS 23 9 17 15 Table 29 provides the diversity statistics for all of the corporations in the ISU Service Area where students are placed for early field and student teaching experiences. Most student teaching experiences occur within these corporations although CIMT sends students all over Illinois and Indiana for student teaching. At the conclusion of the early field placements in CIMT 301/302, which are required of every secondary and All-school settings pre-service teacher education major, students are asked to reflect on diversity in preparatory assignments for their report. One of these assignments is entitled, “Becoming a Culturally-Responsive Teacher” (Exhibit 4.25).

Table 29

Socioeconomic, Minority, and Special Education Percentages for School Corporations used for Early Field Experiences and Student Teaching

Corp Free Lunch % Reduced Lunch

% Minority % Special Ed. %

Clay 28 12 0 19 Greene 44 10 4 16 Indianapolis 77 12 71 17 Knox 37 8 4 13 Linton 28 5 2 19 South Vermillion 29 9 1 18 Southwest Parke 40 6 1 13 Sullivan 29 9 2 22 Vigo 37 10 11 18 Marshall, Ill. 24 Included in Col. 1 1 16 Paris, Ill. 36 Included in Col. 1 3 19

70

STANDARD 5: FACULTY QUALIFICATIONS, PERFORMANCE, AND DEVELOPMENT

Faculty are qualified and model best professional practices in scholarship, service, and teaching, including the assessment of their own effectiveness as related to candidate performance; they also collaborate with colleagues in the disciplines and schools. The unit systematically evaluates faculty performance and facilitates professional development. Qualified Faculty Faculty in the College of Education, as well as professional education faculty in the content areas are experts in their fields of study and bring pedagogical experience to the classroom.

Table 30 Spring 2005 Professional Education Faculty

Ph.D./Ed.D. Ed.S. Master’s Full-time College of Education 46 1 5 Full-time ISU, Part-time Professional

Education 31 0 6

Part-time ISU, Part-time Professional Education

0 0 31

Those full-time faculty in professional education, either within the College of Education or in content areas who do not hold a terminal degree are either former faculty of the University lab school who held tenure with the institution when the lab school was closed, or are doctoral candidates with expertise and/or current teaching license in the area in which they are instructing. The part-time professional education faculty are expected to hold a minimum of a master’s degree and hold a current professional license in their area. While all COE faculty will have some level of interaction with all candidates, it is important to the unit that those faculty who work closely within licensure programs have or have held a license in the field related to that which they teach.

Table 31 Percentage of Faculty Who Hold or Held a License in Field

Ph.D./Ed.D.

Full-time College of Education 92.6% Full-time ISU, Part-time Professional Education

62.5%

Part-time ISU, Part-time Professional Education

100%

When school faculty are asked to host a candidate, whether for a practicum or student teaching, it is expected that the host teacher have at least three years of teaching or school personnel

71

experience. School faculty supervisors of student teachers are also expected to hold a master’s degree. Furthermore, all teacher candidates have multiple placements within Vigo County School Corporation, and they have a 99.8% highly qualified teacher ranking. Modeling Best Professional Practices in Teaching Faculty are recruited and hired based on their competency and knowledge of their field, as well as the competency and understanding of the school settings for which they prepare teachers. The faculty are active scholars in their fields, as demonstrated in the vitae. Because the Conceptual Framework, Becoming A Complete Professional, has at its very core the concept that Good Learning is a function of Good Teaching, it is manifested naturally within the classroom for faculty, as well as in the applied scholarship conducted by faculty and applied within the classroom. Students as Experts

x Students in Elementary Education 250 participate in an activity called Jigsaw in which they become an expert on one chapter of the required text. A group of about five students work together to “teach” an assigned chapter to the class using effective teaching strategies they have learned in the class.

x Students in Elementary Education 250 document their mastery of the standards associated with the course by preparing a PowerPoint presentation and presenting it at the end of the course during their Exit Interview. This is a great tool in helping them to organize their thoughts and know that they really have mastered these standards.

x In CIMT 301 candidates study the academic standards and prepare learning experiences for middle school students. They teach and develop a work sample submitted through LiveText which includes a reflective analysis of their work relative to their teaching and the assessment of student performance.

x In School Counseling, students demonstrate their expertise as a facilitator of learning by conducting a research project and presenting the findings in a PowerPoint presentation to appropriate stakeholders during their internship, and use technology as an advocacy tool.

x In Child and Adolescent Psychology (EPSY 202), initial teaching candidates are presented with three problem situations that can arise in the classroom. The student has to choose any one of them and explain the problem in terms of the suggested theories of child development. After this, the student has to propose a method for dealing with the problem in the classroom. The students complete this assignment and post it in LiveText.

Students as Members of a Community x Students in Elementary Education 250 are required to teach three different lessons

in a public school setting. They are assigned to classrooms in groups of three. During the semester these three people become close in that they video each other teaching and offer helpful suggestions about their teaching. Later, they show their videos to the entire class. Students offer compliments as well as helpful

72

suggestions with an atmosphere in the class that they are all in this together learning as they go.

x ELED 441 students worked with Wabash Valley child care providers on the “Wabash Valley Quality Improvement Project.” Students demonstrate developmentally appropriate activities at the providers’ home and offered curriculum ideas and resources to child care providers. This is a community collaborative project with the not-for-profit 4-C (Community Coordinated Child Care).

x ELED 225 students engage in a “service learning’ learning activity, “No Bully, Show Respect” with West Vigo Elementary School students. ISU students assist in script writing, role playing, and stage set up.

x In CIMT 350 candidates develop a cultural map (Exhibit 5.01) of a community for a specific county school corporation. They use demographic data for race, ethnicity, health, income, poverty, child birth rates, etc. and then consider a school's ISTEP performance on ASAP data sets and speculate on student performance relative to their social conditions in the community.

x School counselor candidates are required to give parent presentations and community collaboration and referrals.

x In School Business Administration, administration candidates complete a budget with emphasis on the total school program and the connection between what resources are needed to maintain and develop learning programs, while still being aware of the impact on community.

x In ELED 394 - Math Methods, students participate in The Smart Program (Student Mathematics AfteR-School Tutoring Program) with area schools. While giving back to the community, the pre-service teachers will creatively engage all young children while gaining experiential learning opportunities in mathematics in an authentic setting.

Students as Person x In ELED 397 college students tutor an elementary student for about 6 weeks

during the semester and write a Literacy Coaching Report about the experience. Two items to be included in the report are: 1) personal reflections about the college student’s learning from this assignment as it relates to INTASC principles 1, 3, & 6 and 2) reflection of the greatest professional benefit to the college student during the tutoring experience.

x In CIMT 301 all candidates are introduced to teacher professionalism through a review of the appropriate teacher dispositions and each signs a professionalism agreement.

x School counselor candidates give case presentations concerning students from a wide variety of diverse groups and attend four days of professional development conferences per year.

x During the Principal Intern Seminar, issues that pertain to ethical and professional behavior are discussed. One of the activities is to present different scenarios involving legal and ethical issues. The interns are asked to outline the steps they would take to deal with the situation at hand. The focus of the conversation is on the legal, moral, and ethical considerations that need to be made.

73

ISU makes available a standardized form (SIR-II) to collect student evaluations of faculty teaching performance. Faculty are required to have students complete teaching evaluations for at least one course each year. The evaluations in the Exhibit Center demonstrate student perceptions of teaching effectiveness (Exhibit 5.02). The National Survey for Student Engagement (NSSE) also provides important data for the unit in regard to faculty effectiveness in the classroom as compared to students in other fields on campus.

Figure 5 2003 NSSE Results – Exposure to Diverse Perspectives in Classroom

2.57 2.7

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Teacher Candidates

Freshmen

Seniors

Teacher candidates are exposed to more diverse perspectives in class discussions or writing assignments—more so when they are seniors than when they are freshmen, suggesting that diversity in perspective increases as teacher candidates progress through the teacher education program (See Figure 5).

Senior teacher candidates report that they use computers in academic work more than freshman teacher candidates (See Figure 6). This is further evidenced by the technology mini-grants received by COE faculty to enhance their teaching and student learning (Exhibit 5.03). Senior teacher candidates report that they use computing and information technology more often than freshman teacher candidates (See Figure 7).

74

Figure 6 2003 NSSE Results – Use of Computers in Academic Work

3.17 3.32

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Teacher Candidates

Freshmen

Seniors

Figure 7 2003 NSSE Results – Use of Computing and Information Technology in Academics

2.83 3.17

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Teacher Candidates

Freshmen

Seniors

Preliminary analysis of the 2005 administration of the NSSE further points to the Unit’s teaching effectiveness and the degree to which students are engaged in the coursework and learning. Teacher education students are more likely than their campus counterparts ask question and contribute to class discussions, make a class presentation, work with other students on a class project during class, use computers in academic work, and participate in community based project as part of a course (Exhibit 5.04). All of the above work pays dividends in student retention and graduation rates (Exhibit 5.05). For example:

x Over the past four years the COE has either been the leader on campus in student retention rates or second.

75

x The same holds true for graduation rates where again the COE is either first or second campus-wide. Such evidence speaks to the careful structuring of program experiences and the commitment of our students.

Modeling Best Professional Practices in Scholarship

In order to fulfill the responsibilities of the professoriate, the faculty of the COE engage in a broad range of research and scholarship activities. The following is drawn from the Faculty Report of Professional Activities for 2004 which illustrates their commitment to meeting the demands of scholarship. Categories of

Scholarship Activity Numbers of Faculty Engaged in Activity

2004

Books Published 5

Chapters Published 18

Monographs Published

4

Articles Published 57

Presentations Made 165

While these numbers are impressive, they do not portray the full extent of faculty engagement in research and scholarship. This scholarly activity was generated by over 90% of the tenure/tenure-track faculty. Several faculty are also serving as project evaluation specialists and consultants on externally funded projects (Exhibit 5.06). Others serve as consultants to professional associations by serving on accreditation committees (Exhibit 5.07), while still others have fulfilled editor responsibilities for major journals (Exhibit 5.08). It should be noted that a number of the book chapters, articles, and presentations included students as co-authors and/or co-presenters (Exhibit 5.09). Faculty are active also in seeking internal and external funds to support their scholarly agendas (Exhibit 5.10). Again, this activity relates to the quality of the teaching provided by the faculty and their efforts to offer students authentic experiences (See all faculty vita in Exhibit 5.11). Modeling Best Professional Practices in Service

All faculty in the College of Education are expected to participate in service activities at the departmental, college, and university level. The COE is well-represented on academic, faculty governance, and special purpose committees and are a critical component in the future of the institution and have helped formulate institutional review policies, distance education policies, intellectual property policies, notebook institution proposals, information technology strategic direction, sabbatical leave policy, etc. (Exhibit 5.11). Faculty in the College of Education have also been recognized with the University Diversity Award (Exhibit 5.12).

76

Our faculty are also active in service with professional organizations at the state, national, and international level. Faculty have served on conference planning committees, organization boards, and held national office (Exhibit 5.13). COE faculty also pride themselves on the level of their service and work with PPK-12 schools. All of our licensure programs are heavily involved in the schools. A few examples of how faculty and staff continually work with schools include:

x As a technology leader on campus and in the community, the COE has held numerous workshops and experiences on technology integration, both in the schools and at school sites (Exhibit 5.14),

x In 2005, 104 teachers in Indianapolis and Terre Haute participated in a program to become certified mentor teachers for their schools. An additional 60 teachers were certified in 2004 (Exhibit 5.15),

x For 12 years, the Lilly Endowment, Inc. has funded a summer workshop that builds upon the Endowments Teacher Creativity Fellowship Program. The summer workshop works to cultivate a potential network of untapped change agents for Indiana schools and focuses on collaboration, networking, and teacher renewal. Over its lifespan, the summer workshop and related activities have impacted approximately 300 teachers across Indiana (Exhibit 5.16). An addition to that grant project brings Lilly Fellows in for a week for their own professional development and to work with preservice teachers (Exhibit 5.17),

x Faculty serve as external evaluators for a Smaller Learning Communities Grant for two area high schools. The program, entitled Project GEMS, contains Goals to Enhance the Mind and the Spirit of all freshmen. The purpose of this program is to support the planning, implementation, or expansion of small, safe, and successful learning environments in large public high schools. The program has four implementation strategies: (1) rigorous and challenging curriculum; (2) research-based instructional strategies; (3) Link Crew Mentoring Program; and (4) Freshman Career and Communication Center (Exhibit 5.18; Exhibit 5.19),

x As part of a “Writing Through the Arts” grant, faculty in EESE show teachers in PDS sites how incorporation of the arts into the curriculum can enhance writing activities (Exhibit 5.20; Exhibit 5.21), The purpose of the "Writing Through the Arts" grant awarded by the Indiana Commission for Higher Education is to develop teachers’ ability to develop the writing skills of students to ultimately improve ISTEP and SAT scores. Elementary and middle school teachers from VCSC and IPS took part in the eight-day workshop. The workshop on teachers focused on using the arts to develop student writing skills. Middle school principals from VCSC also attended a workshop for principals. This workshop focused on the supervision of language arts programs,

x Math Teacher Academy workshops were offered to 93 teachers in the Professional Development Schools from the Terre Haute and Indianapolis areas in 2004-05. As part of the challenge to meet new Indiana Academic Standards with the ISTEP+, teachers were offered content and concepts to help students meet mathematics standards and prepare them for more advanced content required for graduation. The titles of the workshops were as follows: Geometry for Grades 3-5, Algebra for Grades 7-10, Geometry for Grades K-2, and Number Sense for Grades 6- 8 (Exhibit 5.22), and

77

x The Developing Leader Institute was offered to principals from the twenty Professional Development Schools partnered with Indiana State University. Five leadership meetings were held in 2003-04 with 17 principals from 14 schools in attendance, and 15 principals in 2004-05. Principals with more than three years of experience enhanced their leadership skills through discussions, lectures, and resource materials (Exhibit 5.23).

Through its clinics and centers, the COE is also an active contributor to the quality of life in the community. For example, in 2004-05, the Porter School Psychology Center provided 200 hours of student delivered assessment and consultation services to children and their families; students engaged in Project READ provided 413 hours of intervention for children and youth experiencing reading difficulties; and, local Head Start, Reading First grant applications, Gibault School, and the Vigo County Schools received over 3000 hours of assessment and consultation services. The Rowe Center for Communicative Disorders had 124 student clinicians who provided 2,760 student led therapy sessions resulting in over 2,300 hours of speech and hearing therapy for 138 members of the community. Nine student clinicians provided off-campus services in hospitals and nursing homes, while another 11 graduate students served 13 week placements in hospitals across the state. The Blumberg Center continues to provide excellent outreach services to schools and agencies across the state, involving faculty and students in valuable activities to extend learning and affording opportunities to participate in research and service activities. The Blumberg Center this past year received a total of $1,537,092 from state and federal grants and contracts. These funds promote services to children and youth with special needs, as well as provide service to those who teach them and their families. Center activities include a statewide deafblind service for educators and families, a distance education program for teachers of students who are blind or have low vision, and professional development for school-based teams, such as grade level teams, general education intervention teams, and case conference committees, to support the development and evaluation of instructional and intervention plans. The Center is initiating two new projects. One new project addresses the shortage and training of teachers of students who are deaf or hard of hearing as well as educational interpreters. Also in the pilot stages is a project designed to improve the utilization of assessment data for intervention design, evaluation, and monitoring of student progress. This project will support teachers, student support specialists including school psychologists, and administrators while also incorporating meaningful family involvement (Exhibit 5.24). The Center continues to collaborate with other state universities for development, implementation, and evaluation of projects. The Blumberg Center continues to provide training programs for educators across the state reaching 2,409 teachers and 1,006 school personnel, administrators, and families. In addition, Center staff engaged 259 higher education students from both Indiana State University and other state universities in trainings and workshops during the 2004-05 academic year. Collaboration

Professional education colleagues from across campus are an integral part of our effective delivery of the educator preparation program. The Project PRE grant recognizes this important element of the tripartite, but this collaboration existed before the grant, particularly between the CIMT department and the content areas that jointly prepare the All-school settings and secondary education programs. Program revisions and student assessments have been jointly

78

designed and modified by faculty, and content faculty participate in supervision (Exhibits 5.25 & 5.26). The Professional Development Schools Partnership continues its tradition of simultaneously enhancing the learning of the children and youth attending the partners’ schools and impacting the preparation and continued development of those who teach them. PDS liaisons serve in all sites and are represented not only in the COE, but also other programs across campus. The focus of PDS activities is upon continued professional development and school improvement initiatives of partner schools. For example, the PDS Steering Council elicits a call for action research and school improvement proposals every year that are funded through university and grant funds (Exhibit 5.27; Exhibit 5.28; Exhibit 5.29). Not only is the PDS an indicator of effective collaboration, but it also serves as a catalyst for collaboration beyond the original work with 20 schools. Several projects between the College of Education and other academic units have served to strengthen the work of preparing future educators. The University was a charter member of Project 30 (Exhibit 5.30), the only national organization bringing together faculty in the College of Arts and Science with faculty in Education with the sole purpose of improving teacher education. Recent grant activities include a grant from the Indiana Commission for Higher Education awarded to the University in the spring of 2003 involving faculty from the Department of Mathematics and Computer Science collaborating with faculty from Elementary Education (Exhibit 5.31). Professional development will be provided for teachers of grades 4, 5, and 6 in understanding algebraic concepts and unique teaching strategies designed to enhance high-need youngsters’ mathematics achievement. Following on the heels of the national recognition received last year when the Partnership was awarded one of three Christa McAuliffe Awards for Distinguished Programs in Teacher Education by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (Exhibit 5.32), the Partnership was a major ingredient in the formation of a successful Title II, Teacher Quality Enhancement Partnership grant from the U.S. DOE for $3.9M over the next five years (Exhibit 5.33). Project PRE would not have been possible were it not for the collaborative environment that exists between the COE and other units on campus. Within Project PRE, the College of Arts and Sciences (COAS) is an equal partner in the activities of the grant. Along with the Center for Teaching and Learning, COAS strongly supports and coordinates the Institutes for Transforming Teacher Education (ITTE) (Exhibit 5.34). These seminars focus on developing inquiry-based learning environments in teacher and general education coursework. Case teaching and problem-based learning approaches are emphasized (Exhibit 5.35). This past year marked another expansion in the outreach and engagement activities of the faculty in the COE. We continue to serve as the home to the North Central Association – Commission for School Improvement (NCA-CASI) for the State of Indiana. This accrediting body now serves over 900 schools in the state. This partnership once again co-sponsored a statewide conference in school improvement in Indianapolis drawing over 400 practitioners to join together to learn of research-based approaches to school improvement (Exhibit 5.36). Many faculty from across campus contributed presentations at the conference.

79

Whether it is as a member of departmental or college committees, or as the PDS tripartite involved in educator preparation, colleagues in the PPK-12 schools are a critical element in all of our programs. A couple vignettes provide an illustration of how that collaboration directly impacts university and PPK-12 student learning.

x Students in the elementary education program are in teams during a class session reviewing their final plans for an early field experience in a partner elementary school. Each team of students will assume teaching responsibilities of mathematics in classrooms in a partner school for the following week. The students have been working with graphing calculators and planning lessons for the use of these teaching tools for various grade levels. The faculty member in charge of the class has worked closely with site faculty so that the lessons being planned by the college students will fit the natural flow of the classroom instruction and contribute to needed learning of the children. During the implementation of the experience the University faculty member observes the ISU students with the host teachers and provides needed feedback to the students as plans are altered based on classroom actions and assessments.

x A student teacher in a partner middle school, the school supervisor, and the University supervisor are meeting to discuss the progress of the student teacher. He has been in the classroom for the past four weeks and has assumed increasing levels of responsibility for the multiple classes of the host school supervisor. The purpose of this meeting is to review performance of the student teacher over the last few weeks of teaching and to begin work on the Unit Report, a teacher work sample, required as part of this experience. In the unit report the student will be required to describe the classroom that will serve as his work sample, noting the characteristics of the students, the intent of his instruction, and how it will be assessed. Such work will call for him to put into practice the full range of knowledge he has acquired in his course work, putting that knowledge into action, and make numerous decisions in rapid succession as he implements his work. He will be required to monitor student progress and will analyze work submitted by the students making needed adjustments based on the analysis. In short, he will be required to behave as a reflective professional. All the while he will be in discussions with his host school supervisor who has completed a mentor teacher preparation workshop sponsored by the University. This experience has helped her understand the nature of this reflective process required by our teacher education program. But most importantly, the student teacher will grow in his abilities to function as a professional educator.

Unit Evaluation of Professional Education Faculty Performance

In April of 2001, the COE Congress approved as policy a new set of policies and procedures for reappointment, promotion, and tenure (RPT) (Exhibit 5.37). The new policy capped off several years of work by committees on analyzing the role of the professoriate in a professional school (Exhibit 5.38; Exhibit 5.39), and was completed to be aligned with new university handbook procedures for RPT (Exhibit 5.40). The new policies ensure regular and systematic evaluation by multiple sources for all pre-tenure faculty. On an annual basis, pre-tenure faculty are given feedback by a departmental committee, the department chair, and the Dean, regarding performance on teaching, scholarship, and service. Each pre-tenure faculty member also meets with department chairs and the Dean individually to discuss the results of the evaluations and to cooperatively set goals for the next year to continue to ensure satisfactory performance. With the

80

new set of procedures, the college-level committee also reviews materials in third-year evaluations. This detailed level of feedback and evaluation gives a pre-tenure faculty member strong feedback to assess satisfactory progress. Only one faculty has failed to achieve promotion and tenure since these procedures began in 2001. While the University does not have a formal system of post-tenure review, there are a number of annual opportunities for post-tenure faculty to participate in and receive evaluation of teaching, scholarship, and service performance from administrators and colleagues. Faculty are required to submit a yearly report on professional activities (Exhibit 5.41). This report is done online every January and the data are used to develop departmental, college, and university information about faculty productivity and work. This faculty report also serves as a basis for pay for performance increases in the years that those are available. Unit Facilitation of Professional Development

Faculty development is important to the COE and is facilitated and encouraged in a number of ways. Pre-tenure faculty are invited to participate in junior faculty meetings where all junior faculty members meet together to discuss issues related to teaching, research, service, and simply how to navigate higher education. When necessary, invited guests talk with the junior faculty, or if necessary, the junior faculty are invited to network without administrative intrusion. These opportunities provide important connections for pre-tenure faculty. Faculty are also required to provide information about workshops and conferences attended for professional development on the annual faculty report mentioned above. Academic Affairs makes available through departmental budgets approximately $400 per year for each tenure/tenure-track faculty for professional travel. However, through departmental travel policies (Exhibit 5.42), departments have leeway in the distribution of these funds. For example, if a faculty member is able to use all grant funds to support travel, his/her dollars are made available to other faculty according to the departmental policy. This flexibility allows departments to focus on areas of need within the department and among the faculty. The COE also provides professional development opportunities for faculty. The Reitzel Faculty Research Award (Exhibit 5.43 Exhibit 5.44) recognizes past noteworthy research and provides a monetary award as part of its recognition, the Holmstedt Professorship honors established faculty with resources for a research project, and the Coffman award honors the full career of contribution to the institution. Technology training is available through the COE IITS (Exhibit 5.45), and through the University’s IRTS (Exhibit 5.46). The University is also fortunate to have the Center for Teaching and Learning. It provides for faculty a myriad of professional development opportunities that range from ongoing orientation for new faculty to distance learning training (Exhibit 5.47). The COE also provides special professional development activities related to needs that have arisen through data analysis (e.g., the Diversity Summit, Exhibit 5.48), regular presentation venues such as the Willey Colloquium Series (Exhibit 5.49) and the Van Til Lecture (Exhibit 5.50), or invited speakers by departments and programs (Exhibit 5.51).

81

STANDARD 6: UNIT GOVERNANCE AND RESOURCES The unit has the leadership, authority, budget, personnel, facilities, and resources including information technology resources, for the preparation of candidates to meet professional, state, and institutional standards. Unit Leadership and Authority

Educator preparation at Indiana State University enjoys a university-wide commitment. This unique commitment to quality educator preparation is exemplified in the University’s history, recent activities, and future plans. Created in 1865 as the Indiana State Normal School, the University began with the primary mission of “the preparation of teachers for teaching in the common schools of Indiana.” Over the 140-year existence of the University, a rich and honored tradition of teacher preparation has been at the core of its work. When the college was reorganized as a university in 1965, educator preparation continued to be a major commitment of the university. The College of Education is the official teacher education unit of the University. Primary responsibility for educator preparation programs and the administrative responsibility, coordination, and accountability for the programs rests with the Dean of the College of Education (Exhibit 6.01). The Dean is advised by the Teacher Education Committee (TEC), composed of faculty representative of the professional teacher education faculty across campus, including the College of Education, alumni of educator preparation programs, and students preparing for professional educator careers (Exhibit 6.02). The TEC has overall responsibility to assist in the development, approval, and coordination of both new policies and programs and changes in existing policies and programs related to educator preparation. All matters in the province of educator preparation regardless of the administrative home of the department and program require approval by the TEC and action by the Dean of the College of Education. In this way, the unit has the leadership and authority to plan, deliver, and operate coherent programs of study at Indiana State University. Program changes and proposals for new courses or programs are initiated by faculty members in the various departments with programs in educator preparation. The Curriculum Approval Procedures Manual (CAPS Manual) details the process on how to prepare an approved course syllabus for educator licensure courses (Exhibit 6.03). Departmental committees or committees-of-the-whole have the responsibility for reviewing and making recommendations concerning new courses, programs, and revisions of programs. Also, interdepartmental committees may initiate new programs or program revisions. The department chairperson and the department faculty members review the proposal and forward it to the Dean of the College of Education or of the appropriate college, whereupon it is reviewed by the college-level curriculum approval committee, in the case of the COE, that is the COE Congress. Once fully approved at the college level, the proposal is shared with the TEC for its review and approval and the Dean does the same. If both parties approve, the proposal is forwarded on through the University’s review process as stipulated in the Curriculum Approval Procedures Manual for Undergraduate and Graduate Courses and Programs. If a proposal is not approved at the TEC and Dean’s level it is returned to the department for revision. This procedure is followed for all program revisions

82

impacting educator preparation programs regardless of the administrative home for the department and is fully described in the CAPS Manual as policy for the University. The unit and its professional education faculty members, through a number of bodies, discharges its authority for managing, coordinating, and making decisions covering a wide variety of topics and concerns which impact professional education matters. These range from curricular issues to organizational concerns and on to personnel procedures and policies. Examination of the minutes of the Teacher Education Committee (Exhibit 6.04) for the 2003-2005 period illustrates a sampling of topics, such as:

x Praxis II Requirement for Graduation x NCATE Conceptual Framework Sub-Committee Report x Rules 2002 Licenses and Minors x Data from Service Courses to Programs x Discussion and Action on Student Tracking of Standards x CIMT – Teacher Education Dispositions x Program Proposal – Revision in EESE Program

A sampling of topics considered by the College of Education Congress (Exhibit 6.05) during the 2000-2005 period shows topics including:

x Presentation – Conceptual Framework x Changes in Elementary Education Program x Budget Presentation and Review, 2003 x Revision of COE Constitution x Revision of PTR Document x Discussion of Executive Committee Powers

Examination of the minutes of the College of Education Administrative Council (Exhibit 6.06) shows topics such as the following:

x Budget Report and Presentation x Staffing for 2004-05 x Faculty Positions and Priorities x Graduate Assistantships and Fee Waivers – Allocation to COE x Planning for the Diversity Summit x Travel Policy and S&E Budgets

The above listings provide only a small sampling of the many topics considered by these bodies as they explored and acted upon issues basic to the management and coordination of the professional educator preparation programs for which the unit has ultimate responsibility. Admission requirements and regulations for undergraduates are outlined in the Undergraduate Catalog on pages 8-11 (Exhibit 6.07). The information is also available online through the Admissions Office Web site at http://www.indstate.edu/join_us/fradmreq.htm. This Web site can

http://www.indstate.edu/join_us/fradmreq.htm

83

also be accessed through the Indiana State University home page, which has links on the College of Education Web and is also available through each department Web site. Recruiting of students is typically handled through the Admissions Office. Staff and faculty also participate in Sycamore Preview, which is a program for prospective students. These events are designed as either general programs or programs especially for underrepresented students. Also, faculty and staff are involved in a program called Presenting ISU, which travels to common feeder two-year institutions to provide information about available programs and course applicability. The staff and faculty work with these transfer students in order to make their transition to Indiana State smoother. Staff and faculty travel to other events as requested, typically by the Admissions Office as well as other offices on campus. The Student-to-Student office commonly schedules individual appointments for prospective students with program faculty or professional advisors, and the Intercollegiate Athletics staff will frequently schedule similar appointments for prospective student-athletes. Admission policies and requirements for graduate students are described in the Graduate Catalog (Exhibit 6.08) on pages 11-16. This information is also available through the Graduate Office Web site at http://www.indstate.edu/sogs/. This site is available through links on all Web sites within the College of Education. Academic calendars are maintained by the Office of the Registrar. A link to that site is available from all Web sites from within the College of Education. A link to the calendar is also available from the Education Student Services Web page. Catalogs and publications are reviewed by the Associate Dean and the Student Services Office to ensure alignment with program approval documentation. Catalog copy is reviewed as requested. Those requests typically come from Associate Deans within the academic units with whom the College of Education partners, i.e. Arts and Sciences, Health and Human Performance, Technology, Business, and the Graduate School. The Dean’s Office and the Education Student Services office typically advise, as requested, on advertising of programs related to university publications from the department level to the University-wide level. Grading policies for individual courses are determined by the course instructor and are provided to the student as part of the syllabus content at the beginning of each class. Should students wish to appeal a grade, the request would first go through the instructor who would then direct them to additional levels of appeal. Information on grade appeal can be found at http://www.indstate.edu/st-aff/parents/faq.htm as well as from the students’ academic advisors and department chairpersons. Each undergraduate student who enters Indiana State University and declares an interest in an education major are first evaluated and oriented through the Education Student Services Office (ESS). All new students participate in Sycamore Advantage (Exhibit 6.09) or Sycamore Transfer Advantage, the orientation program presented each summer. The students and their parents participate in an overall university orientation, and students then meet individually with advisors

http://www.indstate.edu/sogs/

http://www.indstate.edu/st-aff/parents/faq.htm

84

within the College of Education. Student are provided with schedules during their advisor meeting, and the advisors review the student’s program of interest and the requirements for successful completion of that program. Additionally, advisors discuss university resources that are available and the student is given contact information for any questions she or he may have later. Students unable to attend Sycamore Advantage have scheduled appointments with ESS staff to cover the material that would normally take place during Sycamore Advantage. Once students are enrolled at ISU, the ESS office continues to provide an advisor until the student is admitted into the Teacher Education Program (TEP). This milestone usually occurs during the student’s second year. TEP admission occurs after the student passes the Praxis I test, has a 2.5 overall GPA, and has a “C” or better in all professional development courses. A student will then fill out the appropriate form to be considered for admission to TEP. These forms are given to students each semester during their Education Psychology 202 course. A representative for the Education Student Services Office attends each section of EPSY 202 to provide information about TEP and hand out forms to students. All students pursuing a teaching certification are required to take EPSY 202 early in their program. The exception is transfer students who are given TEP information when they meet with their advisor upon admission to the University. Early Childhood Education and Speech Language Pathology majors are not required to take EPSY 202, so the initial contact for TEP information with those students is arranged by ESS through the department faculty. EPSY 202 is often the first contact ESS has with students enrolled in other units and who are pursing licenses in secondary or all grade education (Exhibit 6.10). This contact gives staff an opportunity to discuss the role of ESS and offer additional contact information, and information about scholarship and other support (Exhibit 6.11). It is important to note that those students who have majors outside the College of Education but who are seeking teaching certification are advised in their individual departments. These departments have representatives on the Teacher Education Committee who are responsible for forwarding any new information to those advisors. Non-College of Education advisors also have access to College of Education advisors for questions involving individual students or situations. This close collaboration is also a point of pride for programs located outside the COE (Exhibit 6.12). All undergraduate teaching major students also have access to their own Degree Audit Report System (DARS) through their personal MyISU Portal account (Exhibit 6.13). The DARS provides a “live” look at all program and testing requirements for their chosen program of study. The DARS would allow any student on campus to examine the requirements of any program available on campus and check the applicability of their course work against those requirements. Information about Praxis testing requirements and TEP criteria are also included in the DARS. Graduate students enter the College of Education as either master’s degree seeking students or certification only or renewal only students. Students who declare they are seeking a master’s degree are advised through the department into which they are accepted. All other students are advised through the Education Student Services Office, which provides certification and renewal information through one-on-one advising sessions (Exhibit 6.14). Table 32 shows the evaluations from student teachers on the Unit’s general performance, including Education Student Services. Full trend data for all years is available in Exhibit 6.15.

85

Table 32

Student Teacher Response Survey 2002-2004: Unit Performance Data

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Q24: General preparation rating 180 1 4 3.21* .796 Q25: Assistance for student

teaching placements 179 1 4 3.08 .831

Q26: Assistance from faculty in College of Education

180 1 4 3.02 .829

Q27: Assistance from faculty advisors

180 1 4 3.12 .882

Q28: Assistance from Office of Educational Student Services

177 1 4 2.86 .871

Q29: Assistance received from university supervisor for student teaching

180 1 4 3.30* .903

Q30: Mentoring received from host teacher in field

179 1 4 3.65* .603

Q31: General assistance rating10

55

2 4 3.50* .601

Valid N (listwise) 55 On a scale of four. * Median = 4 In the summer of 1991, the College of Education at Indiana State University and four area school districts began a yearlong series of conversations focused on developing a plan for a school-university partnership. By the spring of 1992, the discussions had led to the development of a concept paper for a Professional Development Schools (PDS) partnership, created a policies and guidelines document, promoted a signed formal agreement, and recruited ten schools within the four school districts to serve as the initial cadre of PDS sites. But most importantly, the partnership had crafted a vision for itself that was rooted in the overall purpose of linking renewal in schools to renewal in educator preparation. Today, the Indiana State University Professional Development School (ISU PDS) partnership is shaped by the diversity of the students, schools, and school districts involved (Exhibit 6.16). In 1992, it began with ten schools (five elementary, one middle, and four high schools) in four school districts in west central Indiana. In 1994-1995, five public schools in Indianapolis were added. Then in 1997 a middle school from Vigo County Schools was added bringing the total to 16 PDS sites in five school districts. In May 2000 four additional elementary schools in the Vigo County Schools district were added to the partnership bringing the total schools to 20. The current configuration of rural and urban sites covers all grade levels and includes high percentages of students facing conditions of poverty. The urban sites, in particular, offer

10 This question was recently included on the survey

86

preservice professional education candidates many opportunities to work with children and youth of highly diverse cultural backgrounds. This nationally recognized partnership – the ISU PDS Partnership was awarded the American Association of State Colleges and Universities’ Christa McAuliffe Award for Distinguished Programs in Teacher Education in 2002 – has become a powerful engine driving simultaneous renewal at both the schools and the University (Exhibit 6.17). The collaborative model employed by the Partnership has brought PPK-12 teachers and administrators together with University faculty and administrators to address program design, implementation, and evaluation across the P-16 continuum. The Partnership has also secured significant resources to support program design, implementation, and evaluation. Through a series of grants from the Indiana Department of Education (Educate Indiana Partnership Grants were supported by federal flow-through dollars), the PDS Partnership provided modest resources to all educator preparation programs at the University to support PPK-12 and University faculty collaboration aligning standards for PPK-12 with standards for higher education over a number of years (Exhibit 6.18). Substitute teachers were hired allowing regular full-time clinical faculty in schools to meet for extended periods of time with University colleagues in content and pedagogical departments and money was made available to support evening and weekend meetings. Grants from the Indiana Professional Standards Board (U.S. DOE Title II support) extended this work with a focus on the development of performance assessment instruments and the preparation of clinical faculty to utilize these instruments in school settings (Exhibit 6.19; Exhibit 6.20; Exhibit 6.21; Exhibit 6.22) among other activities. Today, Project PRE, a U.S. DOE Title II Teacher Quality Enhancement Partnership Grant, continues the collaborative work of the Partnership by bringing the tripartite of educator preparation – content area experts, professional practice experts in schools, and pedagogical experts in the COE - together to promote program design, implementation, and assessment across the P-16 continuum. Task forces composed of content area specialists, school-based clinical faculty, and pedagogical specialists have developed preliminary plans for major program renewal in teacher preparation. Additionally, a third task force has advanced a modified administrative structure – the Center of Pedagogy – that will serve as both a place and a concept for the collaborative work of continuous improvement in teacher education from preservice, through induction, and into continued professional growth (Exhibit 6.23; Exhibit 6.24). The unit, as described above, has multiple mechanisms to engage and promote collaboration of faculty from across campus who are involved in the education programs (Exhibit 6.25). Membership on one or more of the major coordinating committees, such as the Teacher Education Committee, College of Education Congress, and the PDS Steering Committee, provide points of contact, as do programmatic advisory committees. Engagement in the professional learning communities (PLC) supported by Project PRE is fast becoming a powerful mechanism to promote collaboration. These PLCs bring interdisciplinary faculty together around a content interdisciplinary theme to promote more active forms of pedagogy, i.e. project based learning, case study strategies, action research, etc. Grant development and implementation offer multiple opportunities for collaboration.

87

Unit Budget In recent years, the overall budget of the College of Education has been sufficient to provide sound support for quality educator preparation programs. Additionally, the budget has been supported consistently within the Academic Affairs area of the University showing commitment of the University for educator preparation programs. The following table presents data over a five year period from AY 1999-00 to AY 2003-04 for the expenditures in the operating budget, student credits hours generated, and number of tenure and tenure-track faculty for the University and the College of Education. Individual departmental budgets/profiles are available in Exhibit

Table 33

Operating Budget, Student Credit Hours Generated, and Numbers of Tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty for the University and COE for

AY 1999-00 through AY 2003-04

Variable/Unit 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 Expenditures/U $45,431,114 $47,378,175 $48,775,773 $48,788,323 $49,671,993 Expenditures/COE $ 6,261,524 $ 6,435,745 $ 6,841,308 $ 6,740,579 $ 6,716,205 Percent COE 13.7% 13.5% 14.0% 13.8% 13.5% SCH/U 281,364 287,702 295,981 304,376 299,162 SCH/COE 28,839 28,131 28,310 30,363 30,747 Percent COE 10.2% 9.7% 9.5% 9.9% 10.2% T&TT/U 446 453 445 418 422 T&TT/COE 66 67 66 60 57 Percent COE 14.7% 14.7% 14.8% 14.3% 13.5% Funds for the payment of supervision of clinical field experiences by school-based clinical faculty and travel of University clinical faculty have increased over the past few years as more emphasis is placed on experiential learning at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. The following table presents costs for clinical faculty stipends and travel of University supervisors over the past three years. All costs are covered from the operational budget of departments and the PDS Partnership.

88

Table 34 Clinical Faculty Stipends and University Supervisor

Travel Costs at the Undergraduate and Graduate Level AY 2002-03 through AY 2004-05

Level AY 02-03 AY 03-04 AY 04-05 Undergraduate $83,449.11 $102,047.38 $104,748.85 Graduate $9,198.08 $9,003.27 $9,179.59 TOTAL $92,647.19 $111,050.65 $113,928.44 Funds for supplies, equipment, and to a more limited extent, professional travel have enabled programs and faculty activities to continue to function at productive levels (Exhibit 6.26). The University has, however, been confronted with growing fiscal challenges and reductions in operating budgets to serve its needs. The College maintains an active educational technology program and has required considerable funds for the supervision of student teachers. As is the case nationwide, the state economy has provided some budget challenges. Most recently, budget reductions and an increase in mileage costs for supervision have been of concern. Funding to cover coursework and clinical work has been adequate, though not plentiful. The fiscal challenges and University response has led to budget reductions, most notably resulting in elimination of new hires and departmental budget reductions. At this time, concerns include a) the change of travel allotments from 26 cents per mile to 40.5 cents per mile, b) the change in teacher supervision policies that this travel increase has necessitated, and c) the reduction in teaching materials and supplies that are resulting from the current fiscal situation. The COE has been highly successful at obtaining different revenue streams to support activities (Exhibit 6.27) and support for student scholarships and departmental discretionary dollars (Exhibit 6.28). Personnel The ISU Faculty Handbook states that a normal teaching load will be 12 semester credit hours of course work per semester (Exhibit 6.29). COE Congress policies indicate that a reduced teaching load is possible for faculty who apply for a reduced load in order to meet a specific research objective (Exhibit 6.30). In reality, graduate programs for the most part practice a nine credit hour workload and factor supervision into that workload. When possible, the undergraduate programs provide a reduced workload in at least one semester per academic year, and also factor supervision into the workload. Distance education delivery is considered to carry the same course load as face-to-face courses, and is not done on overload, based on recommendations by the President’s Blue Ribbon Panel on Distance Education (Exhibit 6.31), and in line with AAUP policies. New faculty are given reduced workloads to help with transition to new positions and new courses. EESE does not require advising in the first year for new faculty to ensure that new faculty advisors are adequately trained and have adjusted to the institution. Faculty members who serve as PDS liaisons receive a .25 FTE reassignment of their time to perform this important outreach service. Faculty workloads may also include administrative assignments to perform specific duties for programs and the department.

89

Specific workloads are monitored each semester and departments are required to submit reports detailing faculty deployment, as well as that of temporary fulltime and adjunct faculty and graduate assistants (Exhibit 6.32; Exhibit 6.33). As can be seen from the reports no faculty member is given a workload that exceeds the equivalent of 12 semester hours per semester. Further, faculty members are provided reassigned time for research and service assignments such as working in partner schools.

Table 35 Supervisory Loads for Student Teachers

CIMT EESE FTE # of Student

Teachers Ratio FTE # of Student

Teachers Ratio

2002-03 11.16 181 16.20 7 120 17.10 2003-04 10.07 163 16.18 7 133 19.00 2004-05 7.32 131 17.89 8 142 17.75 Although several professors are assigned less than 12 hours for supervision, their supervisory loads are equated on the basis of 1.5 student teaching candidates per credit hour. Due to logistical considerations, it is sometimes necessary to increase or decrease the load slightly, but the variation is small and the overall ration is maintained. A point of pride at Indiana State University is that courses are predominantly taught by tenure-track faculty. Adjunct instructors, temporary full-time faculty, and graduate students are employed as necessary for instruction of courses. When circumstances create the need for utilizing these resources, chairpersons make the appointments after careful review of the person’s education and experience. Graduate students who are assigned to teach must have appropriate course work and, if applicable, experiences which contribute to their effectiveness as instructors. Graduate students are supervised by faculty members who also teach or have taught the same course. Part-time faculty are also appointed only if they have appropriate credentials. This usually includes the doctoral degree, ABD status, or extensive, successful experience in their specialty. In the instance that they are assigned to a graduate course, they must be eligible for temporary graduate faculty status and approval must be granted by the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies. It should be noted that these individuals play an important role in advancing the work of the professional unit. Strategic employment of these individuals contributes to the integrity and coherence of the unit as a whole, augmenting the expertise of tenure-track faculty who lead the unit. Each department within the unit has at least one support staff person with most having two. All other offices have adequate support staff to meet their program demands. Additional support staff members are often employed with external dollars to meet the demands of external grant and contract activity. The College of Education strives to provide professional development opportunities to faculty and staff, as well as resources and support for scholarly activities (Exhibit 6.34). Frequent presentations from visiting scholars are provided, though not typically heavily attended.

90

Resources for faculty professional development, including limited funds for attendance of professional meetings are also made available. Further, opportunities to advance technical or pedagogical knowledge are frequently provided across the University. Unit Facilities

The College of Education building, occupied by the unit since 1977, has proven to be a functional home for the faculty, staff, and students. This fifteen story building along with partner schools’ classrooms, clinics and offices have provided the facilities needed to conduct the many programs offered by the unit. For the most part within the COE building, general purpose classrooms are found in the basement and on the first three floors. The first floor also contains the Instructional and Information Technology Services office and three computer laboratories. The building is wireless and with moveable computer carts any classroom within the building can serve as a computer laboratory. Further, 16 of the 21 available classrooms are fully equipped as “technology-enhanced” classrooms, allowing instructors to make use of a wide variety of presentation tools during classroom instruction. All faculty have keys that will access the media cabinets. In addition to the classrooms, the second floor contains the Office of Education Students Services. The remainder of the building, with the exception of the 11th floor, contains department offices, offices for special programs, offices for faculty and graduate students, and clinical and laboratory facilities. Each floor also contains a seminar or conference room which tends to be assigned to the department occupying that floor. Our general policy has been to house department faculty on the same or adjacent floors so as to promote communication, interaction, and efficient use of support staff resources within departments. Each full-time faculty member has a private office, equipped with the usual office furniture, a phone, and a desk top computer. For the last two years, new faculty have received a laptop and docking station as the computer equipment. This flexible arrangement permits faculty to utilize the laptop in the “smart classrooms” and to carry the laptop throughout the building, across campus, and off campus for a variety of tasks. No computer in any faculty office is older than three years. Graduate students share office space and many have phone service and computers supplied by the COE. The eleventh floor contains the offices of the Dean and Associate Deans, development officer, and support staff. In addition a large and a small conference room, suitable for public meetings, are available, as well as the COE Lounge. Scattered throughout the remainder of the building are special project offices and clinics that support the work of the faculty and programs. These include the Blumberg Center, the Rowe Center for Communicative Disorders, the Porter School Psychology Center, the offices of the North Central Association for Indiana, and the Indiana Special Education Administrators’ Services. Facilities for the unit will change, however. After two years of intense planning, the Indiana General Assembly has authorized the renovation of University Hall into the new home of the College of Education (Exhibit 6.35). The $30M renovation is designed to enhance interactions between faculty and students, students and students, and faculty and faculty. The building will be wireless with cutting-edge technology that will permit distance delivery of courses and

91

programs, as well as internal and external video conferencing. A comprehensive clinic will provide full-service to children, youth and their families and will provide exceptional learning environments for future educators. It is anticipated that the COE will occupy the building at the beginning of the 2007 academic year. Unit Resources including Technology All issues related to the allocation of budget and other resources are taken to the Administrative Council and discussed at that time. On an annual basis, allocation of dollars for new hires are decided cooperatively within Administrative Council, with consultation from Congress. Additionally, the unit has been supported for assistance to work on unit-specific needs such as the unit assessment system and data analysis. For example, during initial development of the UAS, and prior to adoption of LiveText, temporary funds were made available for a technical person as we attempted to create our own management information system (MIS). When that was determined to not be feasible, the institution supported our move to LiveText, and further has provided support through a full-time staff member in OIT dedicated to LiveText implementation and training, as well partial assignment of duty to the COE of the University Director of Assessment. The COE operates with an Information Technology Advisory Committee (Exhibit 6.36) which is a faculty committee that provides guidelines for faculty competencies, recommendations for student technology standards, and manages the allocation of new technology purchases and requests. ITAC also maintains the COE’s Technology Plan which (Exhibit 6.37) provides direction for future purchases and the most efficient allocation of technology resources. ITAC and the Director of IITS work to ensure that all areas have adequate technology resources, even those that may not have made requests. To support our high level of technology integration, technology resources are made readily available to our faculty and candidates. The College of Education has a Director of Instructional and Informational Technology Services (Exhibit 6.38). This group has the specific mission to facilitate the utilization of technology by faculty, staff, and students within the College of Education, and after implementation of the recent PT3 grant, to teacher education faculty across the institution as well as in our partner schools. IITS operates a multimedia lab (Exhibit 6.39) that is available for occasional class use and graduate courses. It additionally functions as a drop-in lab where students can obtain LiveText, video editing, digital image, and other software assistance. IITS offers training opportunities on the media-friendly classrooms as well as the technology that is made available to all faculty (i.e. handheld computers, laptop carts, Tablet PC’s, etc.). Through IITS, candidates and faculty can check out wireless laptops, digital video and still cameras, AlphaSmarts, Tablet PC’s, projectors, and handheld computers for use in the classroom and field (Exhibit 6.40). IITS operates in close cooperation with the University Office of Information Technology (OIT). IITS works with OIT to coordinate purchases for labs, faculty, and staff. Annually, OIT provides budgetary dollars for the purchases of faculty machines. ITAC works with staff of OIT and IITS to maximize these dollars to meet needs and ensure continual renewal of computing resources on desks and within classrooms. The COE computing inventory (Exhibit 6.41) shows that no

92

faculty member has a desktop machine older than 3 years old (unless they have requested to keep it), and there are no machines over 5 years old in the building that are still actively used. We have also worked to use these monies to leverage initiatives present and planned in the Unit, e.g. all new faculty computers have moved to wireless laptop and docking stations to prepare for a move to a laptop requirement either for the institution, or within the unit. Another example is the 2001 handheld computing initiative which strove to put palm computing in the hands of every faculty member and make available a classroom set (Exhibit 6.42). OIT also provides tremendous resources to our faculty and candidates. They provide preferential scheduling of the PC computing lab and maintained a Mac lab as long as needed by the Unit, and have converted it to a multimedia lab to assist with our development of electronic documentation of performance (Exhibit 6.43). Beyond the labs in the building, faculty are able to schedule any other available lab on campus and students are able to work in all labs. With the addition in 2004 of a campus-wide wireless network, any place can easily become a computer lab. Students pay a $52 per semester technology fee (Exhibit 6.44; Exhibit 6.45).This money goes to support resources directly related to student needs and through the Microsoft campus agreement, the Microsoft family of software is available free to students, and at nominal cost to faculty. Finally, OIT provides staff resources to faculty and candidates in the Unit to specifically address technology-related needs and concerns. Instructional and Research Technology Services (IRTS) serves as a unit of OIT and focuses on pedagogical and research applications of education (Exhibit 6.46; Exhibit 6.47). Through IRTS, a full-time staff member has been dedicated to work with faculty and candidates on LiveText applications. Furthermore, another staff member is available to work with faculty on grants that have a relation to technology, and IRTS has provided several mini-grants to Unit faculty (Exhibit 6.48). In 2004, Cunningham Memorial Library (CML, http://library.indstate.edu/) completed a search for an Education Reference Librarian who is dedicated to help manage library resources directly related to needs of the Unit (Exhibit 6.49; Exhibit 6.28). To assist CML, the COE has a faculty committee that works to review recommended materials and represents departmental and discipline needs. Overall, CML maintains an extensive array of online resources that are available to users both on and off-campus. They continue to expand their e-journal offerings, and find ways to effectively use technology to expand services. CML was the first unit on campus to provide a wireless Internet setting, and maintains web pages that are available for smaller screen sizes (i.e. phones and handheld computers).

93

Appendix A

94

Appendix B Unit Pass Rate on Content Tests for Initial Teacher Preparation

2002-03 ISU State 2003-04 ISU State

Code #

Tested #

Pass Pass Rt.

Pass Rt.

# Tested

# Pass

Pass Rt.

Pass Rt.

Type of Assessment Basic Skills PPST Reading 710 45 45 100% 99% 56 56 100% 98% CBT Reading 711 173 173 100% 100% 128 128 100% 99% PPST Writing 720 53 53 100% 99% 66 66 100% 99% CBT Writing 721 162 162 100% 100% 113 113 100% 98% PPST Mathematics 730 50 50 100% 100% 62 62 100% 98% CBT Mathematics 731 164 163 99% 99% 121 121 100% 99% Computerized PPST Reading 5710 90% 48 46 96% 98% Computerized PPST Writing 5720 98% 51 50 98% 99%

Computerized PPST Mathematics 5730 11 10 91% 93% 47 47 100% 99%

Professional Knowledge Pre-Kindergarten Education 530 9 9 100% 100% Academic Content Areas

Elem Ed Curr Instruc Assessment 11 107 107 100% 100% 110 103 94% 97%

Early Childhood Education 20 3 3 100% 100%

Eng Lang Lit Comp: Content Knowledge 41 15 14 93% 99% 13 13 100% 99%

Mathematics: Content Knowledge 61 16 16 100% 94% 11 11 100% 94%

Social Studies: Content Knowledge 81 20 20 100% 99% 18 17 94% 99%

Physical Ed: Content Knowledge 91 21 19 90% 95%

Business Education 100 3 3 100% 100% Music Content Knowledge 113 11 11 100% 99% 10 10 100% 100% Art: Content Knowledge 133 2 2 100% 98%

95

Biology 230 92% Biology: Content Knowledge 235 2 2 100% 96%

Chemistry: Content Knowledge 245 2 2 100% 96%

Physics: Content Knowledge 265 2 2 100% 93% Reading Specialist 300 105 105 100% 100% 114 114 100% 100% General Science 430 1 1 100% 100%

Earth Science: Content Knowledge 571 1 1 100% 94%

Other Content Areas Technology Education 50 14 14 100% 100% Family & Consumer Sciences 120 6 6 100% 100% Health Education 550 4 4 100% 100% Teaching Special Populations

SE Knowledge-Based Core Principles 351 15 15 100% 100% 18 18 100% 100%

Educ. Exceptional Students: Content Knowledge 353 2 98%

SE Learning Disabilities 381 15 15 100% 100% 18 18 100% 100%

96

Appendix C

Home Colleges for Programs

Program Name

Home College

Business Education (General) Business Family and Cons. Science Arts & Sciences Computer Education Education Driver/Traffic Safety CHHP Exceptional Needs Education Fine Arts Arts & Sciences Foreign Languages Arts & Sciences Generalist: Early Childhood Education Generalist Elem: Primary Education Gifted and Talented Education Health CHHP Physical Education CHHP Language Arts Arts & Science Library Media Education Mathematics Arts & Science Reading Teacher Education Science Arts & Science Social Studies Arts & Science Speech Language Pathologist Education Technology Education Technology Transition to Teaching, Sec. Education Curriculum and Instruction Education Building Administrator Education District Administrator Education School Counselor Education School Psychologist Education

97

Appendix D Index of Acronyms and Abbreviations

Abbrev. Name Abbrev. Name AACTE American Associate of Colleges of

Teacher Education IPSB Indiana Professional Standards Board

AAUP American Association of University Professors

IRTS Instructional and Research Technology Services

ABD All But Dissertation ISLLC Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium

APA American Psychology Association ISTE International Society for Technology in Education

ASHA American Speech and Hearing Association

ISUCCC ISU Childcare Center

BCP Becoming a Complete Professional ITAC Information Technology Advisory Committee

CACREP Council for the Accreditation of Counseling & Related Educational Programs

ITP Initial Teacher Preparation

CAPS Curriculum Approval Procedures MyISU ISU Web portal CCHHP College of Health & Human

Performance NASP National Association of School

Psychologists CD Communication Disorders, Department NBPTS National Board for Professional

Teaching Standards CE Community Engagement NCA-

CASI North Central Association – Commission for School Improvement

CIMT Curriculum, Instruction, and Media Technology, Department

ND Non-degree

CML Cunningham Memorial Library NETS National Educational Technology Standards

COAS College of Arts & Sciences NSSE National Survey of Student Engagement COB College of Business OIT Office of Information Technology COE College of Education PDS Professional Development Schools COT College of Technology PLC Professional Learning Community COUN Counseling, Department PRE Project PRE: Partnering To Reform

Education DARS Degree Audit Report System PT Part-time DART Diversity, Action Research, and

Technology (M.Ed. in EESE) PT3 Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use

Technology DP Distinctive Programs PTR Promotion, Tenure and Retention DPS Division of Professional Standards RPT Retention, Promotion and Tenure EESE Elementary, Early, and Special

Education, Department SCH Student Credit Hours

EL Experiential Learning SLP Speech Language Pathology ELAF Educational Leadership, Administration,

and Foundations, Department SOGS School of Graduate Studies

ELED Elementary Education SP School Psychology EOS End of Semester SPED Special Education EPSY Educational Psychology SPSY School Psychology ESS Education Student Services T&TT Tenured and Tenure-Track FT Full-time T2T Transition to Teaching FTE Full-time equivalent TEC Teacher Education Committee IITS Instruction and Information Technology

Services TEP Teacher Education Program

98

References Belson, S. I. (2003). Technology for exceptional learners. Houghton Mifflin, Inc.: Boston, MA. Cradler, J. (1994). Summary of research and evaluation findings relating to technology in

education. Available at: http://www.wested.org/techpolicy/refind.html Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. New

York: National Commission on Teaching & America's Future. Du Bois, W.E.B. (1949/1970). The freedom to learn. In P.S. Foner (Ed.), W.E.B DuBois speaks

(pp. 230-231). New York: Pathfinder. Goodlad, J. (1994). Educational renewal: Better teachers, better schools. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass. ISTE. (2002). National educational technology standards for teachers: Preparing teachers to

use technology. International Society for Technology in Education: Eugene, OR. Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., Wilson, B. G., & Pfeiffer, W. S. (2003). Learning with technology:

A constructivist perspective. (3rd Ed.). Prentice Hall: Boston, MA. McKenzie, W. (2002). Multiple intelligences and instructional technology. ISTE: Eugene, OR.

B. Content standards Matrix’

INTASC Standards for Elementary Education*

Standards INTASC

ELED 100

ELED 250

ELED 259

ELED 324

ELED 392

ELED 397

ELED 394

ELED 398

ELED 451 ELED 453

1 EC 1 MC 2

v - 1, 8 (Lab Reflections on LiveText & Lab logs)

v - 8 v - 1 v - 8 (Integrateed Thematic Unit

v 2, 6 7 v - 1, 6, 7, 8 (labs) -

v - 1, 4, 8 (case study)

v - 8 (Student Teacher Evaluations)


2 EC 2 3 MC 1 2 3


v - 8 v - 6 v - 8 (Student Teacher Evaluations)


3 EC 4 8 MC 2 3 6


v - 8 v - 8 (Integrated Thematic Unit

v 2, 6 7 v - 8 (Student Teacher Evaluations)


4 EC 1 4 MC 2 3


v - 6 v - 1, 6, 7, 8 (labs)




5 EC 4 8 MC 6


v - 8 v - 8 (Student Teacher Evaluations)


6 EC 4 8 MC 3



v 2, 6 7 (Wheeler)



7 EC 1 4 MC 2 3


v - 8 v - 6 v - 8 (Student Teacher Evaluations)


8 EC 6 MC 4


v - 1 (Bolinger)

v - 1, 6, 7, 8 (labs)




9 EC 7 MC 5 8

v - 1, 8 (Lab Reflections on LiveText


v 2, 6 7 v - 8 (Student Teacher Evaluations)


*Indiana Content & Developmental Standards have been mapped to INTASC v = Teacher Standard Addressed Performance Assessment Examples 1) test 2) paper 3) project 4) portfolio 5) labs 6) lesson plan 7) teaching and 8) other.

Contents Standards for Elementary Education

Standards Courses ELED

100 ELED 250

ELED 259

ELED 392

ELED 397

ELED 394

ELED 398

ELED 451

ELED 453

ELED 457

OTHER

1 X X X X 2 X X 2a X X 2b X X X X X X 2c X 2d X X 2e X 2f X 2g X 2h X 3 X X X X X X X X 3a X 3b X X X X 3c X X X 3d X X X X 4 X 5 X X X X X X X X X X 5a X 5b X 5c X

& Lab logs)

10 EC 5 MC 5 7




C. Assessment Data Section Element Assessed


When is it Assessed





Praxis II Prior to Student Teaching

Praxis II Results Pass Rate: N= *

Tutoring made available

Student Teaching Performance

Final Student Teacher Evaluation

Pass Rate = % N = *

INTASC 1

Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates Praxis

Reading Specialist


Reading Specialist Test Results

Pass Rate = % N = *


INTASC 1-4. 6-9

Dispositions Assessment

Midpoint Dispositions Pass Rate = % N = *

Development of a professional semester

INTASC 3 6 9

Writing Unit Midpoint Writing Unit Rubric Pass Rate = % N =

INTASC 1 3 6 9


Student Teaching

Final Student Teacher Evaluation

Pass Rate = % N = *

INTASC 1-10

Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teachers OR Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates

Math Unit Assessment

Midpoint Math Unit Rubric Pass Rate = % N =

INTASC 1, 4, 8


Teacher Work Sample

During student teaching

Teacher work sample rubric

Pass Rate = % N = *

Review of teacher work sample

INTASC 1-10

* See http://coe.indstate.edu/faculty/spowers/uas2007

Program Report for the Preparation of Elementary School Teachers

Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI)Option A

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR ACCREDITATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION

COVER SHEET

1. Institution NameIndiana State University

2. StateIndiana

3. Date submitted MM DD YYYY

03 / 15 / 2011

4. Report Preparer's Information:

Name of Preparer:Lisa CutterPhone: Ext.


5. NCATE Coordinator's Information:

Name:Susan PowersPhone: Ext.


6. Name of institution's programElementary Education

7. NCATE CategoryElementary or Childhood Education

8. Grade levels(1) for which candidates are being prepared

(1) e.g. K-6, K-3

K-6

9. Program Typenmlkj Advanced Teachingnmlkji First Teaching Licensenmlkj Other School Personnelnmlkj Unspecified

10. Degree or award levelnmlkji Baccalaureatenmlkj Post Baccalaureatenmlkj Master'snmlkj Post Master'snmlkj Specialist or C.A.S.nmlkj Doctoratenmlkj Endorsement only

11. Is this program offered at more than one site?nmlkj Yesnmlkji No

12. If your answer is "yes" to above question, list the sites at which the program is offered

13. Title of the state license for which candidates are preparedElementary Generalist

14. Program report status:nmlkji Initial Reviewnmlkj Response to One of the Following Decisions: Further Development Required or Recognition with Probationnmlkj Response to National Recognition With Conditions

15. State Licensure requirement for national recognition:NCATE requires 80% of the program completers who have taken the test to pass the applicable state licensure test for the content field, if the state has a testing requirement. Test information and data must be reported in Section III. Does your state require such a test?nmlkji Yesnmlkj No

SECTION I - CONTEXT

1. Description of any state or institutional policies that may influence the application of ACEI standards. (Response limited to 4,000 characters)

Three policies influence how ISU’s Elementary Education program incorporates ACEI standards. First is at the state level and effect teacher licensure (Rule Revisions for Educator Preparation and Accountability). Second is the College’s conceptual framework (Becoming a Complete Professional). The third exists at the program level and impacts our delivery (Teachers of Tomorrow Advancing Learning).

Rule Revisions for Educator Preparation and Accountability became effective July 31, 2010. Revisions for teacher candidates are that the new license requires an emphasis on content-knowledge. K-6 teachers must earn a baccalaureate degree consisting of an education major with a content-area minor or a content-area major with an education minor. Revisions also require added testing. In addition to PRAXIS II, all candidates must pass content-area knowledge and pedagogy competency tests. Finally, PRAXIS II tests are no longer required for licensure after June 2011. Instead, applicants will be required to demonstrate basic skills by:• ACT with a score of at least 24 based on Math, Reading, Grammar, and Science• SAT with a score of at least 1100 based on Critical Reading and Math• GRE with a score of at least 1100 based on Verbal and Quantitative• Those with a Master’s Degree from a regionally accredited institution are exempt

The second influencing policy is the overarching theme of ISU’s educator preparation programs “Becoming a Complete Professional.”Initially adopted in 1991, it has undergone significant modifications as the profession moved to adopt standards developed by professional organizations and learned societies. Our conceptual framework encompasses three broad areas that recognize essential areas of the work of an educator:• Educator as Expert or Mediator of Learning;• Educator as Person; and,• Educator as Member of Communities.

The word complete acknowledges that to be truly successful an educator must be effective in all three of these areas. Similarly, the word becoming is included because a new graduate is not yet a complete professional. Each new teacher has only developed a solid foundation for becoming a professional in the chosen role.

The component “Educator as Expert or Mediator of Learning” deals with an educator’s professional skill as a mediator of students’ learning and of the progress individuals make in achieving their potential. The component “Educator as Person” represents the traits and dispositions that make a successful educator justifiably respected and emulated by students. The component “Educator as Member of Communities”reflects the necessity of contributing to various professional communities. To be proficient, a truly successful educator must be a competent expert or mediator of learning, a person committed to social justice and viewed as worthy of respect and even emulation by students, and a contributing member of the communities in which educators are expected to function.

The third policy is Teachers of Tomorrow Advancing Learning (TOTAL) which impacts program implementation. This is an internship semester taken prior to the student teaching semester. TOTAL teachers spend a semester working in an elementary classroom three full days per week with a TOTAL trained classroom teacher. Both work directly with an on-site Elementary Education faculty member. In addition to experiencing full-day teaching, teacher candidates meet one full day each week on campus to take required elementary methods courses. They then take what they learn in the ISU classroom and apply it in the school room. With the implementation TOTAL coupled with the traditional student teaching experience, teacher candidates gain hands-on knowledge of classroom theory and pedagogy from not only from bell to bell, but from the first day of the academic year to the last. Beginning Fall 2010 TOTAL transitioned from a pilot program to our standard way of doing business.

2. Description of the field and clinical experiences required for the program, including the number of hours for early field experiences and the number of hours/weeks for student teaching or internships. (Response limited to 8,000 characters)

Elementary Education teacher candidates spend approximately 905 hours interacting in elementary classroom settings throughout their baccalaureate program. The program is divided into three phases: Pre-Becoming a Complete Professional; Becoming a Complete Profession I; and, Becoming a Complete Professional II. Chart 1- Field Experiences provides a snapshot of the information described below. All courses include integration of National and State standards into planning to teach diverse learners, interdisciplinary curriculum and instruction, cooperative and individualized instruction, and integration of instructional technology, performance assessment, and management of the learning environment.

Pre-Becoming a Complete ProfessionalPrior to formal entry into the Elementary Education program students take Introduction to Teaching (ELED 101) and Best Practices in Teaching (ELED 250/250L). Teacher candidates spend 28 hours in the field. In the courses teacher candidates are introduced to subject-matter teaching in the elementary school setting; philosophy and curriculum of elementary schools; the role of the teacher; and, teacher responsibilities. Field experiences include after-school one-on-one tutoring and focused observations. ELED 101 also includes an overview of licensure requirements while general methods and theories of education are introduced in ELED 200. Emphasis in the Pre-Becoming a Complete Professional phase is placed on knowledge and skill development of basic teaching strategies.

Becoming a Complete Professional I (BCP I)Once a candidate has passed PRAXIS I or an equivalent, achieved a cumulative GPA of 2.5 or higher, and has a “C” or better in professional classes s/he is admitted into BCP I. All students must be admitted into BCP I before they are eligible to enroll in additional professional education courses. Candidates are evaluated throughout the program by faculty based on academic and professional competencies. Continuation in BCP I is dependent on satisfactory progress and assessments.

In this phase teacher candidates take Teaching, Learning and Classroom Management (ELED 250/250L), Measurement and Evaluation in the Elementary School (ELED 259), and Emergent Literacy (ELED 324) in one single semester. Together, these account for 20 hours of field experience. In the field candidates: engage in one-on-one tutoring in a kindergarten setting; conduct an assessment of student learning; and, conduct focused observations while also assisting a classroom teacher. In ELED 250/250L candidates learn about: children’s behavioral and interpersonal needs in relation to the way they learn and construct knowledge; the effectiveness of various management systems; and, understanding the role and responsibilities of teachers and children in the process. The field requirement of ELED 250/250L includes 6 hours of focused observation and teacher assistance. Teacher candidates in ELED 324 focus on the study of young children’s development of listening, speaking, reading, and writing abilities from a holistic approach and examine the implications for practice. The 14 hours of field experience involves one-on-one literacy tutoring in a kindergarten setting. In ELED 259 teacher candidates develop skills to: gather information in a variety of ways (including observation, teacher-made tests, and standardized tests); critique and select appropriate assessment methods and materials; relate evaluation results to instruction; and foster effective communication of evaluations to parents. Candidates also conduct an assessment within the ELED 324 field placement to support their acquisition of assessment knowledge.

Candidates in Science in the Elementary School (SCED 393/393L) spend 10 hours in the elementary school setting co-teaching science to whole groups of children with peer partners. SCED 393/393L explores science education theory and pedagogy designed to develop integrative understandings of conservation and the physical, biological, and earth sciences.

Candidates in Early Childhood: Teaching and Learning in Kindergarten (ELED 335) reflect on kindergarten teaching and learning during the ELED 324 field placement. Coursework focuses on the pedagogical knowledge and skills taught in kindergarten classrooms.

In the TOTAL semester candidates experience approximately 287 hours of field placement. There they co-teach with the classroom instructor all areas of the elementary curriculum. Coursework includes The Teaching of Elementary School Social Studies (ELED 392/392L), Teaching Developmental Reading and Other Language Arts (ELED 397), The Teaching of Elementary School Mathematics (ELED 394/394L), and Corrective Reading in the Classroom (ELED 398).

ELED 392/392L is an overview of the elementary social studies curriculum with emphasis on teaching-learning techniques and experiences, selection of content, skill development, and uses of instructional materials. ELED 397 emphasizes teaching-learning techniques and uses of instructional materials for developing foundations of reading skills instruction and oral and written language programs in the elementary school. ELED 394/394L focuses on elementary mathematics curriculum with emphasis on appropriate activities, materials, devices, and

teaching-learning techniques. Candidates in ELED 398 learn about analysis, diagnosis, prescription, and correction of reading problems in the elementary school classroom with emphasis on types of treatment and methods for aiding children with learning difficulties.

Becoming a Complete Professional II (BCP II)Admission to BCP II is required before a student may register for the student teaching professional semester. The candidate must (1) satisfy all criteria for admission to BCP-I; and (2) have a cumulative GPA of 2.5 or higher; and (3) have grades of C or higher in all required professional education courses; and (4) have a GPA of 2.5 or higher in the professional education courses; and (5) have a favorable recommendation for admission from the major department in addition to the recommendation from the review department.

Candidates in BCP II student teach for 8 weeks in a kindergarten through 2nd grade setting and again for 8 weeks in a 3rd through 6th grade setting. They are in each classroom Monday through Friday for the entire school day. Cumulatively, teacher candidates spend approximately 560 hours in the field. During each student teaching cycle candidates begin by conducting formal observations for two days. Candidates then transition into full-time teaching by systematically taking over responsibility of new content areas over a 4 ½ to 5 week period. Candidates then take full charge of the classroom for two weeks and finally spend a few days transitioning content area responsibility back the teacher-of-record. This same cycle is repeated during the second 8 weeks of student teaching.

The 15 semester hours of student teaching coursework includes Supervised Teaching (ELED 451 and ELED 453), Supervised Student Teaching in Kindergarten (ELED 455), and Elementary and Special Education Capstone (ELED 457). In ELED 451 and ELED 453 candidates apply teaching methodology into the elementary school setting. ELED 455 provides supervised teaching and analysis of teaching effectiveness in a kindergarten classroom. Finally, all candidates in partake of the ELED 457 seminar in which they utilize the content knowledge from their teacher preparation, professional judgment from the supervised teaching experience, and critical thinking skills emphasized in their General Education courses to assess the effectiveness of their teaching and pupils’ learning in their classrooms.

Finally, elementary education candidates volunteer at a wide array of community endeavors not listed in the total hour count. Some of these activities include Title I Literacy Fairs, volunteer time at the Children’s Museum, field trip supervision, and specialized tutoring.

3. Please attach files to describe a program of study that outlines the courses and experiences required for candidates to complete the program. The program of study must include course titles. (This information may be provided as an attachment from the college catalog or as a student advisement sheet.)

Elementary Education Undergraduate Program of Study


4. This system will not permit you to include tables or graphics in text fields. Therefore any tables or charts must be attached as files here. The title of the file should clearly indicate the content of the file. Word documents, pdf files, and other commonly used file formats are acceptable.

Chart 1- Field Experiences


5. Candidate InformationDirections: Provide three years of data on candidates enrolled in the program and completing the program, beginning with the most recent academic year for which numbers have been tabulated. Report the data separately for the levels/tracks (e.g., baccalaureate, post-baccalaureate, alternate routes, master's, doctorate) being addressed in this report. Data must also be reported separately for programs offered at multiple sites. Update academic years (column 1) as appropriate for your data span. Create additional tables as necessary.

(2) NCATE uses the Title II definition for program completers. Program completers are persons who have met all the requirements of a state-approved teacher preparation program. Program completers include all those who are documented as having met such requirements. Documentation may take the form of a degree, institutional certificate, program credential, transcript, or other written proof of having met the program's requirements.

Program:Elementary Education

Academic Year# of CandidatesEnrolled in the

Program

# of ProgramCompleters(2)

2009/20010 574 85

2008/2009 548 74

2007/2008 572 84

6. Faculty InformationDirections: Complete the following information for each faculty member responsible for professional coursework, clinical supervision, or administration in this program.

Faculty Member Name Diana Quatroche

Highest Degree, Field, & University(3) Ph.D., Reading, University of Pittsburgh

Assignment: Indicate the role of the

faculty member(4) Faculty, Dept Chair, Field Supervisor

Faculty Rank(5) Full Professor

Tenure Track YESgfedcb


Quatroche, D., & Wepner, S. (2008). Developing reading specialists as leaders: New directions for program development. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47(2), 99-115. Executive Director, Indiana State Reading Association. Reviewer, team leader of IRA/NCATE Reading Specialist SPA reports.

Teaching or other professional experience in P-12 schools(9) Classroom teacher, grades 1, 3, 4, 5; Title I Coordinator; Reading Supervisor

Faculty Member Name Karen Liu

Highest Degree, Field, & University(3) Ph.D., Education, Michigan State University

Assignment: Indicate the role of the faculty member(4) Faculty, Academic advisor, program chair, field supervisor




Leadership: President & Past President for ACEI (Association for Childhood Education International); Professional Service: Serving as a Panel member to revise Early Childhood Generalist Standards for NBPTS (National Board for Professional Teaching Standards); Serve as a member of the Board of Examiners for NCATE.


Field Supervisor to Preschool programs (ISU Early Childhood Education Center); Early Childhood Curriculum Consultant to Head Start Program, Professional Development School liaison to West Vigo Elementary School.

Faculty Member Name Kathryn L. Bauserman

Highest Degree, Field, & University(3) Ph.D., Elementary Education, Reading, Early Childhood Education, Ball State University

Assignment: Indicate the role of the faculty member(4) Faculty, academic advisor, field supervisor

Faculty Rank(5) Associate Professor



(1) International Vice-president of Pi Lambda Theta (2) RWD grant (3) Edmunds, K.M. & Bauserman, K.L. (2010). What teachers can learn about reading motivation through conversations with children. In Marinak, B., Mallory, J., & Gambrell, L. Essential Readings in Motivation. Newark, DE: Interntational Reading Association.

Teaching or other professional experience in P-12 schools(9) I have 17 years teaching experience in P-12 schools.

Faculty Member Name Yong Joon Park

Highest Degree, Field, & University(3) Ph.D., Elementary Education, SUNY Buffalo

Assignment: Indicate the role of the faculty member(4) Faculty, Academic Advisor, Field Supervisor

Faculty Rank(5) Assistant Professor



Signing Sycamore Advisor/ Center for the Mathematics Education Committee Member/ TEC Committee Member/ EESE Social Committee Member. Co-PI for the Pre, Too! grant.


PDS Liaison Officer head teacher, 4 years at Early Childhood Research Center (preschool level) sponsored by University at Buffalo

Faculty Member Name Lisa Cutter

Highest Degree, Field, & University(3) Ph.D., Curriculum and Instruction, Indiana University





Principal Investigator on 3 Competitive grants (1) Pre, Too! (2) Writing Through the Text and (3) Reading Through the Text. Chair of University Research Committee from 2008-present. Academic Senate member.


Elementary classroom teacher 7 years; school administration 3 years; PDS liaison

Faculty Member Name Gail Gottschling

Highest Degree, Field, & University(3) M.A. Human Development, Pacific Oaks College

Assignment: Indicate the role of the faculty member(4) Director, Early Childhood Center




Vice President last two years for Indiana Coalition for Campus Children's Centers Member Wabash Valley Success by Six Leadership Team

Teaching or other professional experience in P-12 schools(9) Teaching and preschool administration - 34 years.

Faculty Member Name Margaret (Beth) Whitaker

Highest Degree, Field, & University(3) Ph.D. Education Administration, Indiana State University





1. Book - (2009) Motivating and Inspiring Teachers - The Educational Leader's Guide for Building Staff Morale (Second Edition). Eye On Education, Larchmont, NY. 2. 3 Presentations at National Professional Development Schools Conferences in Orlanda, FL. 3. Consultant for local middle schools all year on writing development. (August, 2008 - May 2009)


Clinical supervision of internships in the P-12 schools every semester. Taught for nine years (Grades 3-6), elementary school principal for 5 years. K-6 teaching license in Missouri (lifetime) Elementary Principal license in Missouri (lifetime) Superintendent license in Missouri (lifetime)

Faculty Member Name Patricia J. Wheeler

Highest Degree, Field, & University(3) Ph.D., Supervision, Southern Illinois University





1) major role in undergraduate course development in TOTAL program, 2) publication of poem in Highlights For Children, 3) re-development of graduate program to hybrid online format with graduate (distance) cohort advising


Classroom teacher in public schools grades 1 and 5 (2.5 years), media specialist in public K-8 school for 12 years, supervision of pre-service teachers in public schools for 24 years, inservice workshops, PDS liaison 10+ years at Meadows Elem and Davis Park Elem, PDS mini-grant coordinator at Davis Park Elem 5 years

Faculty Member Name Melissa H. Nail

Highest Degree, Field, & University(3) Ph.D., Elementary Education, Mississippi State University





Nail, M. & Huisinga, S. (2011). A Comparison Between CD Readings and Computer Readings of Basal Stories. In In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (in press). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Nail, M. (2010). Teacher Made Electronic Books to Accommodate Young Readers and Busy Families. In P. Kommers & G. Richards (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2010). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Shriner, M. D., Clark, D. A., Nail, M. H., Schlee, B. M., Libler, R. W. (2010) Social Studies Instruction: Changing Teacher Confidence in Classrooms Enhanced by Technology. The Social Studies, 101, 37-45.


PDS Liaison to Fuqua Elementary School Licensed K-8 Elementary Education in Mississippi Licensed K-12 Remedial Reading in Mississippi Licensed Computer Educator in Mississippi elementary teacher - 5 years

Faculty Member Name Marylin Leinenbach

(3) e.g., PhD in Curriculum & Instruction, University of Nebraska. (4) e.g., faculty, clinical supervisor, department chair, administrator (5) e.g., professor, associate professor, assistant professor, adjunct professor, instructor (6) Scholarship is defined by NCATE as systematic inquiry into the areas related to teaching, learning, and the education of teachers and other school personnel. Scholarship includes traditional research and publication as well as the rigorous and systematic study of pedagogy, and the application of current research findings in new settings. Scholarship further presupposes submission of one's work for professional review and evaluation. (7) Service includes faculty contributions to college or university activities, schools, communities, and professional associations in ways that are consistent with the institution and unit's mission. (8) e.g., officer of a state or national association, article published in a specific journal, and an evaluation of a local school program. (9) Briefly describe the nature of recent experience in P-12 schools (e.g. clinical supervision, inservice training, teaching in a PDS) indicating the discipline and grade level of the assignment(s). List current P-12 licensure or certification(s) held, if any.

Highest Degree, Field, & University(3) Ph.D., Mathematics Education, Indiana State University





• Jones, E., Hampton, E.M., Brown, E.M., & Leinenbach, M.T. (2009). Impacting Teacher Mathematical Knowledge and Attitudes with Grade-Appropriate Methods. Journal of In-Service Education, Vol.35, 1-5. • Leinenbach, M.T. & Raymond, A.M. (2010). Using Multiple Intelligences to Make Connections and Reinforce Relationships Among Fractions, Decimals, and Percents. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School. • Brown, E.M., Leinenbach, M.T. & Hampton, E. Co-Investigator of Vincennes Math Initiative, US Department of Education Grant, 2009-2011 ($95,000) • Brown, E.M., Leinenbach, M.T. Co-Investigator of The Rural Algebra Project for Parke and Vermillion (RAPPV) Office of Innovation and Improvement Grant U.S. Department of Education, 2010-2012. • C-Director of The Center for Mathematics Education


• The SMART (Student Mathematics AfteR-school Thinking) Program, Director. DeVaney Elementary School Middle school classroom teacher

Faculty Member Name Kevin Bolinger

Highest Degree, Field, & University(3) Ph.D., Field and University, Indiana State University





Publication, Journal of social sciences: "the slow death of social studies" Chairman, Board of Directors Candles Holocaust Museum Faculty Senate Executive board member

Teaching or other professional experience in P-12 schools(9) 2 years classroom teacher

Faculty Member Name Sharron Watkins

Highest Degree, Field, & University(3) M.A., University of Evansville

Assignment: Indicate the role of the faculty member(4) Director of EESE Field Experiences; Faculty, Academic Advisor, Field Supervisor




3 presentations at national conferences; faculty sponsor of ISEA (Indiana Student Education Association); wrote a successful proposal for ELED 457 to be part of the Foundational Studies Program; Member of Bayh College of Education Committee for Promotion and Tenure; Chair of EESE P & T Committee; Presenter at Sycamore Educator's Day

Teaching or other professional experience in P-12 schools(9) 16 years teaching in elementary schools

SECTION II - LIST OF ASSESSMENTS

In this section, list the 6-8 assessments that are being submitted as evidence for meeting the ACEI standards. All programs must provide a minimum of six assessments. If your state does not require a state licensure test in the content area, you must substitute an assessment that documents candidate attainment of content knowledge in #1 below. For each assessment, indicate the type or form of the assessment and when it is administered in the program.

1. Please provide following assessment information (Response limited to 250 characters each field)Type and Number of Assessment Name of Assessment (10) Type or Form of Assessment (11) When the Assessment Is Administered (12)

(10) Identify assessment by title used in the program; refer to Section IV for further information on appropriate assessment to include. (11) Identify the type of assessment (e.g., essay, case study, project, comprehensive exam, reflection, state licensure test, portfolio). (12) Indicate the point in the program when the assessment is administered (e.g., admission to the program, admission to student teaching/internship, required courses [specify course title and numbers], or completion of the program).

Assessment #1: Licensure assessment, or other content-based assessment (required)

Praxis II ScoresState Licensure

Norm-ReferencesTest


Assessment #2: Assessment of content knowledge in elementary education (required)

Grades Final Grades

Required Courses (Math: ELED397,

MTH205 and MTH305; Reading

& Lang. Arts: ELED394; Science: SCED393; Social

Studies: ELED392; Art: ARTE290;

Music: MUS325; Physical Education and Health: PE217

and HLTH327)Assessment #3: Assessment of candidate ability to plan instruction (required)

Instructional Planning Lesson Plans Completion of

Internship

Assessment #4: Assessment of student teaching (required)

Supervised Student Teaching Evaluation

Comprehensive Evaluation


Assessment #5: Assessment of candidate effect on student learning (required)

Work Sample Portfolio Completion of Program

Assessment #6: Additional assessment that addresses ACEI standards (required)

Technology Project

Required Course (ELED 335-Early

Childhood:Teaching and learning in kindergarten)


Differentiation Project

Recommended Course (SPED 226-

The Exceptional Learner in the

Regular Classroom)


Parent Involvement ProjectRequired Course

(ELED 324-Emergent Literacy)

SECTION III - RELATIONSHIP OF ASSESSMENT TO STANDARDS

For each ACEI standard on the chart below, identify the assessment(s) in Section II that address the standard. One assessment may apply to multiple ACEI standards.

1. DEVELOPMENT, LEARNING AND MOTIVATION #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8

1.0 Development, Learning, and Motivation--Candidates know, understand, and use the major concepts, principles, theories, and research related to development of children and young adolescents to construct learning opportunities that support individual students’ development, acquisition of knowledge, and motivation.

gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedcb

2. CURRICULUM STANDARDS #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8

2.1 Reading, Writing, and Oral Language—Candidates demonstrate a high level of competence in use of

English language arts and they know, understand, and use concepts from reading, language and child development, to teach reading, writing, speaking, viewing, listening, and thinking skills and to help students successfully apply their developing skills to many different situations, materials, and ideas;

gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedc gfedcb

2.2 Science—Candidates know, understand, and use fundamental concepts of physical, life, and earth/space sciences. Candidates can design and implement age-appropriate inquiry lessons to teach science, to build student understanding for personal and social applications, and to convey the nature of science;

gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedc gfedc

2.3 Mathematics—Candidates know, understand, and use the major concepts and procedures that define number and operations, algebra, geometry, measurement, and data analysis and probability. In doing so they consistently engage problem solving, reasoning and proof, communication, connections, and representation;

gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedc

2.4 Social studies—Candidates know, understand, and use the major concepts and modes of inquiry from the social studies—the integrated study of history, geography, the social sciences, and other related areas—to promote elementary students’ abilities to make informed decisions as citizens of a culturally diverse democratic society and interdependent world;


2.5 The arts—Candidates know, understand, and use—as appropriate to their own understanding and skills—the content, functions, and achievements of the performing arts (dance, music, theater) and the visual arts as primary media for communication, inquiry, and engagement among elementary students;


2.6 Health education—Candidates know, understand, and use the major concepts in the subject matter of health education to create opportunities for student development and practice of skills that contribute to good health; gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedc gfedc

2.7 Physical education—Candidates know, understand, and use—as appropriate to their own understanding and skills—human movement and physical activity as central elements to foster active, healthy life styles and enhanced quality of life for elementary students.


3. INSTRUCTION STANDARDS #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8

3.1 Integrating and applying knowledge for instruction—Candidates plan and implement instruction based on knowledge of students, learning theory, connections across the curriculum, curricular goals, and community; gfedcb gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedc gfedc

3.2 Adaptation to diverse students—Candidates understand how elementary students differ in their development and approaches to learning, and create instructional opportunities that are adapted to diverse students;

gfedcb gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedcb gfedc

3.3 Development of critical thinking and problem solving—Candidates understand and use a variety of teaching strategies that encourage elementary students’ development of critical thinking and problem solving; gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedcb

3.4 Active engagement in learning—Candidates use their knowledge and understanding of individual and group motivation and behavior among students at the K-6 level to foster active engagement in learning, self motivation, and positive social interaction and to create supportive learning environments;

gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedc

3.5 Communication to foster collaboration—Candidates use their knowledge and understanding of effective verbal, nonverbal, and media communication techniques to foster active inquiry, collaboration, and supportive interaction in the elementary classroom.


4. ASSESSMENT STANDARDS #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8

4.0 Assessment for instruction—Candidates know, understand, and use formal and informal assessment strategies to plan, evaluate and strengthen instruction that will promote continuous intellectual, social, emotional, and physical development of each elementary student.

gfedcb gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedcb gfedc

5. PROFESSIONALISM STANDARDS #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8

5.1 Professional growth, reflection, and evaluation—Candidates are aware of and reflect on their practice in light of research on teaching, professional ethics, and resources available for professional learning; they continually evaluate the effects of their professional decisions and actions on students, families and other professionals in the learning community and actively seek out opportunities to grow professionally.

gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedcb gfedc

5.2 Collaboration with families, colleagues, and community agencies—Candidates know the importance of establishing and maintaining a positive collaborative relationship with families, school colleagues, and agencies in the larger community to promote the intellectual, social, emotional, physical growth and well-being of children.


gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

SECTION IV - EVIDENCE FOR MEETING STANDARDS

DIRECTIONS: The 6-8 key assessments listed in Section II must be documented and discussed in Section IV. Taken as a whole, the assessments must demonstrate candidate mastery of the SPA standards. The key assessments should be required of all candidates. Assessments and scoring guides and data charts should be aligned with the SPA standards. This means that the concepts in the SPA standards should be apparent in the assessments and in the scoring guides to the same depth, breadth, and specificity as in the SPA

standards. Data tables should also be aligned with the SPA standards. The data should be presented, in general, at the same level it is collected. For example, if a rubric collects data on 10 elements [each relating to specific SPA standard(s)], then the data chart should report the data on each of the elements rather that reporting a cumulative score..

In the description of each assessment below, the SPA has identified potential assessments that would be appropriate. Assessments have been organized into the following three areas to be aligned with the elements in NCATE’s unit standard 1:• Content knowledge (Assessments 1 and 2)• Pedagogical and professional knowledge, skills and dispositions (Assessments 3 and 4)• Focus on student learning (Assessment 5)

Note that in some disciplines, content knowledge may include or be inextricable from professional knowledge. If this is the case, assessments that combine content and professional knowledge may be considered "content knowledge" assessments for the purpose of this report.

For each assessment, the compiler should prepare one document that includes the following items:

(1) A two-page narrative that includes the following:a. A brief description of the assessment and its use in the program (one sentence may be sufficient);b. A description of how this assessment specifically aligns with the standards it is cited for in Section III. Cite SPA standards by number, title, and/or standard wording.c. A brief analysis of the data findings;d. An interpretation of how that data provides evidence for meeting standards, indicating the specific SPA standards by number, title, and/or standard wording; and

(2) Assessment Documentatione. The assessment tool itself or a rich description of the assessment (often the directions given to candidates);f. The scoring guide for the assessment; andg. Charts that provide candidate data derived from the assessment.

The responses for e, f, and g (above) should be limited to the equivalent of five text pages each , however in some cases assessment instruments or scoring guides may go beyond five pages.

Note: As much as possible, combine all of the files for one assessment into a single file. That is, create one file for Assessment #4 that includes the two-page narrative (items a – d above), the assessment itself (item e above), the scoring guide (item f above, and the data chart (item g above). Each attachment should be no larger than 2 mb. Do not include candidate work or syllabi. There is a limit of 20 attachments for the entire report so it is crucial that you combine files as much as possible.

1. CONTENT KNOWLEDGE: Data from licensure tests or professional examinations of content knowledge. ACEI standards addressed in this entry could include but are not limited to 2.1-2.7. If your state does not require licensure tests or professional examinations in the content area, data from another assessment must be presented to document candidate attainment of content knowledge.


Assessment 1: PRAXIS II narrative and data table


2. CONTENT KNOWLEDGE: Assessment of content knowledge in the language to be taught. ACEI ACEI standards addressed in this entry could include but are not limited to Standards 2.1-2.7. Assessments that address Standards 2.1-2.4 are required. (The assessments of the different content areas of elementary education may entail multiple attachments; however, they will be considered in their entirety as Assessment #2.) Examples of assessments include comprehensive examinations; written interpersonal/presentational tasks; capstone projects or research reports addressing cross-disciplinary content; philosophy of teaching statement that addresses the role of culture, literature, and cross-disciplinary content; and other portfolio tasks.


(15) For program review purposes, there are two ways to list a portfolio as an assessment. In some programs a portfolio is considered a single assessment and scoring criteria (usually rubrics) have been developed for the contents of the portfolio as a whole. In this instance, the portfolio would be considered a single assessment. However, in many programs a portfolio is a collection of candidate work—and the artifacts included

Assessment 2: Grades Narrative and Data Chart


3. PEDAGOGICAL AND PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND DISPOSITIONS: Assessment that demonstrates candidates can effectively plan classroom-based instruction. ACEI standards that could be addressed in this assessment include but are not limited to 1, 2.1-2.7, 3.1-3.5, 4, and 5.1-5.2. Assessments that address Standards 2.1-2.4 are required. (The assessments that address planning of instruction in the content areas of elementary education may entail multiple attachments; however, they will be considered in their entirety as Assessment #3.) Provide assessment information as outlined in the directions for Sections IV.

Assessment 3: Instructional Planning Rubric Assessment 3: Instructional Planning Discription of Assignment

Assessment 3: Instructional Planning Data Chart Assessment 3: Instructional Planning Narrative


4. PEDAGOGICAL AND PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND DISPOSITIONS: Assessment that demonstrates candidates' knowledge, skills, and dispositions are applied effectively in practice. ACEI standards that could be addressed in this assessment include but are not limited to 1, 2.1-2.7, 3.1-3.5, 4, and 5.1-5.3. The assessment instrument used in student teaching and the internship should be submitted.


Assessment 4: Supervised Student Teaching Directions and Rubric Assessment 4: Supervised Student Teaching Data Chart

Assessment 4: Supervised Student Teaching Narrative


5. EFFECTS ON STUDENT LEARNING: Assessment that demonstrates candidate effects on student learning. Standards ACEI standards that could be addressed in this assessment include but are not limited to 2.1-2.7, and 3.1. Examples of assessments include those based on student work samples, portfolio tasks, case studies, follow-up studies, and employer surveys .


Assessment 5: Work Sample Rubric Assessment 5: Work Sample Directions

Assessment 5: Work Sample Narrative and Data Table


6. Additional assessment that addresses ACEI standards. Examples of assessments include evaluations of field experiences, case studies, portfolio tasks, tutoring assignments, and follow-up studies. (Answer Required)


Assessment 6: Technology Rubric and Directions Assessment 6: Teachnology Data Table and Narrative




Assessment 7: Differentiation Rubric, Directions, Data Table and Narrative




Assessment 8: Parent Involvement Rubric, Directions, Data Table and Narrative


SECTION V - USE OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS TO IMPROVE PROGRAM

1. Evidence must be presented in this section that assessment results have been analyzed and have been or will be used to improve candidate performance and strengthen the program. This description should not link improvements to individual assessments but, rather, it should summarize principal findings from the evidence, the faculty's interpretation of those findings, and changes made in (or planned for) the program as a result. Describe the steps program faculty has taken to use information from assessments for improvement of both candidate performance and the program. This information should be organized around (1) content knowledge, (2) professional and pedagogical knowledge, skill, and dispositions, and (3) student learning.

(Response limited to 12,000 characters)

Changes that have occurred in the Elementary Education program have been based on assessment data, feedback from school personnel, current students, employers of our graduates, faculty and instructors, and leading research on best practices. As a result we have retooled our program and developed the Teachers of Tomorrow Advancing Learning (TOTAL) semester. This program affords strong academic preparation and continuous immersion in school cultures through working with children in educational and community settings. Teacher candidate gain direct, hands-on experience in the school setting during an internship semester prior to the student teaching semester. Thus, teacher candidates graduate with a thorough understanding of best practices in education through early field experiences, the internship semester, and student teaching.

Faculty has engaged in continuous data analyses. University, College, Department, and course specific data have been reviewed at monthly faculty meetings and have been the primary focus of spring and fall retreats. The Unit Assessment System (UAS) data has contributed to changes made in data collection processes and refinement of assessment (i.e., rubric categories). Elementary Education faculty are active members of the UAS committee and will continue to work on improvements in the data collection process and sophistication of assessment.

The following summarizes discussions from faculty meetings and retreat sessions, and how these discussions have and will have an impact on our program.

Content KnowledgeWe feel that the Indiana State University’s Elementary Education program has created a strong curriculum. We have experienced very little faculty turn over, and our faculty collaborates on a continuous basis. This has helped us create a program that allows teacher candidates to experience a seamless program that integrates knowledge and skills across curricular areas.

As mentioned, Elementary Education teacher candidates will no longer be required to take the Reading Specialist test on PRAXIS II due to the heavy emphasis on reading within the body of Elementary Education Generalist test. However, the reading content of the Generalist test stresses phonics. Teacher candidates in ISU’s Elementary Education program receive basic phonics instruction early in their professional coursework. This can be viewed as a weakness in our program. Our discussions have guided us to consider some additions/modifications to our program. We have discussed the idea of developing a phonics handbook for our teacher candidates. This matter is still under review because we are unsure if a handbook alone would assist teacher candidates. Therefore, we are also considering offering phonics as a separate course in order to provide focused instruction to teacher candidates. The inception of this new requirement has been well-received by faculty but implementation has not occurred because we still need to assess where in the program this new course should be placed and if the addition of a new requirement would have a negative impact on candidates’ graduation plans.

Another area that has drawn a lot of discussion is when teacher candidates should take PRAXIS II. Upon examination of current data we have discovered that candidates are taking this high stakes test before they have received all of the necessary methods instruction. One modification under consideration is to work with University administration to block early test taking. This can be accomplished by putting in additional bench marks in the Degree Audit Reporting System (DARS) that all students participate in. Further exploration is needed on this topic.

Another are under discussion is providing additional content area instruction to teacher candidates. Indiana State University has made significant changes in required general education courses. They have lessened the breadth and depth of requirements. The Elementary Education program is currently delving into the practices of like universities and best practice research in order to strengthen our content area delivery.

Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge, Skills, and DispositionsOverall, Indiana State University’s Elementary Education teacher candidates are viewed positively. School personnel have consistently reported that our students are well-prepared and that they emulate appropriate dispositions. Principals and classroom teachers actively strive to get our TOTAL teacher candidates and student teachers into their classrooms. They report that our teacher candidates are well prepared, creative and demonstrate pronounced skills when developing and implementing lessons in their classrooms.

Our discussions have given us insight into the potential that we have been providing a narrow array of field placements. Up until a few years ago most of our teacher candidate placements did not stray outside of county lines. We have determined that a broader base of shared experiences would not only extend teacher candidate paradigms but would also serve to bring a diverse body of pedagogical knowledge to our institution. Thus, we have attempted to broaden the professional and pedagogical skills of our teacher candidates through overseas coursework and high needs student teaching placements. Currently, we have taken, and continue to take, students to Ireland and Thailand to experience classrooms abroad and interact with educators from other countries. We have also worked with a neighboring university in order to provide high needs student teaching placements in sites such as Nigeria and the Navajo Reservation. Participants in all of these experiences have blogged about their experiences and have shared their knowledge with their peers in classroom situations.

Currently, we have a rubric that assesses teacher candidates’ professional dispositions. All faculty members fill out one of these for each student they teach in each course they teach. While disposition ratings are informative, we have discovered that we need to improve data reporting of this measure. We will continue to explore options that will best serve the faculty and teacher candidates, and work with UAS personnel on this issue.

Finally, through four years of discussion, piloting, and finally full implementation of the TOTAL program we have strengthened our ability to foster pedagogical knowledge and skills. Through this process we have delved into best practice research, collaborated with another university in Kansas, and have shared our finding at professional conferences. While we feel we have produced an admirable internship semester we continue to meet on a weekly basis. At these meetings we look at our current practices, share field observations and reports, review assessments, and plan for the future. Thus, we continue to fine tune the TOTAL program.

Student LearningThe most common assessment tool used in our local area to assess student learning are the results of our state’s high stakes test, the ISTEP. As a faculty we recognize that this snapshot of student progress is inadequate. We believe that there is a need for additional assessments and information gathering processes. Moreover, elementary education’s faculty also recognizes that the classroom teacher is the transmitter of knowledge to student learners. We have worked with school personnel to analyze areas of student need. Thus, through our collaborative efforts we have obtained 4 professional development grants. We continue to explore the data for areas of need and continue to apply for professional development grants. For six years we have offered professional development on reading, writing, and content are integration. Over the course of three grant cycles we have collected data about the impact our participants have on student learners. We have shared our results not only with our colleagues but with the educational community-at-large. Currently, have begun a new two-year grant cycle that will serve 210 classrooms across the state. Nevertheless, we continue to apply for professional development money. At present we will be submitting grants for the content areas of social studies and the arts. To date we have had the ability to positively impact student learning in approximately 418 classrooms across the state.

Elementary faculty and instructors also interact directly with students on a weekly basis. We continue to discuss our observations and insights in order to gain knowledge about sociological and cognitive issues facing today’s students. Again, best practice research coupled with data assessment had served to inform us and our teacher candidates about how to meet the needs of all students.

Finally, as a faculty we have made a commitment to teaching teacher candidates how to use data when making curricular decisions. Tools include means of differentiation, formative assessment and summative assessment. We have devoted, and will continue to devote TOTAL meetings to this issue.

SECTION VI - FOR REVISED REPORTS OR RESPONSE TO CONDITIONS REPORTS ONLY

1. For Revised Reports: Describe what changes or additions have been made to address the standards that were not met in the original submission. Provide new responses to questions and/or new documents to verify the changes described in this section. Specific instructions for preparing a Revised Report are available on the NCATE web site at http://www.ncate.org/Accreditation/ProgramReview/ProgramReportSubmission/RevisedProgramReports/tabid/453/Default.aspx

For Response to Conditions Reports: Describe what changes or additions have been made to address the conditions cited in the original recognition report. Provide new responses to questions and/or new documents to verify the changes described in this section. Specific instructions for preparing a Response to Conditions Report are available on the NCATE web site at http://www.ncate.org/Accreditation/ProgramReview/ProgramReportSubmission/ResponsetoConditionsReport/tabid/454/Default.aspx

(Response limited to 24,000 characters.)

Please click "Next"

This is the end of the report. Please click "Next" to proceed.

Program Outcomes Assessment - Indiana State University

Documents

Transcript of Program Outcomes Assessment - Indiana State University