department of education school of education and behavioral sciences n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Department of Education School of Education and Behavioral Sciences PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Department of Education School of Education and Behavioral Sciences

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 80

Department of Education School of Education and Behavioral Sciences - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 78 Views
  • Uploaded on

Department of Education School of Education and Behavioral Sciences. Elementary Education CIP Code 131202 Program Code 350. 1. Graduates will demonstrate competence in basic skills and in-depth knowledge of the subject matter they teach. (Knowledge, Comprehension, and Application)

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 'Department of Education School of Education and Behavioral Sciences' - quinn-tran


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
department of education school of education and behavioral sciences

Department of EducationSchool of Education and Behavioral Sciences

Elementary Education

CIP Code 131202

Program Code 350

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide2
1. Graduates will demonstrate competence in basic skills and in-depth knowledge of the subject matter they teach. (Knowledge, Comprehension, and Application)

2. Graduates will demonstrate professional knowledge and effective pedagogical skills. (Knowledge, Comprehension, and Application)

Graduates will demonstrate understanding of student development and create appropriate learning environments. (Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Synthesis)

4. Graduates will demonstrate the ability to think reflectively and critically about the teaching/learning process. (Evaluation)

5. Graduates will demonstrate ability to interact effectively with diverse students, parents/families, and communities. (Knowledge, Comprehension, Application)

6. Graduates will demonstrate ability to use a variety of strategies to assess, analyze, and modify teaching/learning. (Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Synthesis, Evaluation)

  • Department of Education
  • Elementary Education
  • Program Goals and Objectives
  • (Aligned with the Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI) and the Oklahoma 15)

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

alignment among program outcomes cu mission statement strategic plan 2013
Alignment Among Program Outcomes, CU Mission Statement & Strategic Plan 2013

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

alignment among program outcomes cu mission statement strategic plan 20131
Alignment Among Program Outcomes, CU Mission Statement & Strategic Plan 2013

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

alignment among program outcomes and department of education mission
Alignment Among Program Outcomes and Department of Education Mission

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

alignment among program outcomes and department of education mission1
Alignment Among Program Outcomes and Department of Education Mission

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide7

Action Plan 2008-2009

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

direct measures of assessment with remediation
Direct Measures of Assessment with Remediation

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

indirect measures of assessment with remediation
Indirect Measures of Assessment with Remediation

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

student learning outcome and measurements
Student-Learning Outcome and Measurements

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide11

Measure 1: OGET

  • Oklahoma General Education Test
  • Criterion-referenced and competency-based state teacher exam
  • Assesses general knowledge
  • A passing score of 240 required for admission to the Teacher Education program, along with other criteria such as an overall GPA of 2.5.

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

multi year trend chart oget critical thinking reading and communication overall scores
Multi-Year Trend ChartOGET Critical Thinking: Reading and Communication Overall Scores

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

multi year trend chart oget communication overall scores
Multi-Year Trend ChartOGET Communication Overall Scores

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

multi year trend chart oget critical thinking mathematics overall scores
Multi-Year Trend ChartOGET Critical Thinking: Mathematics Overall Scores

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

multi year trend chart oget mathematics computation overall scores
Multi-Year Trend ChartOGET Mathematics Computation Overall Scores

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

multi year trend chart oget science art literature social sciences overall scores
Multi-Year Trend ChartOGET Science, Art & Literature, Social Sciences Overall Scores

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

multi year trend chart oget critical thinking writing overall scores
Multi-Year Trend ChartOGET Critical Thinking: Writing Overall Scores

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide18
Analysis of Data:

RSU candidates maintained the 100% pass rate.

91% of CU candidates passed. This is a 15% increase over 2008-2009.

In 2008 – 2009 Cameron candidates only exceeded the state average in three areas: Computation Skills, Liberal Studies: Science, Art & Literature, Social Sciences, and Critical Thinking Skills: Writing. In 2009-2010 candidates exceeded the state average in Communication, Liberal Studies: Science, Art & Literature, Social Sciences, and Critical Thinking Skills: Writing.

Even though the writing scores exceeded the state average, they are still the lowest as compared to the other areas.

Outcome 1

Measure 1: OGET

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

outcome 1 measure 1 oget
Outcome 1Measure 1: OGET

Action Plan:

  • In order to help students improve in the areas of Critical Thinking Skills in Mathematics, Reading and Communication, the Department of Education faculty will work in partnership with the General Education Faculty to review the test result data and the test objectives in order to create an action plan. This could be done by inviting them to be members of the Assessment Advisory Board. (2010-2011 AY)

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide20

Measure 2: OSAT

  • Oklahoma Subject Area Test
  • Criterion-referenced and competency-based state teacher exam
  • Composed of two sub-tests assessing subject content knowledge
      • evaluates through 55 selected response items & 1 constructed response item
      • evaluates through 55 selected response items
  • Passing score of 240 required for admission to student teaching, along with other criteria such as an overall GPA of 2.5.

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

multi year trend chart osat subtest 1 reading overall scores
Multi-Year Trend ChartOSAT Subtest 1 Reading Overall Scores

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

multi year trend chart osat subtest 1 language arts overall scores
Multi-Year Trend ChartOSAT Subtest 1 Language Arts Overall Scores

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

multi year trend chart osat subtest 1 social studies overall scores
Multi-Year Trend ChartOSAT Subtest 1 Social Studies Overall Scores

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

multi year trend chart osat subtest 1 constructed response overall scores
Multi-Year Trend ChartOSAT Subtest 1 Constructed Response Overall Scores

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

outcome 1 measure 2 osat subtest 1
Outcome 1Measure 2: OSATSubtest 1

Analysis of Data:

  • In 09 – 10, 79% of Cameron’s candidates and 100% of RSU’s candidates passed Subtest 1. This is a decline of 5% over last year for CU and an increase of 17% for RSU. CU candidates scored above the state average in but one are (SS) of the test. RSU candidates scored above the state averages in all but one area (LA).
  • The writing scores for the CU campus declined while the RSU campus scores’ increased. This could be because the action plan was implemented by adding tutorial writing sessions through SOEA at the RSU campus.

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide26
Action Plan: (Recommended by Assessment Advisory)

Take Reading Diagnosis before taking the Elementary OSAT. Add additional writing component to Reading Diagnosis writing exercises that include multistep directions. Emphasize strategy file in Reading Diagnosis course. (Spring 2011)

Focus on (emphasize) objectives in the OCTP study guide to help improve test results. This could be accomplished by revisiting alignment among the methods courses’ objectives. (Spring 2011)

Outcome 1Measure 2: OSATSubtest 1

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

multi year trend chart osat subtest 2 math overall scores
Multi-Year Trend ChartOSAT Subtest 2 Math Overall Scores

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

multi year trend chart osat subtest 2 science overall scores
Multi-Year Trend ChartOSAT Subtest 2 Science Overall Scores

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

multi year trend chart osat subtest 2 health fitness overall scores
Multi-Year Trend ChartOSAT Subtest 2 Health & Fitness Overall Scores

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

multi year trend chart osat subtest 2 fine arts overall scores
Multi-Year Trend ChartOSAT Subtest 2 Fine Arts Overall Scores

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide31
Analysis of Data:

80% of the RSU candidates and 84% of Cameron’s candidates passed Subtest 2. This was a decline of 20% over last year for RSU. This was an increase of 5% for CU. Cameron candidates scored below the state average in math, science, and Fine Arts. RSU candidates scored above the state averages in two areas (science and fine arts).

For the CU campus, math continues to be the area with the lowest scores.

Outcome 1

Measure 2: OSAT

Subtest 2

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide32
Action Plan:

Continue to evaluate the alignment of course objectives in the methods courses with the test objectives. Math test objectives focus on problem-solving, so emphasize in Math Methods course. (2010-2011 AY)

Outcome 1

Measure 2: OSAT

Subtest 2

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide33

Outcome 1

Measure 3: Student Teaching Evaluations

  • Revised beginning Fall 2007
  • Content addendum added Spring 2008 & scored once per placement
  • Completed by mentor teacher at the end of each of two placements; by university supervisor twice during each placement
  • Two evaluators ensures reliability and validity of scores.
  • RSU students complete student teaching during spring semester only.
  • Remediation provided if needed

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide34

Measure 3: Student Teaching Evaluations - Lawton

1=Does not meet expectations 2=Meets expectations 3=Exceeds expectations

Passing = 2 or above

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide35

Measure 3: Student Teaching Evaluations – RSU

1=Does not meet expectations 2=Meets expectations 3=Exceeds expectations

Passing = 2 or above

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

outcome 1 measure 3 student teaching evaluations
Outcome 1Measure 3 Student Teaching Evaluations

Analysis of Data:

  • Candidates are scoring well above passing in all areas

Action Plan:

  • Continue to monitor

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

outcome 1 measure 4 follow up survey
Outcome 1Measure 4: Follow-Up Survey
  • Completed by school administrator, mentor teacher, and university representative at the end of candidate’s first year of teaching
  • Used to assess how well the program prepared candidates
  • Initial administration in 06-07 year, compared to 07-08, 08-09, 09-10 data in following chart (Lawton only)
  • Have no data from RSU graduates because Cameron does not supervise resident teachers in NE Oklahoma

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide38

Measure 4: Follow-up Survey Data

Mean Scores for CU Lawton Students Only(selected items,07-08, N=49; 08-09, N=43, 09-10, N=40)1=Not Acceptable 2=Emerging 3=Competent 4=Exemplary Passing = 3 or above

  • Analysis of Data:
  • Administrators and University Representatives’ ratings increased from 08-09 to
  • 09-10.
  • Mentors rated candidates lower from 08-09 to 09-10.
  • Action Plan:
  • Consider more in-depth training for mentors so that they clearly understand what they are evaluating in regards to this specific item and how it relates to the candidate’s preparation and experience.

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide39

Multi-Year Trend ChartFollow-Up Survey

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

student learning outcome and measurements1
Student-Learning Outcome and Measurements

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide41

Measure 1: OPTE

  • Oklahoma Professional Teacher Exam
  • Criterion-referenced and competency-based state teacher exam
  • Assesses professional knowledge & skills
  • 75 selected-response items
  • Constructed-response items consist of 3 written performance modules
    • Critical Analysis: Candidates analyze an educational issue related to learners and the learning environment.
    • Student Inquiry: Candidates describe an instructional activity which would help students achieve a specific learning goal.
    • Teacher Assignment: Candidates apply professional knowledge to evaluate a school or classroom situation and recommend a course of action.
  • Passing score of 240 required to obtain an Oklahoma Teaching License

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

multi year trend chart opte learners in the learning environment overall scores
Multi-Year Trend ChartOPTE: Learners in the Learning Environment Overall Scores

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

multi year trend chart opte instruction and assessment overall scores
Multi-Year Trend ChartOPTE: Instruction and Assessment Overall Scores

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

multi year trend chart opte the professional environment overall scores
Multi-Year Trend ChartOPTE: The Professional Environment Overall Scores

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

multi year trend chart opte critical analysis module overall scores
Multi-Year Trend ChartOPTE: Critical Analysis Module Overall Scores

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

multi year trend chart opte student inquiry module overall scores
Multi-Year Trend ChartOPTE: Student Inquiry Module Overall Scores

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

multi year trend chart opte teacher assignment module overall scores
Multi-Year Trend ChartOPTE: Teacher Assignment Module Overall Scores

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide48
Analysis of Data:

In 09 – 10, 100% of RSU candidates passed, while 96% of CU candidates passed. This was consistent for RSU; however, it’s a 3% increased for CU over last year.

Also, Cameron candidates scored above the state average in all areas except two. RSU candidates scored above the state average in four areas and fell below state average in the areas the Professional Environment, and the Teacher Assignment Module. This is consistent with last year; however, scores increased in Instruction and Assessment over last year.

Action Plan: (Recommended by Assessment Advisory )

Develop writing exercises that include multi-step directions; Focus on objectives in the OCTP Study Guide. (Spring 2011)

Outcome 2

Measure 1: OPTE

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide49

Measure 2: Teacher Work Sample

Multi-week thematic unit created by the teacher candidate

Taught in a public school classroom under guidance of a public school mentor teacher

Organized into 6 “factors” or sections

Emphasis on using assessment to guide instruction & achieving student learning gains

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

multi year trend chart teacher work sample factor 2 unit goals and objectives
Multi-Year Trend ChartTeacher Work Sample Factor 2: Unit Goals and Objectives

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

multi year trend chart teacher work sample factor 4 instructional design
Multi-Year Trend ChartTeacher Work Sample Factor 4: Instructional Design

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide52

Outcome 2: Measure 2

Teacher Work Sample Data

  • Analysis of Data:
  • Scores indicate students are competent in professional knowledge and skills
  • More candidates have exceeding scores in Unit Goals and Objectives as compared to Instructional Design.
  • Candidates who have “not met” scores are given an opportunity to reach the competent level.
  • Action Plan:
  • None at this time

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide53

Outcome 2: Measure 3

Student Teaching Evaluations – Lawton

Mentor Teacher Ratings

1=Does not meet expectations 2=Meets expectations 3=Exceeds expectations

Passing = 2 or above

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide54

Outcome 2: Measure 3

Student Teaching Evaluations - Lawton

University Supervisor Ratings

1=Does not meet expectations 2=Meets expectations 3=Exceeds expectations

Passing = 2 or above

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide55

Outcome 2: Measure 3

Student Teaching Evaluations - RSU

Mentor Teacher Ratings

1=Does not meet expectations 2=Meets expectations 3=Exceeds expectations

Passing = 2 or above

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide56

Outcome 2: Measure 3

Student Teaching Evaluations - RSU

University Supervisor Ratings

1=Does not meet expectations 2=Meets expectations 3=Exceeds expectations

Passing = 2 or above

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

outcome 2 measure 3 student teaching evaluations
Outcome 2Measure 3Student Teaching Evaluations

Analysis of Data:

  • Candidates are well above passing.
  • Overall data shows a slight dip in scores for Lawton students candidates and a slight increase for RSU students. This may be due to the “leveling” meeting that occurred in fall 2009.

Action Plan:

  • Continue to monitor the data at both sites in terms of reliability.

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide58

Measure 4: Follow Up Survey DataMean Scores for CU Students Only(selected items, N=49; 08-09, N=43; 09-10, N=40)1=Not Acceptable 2=Emerging 3=Competent 4=Exemplary Passing = 3 or above

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide59

Measure 4: Follow Up Survey DataMean Scores for CU Students Only(selected items, N=49; 08-09, N=43; 09-10, N=40)1=Not Acceptable 2=Emerging 3=Competent 4=Exemplary Passing = 3 or above

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

multi year trend chart follow up survey item 8
Multi-Year Trend ChartFollow-Up Survey-Item 8

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide61

Multi-Year Trend ChartFollow-Up Survey-Item 10

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide62

Multi-Year Trend ChartFollow-Up Survey-Item 11

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

multi year trend chart follow up survey item 17
Multi-Year Trend ChartFollow-Up Survey-Item 17

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

multi year trend chart follow up survey item 19
Multi-Year Trend ChartFollow-Up Survey-Item 19

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

multi year trend chart follow up survey item 22
Multi-Year Trend ChartFollow-Up Survey-Item 22

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide66
Analysis of Data:

Students scored well above passing on all items.

Administratorsrated graduates higher in nearly all items during

09-10

Steady gains indicated on item 10 over the years may indicate that 09-10 action plan for that item was successfully implemented

Action Plan:

Continue modeling how to find and use PASS objectives for students in Intro to Teaching and methods courses where students create lesson plans and units of instruction.

Bring in professional development opportunities for students on campus such as OEA teaching consultants or other guest speakers.

Outcome 2

Measure 4: Follow-up Survey Results

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

student learning outcome and measurements2
Student-Learning Outcome and Measurements

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

multi year trend chart measure 1 teacher work sample factor 5 analysis of learning
Multi-Year Trend ChartMeasure 1:Teacher Work Sample Factor 5: Analysis of Learning

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

multi year trend chart measure 1 teacher work sample factor 6 reflection on teaching and learning
Multi-Year Trend ChartMeasure 1:Teacher Work Sample Factor 6: Reflection on Teaching and Learning

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide70

Outcome 4: Measure 1

Teacher Work Sample Data

  • Analysis of Data:
  • Most candidates exceed the criteria on this assessment, therefore indicates the program outcome is being met.
  • Candidates who have “not met” scores are given an opportunity to reach the competent level.
  • Action Plan:
  • None at this time.

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide71

Outcome 4: Measure 2

Student Teaching Evaluations - Lawton

1=Does not meet expectations 2=Meets expectations 3=Exceeds expectations

Passing = 2 or above

Mentor Teacher Ratings

University Supervisor Ratings

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide72

Outcome 4: Measure 2

Student Teaching Evaluations - RSU

1=Does not meet expectations 2=Meets expectations 3=Exceeds expectations

Passing = 2 or above

Mentor Teacher Ratings

University Supervisor Ratings

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

outcome 4 measure 2 student teaching evaluations
Outcome 4Measure 2Student Teaching Evaluations

Analysis of Data:

  • Candidates are well above passing.
  • Overall data shows a slight dip in scores for Lawton students candidates and a slight increase for RSU students. This may be due to the “leveling” meeting that occurred in fall 2009.

Action Plan:

  • Continue to monitor the data at both sites in terms of reliability.

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide74

Measure 3: Follow Up Survey DataMean Scores for CU Lawton Students Only

(selected items,07-08, N=49; 08-09, N=43; 09-10, N=40)1=Not Acceptable 2=Emerging 3=Competent 4=Exemplary Passing = 3 or above

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

multi year trend chart follow up survey item 16
Multi-Year Trend ChartFollow-Up Survey-Item 16

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

multi year trend chart follow up survey item 18
Multi-Year Trend ChartFollow-Up Survey-Item 18

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide77

Outcome 4: Measure 3

Follow-up Survey Results

  • Analysis of Data:
  • Students scored well above passing on all items.
  • Administrators’ and mentors’ ratings were consistent in 06-07.
  • Administrators rated candidates the lowest in 07-08.
  • University Reps rated candidates the lowest in 08-09.
  • Action Plan:
  • Consider implementing the Fred Jones model into the Classroom Management course.

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide78

Outcome 4: Measure 3

Follow-up Survey Results

  • Analysis of Data:
  • All ratings well above average for each item rated
  • Administrator and Mentor ratings were down in 09-10 from 08-09 in both items, while University Rep. ratings increased.
  • Action Plan:
  • The residency committees are no longer a state requirement, we will be using a new way to gather the data only from graduates, university faculty, and principal (as available).

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

published information on graduates

Lawton

Published information on graduates

RSU

*Status of students not included above is known: awaiting certification, job hunting, or electing not to work.

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011

slide80
Questions?

Program Quality Improvement Report 2010-2011