Program Quality and Effectiveness

Candidates will demonstrate the ability to plan an effective lesson.

During the classes of Methods Block, first semester senior year or during the Instructional Methods Course (CIED 5360), 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 2011-2012 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.

We are eager to determine how the redesigned rubric for the Methods Block Lesson Plan Assessment works to provide an overall score for each candidate. Since our lowest area last year was Component #4- Implementing Evaluation Strategies, we are interested to determine whether our interventions improved this area. 

As our programs work towards retaining NCATE Accreditation, the rubrics for some assessments have to be modified.  This assessment is one of those.  However, the scores for candidates scoring a "3" follows:

EC-6 = 76%
4-8 = 82%
EC/8-12 = 70.6%
PB = 48.9%

If we examine scores of "2s" and "3s" (acceptable and target), the scores are as follows:
EC-6 = 98.4%
4-8 = 98.2%
EC/8-12 = 90.4%
PB = 100%

As previously stated, the rubric for the lesson plan is being modified for NCATE Accreditation.  Instead of using numbers to indicate our candidates' success, we will use the terms "Target", "Acceptable" and "Unacceptable".  Our goal is to have 90-100% of our students scoring "Target" and "Acceptable".

Candidates will demonstrate skills to plan, implement, assess, and modify effective instruction.

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 2011-2012 academic year will achieve a score of 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.

Most of our students were scored at a “3” last year, which means their performance exceeded expectations. Our goal will be for each program increase their percentages of 3 - exceeds expectations.

Even though the goal of 85% was not achieved, 98.4% of our candidates met the minimum standard defined by the Teacher Work Sample by scoring either a "2" or "3".

The breakout of scores is as follows:

EC-6 - "3" = 59.9%; "2" = 39.7%; "1" = 0.4%
4-8 - "3" = 65.5%; "2" = 34.5%; "1" = 0.0%
EC/8-12 - "3" = 58%; "2" = 38%; "1" = 4%
PB - "3" = 31%; "2" = 65.5%; "1" = 3.4%

The scoring procedures for the TWS were changed which led to the "leveling off" of scores.  We expect to see the score average continue to rise each semester.  The dip this academic year was expected with the new scoring procedure.

Each semester, the faculty in Curriculum and Instruction plan and implement new strategies based on assessment data to assist our candidates in successfully completing the Teacher Work Sample.  This is evident in that at 98.4% of all candidates (up from 95% in 2010-2011) met the minimum standard.

Candidates will demonstrate mastery of the state-mandated standards.

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 exceed 85%. 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 2011-2012.

We have attempted to strengthen the assessment component, a weakness that emerged last year, and hope to see this as higher than it was last year.

Candidates have several more opportunities to take and pass the PPR exam before their year is complete.  This data is based on first attempts.

EC-6 = 96%
4-8 = 94%
EC/8-12 = 84%

The EC/8-12 group did not reach the criterion, which is an issue since the exam is changing to an all level one.

The state of Texas has changed the requirement for all candidates seeking certification.  From this year on, all candidates will take the EC-12 PPR exam.  For this reason, we will work very hard to make sure all candidates are familiar with all ages and stages of development.

Visibility and Impact

The Department will involve all faculty in recruitment efforts to increase  enrollment in all programs.

All recruitment efforts for the 2011-2012 academic year will be documented along with the names of the faculty members who attended the event.  We do not have baseline data but will increase our efforts and attendance over what has been accomplished in the past. We also need to determine what recruitment strategies yield the most enrolled students.

The number of faculty who participated in recruitment activities throughout the year was 100%.  All C&I full time faculty participated in at least one recruitment event.  Most participated in 2 or more.  During the academic year, with the retirement of Dr. Bobby Ezell, the title of recruitment director was give to two other faculty members.  These two worked to get faculty at recruitment events but did not document their efforts, the weakness in the process.

One faculty member, Dr. Bob Maninger, will be the Department Recruitment Coordinator.  He will organize, gather materials, set up booths, and keep the recruitment log for the 2012-2013 academic year.

Additionally, Dr. Maninger will establish a central location where all C&I faculty can log their additional recruitment events.

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 2010-2011. 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 2010-2011 FES reports. The same procedures will be followed for presentations. We are looking for an increase from year to year, not necessarily a statistically significant increase.

Last year we decided junior faculty would be paired with senior faculty as writing/presenting partners to increase junior faculty productivity.  We also attempted to increase time blocks where junior faculty would have time to research and write.  We are keen to determine whether these interventions had any impact.  

The average number of faculty publications did improve from the 2010-2011 academic year:

09-10 - Results 2.11 average publications
10-11 - Results 2.00 average publications
11-12 - Results 2.73 average publications

It appears the interventions were effective to some extent.

The average number of faculty presentations improved from the 2010-2011 academic year.

09-10 - Results 5.1 average presentations
10-11 - Results 4.3 average presentations
11-12 - Results 5.64 average presentations

It appears the interventions had some positive effect.

Since the interventions appeared to be somewhat successful, junior faculty will be paired with senior faculty for publications and presentations. We hope to see a slight, but steady, increase from year to year.