Program evaluation
Download
1 / 26

Program Evaluation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 47 Views
  • Uploaded on

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Program Evaluation' - reece-osborn


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Program evaluation

Note: Beginning spring 2008 EDSC will use the electronic submission system allowing for the collection of data at the unit level. Until then results are compiled and reported at the program level. Fall 2006 and spring 2007 results are not yet available. The results presented are from 2005-2006, prior to the adoption of the common rubric 4-point scale now used in all initial programs.

Program Evaluation

Single Subject Credential Program

2005-2006


Program evaluation process
Program Evaluation Process submission system allowing for the collection of data at the unit level. Until then results are compiled and reported at the program level. Fall 2006 and spring 2007 results are not yet available. The results presented are from 2005-2006, prior to the adoption of the common rubric 4-point scale now used in all initial programs.

  • Participants

    • Master Teachers and Mentors

    • Program Completers

  • Data Collection

    • Surveys are distributed to program completers in their 449S Student Teacher Seminar, and are returned in SASE to the Coordinator of the Single Subject Credential Program.

  • Survey Instrument

    • Program completer competence is rated on a 5-point scale: excellent, good, average, weak, and inadequate.

    • Survey (in print form) consists of 26 items which are later collapsed into 13 categories of the Teaching Performance Expectations.

    • Items were taken directly from language of the Teaching Performance Expectations and include two items per expectation.

  • Data Analysis

    • Data is disaggregated by Master/Mentor Teachers, Program Completers, and a subset, Intern Program Completers.

    • Data is also compared to the previous years. At this time, we have two years of data.


Tpe 1
TPE 1 submission system allowing for the collection of data at the unit level. Until then results are compiled and reported at the program level. Fall 2006 and spring 2007 results are not yet available. The results presented are from 2005-2006, prior to the adoption of the common rubric 4-point scale now used in all initial programs.

  • Specific Pedagogical Skills for Subject Matter Instruction

5 (Superior) 4 (Good) 3 (Average) 2 (Weak) 1 (Inadequate)


Tpe 2
TPE 2 submission system allowing for the collection of data at the unit level. Until then results are compiled and reported at the program level. Fall 2006 and spring 2007 results are not yet available. The results presented are from 2005-2006, prior to the adoption of the common rubric 4-point scale now used in all initial programs.

  • Monitoring Student Learning During Instruction

5 (Superior) 4 (Good) 3 (Average) 2 (Weak) 1 (Inadequate)


Tpe 3
TPE 3 submission system allowing for the collection of data at the unit level. Until then results are compiled and reported at the program level. Fall 2006 and spring 2007 results are not yet available. The results presented are from 2005-2006, prior to the adoption of the common rubric 4-point scale now used in all initial programs.

  • Interpretation and Use of Assessments

5 (Superior) 4 (Good) 3 (Average) 2 (Weak) 1 (Inadequate)


Tpe 4
TPE 4 submission system allowing for the collection of data at the unit level. Until then results are compiled and reported at the program level. Fall 2006 and spring 2007 results are not yet available. The results presented are from 2005-2006, prior to the adoption of the common rubric 4-point scale now used in all initial programs.

  • Making Content Accessible

5 (Superior) 4 (Good) 3 (Average) 2 (Weak) 1 (Inadequate)


Tpe 5
TPE 5 submission system allowing for the collection of data at the unit level. Until then results are compiled and reported at the program level. Fall 2006 and spring 2007 results are not yet available. The results presented are from 2005-2006, prior to the adoption of the common rubric 4-point scale now used in all initial programs.

  • Student Engagement

5 (Superior) 4 (Good) 3 (Average) 2 (Weak) 1 (Inadequate)


Tpe 6
TPE 6 submission system allowing for the collection of data at the unit level. Until then results are compiled and reported at the program level. Fall 2006 and spring 2007 results are not yet available. The results presented are from 2005-2006, prior to the adoption of the common rubric 4-point scale now used in all initial programs.

  • Developmentally Appropriate Teaching Practices

5 (Superior) 4 (Good) 3 (Average) 2 (Weak) 1 (Inadequate)


Tpe 7
TPE 7 submission system allowing for the collection of data at the unit level. Until then results are compiled and reported at the program level. Fall 2006 and spring 2007 results are not yet available. The results presented are from 2005-2006, prior to the adoption of the common rubric 4-point scale now used in all initial programs.

  • Teaching English Learners

5 (Superior) 4 (Good) 3 (Average) 2 (Weak) 1 (Inadequate)


Tpe 8
TPE 8 submission system allowing for the collection of data at the unit level. Until then results are compiled and reported at the program level. Fall 2006 and spring 2007 results are not yet available. The results presented are from 2005-2006, prior to the adoption of the common rubric 4-point scale now used in all initial programs.

  • Learning about Students

5 (Superior) 4 (Good) 3 (Average) 2 (Weak) 1 (Inadequate)


Tpe 9
TPE 9 submission system allowing for the collection of data at the unit level. Until then results are compiled and reported at the program level. Fall 2006 and spring 2007 results are not yet available. The results presented are from 2005-2006, prior to the adoption of the common rubric 4-point scale now used in all initial programs.

  • Instructional Planning

5 (Superior) 4 (Good) 3 (Average) 2 (Weak) 1 (Inadequate)


Tpe 10
TPE 10 submission system allowing for the collection of data at the unit level. Until then results are compiled and reported at the program level. Fall 2006 and spring 2007 results are not yet available. The results presented are from 2005-2006, prior to the adoption of the common rubric 4-point scale now used in all initial programs.

  • Instructional Time

5 (Superior) 4 (Good) 3 (Average) 2 (Weak) 1 (Inadequate)


Tpe 11
TPE 11 submission system allowing for the collection of data at the unit level. Until then results are compiled and reported at the program level. Fall 2006 and spring 2007 results are not yet available. The results presented are from 2005-2006, prior to the adoption of the common rubric 4-point scale now used in all initial programs.

  • Social Environment

5 (Superior) 4 (Good) 3 (Average) 2 (Weak) 1 (Inadequate)


Tpe 12
TPE 12 submission system allowing for the collection of data at the unit level. Until then results are compiled and reported at the program level. Fall 2006 and spring 2007 results are not yet available. The results presented are from 2005-2006, prior to the adoption of the common rubric 4-point scale now used in all initial programs.

  • Professional, Legal, and Ethical Obligations

5 (Superior) 4 (Good) 3 (Average) 2 (Weak) 1 (Inadequate)


Tpe 13
TPE 13 submission system allowing for the collection of data at the unit level. Until then results are compiled and reported at the program level. Fall 2006 and spring 2007 results are not yet available. The results presented are from 2005-2006, prior to the adoption of the common rubric 4-point scale now used in all initial programs.

  • Professional Growth

5 (Superior) 4 (Good) 3 (Average) 2 (Weak) 1 (Inadequate)


Master teacher mentor annual comparison
Master Teacher/Mentor submission system allowing for the collection of data at the unit level. Until then results are compiled and reported at the program level. Fall 2006 and spring 2007 results are not yet available. The results presented are from 2005-2006, prior to the adoption of the common rubric 4-point scale now used in all initial programs.Annual Comparison


Master teacher mentor annual comparison1
Master Teacher/Mentor submission system allowing for the collection of data at the unit level. Until then results are compiled and reported at the program level. Fall 2006 and spring 2007 results are not yet available. The results presented are from 2005-2006, prior to the adoption of the common rubric 4-point scale now used in all initial programs.Annual Comparison


Master teacher mentor annual comparison2
Master Teacher/Mentor submission system allowing for the collection of data at the unit level. Until then results are compiled and reported at the program level. Fall 2006 and spring 2007 results are not yet available. The results presented are from 2005-2006, prior to the adoption of the common rubric 4-point scale now used in all initial programs.Annual Comparison


Student teacher annual comparison
Student Teacher submission system allowing for the collection of data at the unit level. Until then results are compiled and reported at the program level. Fall 2006 and spring 2007 results are not yet available. The results presented are from 2005-2006, prior to the adoption of the common rubric 4-point scale now used in all initial programs.Annual Comparison


Student teacher annual comparison1
Student Teacher submission system allowing for the collection of data at the unit level. Until then results are compiled and reported at the program level. Fall 2006 and spring 2007 results are not yet available. The results presented are from 2005-2006, prior to the adoption of the common rubric 4-point scale now used in all initial programs.Annual Comparison


Student teacher annual comparison2
Student Teacher submission system allowing for the collection of data at the unit level. Until then results are compiled and reported at the program level. Fall 2006 and spring 2007 results are not yet available. The results presented are from 2005-2006, prior to the adoption of the common rubric 4-point scale now used in all initial programs.Annual Comparison


Intern annual comparison
Intern submission system allowing for the collection of data at the unit level. Until then results are compiled and reported at the program level. Fall 2006 and spring 2007 results are not yet available. The results presented are from 2005-2006, prior to the adoption of the common rubric 4-point scale now used in all initial programs.Annual Comparison


Intern annual comparison1
Intern submission system allowing for the collection of data at the unit level. Until then results are compiled and reported at the program level. Fall 2006 and spring 2007 results are not yet available. The results presented are from 2005-2006, prior to the adoption of the common rubric 4-point scale now used in all initial programs.Annual Comparison


Intern annual comparison2
Intern Annual Comparison submission system allowing for the collection of data at the unit level. Until then results are compiled and reported at the program level. Fall 2006 and spring 2007 results are not yet available. The results presented are from 2005-2006, prior to the adoption of the common rubric 4-point scale now used in all initial programs.


Trends
Trends submission system allowing for the collection of data at the unit level. Until then results are compiled and reported at the program level. Fall 2006 and spring 2007 results are not yet available. The results presented are from 2005-2006, prior to the adoption of the common rubric 4-point scale now used in all initial programs.

  • 2005-2006 Data

    • In general, Master/Mentor Teachers rate our candidates slightly lower than our candidates rate themselves. None of the differences are significantly different.

    • Candidates were rated lowest on TPE 7 (Teaching English Learners) and TPE 8 (Learning About Students).

    • Candidates were rated as “good” or higher for all 13 TPE categories.

  • Comparison of 04-05 and 05-06 Data

    • There was a slight decrease in the ratings of candidates by Master/Mentor Teachers in 9 of 13 categories.

    • There was a slight decrease in the ratings of candidates by themselves in 5 of 13 categories.

    • There was a slight decrease in the ratings of intern candidates by themselves in only 1 of 13 categories.


Recommendations and goals
Recommendations and Goals submission system allowing for the collection of data at the unit level. Until then results are compiled and reported at the program level. Fall 2006 and spring 2007 results are not yet available. The results presented are from 2005-2006, prior to the adoption of the common rubric 4-point scale now used in all initial programs.

  • Department of Secondary Education

  • SECTEP

  • SECTEP Advisory Council


ad