1 USC Upstate: Elementary Program

Transcription

1 Component Description Program Mission Statement Goal 1 From your Program Assessment Plan (Statement should articulate the unit/ program mission in support of the institutional mission and include a clearly defined purpose appropriate to collegiate education.) From your Program Assessment Plan Describe broad learning outcomes and concepts (what you want students to learn) expressed in general terms (clear communication, problem-solving skills, etc). Goals should focus on discipline-specific outcomes relevant to program.) The School of Education continues with our threefold mission: to prepare effective teachers who are reflective practitioners and professionals, to serve the needs of schools in the state of South Carolina, particularly the Upstate, working collaboratively with P-12 school personnel, and to advance understanding of how teaching and learning occur effectively. All education programs are designed to provide candidates with the following: 1) A general exposure to and an appreciation of the traditional liberal arts and sciences of both western and non-western traditions; 2) A specific exposure to the most up-to-date pedagogical theories and practices; 3) A set of ethical principles, values, and dispositions; 4) A commitment to the principle of equality of educational opportunity for all students, regardless of race, ethnic background, religious affiliation, or gender; and 5) A commitment to knowledge of both theory and practice and an understanding of how one informs and strengthens the other. As a whole, the School of Education has five goals: I. The candidates of the USC Upstate School of Education value reflective teaching practice. II. The candidates of the USC Upstate School of Education value learner-centered pedagogy. III. The candidates of the USC Upstate School of Education value performance-based assessment. IV. The candidates of the USC Upstate School of Education are committed to and affirm diversity. V. The candidates of the USC Upstate School of Education are committed to professional responsibility. As required by the school s accrediting body, individual departments (programs) must align their discipline-specific goals with these overarching goals. Therefore, this document will outline the Elementary Education program s goals, objectives, and assessments, and, by proxy, those of the School of Education as a whole. The Elementary Education program has a mission to prepare teacher candidates to be effective and reflective practitioners in the field of Elementary Education at levels from 2 nd grade through 6 th grade. The goals of both the School of Education and the department of Elementary Education are thus well-aligned to the university s mission to prepare its students to participate as responsible citizens in a diverse, global, and knowledge-based society, to pursue excellence in their chosen careers and to continue learning throughout life. Courses in the Elementary Education program focus on the diversity of children and colleagues our teacher candidates will be working with and work hard to prepare them to meet the needs of all children and differentiate instruction. Our courses are rigorous and instructors have high expectations. Students are expected to participate responsibly and ethically. We strive to teach our students to be life-long learners through activities that are created for long-term memory achievement. Elementary Education teacher candidates will possess thorough and accurate knowledge of the content they teach. This goal aligns with SoE goals I and II. Objectives SLO s From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the specific skills, values and attitudes students should be able to exhibit that reflect the broader goals. Objectives (student learning outcomes) transform the 1.1: Elementary Education teacher candidates know and apply discipline-specific scientific and theoretical concepts critical to the development of educated individuals in the elementary classroom setting. 1 USC Upstate: Elementary Program

2 (student learning outcomes) Assessment Methods general program goals into specific student performance/behaviors that demonstrate student learning and skill development along these goals From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the measure(s) by which the department will know the students are meeting the departmental learning objectives. Includes both direct and indirect assessment. Each SLO should have at least one assessment method.) 1.1: ETS PRAXIS II Elementary Education Content Knowledge Assessment (Tests 0011 & 0012) 1.2: Content assessment (this is one combined assessment from four major content areas) averages in the content core: SEDR 442: Literacy I: Learning to Read and Write; SEDL 447: Teaching Social Studies in Elementary School; SEDL 446: Teaching Mathematics in Elementary School; SEDL 448: Teaching Science in Elementary School Assessment Criteria Level of achievement you are targeting (indicate benchmarks, scores on assessment instruments, etc that would indicate acceptable achievement under your plan 1.1: 90% of Elementary Education teacher candidates will pass the PRAXIS II content exams in a given academic year. Elementary Content Test 0011: passing score is a 164; Elementary Content Area Exercises Test 0012: passing score is : 90% of Elementary Education teacher candidates will pass the Content Assessment in a given semester. The Content Assessment is a collaborative assessment using assignments from the major content area courses and based on a 1-4 rated rubric The rubric (Appendix VII) itself consists of criterion evaluated using a 4pt. Likert scale for each content lesson component with 4 being the Target value and 1 being Unsatisfactory. Candidates are given opportunity to re-submit once if score is 2 or below. A score of 3 or above is passing. Assessment Results Actual results and data collected (Make sure to break down data by subgroups (e.g. other campuses or emphases). As appropriate, also include item or category analysis See Appendix I & II for General Praxis Results & Trend Data: 1.1: PRAXIS II Elementary Education Content & Instruction Exams Results for the Spartanburg, Greenville and Sumter campuses combined: 50 out of 50, or 100% of students taking the (0011) Curriculum & Instruction exam passed in the reporting period results will not be available until December out of 37, or 86% of students taking the (0012) content area exercises exam passed in the reporting period results will not be available until December : PRAXIS II Elementary Education Content & Instruction Exams Results disaggregated by campus: Spartanburg Campus: 30 out of 30, or 100% of students taking the (0011) C & I exam passed in the reporting period. 21 out of 24, or 88% of students taking the (0012) content area exercises exam passed in the reporting period. Sumter Campus: 12 out of 12, or 100% of students taking the (0011) C & I exam passed in the reporting period. 7 out of 9, or 78% of students taking the (0012) content area exercises exam passed in the reporting period. Greenville Campus: 8 out of 8, or 100% of students taking the (0011) C & I exam passed in the reporting period. 4 out of 4, or 100% of students taking the (0012) content area exercises exam passed in the reporting period. 2 USC Upstate: Elementary Program

3 Action Plan Implementation/Evaluation of Prior Year s Action Plan What actions or modifications have been or will be made based on this assessment? How was the action plan identified in the previous year s report implemented this year, and what was the impact? 1.2: Content Assessment Results for the Spartanburg, Greenville, and Sumter campuses combined (note: results were not disaggregated by campus): 34 out of 34 or 100% of students completing the content assessment in Fall 2011 passed. Overall Rating = out of 26 or 100% of students completing the content assessment in Spring 2012 passed. Overall Rating = 3.48 We met our goal of 90% pass rate in all areas but two (Spartanburg Campus = 88% pass rate on Content test 0012 & Sumter Campus = 78% pass rate on Content test 0012). This is a small decrease for the Spartanburg campus, however an increase from the previous year s results for the Sumter campus. This being said, we will continue to focus on additional support for the Spartanburg and Sumter campuses in the following academic year. The Greenville campus continues to increase or stay the same therefore conversations with this campus will take place for support of the other two campuses. Praxis II test preparation sessions have been added to SEDR 443, SEDL 446 and SEDL 448, and outside-of-class workshops hosted by education faculty have been made available to our students. These will continue. Test preparation materials continue to be available for student check-out. Advisors will be reminded to share Praxis information with their advisees during the required advisement period. Information related to Praxis testing and preparation will continue to be published in the School of Education monthly newsletter. A powerpoint overview has been added on Blackboard for student access. We will stress to our advisors to encourage students to access this mode of study support. Requests for additional monetary support for Praxis practice tests will be a priority. Proposal for adding a 1 credit Praxis I course for all majors has been approved by our education faculty and will proceed to Senate this semester. Discussions to add a 1 credit Praxis II course are taking place fall 2012 semester. We hope to have these in place by fall It seems that over the past three reporting time periods, the Elementary program as a whole has seen slight decreases in the average number of students passing the praxis content exams, but still have an overall higher pass rate than all education program majors combined. Content course assignments will continue to be reviewed on an annual basis by the Elementary Program Committee to determine if appropriate content related information is being covered. The Content Assessment will be updated/revised in the coming year. Due to the fact that we are one academic year behind in accessing PRAXIS II scores, faculty will continue to push for faster reporting of PRAXIS II scores from ets.org. Faculty members have continued to make a conscious effort to incorporate Praxis test information into their courses. Workshops have been offered. Elementary Education courses incorporate content based projects in their portfolios and other assignments. Information related to Praxis testing and preparation has been published in the School of Education monthly newsletter. Our scores have remained above our goal except for two areas for the Spartanburg & Sumter campuses. Additional support for these campuses was available and although not meeting our goal of 90% pass rate, it was still successful (based on the 10% increase in Praxis II (0011) scores.) An was sent fall 2011 to ETS with request for faster reporting with no response. We will continue to make requests on this topic. The Content Assessment continues to be revised and is more user-friendly and consistent across content discipline areas. The rubric was used by each instructor in the various disciplines and has been updated. Reporting and data analysis is less tedious and more consistent than before. 3 USC Upstate: Elementary Program

4 Goal 2 Objectives SLO s (student learning outcomes) Assessment Methods From your Program Assessment Plan Describe broad learning outcomes and concepts (what you want students to learn) expressed in general terms (clear communication, problem-solving skills, etc). Goals should focus on discipline-specific outcomes relevant to program.) From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the specific skills, values and attitudes students should be able to exhibit that reflect the broader goals. Objectives (student learning outcomes) transform the general program goals into specific student performance/behaviors that demonstrate student learning and skill development along these goals. From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the measure(s) by which the department will know the students are meeting the departmental learning objectives. Includes both direct and indirect assessment. Each SLO should have at least one assessment The new requirement for the elementary portfolio was added (students were to have artifacts that meet all seven content areas addressed in ACEI standards) strengthening their content knowledge and preparation for the PRAXIS II tests and content assessment. Elementary Education teacher candidates will understand the planning, implementation, and assessment of developmentally appropriate learning experiences aligned with local, state, and national standards to address the diverse needs of all students. This goal aligns with SoE specific goals I, II, and III. 2.1: Elementary Education teacher candidates will demonstrate competence as effective long-range instructional planners. 2.2: Elementary Education teacher candidates will demonstrate competence as effective daily instructional planners. 2.3: Elementary Education teacher candidates will demonstrate competence in the areas of student assessment and reflective self-assessment. (Domain I) 2.1: Performance on ADEPT Professional Standard (APS) # 1: Unit Planning *Description of APS evaluations this applies to all instances of the use of APS as assessments (See Appendix V) The School of Education candidates performance is evaluated using a formative portfolio assessment process that aligns with the South Carolina Professional Assistance, Development, and Evaluation of Professional Teaching (ADEPT) System. Teacher candidates complete ADEPT Professional Standards (APS) reports at three stages during their educational process: 1) Initial entry into the program (students are only required to complete 4/10 APS for this submission), 2) Just prior to student teaching, and 3) At the end of student teaching (Exit). At the first two stages (Initial, and Pre-student teaching), candidates develop evidence to demonstrate teaching competencies. This evidence is organized into a portfolio and arranged by the ten APS. The teacher candidate may not enter into the student teaching until the 10 standards are at or above the satisfactory level. Near the completion of the student teaching experience, the teacher candidate turns in his/her final portfolio. For each portfolio section, candidates write statements explaining the philosophical, theoretical, and practical principles underpinning each indicator. These include justifications for the artifacts that they select as evidence to demonstrate competency, and reflection on his/her learning and growth as a potential teacher. Each APS contains a Rationale Statement and an Artifact Report, each of which is judged on a 4 point rubric, (Appendix I) where Exemplary (E) = 4 points, More than Satisfactory (M) = 3 points, Satisfactory (S) = 2 points, and Unsatisfactory 4 USC Upstate: Elementary Program

5 method.) (U) = 1 point. The scores on each section are averaged to produce the mean score for each APS. If a portfolio performance standard is unsatisfactory the candidate will revise and resubmit the relevant documentation to the reviewer (course instructor or advisor). The student will not meet the requirements for a C or better in the course or meet the requirements for application to student teaching until all portfolio performance standards submitted are rated at least as satisfactory. Assessment Criteria Level of achievement you are targeting (indicate benchmarks, scores on assessment instruments, etc that would indicate acceptable achievement under your plan APS reports are collected and evaluated in both fall and spring, and are reported as such. Please note that Exit Portfolios are graded and reported by domains, which are groups of APS. Domain I includes APS 1,2, and 3; Domain II includes APS 4,5,6, and 7; Domain III includes APS 8 and 9, and Domain IV includes APS 10. Initial Portfolio Submission requirements are for 5 APS. Pre-Directed Teaching and Exit Portfolio requirements are for 10 APS. When viewing scores N/A means this APS was not a requirement at this point. 2.2: Performance on ADEPT Professional Standard (APS) #2: Lesson Planning 2.3: Performance on ADEPT Professional Standard (APS) #3: Assessment of Students and Self-assessment 2.1: Elementary Education teacher candidates will score a 2.0 or higher on APS (ADEPT Performance Standards) 1, 2, and 3 (Domain I). Assessment results can be found disaggregated below for the Spartanburg, Greenville and Sumter campuses. See Appendix III & IV for General APS Exit Portfolio Results & Trend Data. 2.1: Mean score for APS #1: Fall 2011 Spring 2012 Spartanburg Initial (n= 0): NA Initial (n=0): N/A Pre-student teaching (n= 22): 2.45 Pre-student teaching (n=18): 2.44 Greenville Initial (n= 0): NA Initial (n=5): 2.0 Pre-student teaching (n= 12): 2.42 Pre-student teaching (n=0): N/A Sumter Initial (n= 0): NA Initial (n=0): N/A Pre-student teaching (n= 9): 3.11 Pre-student teaching (n=5): 2.25 Assessment Results Actual results and data collected (Make sure to break down data by subgroups (e.g. other campuses or emphases). As appropriate, also include item or category analysis 2.2: Mean score for APS #2: Fall 2011 Spring 2012 Spartanburg Initial (n= 17): 2.47 Initial (n=0): N/A Pre-student teaching (n= 22): 2.48 Pre-student teaching (n=18): 2.50 Greenville Initial (n= 0): N/A Initial (n=0): N/A 5 USC Upstate: Elementary Program

6 Action Plan What actions or modifications have been or will be made based on this assessment? Pre-student teaching (n= 12): 3.0 Pre-student teaching (n=0): N/A Sumter Initial (n= 3): 2.0 Initial (n=6): 2.0 Pre-student teaching (n= 9): 2.89 Pre-student teaching (n=5): : Mean score for APS #3 Fall 2011 Spring 2012 Spartanburg Initial (n= 17): 2.13 Initial (n=0): N/A Pre-student teaching (n= 22): 2.33 Pre-student teaching (n=18): 2.44 Greenville Initial (n= 0): N/A Initial (n=0): N/A Pre-student teaching (n= 12): 2.75 Pre-student teaching (n=0): N/A Sumter Initial (n= 0): N/A Initial (n=5): 2.0 Pre-student teaching (n= 9): 3.0 Pre-student teaching (n=6): 2.25 Fall 2011 Exit (Domain I) Spring 2012 Exit (Domain I) Spartanburg (N= 23): 2.7 (N=20): 2.9 Greenville (N=0): N/A (N=9): 2.33 Sumter (N=5): 2.8 (N=7): 3.0 *Exit scores for Domain I are overall scores for APS 1,2, and 3 All candidates met the 2.0 goal for the portfolio APS #s1, 2 and 3 (Domain I). We seem to be decreasing steadily, however, since fall of 2009 in scores on the Exit Portfolio. As an Elementary Education program we will continue to discuss problem areas to improve upon in the academic year, to increase student learning as well as scores to an average above the 3.0 mark. These areas are 1.) Grammar, 2.) Theory Integration, and 3.) Additional and more appropriate artifacts. Faculty will continue to focus on the integration of educational philosophy and practice, grammatical style, and teaching candidates how to reflect upon the artifact and how it relates to the APS. Additional information and examples will be posted on Blackboard sites and the SOE webpage. It is important that the instructors aid candidates in choosing the correct artifact for each APS. A new faculty member has taken over instruction of one of our core courses describing and supporting APS development. This faculty member has restructured the way we inform and support teacher candidates in preparing a portfolio at or above the 3.0 mark. We will continue to offer the assistance she has provided in this course by this new faculty member/course instructor. If the instructor changes, the program coordinator will train the new instructor in this process. We have added (fall 2012) an adjunct training session (carried out each semester by Dr. Pamela Wash). In this training session, APS and how to help prepare our students in these areas will be covered. This training session will continue to be offered. We will add an inter-rater reliability training session for all elementary faculty scoring the portfolio APSs. 6 USC Upstate: Elementary Program

7 Implementation/Evaluation of Prior Year s Action Plan Goal 3 Objectives SLO s (student learning outcomes) Assessment Methods How was the action plan identified in the previous year s report implemented this year, and what was the impact? From your Program Assessment Plan Describe broad learning outcomes and concepts (what you want students to learn) expressed in general terms (clear communication, problem-solving skills, etc). Goals should focus on discipline-specific outcomes relevant to program.) From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the specific skills, values and attitudes students should be able to exhibit that reflect the broader goals. Objectives (student learning outcomes) transform the general program goals into specific student performance/behaviors that demonstrate student learning and skill development along these goals. From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the measure(s) by which the department will know the students are meeting the departmental learning objectives. Includes both direct and indirect assessment. Each SLO should have at least one assessment method.) Action to improve overall portfolio scores to 3.0 or above was carried out somewhat (through additional resources and instruction in methods courses), but not as well as we would have hoped. Scores did not improve significantly. We have had several adjuncts and new personnel teaching in the Elementary program, and it has been difficult to be consistent in this manner. SEDL 441 has been updated and the instructor is spending more time in the introduction and implementation of the APSs. With two semesters of teaching this course behind her, we feel the teacher candidates are beginning to grasp the concepts and requirements for completing the APSs appropriately. As we continue to dedicate this kind of effort to APS knowledge and preparation, we feel scores will begin to increase. The new requirement added to the portfolio, for candidates to have artifacts that meet all seven content areas addressed in the ACEI standards continues to be monitored by faculty scoring the portfolio, and assures more and better understanding in specific content areas. This also assists in more appropriate and better understanding of long and short range planning and overall assessment. Elementary Education teacher candidates will be well-prepared to maximize student learning in the classroom through instructional delivery and monitoring of student learning. This goal aligns with SoE specific goals I, II, III, IV 3.1: Elementary Education teacher candidates will establish, clearly communicate, and maintain appropriate expectations for student learning, participation, and responsibility. 3.2: Elementary Education teacher candidates will exhibit effective use of appropriate instructional strategies. 3.3: Elementary Education teacher candidates will demonstrate ability to select appropriate content and structure the delivery of the content for maximal learning. 3.4: Elementary Education teacher candidates will be able to effectively monitor student learning and provide meaningful feedback to students. 3.1: Performance on ADEPT Professional Standard (APS) #4: High Expectations for Learners 3.2: Performance on ADEPT Professional Standard (APS) #5: Instructional Strategies 3.3: Performance on ADEPT Professional Standard (APS) #6: Teaching Content to Students 3.4: Performance on ADEPT Professional Standard (APS) #7: Monitoring Student Learning (Domain II) 3.5: ETS PRAXIS II Principles of Learning and Teaching (PLT) test (K-6) USC Upstate: Elementary Program

8 Assessment Criteria Assessment Results Level of achievement you are targeting (indicate benchmarks, scores on assessment instruments, etc that would indicate acceptable achievement under your plan Actual results and data collected (Make sure to break down data by subgroups (e.g. other campuses or emphases). As appropriate, also include item or category analysis 3.1: Students will score a 2.0 or higher on APS 4, 5, 6, & 7 (Domain II). 3.2: 90% of students will pass the PRAXIS II PLT exam in a given academic year. Passing score is a 165. See Appendix III & IV for more information and trend data on the APSs Exit Portfolio. See Appendix I & II for more information and trend data on the Praxis II PLT exam. Assessment results can be found disaggregated below for the Spartanburg, Greenville and Sumter campuses. 3.1: Mean score for APS #4: Fall 2011 Spring 2012 Spartanburg Initial (n= 0): N/A Initial (n=0): N/A Pre-student teaching (n= 22): 2.36 Pre-student teaching (n=18): 2.33 Greenville Initial (n= 0): N/A Initial (n=5): 2.6 Pre-student teaching (n= 12): 2.75 Pre-student teaching (n=0): N/A Sumter Initial (n= 0): N/A Initial (n=0): N/A Pre-student teaching (n= 9): 3.11 Pre-student teaching (n=5): : Mean score for APS #5: Fall 2011 Spring 2012 Spartanburg Initial (n= 17): 2.56 Initial (n=28): 2.00 Pre-student teaching (n= 22): 2.59 Pre-student teaching (n=18): 2.39 Greenville Initial (n= 0): N/A Initial (n=5): 2.00 Pre-student teaching (n= 12): 2.58 Pre-student teaching (n=0): N/A Sumter Initial (n= 3): 2.00 Initial (n=6): 2.00 Pre-student teaching (n= 9): 2.89 Pre-student teaching (n=5): : Mean score for APS #6: Fall 2011 Spring 2012 Spartanburg Initial (n= 0): N/A Initial (n=0): N/A Pre-student teaching (n= 22): 2.59 Pre-student teaching (n=18): 2.44 Greenville Initial (n= 0): N/A Initial (n=0): N/A Pre-student teaching (n= 12): 2.58 Pre-student teaching (n=0): N/A Sumter Initial (n= 2): 2.00 Initial (n=6): 2.00 Pre-student teaching (n= 9): 2.89 Pre-student teaching (n=5): USC Upstate: Elementary Program

9 Action Plan What actions or modifications have been or will be made based on this assessment? 3.4: Mean score for APS #7: Fall 2011 Spring 2012 Spartanburg Initial (n= 0): N/A Initial (n=0): N/A Pre-student teaching (n= 22): 2.36 Pre-student teaching (n=18): 2.44 Greenville Initial (n= 0): N/A Initial (n=0): N/A Pre-student teaching (n= 12): 3.17 Pre-student teaching (n=0): N/A Sumter Initial (n= 0): N/A Initial (n=0): N/A Pre-student teaching (n= 9): 3.11 Pre-student teaching (n=5): 2.20 Fall 2011 Exit (Domain II) Spring 2012 Exit (Domain II) Spartanburg (N= 23): 2.70 (N=20): 2.60 Greenville (N=0): N/A (N=9): 2.33 Sumter (N=5): 2.80 (N=7): 2.43 *Exit scores for Domain II are overall scores for APS 4,5,6, and 7 3.5: PRAXIS II PLT test (0522) results: 48 out of 48, or 100% of elementary teacher candidates taking the PLT exam passed in the reporting period. This is 12 percentage points higher than all education majors combined results will not be available until December All candidates met the 2.0 goal for the portfolio APS #s4, 5, 6 & 7 (Domain II). We seem to be decreasing steadily, however, since fall of 2009 in scores on the Exit Portfolio. As an Elementary Education program we will continue to discuss problem areas to improve upon in the academic year, to increase student learning as well as scores to an average above the 3.0 mark. These areas are 1.) Grammar, 2.) Theory Integration, and 3.) Additional and more appropriate artifacts. Faculty will continue to focus on the integration of educational philosophy and practice, grammatical style, and teaching candidates how to reflect upon the artifact and how it relates to the APS. Additional information and examples will be posted on Blackboard sites and the SOE webpage. It is important that the instructors aid candidates in choosing the correct artifact for each APS. A new faculty member has taken over instruction of one of our core courses describing and supporting APS development. This faculty member has restructured the way we inform and support teacher candidates in preparing a portfolio at or above the 3.0 mark. We will continue to offer the assistance she has provided in this course by this new faculty member/course instructor. If the instructor changes, the program coordinator will train the new instructor in this process. We have added (fall 2012) an adjunct training session (carried out each semester by Dr. Pamela Wash). In this training session, APS and how to help prepare our students in these areas will be covered. This training session will continue to be offered. 9 USC Upstate: Elementary Program

10 We will add an inter-rater reliability training session for all elementary faculty scoring the portfolio APSs An was sent fall 2011 to ETS with request for faster reporting with no response. We will continue to make requests on this topic. Implementation/Evaluation of Prior Year s Action Plan Goal 4 Objectives SLO s (student learning outcomes) How was the action plan identified in the previous year s report implemented this year, and what was the impact? From your Program Assessment Plan Describe broad learning outcomes and concepts (what you want students to learn) expressed in general terms (clear communication, problem-solving skills, etc). Goals should focus on discipline-specific outcomes relevant to program.) From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the specific skills, values and attitudes students should be able to exhibit that reflect the broader goals. Objectives (student learning outcomes) transform the general program goals into specific student performance/behaviors that demonstrate student learning and skill development along these goals. Action to improve overall portfolio scores to 3.0 or above was carried out somewhat (through additional resources and instruction in methods courses), but not as well as we would have hoped. Scores did not improve significantly. We have had several adjuncts and new personnel teaching in the Elementary program, and it has been difficult to be consistent in this manner. SEDL 441 has been updated and the instructor is spending more time in the introduction and implementation of the APSs. With two semesters of teaching this course behind her, we feel the teacher candidates are beginning to grasp the concepts and requirements for completing the APSs appropriately. As we continue to dedicate this kind of effort to APS knowledge and preparation, we feel scores will begin to increase. The new requirement added to the portfolio, for candidates to have artifacts that meet all seven content areas addressed in the ACEI standards continues to be monitored by faculty scoring the portfolio, and assures more and better understanding in specific content areas. This also assists in more appropriate and better understanding of long and short range planning and overall assessment. An was sent fall 2011 to ETS with request for faster reporting with no response. We will continue to make requests on this topic. Elementary Education teacher candidates will be able to promote student learning by enhancing classroom environment and managing the classroom effectively. This goal aligns with SoE goals I and IV. 4.1: Elementary Education teacher candidates will demonstrate the ability to maintain a classroom environment that promotes and facilitates learning. 4.2: Elementary Education teacher candidates will be able to demonstrate the ability to manage their classrooms effectively with equity, firmness, and fairness. 10 USC Upstate: Elementary Program

11 Assessment Methods Assessment Criteria From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the measure(s) by which the department will know the students are meeting the departmental learning objectives. Includes both direct and indirect assessment. Each SLO should have at least one assessment method.) Level of achievement you are targeting (indicate benchmarks, scores on assessment instruments, etc that would indicate acceptable achievement under your plan 4.1: Performance on ADEPT Professional Standard (APS) #8: Maintaining a Classroom Environment that Promotes Learning 4.2: Performance on ADEPT Professional Standard (APS) #9: Classroom Management (Domain III) 4.1: Students will score a 2.0 or higher on APS #8 & 9 (Domain III). Assessment Results Actual results and data collected (Make sure to break down data by subgroups (e.g. other campuses or emphases). As appropriate, also include item or category analysis See Appendix III & IV for more general information and trend data related to the APSs Exit Portfolio (Domain III). Assessment results can be found disaggregated below for the Spartanburg, Greenville and Sumter campuses. 4.1: Mean score for APS #8: Fall 2011 Spring 2012 Spartanburg Initial (n= 0): N/A Initial (n=17): 2.75 Pre-student teaching (n= 18): 2.39 Pre-student teaching (n=22): 2.50 Greenville Initial (n= 0): N/A Initial (n=0): N/A Pre-student teaching (n= 0): N/A Pre-student teaching (n=12): 2.58 Sumter Initial (n= 6): 2.0 Initial (n=3): 2.00 Pre-student teaching (n= 5): 2.20 Pre-student teaching (n=9): : Mean score for APS #9: Fall 2011 Spring 2012 Spartanburg Initial (n= 0): N/A Initial (n=0): N/A Pre-student teaching (n= 18): 2.39 Pre-student teaching (n=22): 2.45 Greenville Initial (n= 0): N/A Initial (n=0): N/A Pre-student teaching (n= 0): N/A Pre-student teaching (n=12): 2.33 Sumter Initial (n= 0): N/A Initial (n=0): N/A Pre-student teaching (n= 5): 2.20 Pre-student teaching (n=9): USC Upstate: Elementary Program

12 Action Plan What actions or modifications have been or will be made based on this assessment? Fall 2011 Exit (Domain III) Spring 2012 Exit (Domain III) Spartanburg (N= 20): 2.60 (N=23): 2.83 Greenville (N=9): 2.33 (N=0): N/A Sumter (N=7): 2.86 (N=5): 2.40 *Exit scores for Domain III are overall scores for APS 8 and 9 All candidates met the 2.0 goal for the portfolio APS #s 8 & 9 (Domain III). In this domain we haven t been steady in our results over the past six semesters. We have been fairly sporadic in our exit score performance ranging above and below the 3.0 mark since As an Elementary Education program we will continue to discuss problem areas to improve upon in the academic year, to increase student learning as well as scores to an average above the 3.0 mark. These areas are 1.) Grammar, 2.) Theory Integration, and 3.) Additional and more appropriate artifacts. Faculty will continue to focus on the integration of educational philosophy and practice, grammatical style, and teaching candidates how to reflect upon the artifact and how it relates to the APS. Additional information and examples will be posted on Blackboard sites and the SOE webpage. It is important that the instructors aid candidates in choosing the correct artifact for each APS. A new faculty member has taken over instruction of one of our core courses describing and supporting APS development. This faculty member has restructured the way we inform and support teacher candidates in preparing a portfolio at or above the 3.0 mark. We will continue to offer the assistance she has provided in this course by this new faculty member/course instructor. If the instructor changes, the program coordinator will train the new instructor in this process. We have added (fall 2012) an adjunct training session (carried out each semester by Dr. Pamela Wash). In this training session, APS and how to help prepare our students in these areas will be covered. This training session will continue to be offered. We will add an inter-rater reliability training session for all elementary faculty scoring the portfolio APSs. Implementation/Evaluation of Prior Year s Action Plan How was the action plan identified in the previous year s report implemented this year, and what was the impact? From your Program Assessment Plan Describe broad Action to improve overall portfolio scores to 3.0 or above was carried out somewhat (through additional resources and instruction in methods courses), but not as well as we would have hoped. Scores did not improve significantly. We have had several adjuncts and new personnel teaching in the Elementary program, and it has been difficult to be consistent in this manner. SEDL 441 has been updated and the instructor is spending more time in the introduction and implementation of the APSs. With two semesters of teaching this course behind her, we feel the teacher candidates are beginning to grasp the concepts and requirements for completing the APSs appropriately. As we continue to dedicate this kind of effort to APS knowledge and preparation, we feel scores will begin to increase. The new requirement added to the portfolio, for candidates to have artifacts that meet all seven content areas addressed in the ACEI standards continues to be monitored by faculty scoring the portfolio, and assures more and better understanding in specific content areas. This also assists in more appropriate and better understanding of long and short range planning and overall assessment. Elementary Education teacher candidates will demonstrate dispositions essential to becoming effective professionals. This goal aligns with SoE goal V. 12 USC Upstate: Elementary Program

13 Goal 5 Objectives SLO s (student learning outcomes) Assessment Methods learning outcomes and concepts (what you want students to learn) expressed in general terms (clear communication, problem-solving skills, etc). Goals should focus on discipline-specific outcomes relevant to program.) From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the specific skills, values and attitudes students should be able to exhibit that reflect the broader goals. Objectives (student learning outcomes) transform the general program goals into specific student performance/behaviors that demonstrate student learning and skill development along these goals. From your Program Assessment Plan (Describes the measure(s) by which the department will know the students are meeting the departmental learning objectives. Includes both direct and indirect assessment. Each SLO should have at least one assessment method.) 5.1: Teacher candidates will exhibit an ability to develop as a teacher both professionally and personally. 5.1: Performance on ADEPT Professional Standard (APS) #10 (Domain IV): Personal and Professional Development 5.2: Performance on Teacher Work Sample (TWS) The Teacher Work Sample (TWS) is a comprehensive 200 point assessment composed of seven components (contextual factors 20 pts, learning goals 25pts, assessment plan 25 pts, design for instruction 35 pts, instructional decision-making 25 pts, analysis of student learning 20 pts, and self assessment/reflection 25 pts) used to measure effects on student learning. These components correlate with the APS Standards. Each of the seven components is graded on a rubric (Appendix VI). Teacher candidates are given a rating based on their total score: Exemplary = More than satisfactory = Satisfactory = (all indicators must be in the satisfactory range) Unsatisfactory = below 146. For students whose work is rated as unsatisfactory, the individual components rated as unsatisfactory must be resubmitted. TWS reports are compiled during teacher candidates final semester while they are completing their student teaching experience. Assessment Criteria Level of achievement you are targeting (indicate benchmarks, scores on assessment instruments, etc that would indicate acceptable achievement under your plan 5.1: Students will score a 2.0 or higher on APS #10 (Domain IV). 5.2: Students will achieve an overall rating of More Than Satisfactory for Teacher Work Samples. 13 USC Upstate: Elementary Program

14 Assessment Results Actual results and data collected (Make sure to break down data by subgroups (e.g. other campuses or emphases). As appropriate, also include item or category analysis General information and trend data for APS Exit Portfolio can be found in Appendix III & IV. Assessment results can be found disaggregated below for the Spartanburg, Greenville and Sumter campuses. 5.1: Mean score for APS #10: Fall 2011 Spring 2012 Spartanburg Initial (n= 0): N/A Initial (n=0): N/A Pre-student teaching (n= 22): 2.36 Pre-student teaching (n=18): 2.28 Greenville Initial (n= 0): N/A Initial (n=5): 2.20 Pre-student teaching (n= 12): 2.42 Pre-student teaching (n=0): N/A Sumter Initial (n= 3): 2.00 Initial (n=6): 2.00 Pre-student teaching (n= 9): 3.33 Pre-student teaching (n=5): 2.40 Fall 2011 Exit (Domain IV) Spring 2012 Exit (Domain IV) Spartanburg (N= 23): 2.83 (N=20): 2.70 Greenville (N=0): N/A (N=9): 2.33 Sumter (N=5): 2.40 (N=7): 2.71 *Exit scores for Domain IV include only APS : Mean Teacher Work Sample scores (scores not disaggregated by campus): Fall 2011 Spring 2012 (n = 19) 182 (n = 37) 180 % greater than % % greater than % Action Plan What actions or modifications have been or will be made based on this assessment? All candidates met the 2.0 goal for the portfolio APS # 10 (Domain IV). In this domain we haven t been steady in our results over the past six semesters. We have been fairly sporadic in our exit score performance ranging above and below the 3.0 mark since As an Elementary Education program we will continue to discuss problem areas to improve upon in the academic year, to increase student learning as well as scores to an average above the 3.0 mark. These areas are 1.) Grammar, 2.) Theory Integration, and 3.) Additional and more appropriate artifacts. Faculty will continue to focus on the integration of educational philosophy and practice, grammatical style, and teaching candidates how to reflect upon the artifact and how it relates to the APS. Additional information and examples will be posted on Blackboard sites and the SOE webpage. It is important that the instructors aid candidates in choosing the correct artifact for each APS. A new faculty member has taken over instruction of one of our core courses describing and supporting APS development. This faculty member has restructured the way we inform and support teacher candidates in preparing a portfolio at or above the 3.0 mark. We will continue to offer the assistance she has provided in this course by this new faculty member/course instructor. If the instructor changes, the program coordinator will train the new instructor in this process. 14 USC Upstate: Elementary Program

15 Implementation/Evaluation of Prior Year s Action Plan How was the action plan identified in the previous year s report implemented this year, and what was the impact? We have added (fall 2012) an adjunct training session (carried out each semester by Dr. Pamela Wash). In this training session, APS and how to help prepare our students in these areas will be covered. This training session will continue to be offered. We will add an inter-rater reliability training session for all elementary faculty scoring the portfolio APSs. We met our goal for percentage of student scores being above the 160 mark. The Teacher Work Sample has been implemented for four years in the Elementary Education Program and scores have been used for two years for general candidate assessment. This is a fairly new assessment and we plan to continue to update and revise for a better assessment instrument. The TWS has proven a valuable assessment instrument and will continue to be fine-tuned and utilized in the future. The Elementary Education program committee will look closely during this upcoming academic year at our TWS. We will visit other education programs in North and South Carolina to review their teacher work samples to determine if we can revise ours for a better product/assessment. Action to improve overall portfolio scores to 3.0 or above was carried out somewhat (through additional resources and instruction in methods courses), but not as well as we would have hoped. Scores did not improve significantly. We have had several adjuncts and new personnel teaching in the Elementary program, and it has been difficult to be consistent in this manner. SEDL 441 has been updated and the instructor is spending more time in the introduction and implementation of the APSs. With two semesters of teaching this course behind her, we feel the teacher candidates are beginning to grasp the concepts and requirements for completing the APSs appropriately. As we continue to dedicate this kind of effort to APS knowledge and preparation, we feel scores will begin to increase. The new requirement added to the portfolio, for candidates to have artifacts that meet all seven content areas addressed in the ACEI standards is monitored by faculty scoring the portfolio, and assures more and better understanding in specific content areas. This also assists in more appropriate and better understanding of long and short range planning and overall assessment. The Elementary program reviewed the Portfolio and TWS assessments to determine if they could be combined to make one assessment. It was determined that we could not combine these two assessments because for accreditation purposes we are required to have at least six assessments. If we combined these we would not have enough major assessments to meet the requirements. 15 USC Upstate: Elementary Program

16 Appendix I Praxis II Content Exams (0011 & 0012) Comparison of Elementary Programs at Three Campuses Percent Students Passing Spartanburg Campus Greenville Campus Sumter Campus Praxis II Content Exams (0011 & 0012) Comparison of Elementary Majors(from three campuses) in Relation to All Education Majors Percent Students Passing 90 All Elementary Majors All Education Majors USC Upstate: Elementary Program

17 Appendix II (Principles of Learning and Teaching) PLT Exam Comparison of Elementary Programs at Three Campuses 100 Percent Students Passing Spartanburg Campus Greenville Campus Sumter Campus (Principles of Learning and Teaching) PLT Exam Comparison of Elementary Majors (from three campuses) in Relation to All Education Majors Percent Students Passing90 85 All Elementary Majors All Education Majors USC Upstate: Elementary Program

18 Appendix III Average Portfolio Scores Comparison of Elementary Programs at Three Campuses 4 Average Student Portfolio Score On A 0-4 Scale Spartanburg Greenville Sumter 0 Fall 2009 Spring 2010 Fall 2010 Spring 2011 Fall 2011 Spring Average Portfolio Scores Comparison of All Elementary Program Majors to All Education Program Majors 4 Average Student Portfolio 3 Score on a 0-4 Scale 2 1 All Elementary Majors All Education Majors 0 Fall 2009 Spring 2010 Fall 2010 Spring 2011 Fall 2011 Spring USC Upstate: Elementary Program

19 Appendix IV Average Portfolio Scores (by domain) Elementary Majors (all campuses) Scores Based On 0-4 Point Scale Fall 2009 Spring 2010 Fall 2010 Spring 2011 Fall 2011 Spring 2012 Domain I Domain II Domain III Domain IV 19 USC Upstate: Elementary Program

20 Appendix V. USC Upstate School of Education Portfolio Rubric Checkpoints 1 and 2: Initial (Knowledge/Understanding) and Pre-Directed Teaching (Understanding/Application) Checkpoints The teacher candidate utilizes high-quality artifacts in order to provide an argument (i.e., Rationale Statement) to demonstrate the candidate s knowledge, skills, and dispositions related to current competency in each ADEPT Performance Standard (APS). For example: This artifact reflects my current level of proficiency in and relates to APS in many ways. For a teaching episode, a high-quality artifact might include with the report and reflection such items as a lesson plan, an observation of that lesson plan by the cooperating teacher or supervisor, handouts or materials used, student work, analysis of student work, etc. Part I: Artifact Exemplary (E) (4 Points) More than Satisfactory (M) (3 Points) Satisfactory (S) (2 Points) Unsatisfactory (U) (1 Point) Artifact Report Report of artifact shows exemplary Report of artifact shows a high degree of Report of artifact shows a moderate degree of Report of artifact shows a weak understanding, knowledge, and/or understanding, knowledge, and/or understanding, knowledge, and/or degree of understanding, performance of the APS and includes the performance of the APS and includes the performance of the APS and includes the knowledge, and/or performance of origin of the artifact and a description of what origin of the artifact and a description of what origin of the artifact and a description of what the APS and/or is not complete was read, prepared, completed and/or observed was read, prepared, completed and/or observed was read, prepared, completed and/or observed related to the assignment and supporting related to the assignment and supporting related to the assignment and supporting documents documents documents Artifact Reflection Supporting Documents Reflection of artifact is clear, well developed, and includes a thorough description of what was learned, thought, understood, evaluated, or analyzed as a result of the experience being presented Supporting documents expertly illustrate, amplify, or exemplify the artifact Reflection of artifact is clear and includes a description of what was learned, thought, understood, evaluated, or analyzed as a result of the experience being presented, but lacks adequate development and specifics Supporting documents clearly illustrate, amplify, or exemplify the artifact Reflection of artifact includes a description of what was learned, thought, understood, evaluated, or analyzed as a result of the experience being presented, but lacks necessary development and specifics Supporting documents adequately illustrate, amplify, or exemplify the artifact Little, if any, description of what was learned, thought, understood, evaluated, or analyzed as a result of the experience being presented Few, if any, supporting documents included and/or do not exemplify the artifact Part II: Rationale Description of APS Relationship Between Artifact and APS Self -Assessment of Knowledge/Skills in APS (Strengths, Weaknesses, and Plan for Growth) Writing indicates an exemplary degree of understanding of the APS and includes a summary of the APS, the importance of the APS in being an effective teacher, and citations of major theories, people, and/or organizations related to the APS Includes a brief reference to artifact; clearly and thoroughly describes the connection between the artifact and the APS to demonstrate the candidate s proficiency in the APS at the given checkpoint Clear, well developed, and specific analysis of what was learned, the candidate s strengths and areas for improvement in the APS, and a plan for growth Writing indicates a high degree of understanding of the APS and includes a summary of the APS, the importance of the APS in being an effective teacher, and citations of major theories, people, and/or organizations related to the APS Includes a brief reference to artifact; clearly describes the connection between the artifact and the APS to demonstrate the candidate s proficiency in the APS at the given checkpoint, but lacks adequate detail Clear analysis of what was learned, the candidate s strengths and areas for improvement in the APS, and a plan for growth, but lacks some development and specifics Writing indicates a moderate degree of understanding of the APS and includes a summary of the APS and the importance of the APS in being an effective teacher Includes a brief reference to artifact; describes the connection between the artifact and the APS to demonstrate the candidate s proficiency in the APS at the given checkpoint, but lacks necessary detail Describes what was learned, the candidate s strengths and areas for improvement in the APS, and a plan for growth, but lacks development and specifics Writing indicates an insufficient degree of understanding of the ADEPT Performance Standard (APS) and/or is not complete The connection between the artifact and the APS to demonstrate the candidate s proficiency in the APS at the given time is not established or is illogically established Little, if any, description of what was learned, the candidate s strengths and areas for improvement in the APS, and a plan for growth 20 USC Upstate: Elementary Program