Program Quality and Effectiveness

The percentage of candidates receiving a score of "3" on the Methods Block/Instructional Methods lesson plan, in each of the Curriculum and Instruction program areas, will exceed 85%.

During the classes of Methods Block, first semester senior year or during the Instructional Methods Course (CI 560), the students write multiple lesson plans. Each student selects the best lesson plan in each content area (math, English language arts, science, and social studies) to submit as their best representation of a Lesson Plan in that content area. The lesson plans are scored/evaluated on information documented in stating the lesson goals, objectives, rationale, standards, materials, classroom setting, student needs, focus, procedures, design of implementation, and closure of the lesson. The Lesson Plan assessment allows our candidates to demonstrate their understanding of: * Establishing a lesson framework; * Designing a supportive learning environment; * Incorporating Instructional strategies; and, * Implementing Evaluation strategies. Since the previous rubric did not allow an overall score, the rubric was updated for this academic year. So, an overall score will be available.

At least 85% of candidates during the 2010-2011 academic year will achieve a score of "3" on the Methods Block/Instructional Methods Lesson Plan. The Methods Block/Instructional Methods Lesson Plans is an appropriate format to measure a variety of learning outcomes. The content of the items in this assessment relate directly to the planning, implementation, and assessment of instruction that teachers encounter when teaching.

EC-6 Finding

According to the 2010-2011 lesson plan data for all mathematics, science and social studies lesson plans (n=773), 75% of the EC-6 students score a 3 Lesson Framework and Designing Learning Environments; 57% scored a 3 in Instructional Strategies and 55% scored a 3 in the Evaluation Plan. In addition, 63% scored a 3 on the Content portion of the lesson plan and 76% on Language Usage. The weakest area is evaluation plan.

 

4-8

88% of candidates during the 2010-2011 academic year will achieve a score of "3" on the Methods Block Lesson Plan. The lesson plan format and rubric are in place and ready to use. The Methods Block Lesson Plans will be appropriate format to measure a variety of learning outcomes. The content of the items in this assessment relate directly to the planning, implementation, and assessment of instruction that teachers encounter when teaching. Through Tk20, scores are reported for individual candidates as well as groups. Consequently, data results will be aggregated and disaggregated for evaluation purposes.

 

Post-Bac

85% of candidates during the 2010-2011 academic year will achieve a score of "2 or higher" on the Instructional Methods Class Lesson Plan. The lesson plan format and rubric are in place and ready to use. The Instructional Methods Class Lesson Plans will be appropriate format to measure a variety of learning outcomes. The content of the items in this assessment relate directly to the planning, implementation, and assessment of instruction that teachers encounter when teaching.

 

SED

85% of candidates during the 2010-2011 academic year will achieve a score of "3" on the Methods Block Lesson Plan. The lesson plan format is in place and ready to use. From the Findings in Goals 2008-2009, the lesson plan rubric will continue to be adjusted to give not only a score on the four sections of the lesson plan, but also to provide an overall score of 3, 2, or 1.

The Methods Block Lesson Plans will be appropriate format to measure a variety of learning outcomes. The content of the items in this assessment relate directly to the planning, implementation, and assessment of instruction that teachers encounter when teaching.

Using the Findings from 2009-10, instructors will focus instruction more specifically on the requirements for the quality completion of the four parts of the Lesson Plan: Establishing the Lesson Framework, Designing Supportive Learning Environments, Instructional Strategies, and Evaluation Strategies. In addition, more emphasis will be placed on the instruction for Evaluation Strategies, the lowest performing part of the Lesson Plan. This will be assessed regularly throughout the school year.

In addition, since the Pre-Assessment scores on Lesson Plans cannot be disaggregated from the Post-Assessment scores on the Lesson Plans, instructors will no longer have students submit their Pre-Assessment Lesson Plans into TK20.

As previously stated, the rubric for the Methods Block Lesson Plan Assessment will be redesigned for the 11-12 academic year to reflect an overall score for each candidate.

For each program, the lowest component was Component #4- Implementing Evaluation Strategies.  Each program is researching new ways to incorporate assessment for learning into their program.

The percentage of candidates receiving a score of "3" on their Teacher Work Sample, in each of the Curriculum and Instruction program areas, will exceed 85%.

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.

At least 85% of candidates during the 2010-2011 academic year will achieve a score 3 on the Teacher Work Sample. Information on Scoring Procedures: As recommended by the Renaissance Group, each candidate's Teacher Work Sample is blindly scored by a minimum of two trained scorers. Each scorer evaluates and assigns a score of three(target), two (acceptable), or one (unacceptable) to each indicator, Additionally an overall score of three, two or one is given to each of the seven processes as well as and an overall three, two or one to the entire Teacher Work Sample. If the first two scorers agree on the overall Teacher Work Sample score, the scoring process is complete. However, if the two scorers do not agree the Teacher Work Sample is scored for a third, possibly fourth time, until agreement is reached. For this reason, the data presented in the following charts represents the number of scorings not the number of Teacher Work Samples scored. Once agreement is reached on the Teacher Work Sample score, the overall scores are sent to the student teachers. The following charts show the overall Teacher Work Sample scores for the student teachers.

Even though the goal of 85% was not achieved, at least 95% of candidates did meet the minimum standard defined by the Teacher Work Sample by scoring either a "2" or "3".

EC-6 - "3"=67%, "2"=30%, "1"=3%
4-8 - "3"=58%, "2"=42%, "1"=0%
8-12 - "3"=58%, "2"=36%, "1"=6%
EC-12 - "3"=64%, "2"=33%, "1"=3%
PB - "3"=53%, "2"=42%, "1"=5%

Each semester, the faculty in Curriculum and Instruction plan and implement new strategies to assist the students in successfully completing the Teacher Work Sample.  This is evident in that at least 95% of all candidates in each program met the minimum standard.  Even so, we strive all students to be skilled enough to reach target.

The percentage of candidates passing the Pedagogy and Professional Responsibilities Certification Examination, in each of the Curriculum and Instruction programs, will exceed 80%.

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 the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) statements, which describe the state mandated curriculum for students. 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.

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. 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. TExES examinations are centrally administered by SBEC and NES 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.

Pass rates on all levels of the Pedagogy and Professional Examinations will increase by 2%age points. While the accountability system for the state examines scores for each completer cohort 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 PPR exams taken in 2010-2011.

Candidates have several more opportunities to pass this test before August 31, 2011.  It remains a possibility that all programs will meet the goal.

EC-6 - n=181, 98% pass
4-8 - n=3, 100% pass
8-12 - n=90, 86% pass
EC-12- n=157, 90% pass

To improve our candidates PPR Scores, more focus will be placed on familiarizing each candidate with the PPR State Standards.  This focus will include:
*discussions about assignments and how they demonstrate mastery of the PPR Standards,
*practice PPR examination with remediation, and
*PPR exam review.

One specific area of weakness is the area of assessment.  For this reason, we will either add assessment courses to the programs or modify the existing assessment course to reflect best practices.

Visibility and Impact

Develop new doctoral program in Instructional Technology

Research, write and submit all documentation for obtaining approval to implement new doctoral program in Instructional Technology.

Timely completion of all research, writing and information to be submitted to the Curriculum Committee for the 2011 University Curriculum cycle.

The Doctorate Writing Committee met weekly to plan, research and write the Doctorate of Instructional Technology.  Dr Rice and I are meeting weekly to rewrite Form Bs.  The Doctoral Program Proposal was approved by the 2010 Curriculum Committee but the Form Bs had to be reworked.  As per the dates of the Curriculum Review Cycle, copies of all required forms will be forwarded to Dr. Beverly Irby before June 19, 2011.  Then, forwarded to Mrs. White by July 1, 2011.  Then, to the COE Curriculum Committee before July 14, 2011.

Now that the Doctorate of Instructional Technology Proposal was approved by the COE Curriculum Committee, the Forms B for each new course in the program will be reworked to gain the approval of the COE Committee.  For the 2011-2012 academic year, the Department will work to gain approval from the COE Curriculum Committee for all Forms B, the University Curriculum Committee for Forms B and the Board of Regents for the Proposal and Forms B.

Faculty Excellence

Increase Curriculum and Instruction faculty productivity through contributions to the field in publications and presentations.

Annual professor to publication ratio and professor to presentation ratio for Curriculum and Instruction compared to 2009-2010. Each professor will report on their FES document all publications and presentations. The total number of publications for all professors will be divided by the total number of professors. This will be converted to a percentage. This percentage will be compared to the percentage from the 2009-2010 FES reports. The same procedures will be followed for presentations.

Ratio of Curriculum and Instruction faculty to publications will exceed the same ratio from the 2009-2010 academic year.

Faculty Excellence

09-10 Results  2.11

10-11 Results  2.00 average publications

Ratio of Curriculum and Instruction faculty to presentations will exceed the same ratio from the 2009-2010 academic year.

Faculty Excellence

09-10 Results  5.1

10-11 Results  4.3

These presentations are a mix of state, national and international presentations.  Increasing the number of presentations is great for the department but it also exposes SHSU to more positive public awareness.

Junior faculty will be paired with senior faculty as writing/presenting partners to increase their productivity.  I will look for ways to free up junior faculty from spending so much observing in the field.  Currently, they spend about 150 hours in the field with their students.  This greatly reduces the amount of time they have to write.