Enhance quality and effectiveness in the academic programs
Objective
Candidate Preparedness
Assure candidate preparedness for the field through benchmark assessments at entry, clinical experience and at exit. Since the inception of the assessment system in 2002-2003, we have dramatically improved our proficiency in developing standards-based assessments, managing, analyzing and reporting assessment data in each of our programs. Through participation in the NCATE SPA recognition process, assessment of content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills, student learning and professional dispositions takes place across all programs. Refinement of the assessment system and further growth in our assessment proficiency remain a focus.
Indicator
Pass Rates On Certification Exams
All candidates seeking initial certification, advanced teacher certification, or certifications for other school personnel must take one or more of the Texas Examinations of Educator Standards (TExES). These examinations directly correspond to the state content competencies that have been identified for the certification desired. These content competencies are aligned with and based on the appropriate state standards and the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) statements, which describe the state mandated curriculum for EC-12 students. The examinations are also aligned with national program standards. Each TExES examination is criterion-referenced and is designed to measure a candidate's level of content knowledge and skills appropriate for educators in the State of Texas. The two tests used for elementary inital certification are the Texas Examinations of Educator Standards (TExES) Generalist at either EC-4, EC-6 or 4-8 and the Texas Examinations of Educator Standards (TExES) Pedagogy and Professional Responsibilities. Examinations for other school professionals i.e. principals, counselors, librarians are also included in the College data set. Each test was collaboratively developed by the State Board of Educator Certification (SBEC), National Evaluation Systems, Inc. (NES), an independent corporation specializing in educational measurements, with additional participation by committees of Texas educators. Subsequent to AY 2006-2007, the test developer and vendor was Educational Testing Service. Individual test items developed to measure the state competencies were reviewed and rated by the various committees of Texas educators to ensure appropriateness of content and difficulty, clarity, and accuracy. These committees also ensured that the test items matched the appropriate competencies and were free from potential ethnicity, gender, and regional biases. The committees also helped prepare scoring rubrics for written response items and training materials for those who would score the tests.
Separate standard-setting panels were convened to review statistical data about candidate scores from initial pilot studies of the tests during their development. Recommendations were forwarded to the SBEC, which made the final decisions about establishing passing scores. Currently, TExES examinations are centrally administered by SBEC and ETS at pre-determined sites and on pre-established dates across Texas similar to many of the national achievement tests. This regime provides for a professional, equitable, and secure testing environment for candidates. Alternative testing arrangements are also permitted for those requiring special consideration. Sites are selected after a careful review of security and accessibility potential, and the quality of overall testing conditions. Tests are scored centrally. The Accountability System for Educator Preparation is administrated by the State Board for Educator Certification. Pass rates for this indicator are calculated for this analysis by analyzing all first attempt scores on every TExES test. For the college, unit-level data is presented. Each department reports pass rates and determines target performance as appropriate.
Criterion
Pass Rates for All Tests
Pass rates for ALL Tests TExES Exams will exceed 80%. While the accountability system for the state examines scores for a completer cohort(defined as completing all requirements for a degree between Sept 1 and August 31 of a given year), and provides for students to repeat the examination if they are not successful on the first attempt, the analysis of pass rates presented here represents the pass rates on the first attempt for all tests taken in 2008-2009. A scaled score of 240 is required for passing. Inital and Final passing rates are calculated for each completer cohort at 15 and 27 months after the last graduation date in the state system. For intial teacher certification, two examinations are required: a content knowledge exam and a pedagogy exam. Continued accreditation by the State Board for Educator Certification requires 80% passing rate on all tests.
Finding
Pass rates on Certification Exams
Overall pass rates for first attempts for ALL TESTS on the TExES during 2008-2009 was 89%. There were 1161 first attempts with a mean scaled score of 259, with 240 as a cut score for passing. This exceeds the rate required to maintain accreditation by the State Board for Educator Certification and the goal of 80% set for this year.
Indicator
Teacher Work Sample Performance
The Teacher Work Sample (TWS), adapted from The Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality Project (http://fp.uni.edu/itq), is a performance assessment designed to demonstrate evidence of Sam Houston State University candidates' ability to facilitate learning for all students. This sample illustrates the candidate's ability to plan, implement, modify and assess instruction during their student teaching semester.
Prior to the student teaching semester, candidates choose one (12 to 14 week placement) or two (6 to 7 week placements). During the first 6 to 7 weeks of their placement, candidates are required to create and teach a unit as a Teacher Work Sample. After consulting with their mentor teacher about the unit focus, candidates teach a minimum of five lessons from the unit in their mentor's classroom. Additionally, the candidates are evaluated on their unit planning and teaching of unit lessons. They are also required to reflect on their decision-making and teaching practice including their impact on student learning.
The Teacher Work Sample (TWS) focuses on seven teaching processes that are crucial for effective/reflective teaching and must be considered when planning for the learning of all students. Each process is defined by a performance standard, specific task, a student prompt and a rubric that identify the desired performance of the candidate related to that process. The Teacher Work Sample is divided into 7 teaching processes or sections: 1. Contextual Factors 2. Learning Goals, 3. Assessment Planning 4. Design for Instruction, 5. Instructional Decision Making 6. Analysis of Student Learning, and 7. Reflection and Self-Evaluation
Rubrics rate each candidate's performance on each indicator as a one (Indicator Not Met), a two (Indicator Partially Met) or a three (Indicator Met).
Criterion
Teacher Work Sample Scores
85 % of candidates in the 2008-2009 cohort will achieve an overall score in the target or acceptable range on the Teacher Work Sample. This high-stakes capstone assessment is administered at the end of the first student teaching placement. It serves as a measure of candidate effect on EC-12 student learning, a critical component of success in the classroom. Candidates analyze EC-12 student performance for the entire class, and on two individual students, including analysis of sub-group performance. They report on their subsequent reflection on instructional decisions, assessments, the lesson design and how they might make adjustments or seek additional professional development to improve student performance. A blind scoring process conducted by trained faculty, university supervisors, classroom mentor teachers results in scoring of seven teaching processes, which is then holistically set as an overall score at a target level of 3, at an acceptable level of 2, or at 1, if unacceptable. Candidates receiving a low 2 or a 1 are required to revise or repeat the Teacher Work Sample process in order to receive credit for student teaching.
Finding
Teacher Work Sample Performance
For the 2008-2009 cohort of student teachers, 66% received an holistic score of three, indicating target level performance. Thirty-one % of the group were scored at the acceptable level of performance, with 3% scoring in the unacceptable range. This meets the expectation set for the overall group. Scoring data reflect two matching scores assigned to each Teacher Work Sample in the blind scoring process. Rubrics used for scoring the work samples are attached to the criteria.
Action
Pass rates on Certification Exams
While the overall pass rates for first attempts exceed the goal set for this year,as detailed in COE data, further examination of the initial reports in the Accountability System for Educator Preparation will be performed to assure that no gaps exist among subgroups or in particular programs. In addition, purchase of practice software and released tests to assist candidates in their preparation for testing will provide added resources for those who do not pass on the first attempt. Further, a need for improvement of communications regarding testing results, state procedures, added testing sites, new standard setting and new exam development is evident. Development of a communication plan by the Educator Preparation Services staff take place in 2009-2010.
Action
Teacher Work Sample Performance
While TWS performance in 2008-2009 met the goal for the unit and provided information regarding candidate impact on EC-12 student learning, several initiatives also resulted from analysis of these data. The Teacher Work Sample Team, a standing committee in the COE, appointed a task force to identify in which courses the seven teaching processes are introduced, reinforced or applied. This backward instructional design assures that candidates have layered instruction to ready them for skillfully employing the processes in their student teaching placement(s). Further, the TWS Team will attend the bi-annual research conference to move past the implementation stage to expand research initiatives by the faculty using SHSU candidate products. This research agenda will provide added information for program improvement and further knowledge in the field.
Goal
Faculty Excellence
Promote faculty excellence in teaching, scholarship, and service.
Objective
Faculty Excellence
Increase faculty productivity through contributions to the field in publications, presentations, service and professional development.
Indicator
Faculty Production
Annual professor to publication ratio and professor to presentation ratio for COE compared to University. This provides a measure of faculty achievement by comparison to other University faculty. Both indicators, presentations and publications are also tracked by the Division of Academic Affairs.
Criterion
Faculty Publications
COE Professor to publication ratio will exceed the SHSU ratio
Finding
COE Faculty to Publicaton Ratio vs. SHSU
The number of faculty in The College of Education who are tenured or on the tenure track for the academic year 2008-2009 was 74. The number of publications for these faculty members totaled 306, yielding a ratio of 1: 4.14. For the remaining 405 faculty in the University, there were 499 publications, yielding a ratio of 1:1.23. This difference represents a rate of publication which is 336 % greater than the other faculty of the University.
Criterion
Faculty Presentations
Ratio of COE faculty to presentations will exceed SHSU faculty to presentations ratio
Finding
COE Faculty to Presentation Ratio vs. SHSU
Number of presentations by COE faculty at professional conferences in 2008-2009 totaled 400. The number of COE tenured and tenure-track faculty is 74 for this academic year, yielding a ratio of 1: 5.41 The number of presentations by SHSU faculty (excluding COE faculty) was 990. The number of SHSU tenured and tenure track faculty (excluding COE faculty) is 405, yielding a ratio of faculty to presentations for SHSU of 1: 2.44 for other University faculty.
Action
Faculty Presentations
While the ratio of faculty to presentations exceeds that of the University, continued excellence in this area is an expectation of the faculty. Research efforts in Assessment, Teacher Work Sample methodology, distance education and instructional techology are new areas of pursuit that will need support in the coming year. Continued efforts to recruit diverse faculty with varied expertise and experiences are needed in all departments.
Action
Faculty To Pulication Ratio
While faculty to publications ratio exceeds that of the University, the number of master's and doctoral programs within the College exceed those of all other colleges. Added resources to support faculty research and publication will be added by the new Associate Dean for Graduate Studies. In addition, both the Graduate Committee and the Professional Development Committee will investigate new sources of funding and support for graduate faculty. The undergraduate faculty continue to develop and use program assessments to evalaute candidate proficiencies and to promote faculty research agendas related to inital teacher preparation.
Objective
Candidate Preparedness
Assure candidate preparedness for the field through benchmark assessments at entry, clinical experience and at exit. Since the inception of the assessment system in 2002-2003, we have dramatically improved our proficiency in developing standards-based assessments, managing, analyzing and reporting assessment data in each of our programs. Through participation in the NCATE SPA recognition process, assessment of content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills, student learning and professional dispositions takes place across all programs. Refinement of the assessment system and further growth in our assessment proficiency remain a focus.
Indicator
Pass Rates On Certification Exams
All candidates seeking initial certification, advanced teacher certification, or certifications for other school personnel must take one or more of the Texas Examinations of Educator Standards (TExES). These examinations directly correspond to the state content competencies that have been identified for the certification desired. These content competencies are aligned with and based on the appropriate state standards and the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) statements, which describe the state mandated curriculum for EC-12 students. The examinations are also aligned with national program standards. Each TExES examination is criterion-referenced and is designed to measure a candidate's level of content knowledge and skills appropriate for educators in the State of Texas. The two tests used for elementary inital certification are the Texas Examinations of Educator Standards (TExES) Generalist at either EC-4, EC-6 or 4-8 and the Texas Examinations of Educator Standards (TExES) Pedagogy and Professional Responsibilities. Examinations for other school professionals i.e. principals, counselors, librarians are also included in the College data set. Each test was collaboratively developed by the State Board of Educator Certification (SBEC), National Evaluation Systems, Inc. (NES), an independent corporation specializing in educational measurements, with additional participation by committees of Texas educators. Subsequent to AY 2006-2007, the test developer and vendor was Educational Testing Service. Individual test items developed to measure the state competencies were reviewed and rated by the various committees of Texas educators to ensure appropriateness of content and difficulty, clarity, and accuracy. These committees also ensured that the test items matched the appropriate competencies and were free from potential ethnicity, gender, and regional biases. The committees also helped prepare scoring rubrics for written response items and training materials for those who would score the tests.
Separate standard-setting panels were convened to review statistical data about candidate scores from initial pilot studies of the tests during their development. Recommendations were forwarded to the SBEC, which made the final decisions about establishing passing scores. Currently, TExES examinations are centrally administered by SBEC and ETS at pre-determined sites and on pre-established dates across Texas similar to many of the national achievement tests. This regime provides for a professional, equitable, and secure testing environment for candidates. Alternative testing arrangements are also permitted for those requiring special consideration. Sites are selected after a careful review of security and accessibility potential, and the quality of overall testing conditions. Tests are scored centrally. The Accountability System for Educator Preparation is administrated by the State Board for Educator Certification. Pass rates for this indicator are calculated for this analysis by analyzing all first attempt scores on every TExES test. For the college, unit-level data is presented. Each department reports pass rates and determines target performance as appropriate.
Criterion
Pass Rates for All Tests
Pass rates for ALL Tests TExES Exams will exceed 80%. While the accountability system for the state examines scores for a completer cohort(defined as completing all requirements for a degree between Sept 1 and August 31 of a given year), and provides for students to repeat the examination if they are not successful on the first attempt, the analysis of pass rates presented here represents the pass rates on the first attempt for all tests taken in 2008-2009. A scaled score of 240 is required for passing. Inital and Final passing rates are calculated for each completer cohort at 15 and 27 months after the last graduation date in the state system. For intial teacher certification, two examinations are required: a content knowledge exam and a pedagogy exam. Continued accreditation by the State Board for Educator Certification requires 80% passing rate on all tests.
Finding
Pass rates on Certification Exams
Overall pass rates for first attempts for ALL TESTS on the TExES during 2008-2009 was 89%. There were 1161 first attempts with a mean scaled score of 259, with 240 as a cut score for passing. This exceeds the rate required to maintain accreditation by the State Board for Educator Certification and the goal of 80% set for this year.
Indicator
Teacher Work Sample Performance
The Teacher Work Sample (TWS), adapted from The Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality Project (http://fp.uni.edu/itq), is a performance assessment designed to demonstrate evidence of Sam Houston State University candidates' ability to facilitate learning for all students. This sample illustrates the candidate's ability to plan, implement, modify and assess instruction during their student teaching semester.
Prior to the student teaching semester, candidates choose one (12 to 14 week placement) or two (6 to 7 week placements). During the first 6 to 7 weeks of their placement, candidates are required to create and teach a unit as a Teacher Work Sample. After consulting with their mentor teacher about the unit focus, candidates teach a minimum of five lessons from the unit in their mentor's classroom. Additionally, the candidates are evaluated on their unit planning and teaching of unit lessons. They are also required to reflect on their decision-making and teaching practice including their impact on student learning.
The Teacher Work Sample (TWS) focuses on seven teaching processes that are crucial for effective/reflective teaching and must be considered when planning for the learning of all students. Each process is defined by a performance standard, specific task, a student prompt and a rubric that identify the desired performance of the candidate related to that process. The Teacher Work Sample is divided into 7 teaching processes or sections: 1. Contextual Factors 2. Learning Goals, 3. Assessment Planning 4. Design for Instruction, 5. Instructional Decision Making 6. Analysis of Student Learning, and 7. Reflection and Self-Evaluation
Rubrics rate each candidate's performance on each indicator as a one (Indicator Not Met), a two (Indicator Partially Met) or a three (Indicator Met).
Criterion
Teacher Work Sample Scores
85 % of candidates in the 2008-2009 cohort will achieve an overall score in the target or acceptable range on the Teacher Work Sample. This high-stakes capstone assessment is administered at the end of the first student teaching placement. It serves as a measure of candidate effect on EC-12 student learning, a critical component of success in the classroom. Candidates analyze EC-12 student performance for the entire class, and on two individual students, including analysis of sub-group performance. They report on their subsequent reflection on instructional decisions, assessments, the lesson design and how they might make adjustments or seek additional professional development to improve student performance. A blind scoring process conducted by trained faculty, university supervisors, classroom mentor teachers results in scoring of seven teaching processes, which is then holistically set as an overall score at a target level of 3, at an acceptable level of 2, or at 1, if unacceptable. Candidates receiving a low 2 or a 1 are required to revise or repeat the Teacher Work Sample process in order to receive credit for student teaching.
Finding
Teacher Work Sample Performance
For the 2008-2009 cohort of student teachers, 66% received an holistic score of three, indicating target level performance. Thirty-one % of the group were scored at the acceptable level of performance, with 3% scoring in the unacceptable range. This meets the expectation set for the overall group. Scoring data reflect two matching scores assigned to each Teacher Work Sample in the blind scoring process. Rubrics used for scoring the work samples are attached to the criteria.
Action
Pass rates on Certification Exams
While the overall pass rates for first attempts exceed the goal set for this year,as detailed in COE data, further examination of the initial reports in the Accountability System for Educator Preparation will be performed to assure that no gaps exist among subgroups or in particular programs. In addition, purchase of practice software and released tests to assist candidates in their preparation for testing will provide added resources for those who do not pass on the first attempt. Further, a need for improvement of communications regarding testing results, state procedures, added testing sites, new standard setting and new exam development is evident. Development of a communication plan by the Educator Preparation Services staff take place in 2009-2010.
Action
Teacher Work Sample Performance
While TWS performance in 2008-2009 met the goal for the unit and provided information regarding candidate impact on EC-12 student learning, several initiatives also resulted from analysis of these data. The Teacher Work Sample Team, a standing committee in the COE, appointed a task force to identify in which courses the seven teaching processes are introduced, reinforced or applied. This backward instructional design assures that candidates have layered instruction to ready them for skillfully employing the processes in their student teaching placement(s). Further, the TWS Team will attend the bi-annual research conference to move past the implementation stage to expand research initiatives by the faculty using SHSU candidate products. This research agenda will provide added information for program improvement and further knowledge in the field.
Goal
Constituency Satisfaction
Ensure satisfaction among the various constituencies served by the college
Objective
Candidate Satisfaction
Improve candidate satisfaction with educator preparation services
Indicator
Satisfaction With Ed Prep Services
Student satisfaction with three services provided for undergraduates: advising services, certification and testing services and field experience services as indicated by annual survey responses.
Criterion
Ed. Prep. Services Satisfaction Survey
Upon completion of student teaching, candidate satisfaction ratings for six areas of Ed. Prep. Services will exceed 2.5 on a five point Likert scale. Results from a program evaluation survey conducted by two groups, secondary and elementary student teachers are reported here by level for each of six areas: Advising, Field Experience Office, Communication about Practice Testing; Program Admission, and Communication about Testing.
Finding
Secondary Candidate Satisfaction with Ed Prep Services
Secondary student teachers reported their satisfaction using a five point LIkert scale for six areas of Educator Preparation Services. Mean scores follow: Fall 08, SP 09 COE Advising-4.02, 3.73 Ed Prep Admission-4.10, 3.97 Communication re: testing-3.58, 3.54 Communication re: Qualifying exam scores-3.67, 3.64 Office of Field Experiences-4.14, 3.98 TExES Office knowledgeable-3.91, 3.73 TExEs Office professional-4.11, 3.90 TExES Office helpful-3.96, 3.75 TExES Office responsive-3.96, 3.70
Finding
Elementary Program Evaluation Survey Results
Academic Studies student teachers were surveyed regarding satisfaction with the program and with Educator Preparation Services in six areas using a five -point LIkert scale. Mean Scores follow: Fall 08, SP 09 Advising-3.87, 3.90 Ed Prep Admission-4.21, 4.25 Communication about Testing-3.75, 3.57 Communication about Qualifying exams-3.78, 3.62 TExES Knowledgeable & Profesional-3.76, 3.55 TExES Helpful & Responsive-3.73, 3.72 Office of Field Experiences-4.02, 4.20
Action
Satisfaction With Educator Preparation Services
Analysis of trend data and this year's results provide information for improvement by the Educator Preparation Services Staff in advising, the TExES Office, Office of Field Experience. Actions recorded under the Ed Prep Services group should reflect specific strategies for addressing improvement in level of service and perceptions of candidates regarding the professional services rendered by that department. It should be noted that major changes in advising services are planned in the coming year as most ongoing advising is transferred from program faculty to the SAM Center. The Program Evaluation instrument has also been targeted for revision by the Assessment Committee.
Objective
Candidate Preparedness
Assure candidate preparedness for the field through benchmark assessments at entry, clinical experience and at exit. Since the inception of the assessment system in 2002-2003, we have dramatically improved our proficiency in developing standards-based assessments, managing, analyzing and reporting assessment data in each of our programs. Through participation in the NCATE SPA recognition process, assessment of content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills, student learning and professional dispositions takes place across all programs. Refinement of the assessment system and further growth in our assessment proficiency remain a focus.
Indicator
Pass Rates On Certification Exams
All candidates seeking initial certification, advanced teacher certification, or certifications for other school personnel must take one or more of the Texas Examinations of Educator Standards (TExES). These examinations directly correspond to the state content competencies that have been identified for the certification desired. These content competencies are aligned with and based on the appropriate state standards and the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) statements, which describe the state mandated curriculum for EC-12 students. The examinations are also aligned with national program standards. Each TExES examination is criterion-referenced and is designed to measure a candidate's level of content knowledge and skills appropriate for educators in the State of Texas. The two tests used for elementary inital certification are the Texas Examinations of Educator Standards (TExES) Generalist at either EC-4, EC-6 or 4-8 and the Texas Examinations of Educator Standards (TExES) Pedagogy and Professional Responsibilities. Examinations for other school professionals i.e. principals, counselors, librarians are also included in the College data set. Each test was collaboratively developed by the State Board of Educator Certification (SBEC), National Evaluation Systems, Inc. (NES), an independent corporation specializing in educational measurements, with additional participation by committees of Texas educators. Subsequent to AY 2006-2007, the test developer and vendor was Educational Testing Service. Individual test items developed to measure the state competencies were reviewed and rated by the various committees of Texas educators to ensure appropriateness of content and difficulty, clarity, and accuracy. These committees also ensured that the test items matched the appropriate competencies and were free from potential ethnicity, gender, and regional biases. The committees also helped prepare scoring rubrics for written response items and training materials for those who would score the tests.
Separate standard-setting panels were convened to review statistical data about candidate scores from initial pilot studies of the tests during their development. Recommendations were forwarded to the SBEC, which made the final decisions about establishing passing scores. Currently, TExES examinations are centrally administered by SBEC and ETS at pre-determined sites and on pre-established dates across Texas similar to many of the national achievement tests. This regime provides for a professional, equitable, and secure testing environment for candidates. Alternative testing arrangements are also permitted for those requiring special consideration. Sites are selected after a careful review of security and accessibility potential, and the quality of overall testing conditions. Tests are scored centrally. The Accountability System for Educator Preparation is administrated by the State Board for Educator Certification. Pass rates for this indicator are calculated for this analysis by analyzing all first attempt scores on every TExES test. For the college, unit-level data is presented. Each department reports pass rates and determines target performance as appropriate.
Criterion
Pass Rates for All Tests
Pass rates for ALL Tests TExES Exams will exceed 80%. While the accountability system for the state examines scores for a completer cohort(defined as completing all requirements for a degree between Sept 1 and August 31 of a given year), and provides for students to repeat the examination if they are not successful on the first attempt, the analysis of pass rates presented here represents the pass rates on the first attempt for all tests taken in 2008-2009. A scaled score of 240 is required for passing. Inital and Final passing rates are calculated for each completer cohort at 15 and 27 months after the last graduation date in the state system. For intial teacher certification, two examinations are required: a content knowledge exam and a pedagogy exam. Continued accreditation by the State Board for Educator Certification requires 80% passing rate on all tests.
Finding
Pass rates on Certification Exams
Overall pass rates for first attempts for ALL TESTS on the TExES during 2008-2009 was 89%. There were 1161 first attempts with a mean scaled score of 259, with 240 as a cut score for passing. This exceeds the rate required to maintain accreditation by the State Board for Educator Certification and the goal of 80% set for this year.
Indicator
Teacher Work Sample Performance
The Teacher Work Sample (TWS), adapted from The Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality Project (http://fp.uni.edu/itq), is a performance assessment designed to demonstrate evidence of Sam Houston State University candidates' ability to facilitate learning for all students. This sample illustrates the candidate's ability to plan, implement, modify and assess instruction during their student teaching semester.
Prior to the student teaching semester, candidates choose one (12 to 14 week placement) or two (6 to 7 week placements). During the first 6 to 7 weeks of their placement, candidates are required to create and teach a unit as a Teacher Work Sample. After consulting with their mentor teacher about the unit focus, candidates teach a minimum of five lessons from the unit in their mentor's classroom. Additionally, the candidates are evaluated on their unit planning and teaching of unit lessons. They are also required to reflect on their decision-making and teaching practice including their impact on student learning.
The Teacher Work Sample (TWS) focuses on seven teaching processes that are crucial for effective/reflective teaching and must be considered when planning for the learning of all students. Each process is defined by a performance standard, specific task, a student prompt and a rubric that identify the desired performance of the candidate related to that process. The Teacher Work Sample is divided into 7 teaching processes or sections: 1. Contextual Factors 2. Learning Goals, 3. Assessment Planning 4. Design for Instruction, 5. Instructional Decision Making 6. Analysis of Student Learning, and 7. Reflection and Self-Evaluation
Rubrics rate each candidate's performance on each indicator as a one (Indicator Not Met), a two (Indicator Partially Met) or a three (Indicator Met).
Criterion
Teacher Work Sample Scores
85 % of candidates in the 2008-2009 cohort will achieve an overall score in the target or acceptable range on the Teacher Work Sample. This high-stakes capstone assessment is administered at the end of the first student teaching placement. It serves as a measure of candidate effect on EC-12 student learning, a critical component of success in the classroom. Candidates analyze EC-12 student performance for the entire class, and on two individual students, including analysis of sub-group performance. They report on their subsequent reflection on instructional decisions, assessments, the lesson design and how they might make adjustments or seek additional professional development to improve student performance. A blind scoring process conducted by trained faculty, university supervisors, classroom mentor teachers results in scoring of seven teaching processes, which is then holistically set as an overall score at a target level of 3, at an acceptable level of 2, or at 1, if unacceptable. Candidates receiving a low 2 or a 1 are required to revise or repeat the Teacher Work Sample process in order to receive credit for student teaching.
Finding
Teacher Work Sample Performance
For the 2008-2009 cohort of student teachers, 66% received an holistic score of three, indicating target level performance. Thirty-one % of the group were scored at the acceptable level of performance, with 3% scoring in the unacceptable range. This meets the expectation set for the overall group. Scoring data reflect two matching scores assigned to each Teacher Work Sample in the blind scoring process. Rubrics used for scoring the work samples are attached to the criteria.
Action
Pass rates on Certification Exams
While the overall pass rates for first attempts exceed the goal set for this year,as detailed in COE data, further examination of the initial reports in the Accountability System for Educator Preparation will be performed to assure that no gaps exist among subgroups or in particular programs. In addition, purchase of practice software and released tests to assist candidates in their preparation for testing will provide added resources for those who do not pass on the first attempt. Further, a need for improvement of communications regarding testing results, state procedures, added testing sites, new standard setting and new exam development is evident. Development of a communication plan by the Educator Preparation Services staff take place in 2009-2010.
Action
Teacher Work Sample Performance
While TWS performance in 2008-2009 met the goal for the unit and provided information regarding candidate impact on EC-12 student learning, several initiatives also resulted from analysis of these data. The Teacher Work Sample Team, a standing committee in the COE, appointed a task force to identify in which courses the seven teaching processes are introduced, reinforced or applied. This backward instructional design assures that candidates have layered instruction to ready them for skillfully employing the processes in their student teaching placement(s). Further, the TWS Team will attend the bi-annual research conference to move past the implementation stage to expand research initiatives by the faculty using SHSU candidate products. This research agenda will provide added information for program improvement and further knowledge in the field.
Goal
Visibility and Impact
Increase visibility and impact by promoting quality programs and developing partnerships.
Objective
New Program Development
Develop new doctoral programs in Special Education and Instructional Technology.
Indicator
New Doctoral Program In Special Education
Progress toward implementation of new doctoral program in Special Education.
Criterion
Progress for PHD in SPED
Timely completion to permit Fall 2008 submission to the University Curriculum Committee
Finding
New Doctoral Program in Special Education
Special Education Doctoral program was approved by the University Curriculum Committee in Spring, 2009 and subsequently approved by the SHSU Academic Affairs Council on March 6, 2009. Pending approval of the Board of Regents in summer 2009.
Indicator
New Doctoral Program In Instructional Technology
Progress toward implementation of new doctoral program in Instructional Technology
Criterion
Progress toward Doctorate in Instructional Technology
Timely completion of information to be submitted to the Curriculum Committee for the 2010 University Curriculum cycle.
Finding
Progress toward Doctorate in Instructional Technology
Informal notification of Higher Education Coordinating Board granting of planning authority has been received. Upon receipt of formal notice of planning authority, faculty may move to the next phase of program development during the 2009-2010 academic year.
Action
Planning for Doctorate in Instructional Technology
Upon formal notice of planning authority, the graduate faculty and college curriculum commmittee will prepare a proposal for substantive change and Forms B for new courses during the next academic year in preparation for the 2010-2011 curriculum cycle.
Action
Progress on PhD in SPED
In anticipation of approval by the Board of Regents and THECB, faculty and administration continue preparation for implementation of the new doctoral program in 2010-2011. Course development will continue this year, along with continuing recruitment of faculty needed for the program.
Goal
Operational Excellence
Promote institutional effectiveness and operational excellence
Objective
Productivity Of The College
Increase semester credit hour production in undergraduate, graduate and doctoral programs.
Indicator
SCH Production
Semester Credit Hour production for undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral programs provide a measure for tracking growth in the various departments at each level in the College of Education. This is a critical measure that provides information to our analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. For example, some master's level programs have experienced a drop in enrollment over the past two years attributed to online programs offered by another University at reduced cost. Strategic planning to address this threat is informed by this data set.
Criterion
Undergraduate SCH Production
Growth in Undergraduate SCH Production should meet or exceed 2%
Finding
Undergraduate Semester Credit Hour Production
Undergraduate SCH production for the Fall and Spring semesters of 2008-2009 reflected 0.74% growth. In AY 2007-2008, fall and spring SCH production was 58,730. When summer SCH production was included, the total number of SCH offered in the undergraduate programs was 65583. Total undergraduate SCH production for Fall and Spring in the 2008-2009 year was 59167. Since summer enrollment data is not yet available for AY 2009-2009, growth comparisons can only be made using the SCH production for the long terms. Since COE enrollments often increase in the summer term, these comparisons will provide better information when the actual figures for the year are available.
Criterion
Master's Level SCH Production
Master's level growth in SCH production should meet or exceed 2%
Finding
Master's SCH Production
Master's level SCH production for the Fall and Spring semesters of 2008-2009 reflected a decrease in SCH production of -3.8%. In AY 2007-2008, fall and spring master's level SCH production was 12,269. When summer SCH production was included, the total number of SCH offered in the Master's level programs in 2007-2008 was 19,493. Total Master's level SCH production for Fall and Spring in the 2008-2009 year was 11,802. Since summer enrollment data is not yet available for AY 2009-2009, growth comparisons can only be made using the Master's level SCH production for the long terms. Since COE enrollments often increase in the summer term, these comparisons will provide better information when the actual figures for the year are available.
Criterion
Doctoral SCH Production
Growth in Doctoral level SCH Production should meet or exceed 2%
Finding
Doctoral SCH Production
Doctoral level semester credit hour production for 2008-2009 reflected an increase of 1.54%. For the Fall and Spring terms of 2007-2008, doctoral level production was 1621 SCH. For 2008-2009, Fall and Spring production at the doctoral level was 1646. For 2007-2008, summer enrollment reflected doctoral SCH enrollments of 2691. Since SCH production for Summer of 2008-2009 is not yet available, calculation of growth for the entire year's semester credit hour production is not possible at this point.
Action
UG SCH Production
Since growth in UG SCH production did not meet the goal of 2% growth, attention to undergraduate recruiting in partnership high schools and within the University is needed. Moreover, further analysis of SCH production for post-baccalaureate students seeking initial certificaton is needed to determine the extent to which initial certification candidates are choosing to obtain certificatoin after graduation. When summer enrollment figures are available, the 2008-2009 data should be reexamined and further disaggregated to discern areas of slowing enrollment.
Action
Master's Level SCH Production
Falling enrollments in SCH production in the master's programs reflects a competitive market in graduate study and the impact of the Lamar University programs marketed by an outside vendor. This threat affects not just graduate study in education, but the graduate enrollment for the entire Univesity, since COE graduate SCH production represents approximately 70% of SHSU graduate enrollment. The College has requested the addition of an Associate Dean for Graduate Studies to lead recruitment and development of new graduate programs to address this threat.
Action
Doctoral SCH Production
While limited comparisons are possible at this time, growth in doctoral SCH production for 2008-2009 fell short of the 2% goal. Adding resources for recruiting and new program development through the Office of the Associate Dean for Graduate Studies will be critical as competition in all levels of graduate study in education grows. Added resources for program development in onlne and distance environments will also be critical to the future success of the doctoral programs in Education.
Objective
Candidate Preparedness
Assure candidate preparedness for the field through benchmark assessments at entry, clinical experience and at exit. Since the inception of the assessment system in 2002-2003, we have dramatically improved our proficiency in developing standards-based assessments, managing, analyzing and reporting assessment data in each of our programs. Through participation in the NCATE SPA recognition process, assessment of content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills, student learning and professional dispositions takes place across all programs. Refinement of the assessment system and further growth in our assessment proficiency remain a focus.
Indicator
Pass Rates On Certification Exams
All candidates seeking initial certification, advanced teacher certification, or certifications for other school personnel must take one or more of the Texas Examinations of Educator Standards (TExES). These examinations directly correspond to the state content competencies that have been identified for the certification desired. These content competencies are aligned with and based on the appropriate state standards and the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) statements, which describe the state mandated curriculum for EC-12 students. The examinations are also aligned with national program standards. Each TExES examination is criterion-referenced and is designed to measure a candidate's level of content knowledge and skills appropriate for educators in the State of Texas. The two tests used for elementary inital certification are the Texas Examinations of Educator Standards (TExES) Generalist at either EC-4, EC-6 or 4-8 and the Texas Examinations of Educator Standards (TExES) Pedagogy and Professional Responsibilities. Examinations for other school professionals i.e. principals, counselors, librarians are also included in the College data set. Each test was collaboratively developed by the State Board of Educator Certification (SBEC), National Evaluation Systems, Inc. (NES), an independent corporation specializing in educational measurements, with additional participation by committees of Texas educators. Subsequent to AY 2006-2007, the test developer and vendor was Educational Testing Service. Individual test items developed to measure the state competencies were reviewed and rated by the various committees of Texas educators to ensure appropriateness of content and difficulty, clarity, and accuracy. These committees also ensured that the test items matched the appropriate competencies and were free from potential ethnicity, gender, and regional biases. The committees also helped prepare scoring rubrics for written response items and training materials for those who would score the tests.
Separate standard-setting panels were convened to review statistical data about candidate scores from initial pilot studies of the tests during their development. Recommendations were forwarded to the SBEC, which made the final decisions about establishing passing scores. Currently, TExES examinations are centrally administered by SBEC and ETS at pre-determined sites and on pre-established dates across Texas similar to many of the national achievement tests. This regime provides for a professional, equitable, and secure testing environment for candidates. Alternative testing arrangements are also permitted for those requiring special consideration. Sites are selected after a careful review of security and accessibility potential, and the quality of overall testing conditions. Tests are scored centrally. The Accountability System for Educator Preparation is administrated by the State Board for Educator Certification. Pass rates for this indicator are calculated for this analysis by analyzing all first attempt scores on every TExES test. For the college, unit-level data is presented. Each department reports pass rates and determines target performance as appropriate.
Criterion
Pass Rates for All Tests
Pass rates for ALL Tests TExES Exams will exceed 80%. While the accountability system for the state examines scores for a completer cohort(defined as completing all requirements for a degree between Sept 1 and August 31 of a given year), and provides for students to repeat the examination if they are not successful on the first attempt, the analysis of pass rates presented here represents the pass rates on the first attempt for all tests taken in 2008-2009. A scaled score of 240 is required for passing. Inital and Final passing rates are calculated for each completer cohort at 15 and 27 months after the last graduation date in the state system. For intial teacher certification, two examinations are required: a content knowledge exam and a pedagogy exam. Continued accreditation by the State Board for Educator Certification requires 80% passing rate on all tests.
Finding
Pass rates on Certification Exams
Overall pass rates for first attempts for ALL TESTS on the TExES during 2008-2009 was 89%. There were 1161 first attempts with a mean scaled score of 259, with 240 as a cut score for passing. This exceeds the rate required to maintain accreditation by the State Board for Educator Certification and the goal of 80% set for this year.
Indicator
Teacher Work Sample Performance
The Teacher Work Sample (TWS), adapted from The Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality Project (http://fp.uni.edu/itq), is a performance assessment designed to demonstrate evidence of Sam Houston State University candidates' ability to facilitate learning for all students. This sample illustrates the candidate's ability to plan, implement, modify and assess instruction during their student teaching semester.
Prior to the student teaching semester, candidates choose one (12 to 14 week placement) or two (6 to 7 week placements). During the first 6 to 7 weeks of their placement, candidates are required to create and teach a unit as a Teacher Work Sample. After consulting with their mentor teacher about the unit focus, candidates teach a minimum of five lessons from the unit in their mentor's classroom. Additionally, the candidates are evaluated on their unit planning and teaching of unit lessons. They are also required to reflect on their decision-making and teaching practice including their impact on student learning.
The Teacher Work Sample (TWS) focuses on seven teaching processes that are crucial for effective/reflective teaching and must be considered when planning for the learning of all students. Each process is defined by a performance standard, specific task, a student prompt and a rubric that identify the desired performance of the candidate related to that process. The Teacher Work Sample is divided into 7 teaching processes or sections: 1. Contextual Factors 2. Learning Goals, 3. Assessment Planning 4. Design for Instruction, 5. Instructional Decision Making 6. Analysis of Student Learning, and 7. Reflection and Self-Evaluation
Rubrics rate each candidate's performance on each indicator as a one (Indicator Not Met), a two (Indicator Partially Met) or a three (Indicator Met).
Criterion
Teacher Work Sample Scores
85 % of candidates in the 2008-2009 cohort will achieve an overall score in the target or acceptable range on the Teacher Work Sample. This high-stakes capstone assessment is administered at the end of the first student teaching placement. It serves as a measure of candidate effect on EC-12 student learning, a critical component of success in the classroom. Candidates analyze EC-12 student performance for the entire class, and on two individual students, including analysis of sub-group performance. They report on their subsequent reflection on instructional decisions, assessments, the lesson design and how they might make adjustments or seek additional professional development to improve student performance. A blind scoring process conducted by trained faculty, university supervisors, classroom mentor teachers results in scoring of seven teaching processes, which is then holistically set as an overall score at a target level of 3, at an acceptable level of 2, or at 1, if unacceptable. Candidates receiving a low 2 or a 1 are required to revise or repeat the Teacher Work Sample process in order to receive credit for student teaching.
Finding
Teacher Work Sample Performance
For the 2008-2009 cohort of student teachers, 66% received an holistic score of three, indicating target level performance. Thirty-one % of the group were scored at the acceptable level of performance, with 3% scoring in the unacceptable range. This meets the expectation set for the overall group. Scoring data reflect two matching scores assigned to each Teacher Work Sample in the blind scoring process. Rubrics used for scoring the work samples are attached to the criteria.
Action
Pass rates on Certification Exams
While the overall pass rates for first attempts exceed the goal set for this year,as detailed in COE data, further examination of the initial reports in the Accountability System for Educator Preparation will be performed to assure that no gaps exist among subgroups or in particular programs. In addition, purchase of practice software and released tests to assist candidates in their preparation for testing will provide added resources for those who do not pass on the first attempt. Further, a need for improvement of communications regarding testing results, state procedures, added testing sites, new standard setting and new exam development is evident. Development of a communication plan by the Educator Preparation Services staff take place in 2009-2010.
Action
Teacher Work Sample Performance
While TWS performance in 2008-2009 met the goal for the unit and provided information regarding candidate impact on EC-12 student learning, several initiatives also resulted from analysis of these data. The Teacher Work Sample Team, a standing committee in the COE, appointed a task force to identify in which courses the seven teaching processes are introduced, reinforced or applied. This backward instructional design assures that candidates have layered instruction to ready them for skillfully employing the processes in their student teaching placement(s). Further, the TWS Team will attend the bi-annual research conference to move past the implementation stage to expand research initiatives by the faculty using SHSU candidate products. This research agenda will provide added information for program improvement and further knowledge in the field.