OATdb Archive

2013 - 2014

Interdisciplinary Studies BA, BS (Elementary EC-6)

Goal
Program Quality And Effectiveness
Program Quality and Effectiveness

Objective
Candidates Will Be Able To Plan, Implement, Assess, And Modify Effective Instruction For All Learners.
Candidates will be able to plan, implement, assess, and modify effective instruction.

Indicator
Pass Rates On The Teacher Work Sample
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. Candidates score a 1 - they have to redo the assignment; a 2 or 3 demonstrates that the candidate proficiently completed the document.

Criterion
Teacher Work Sample (TWS) Scores
At least 87% of candidates during the 2012-2013 academic year will achieve a score of 2 or 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.



Finding
Teacher Work Sample Scores
For the academic year 2013-2014, results from 299 student teachers enrolled in Interdisciplinary Studies (EC-6) showed 66% of the student teachers received a score of "3" (target) while 33% received a score of "2" (acceptable) on the Teacher Work Sample. Thus, 99% of all the student teachers during this academic year met the predetermined criterion (87% met either "target" or "acceptable" rating). Further analysis of the subscores on the TWS revealed the following: Assessment Plan, Analysis of Student Learning, and Reflection and self-evaluation had the lowest scores (2.60 out of 3). On the section (Contextual Factors), candidates scored the lowest on "skills and Prior learning" and "Implications for Planning and Assessment. On average, on the TWS, the student teachers did well in identifying goals and aligning them with appropriate standards

Action
Scores On The Teacher Work Sample
Although our data on the Teacher Work Sample (TWS) showed 99% of our student teachers meeting the criterion (target or acceptable), more work is needed to improve on areas identified as "weak", and that is, those areas not meeting a score of "3" (Target). The instructors in the content methods semester will use the data to improve the quality of the abreviated TWS required of candidates in this semester prior to student teaching. Three specific areas that need more reinforcement are "Assessment for learning", "Analysis of student learning", and "Reflection/Self-evaluation". Much earlier into the program, faculty needs to focus on assessment and analysis of student learning as candidates begin to learn about lesson planning.  

Objective
The Candidates Will Demonstrate Mastery Of The State Mandated Standards For The Pedagogy And Professional Responsibilities (PPR) Certification Exam.
The candidates will demonstrate mastery of the state mandated standards for the Pedagogy and Professional Responsibilities (PPR) Certification Exam. There are four general teaching and professional standards candidates need to demonstrate.

1. The teacher designs instruction appropriate for all students that reflects an understanding of relevant content and is based on continuous and appropriate assessment.

2. The teacher creates a classroom environment of respect and rapport that fosters a positive climate for learning, equity, and excellence.

3. The teacher promotes student learning by providing responsive instruction that makes use of effective communication techniques, instructional strategies that actively engage students in the learning process, and timely, high-quality feedback.

4. The teacher fulfills professional roles and responsibilities and adheres to legal and ethical requirements of the profession.

Under each standard, at least 40 knowledge and skills are identified. The state teacher examination assesses candidates' competencies in meeting these standards.

 


Indicator
Pass Rates On PPR Certification Exams
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.

Criterion
Pass Rates For EC-12 PPR Certification Exam
First time 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 faculty decided to focus on the first time pass rate instead of the overall pass rate for the 2012-2013 academic year.

Finding
State Exam PPR (Pedagogy And Professional Responsibilities)
During the academic year 2013-2014, 227 EC-6 teacher candidates took the teacher certification examination and 222 of them passed the PPR on their first attempt. This corresponded to 98% passing on the PPR state examination. When compared with the Texas state passing average (85%), our candidates had a significantly higher passing rate than the state overall passing average. Further analysis of the PPR test results showed our candidates were not doing as well on Domain 3 (implementing effective, responsive instruction and assessment, and technology integration). Out of the total number of items on the test, 33% of them assess this domain. The PPR examination consisted of four domains and these are listed above under objectives.

Action
Scores On Texas Teacher Examination (PPR EC-6)
The faculty continues to access and use PPR results (aggregated by domains)every semester to help faculty inform their teaching and improve course syllabi. Specifically, to address lower performance on Domain 3 (implementing effective, responsiv instructions and assessment, and technology integration) on the PPR, the content methods instructors will require candidate reflections, assessments, E-portfolio, standard matrix that clearly link the PPR competencies/standards to our courses.Those candidates not passing the PPR for the first time are strongly encouraged to visit the office of student services (Writing/Testing center) for individual help with test taking.The Certification Office requires each candidate to take the "practice test" and provides the examinee with an item analysis to help prepare for the actual PPR.


Update to previous cycle's plan for continuous improvement We have adopted most of the plans described above (2012-2013 report) which focused on improving teacher quality in terms of their readiness to implement 21st century skills. The faculty worked intensely in modeling and adapting project based learning (PBL) as a primary methodology in all our courses. In our content methods courses, only "mini" PBLs were assigned in order to make the assessments more realistic, hence meeting the constraints of public schools setting.  All these steps helped us meet goal #1 with more depth and rigor. While many of the full-time instructors implemented project based learning (PBL) in their courses, we have no strong evidence to show that other instructors (e.g., adjunct) have been using PBL. They need to attend PBL workshops and be present at faculty meetings in order to stay updated. This is an area we need to work hard during the next report cycle. 
Although we have implemented most of the plans for continuous improvement (in 2012-2013 report), more work is needed in technology integration from both the faculty and the teacher candidates. Latest standards, define "use of technology" as students using tools to help them learn the content; Not only the teacher. The faculty needs to address this more by modeling strategies in the courses. 
The faculty worked intensely at aligning courses and syllabi with the PPR competencies. Content methods instructors have designed more authentic course assessments to closely link theory and practice.
Meanwhile, the offices for certification, field experience, and accreditation have supported instructors and field supervisors in providing current data, information, and other services which helped us prepare quality teacher candidates who are also successful on the state certification examination.

Plan for continuous improvement In order to meet both goals, the faculty will continue to model good assessment practices (e.g., project based, performance-based), engaging teaching models, and infusing instructional technology into all our courses.  We need to address our inadequate technology to model what public schools are using in their classrooms. Our department will purchase more “high” technology for faculty to use and to model effective practice. Additionally, faculty will collaborate with public school officials so that early field experience of our candidates will include professional development on the use of campus-based technology.

Faculty will focus more intently on helping teacher candidates address the needs of diverse population in planning and implementing instruction. Faculty will emphasize this more during lesson planning with particular attention to accommodation strategies (specific to English Learners and students of poverty).

We will challenge our faculty and teacher candidates by increasing our criterion for meeting both goals/objectives. The faculty teaching in the EC-6 Interdisciplinary Program will set a goal of 95% passing rate on the PPR (Goal 2) and 95% of all student teachers receiving an overall score of 2 or 3 on the Teacher Work Sample (TWS) (Goal 1).

For a tighter alignment between courses and new standards (national and state), a revised template for course syllabi will be used effective Fall, 2014. More importantly, the standards on Dispositions, Diversity, and professionalism will be given more emphasis in all education courses.

The faculty in the EC-6 Program, which include many adjunct instructors will develop a plan for better communication and information about "standardizing" courses, course assessments, etc. in order to strengthen the program. Currently, EC-6 program courses are taught in 3 different campuses (includes day and night sections). Consequently, communication among instructors and accountability is a challenge. This plan should support Goals 1 and 2.