Program Report for the Preparation of early Childhood Teachers

Transcription

Program Report for the Preparation of early Childhood Teachers
National Association for the Education for Young Children
(NAEYC)
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR ACCREDIATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION
COVER SHEET
Institution:
Weber State University, Utah
Date submitted:
February 2005
Name of preparer: Rosalind Charlesworth
Phone No.:
801 626-7386
Email:
[email protected]
Program Documented in this report:
Name of program:
Early Childhood/Elementary Education
Is this a blended ECE/ESCE program?
Yes
Grade levels for which candidates are being prepared:
Pre-K- 3
Degree or award level:
Bachelor’s Degree
Is this program offered at more than one site:
No
Title of the state license for which
candidates are prepared:
Utah Professional
Educator License,
Program report status:
Initial review
State licensure requirement for national recognition:
NO
SECTION I--CONTEXT
1. Description of any state or institutional policies that may influence the application of
SPA standards.
The program is designed to meet the requirements for the Utah Early Childhood license (K-3)
which is required to teach kindergarten, permits assignment in kindergarten through grade three
and is recommended for teaching in formal programs below kindergarten level.
The state mandate is that programs meet NCATE standards. Both the Utah State Office of
Education and the Weber State University College of Education have adopted the INTASC
standards. The ECE program incorporates the NAEYC and INTASC standards as depicted in the
chart supplied by NAEYC. Our ECE program incorporates experiences with toddlers (age two)
through primary grades (grade 3). Many students also select the option to obtain dual
certification in the elementary grades which adds on experiences and licensure in grades 4
through 6.
The ECE program is a collaboration between Elementary Education faculty and Early
Childhood Faculty. A faculty member in Child and Family Studies serves as a liaison to the
Department of Teacher Education, attending faculty meetings and serving on committees.
Whenever a change is instituted in either program faculty from each department meet to
exchange information and plan. The Elementary Faculty endeavor to match the requirements for
developmentally appropriate practice so that movement from one set of courses to the other is
made easy because of a similar philosophy.
2. Description of the field and clinical experiences required for the program, including the
number of hours for early field experiences and the number of hours/weeks of student
teaching or internships.
Professional Education Field/Clinical Experiences (PreK-3)
COURSES
FIELD EXPERIENCES/ AGE/ GRADE
CHFAM 1500 Human
Development
2-4 one hour observations, usually pre-k
CHFAM 2500 Development of
the Child: 0-8
4-5 observations &/or case study ( 1 hour each infant or
toddler, prek, K, primary child) (minimum 5 hours
observation/interaction for case study of child at any age 6
mo. to age 9)
CHFAM 2600 Introduction to
Early Childhood Education
1-2 hour observation and teaching planned lessons with
individuals or small groups of children from Melba S.
Lehner Children's School (ages 2 to 5)
CHFAM 2610 Guidance Based
on Developmental Theory
2 hours per week, 15 weeks in Children's School (PreK)
CHFAM 2620 Planning
3 hours per week for 10 weeks in the Children's School
1
Creative Learning Experiences
for Young Children
(Pre-K)
CHFAM 3500 Children at Risk
2 hour observation in an Early Childhood Special
Education program
CHFAM 4710 Advanced
Guidance and Planning
100 hours participation in the Melba S. Lehner Children's
School (PreK)
CHFAM 4720 Student
Teaching in the Melba S.
Lehner Children's School
200 hours participation in the Melba S. Lehner Children's
School (PreK)
Level 1
EDUC 3100 Instructional
Planning and Assessment
EDUC 3110 Instructional
Technology
12 hours minimum (K/P)
Level 2
EDUC 3200 Foundations in
Diversity: Culturally,
Linguistically Responsive
Teaching
EDUC 3240 Foundations,
Methods, and Assessments of
Elementary Reading
EDUC 3280 Elementary Social
Studies Methods
24 hours minimum (K/P)
Level 3
EDUC 4300 Elementary
Mathematics Methods
Language Arts Methods
Science Methods
EDUC 4340 Elementary Art/
Music Methods
64 hours (K/P)
Level 4
EDUC 4840 Student Teaching
in the ELementary School
CHFAM 4980 Early Childhood
Senior Synthesis Seminar
156 hours in kindergarten and 156 in primary
3. Description of the criteria for admission, retention, and exit from the program, including
2
required GPA=s and minimum grade requirements for the content courses accepted by the
program.
Students who wish to pursue an undergraduate program of studies leading to teacher
licensure must submit an application to the College of Education Teacher Education Program.
Once admitted students are on provisional status during Levels 1 and 2. Provisional admittance
is valid for 5 years. After 5 years a student must re-apply.
Prerequisites for admission are:
$English/Math/Communications//Computer/ Literacy
-English Competency (C or above in EN 1010 and EN 2010 or equivalent)
-Mathematics Competency (minimum of College Algebra QL 1050 or equivalent)
-Communication Proficiency (grade of B- or above in COMM HU 1020, or COMM HU
1050)
-Computer and information literacy
$Minimum Number of Credit Hours and GPA
-40 semester hours of general education or relevant prerequisite courses and
-overall GPA of 3.00 or higher or 3.25 GPA on last 30 semester hours
$Application Deadline
Deadlines are included in the application instructions. Application must include official
transcripts from all colleges attended and a current graduation evaluation.
$Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP) Test
-Minimum scores: writing, 61; Writing Essay, 3.0, Math, 54, Reading 59
$Interview
Each applicant is interviewed by a three member team and must receive an average score
of at least 29 on a total of 40 points possible.
$Written Statement
Three copies of a written statement of a maximum of two pages should be brought to the
interview. The statement should address why the applicant wants to become a teacher and
descriptions of past teaching experiences.
$Orientation
If accepted applicants must attend a mandatory orientation seminar.
$Security Clearance
When notified regarding provisional admittance candidates must complete the forms for the
criminal background check.
Retention:
Candidates are expected to maintain high professional and academic standards. Quality
of work and timely progress through the program are two (2) criteria considered as evidence of
professional competence. Program expectations are as follows:
$
Provisional admission to a specific program is valid for period of five (5) years. If a
program is not completed within the five-year period, the candidate is required to seek
readmission under the then current admission standards.
$
Professional education credit hours older than five (5) years at the time of program
admission will not be counted toward licensure.
$
Once admitted to the program, candidates must maintain a GPA of 3.0. They cannot
3
$
$
receive a grade lower than a B- in any professional education course. If a grade lower
than B- is received, the candidate may repeat any professional education course one (1)
time.
Documented violations of the WSU Student Code of Conduct will be considered grounds
for suspension or dismissal from the Teacher Education Program.
Candidates are admitted on a provisional basis for the first two levels. If they fail to
maintain an acceptable level of achievement during this time, the Teacher Education
Admission and Retention Committee may revoke their provisional status.
Exit:
Student Teaching.The program culminates with public school student teaching and the synthesis
seminar. Students must apply to the Office of Field Experience and Clinical Practice by a
designated deadline in order to be provided a student teaching placement. Early Childhood
Education majors spend 35 days in kindergarten and 35 days in a primary grade (1-3). Dual
majors (ECE and El. Ed.) spend 35 days in kindergarten and 35 days in upper elementary,
usually fourth grade. Requirements for enrollment in student teaching are:
$Completion of Levels 1, 2, and 3 and completion of student teaching in the Melba S. Lehner
Children=s School (ages 2 - 5) with the minimum of B- in every professional education course
and an overall GPA of 3.0.
$Clearance on criminal background check
Graduation and licensure. Applicants for graduation must file an application with the WSU
graduation office following the steps below.
$
Schedule an appointment with major advisor.
$
Take a printout of his/her graduation evaluation to the appointment in order to receive
graduation clearance.
$
Complete the graduation application and general education survey.
$
Take the completed application and graduation fee to the cashier=s office.
$
Submit the application to the graduate office
To receive clearance students must have completed a minimum of 120 semester hours of course
work and met the requirements describe previously.
Licensure applications must be submitted to the WSU Teacher Education Advisement Center.
Along with the application the following items must be submitted: Graduation Evaluation,
Criminal Background Check clearance, $45.00 money order or certified cashier=s check, official
transcript request for final transcript, and official transcripts from all universities attended.
4. Description of the relationship of the program to the unit=s conceptual framework.
The mission of the Department of Child and Family Studies is to prepare students
through contemporary educational practices to become Early Childhood and Family Life
Educators who respect diversity. These practitioners will create environments that enhance the
lives and healthy development of adults, children, and families over the lifespan. The mission of
the Department of Teacher Education includes a commitment to preparing teacher candidates
who recognize and accommodate diversity and teach all students including those with
disabilities. These missions and goals support the Jerry and Vickie Moyes College of Education
mission which includes a commitment to developing and maintaining healthy and responsible
individuals, families and schools in a global and diverse society through roles relating to the
4
preparation and support of practitioners and educators. These missions and goals, in turn,
relate to the mission of Weber State University which is to meet the educational needs of Utah
through roles assigned by the State Board of Regents in the liberal arts and sciences and a variety
of vocations and professions.
The Teacher Education conceptual framework is based on the premise: ?Student
Achievement: Teachers, Students, and Communities Working Together@. The framework is
based on the philosophy of demonstrated pedagogy that incorporates reflective practice with the
highest goal being Increased Student Performance (both for teacher candidates and K-12 pupils).
Reflective practice is at the heart of the unit conceptual framework and is fostered throughout the
program by reflecting, engaging, and collaborating. The foundation of the framework is
Assessment of critical performance indicators at five decisions points.
The Early Childhood Education program incorporate=s the unit conceptual framework
into one designed around the NAEYC Standards with a foundation in theories of development
and learning. Our major objective is for students to base their reflections on the NAEYC
Standards and the theoretical underpinning provided by the theories of development and learning
of Vygotsky, Piaget, Erikson, Maslow, and Bandura. These theories provide an eclectic approach
that focuses on constructivist and social learning theory and are briefly outlined below.
Vygotsky=s stages provide a view of the leading activities that support development from infancy
to school age. During infancy (2 mo. to 1 year) the leading activity is communication; during
early childhood (1-- 3 years), the manipulation of objects; during preschool age (3--7) years, play
and during school age (7--13 years) learning. His view reminds us of the importance of adults
and more advanced peers as providers of scaffolding (support) for learning. His focus on the
Zone of Proximal Development provides a guideline for planning for individual children.
Piaget provides a different but compatible view of learning. The infant and toddler focus
on development of sensory and motor skills as a means for learning. During the preschool period
(preoperational, ages 2--7) language and concept development take place at a rapid pace through
imitation, play, and other self-initiated activities. By school age children become capable of
using abstract symbols and ideas as applied to concrete experiences. Interaction between and
among peers provides for the development of a more open and less egocentric world view.
Erikson=s theory provides a focus for social/emotional development. The focus on
developmental crises that continue through life assists us in evaluating children=s progress in the
affective areas of trust, autonomy, initiative, and industry and their opposite crisis areas,
mistrust, shame and doubt, guilt, and inferiority.
Maslow provides a view of the development of a positive self-concept. The child moves
toward self-actualization supported by love from parents and positive peer interactions.
Maslow=s hierarchy of needs provides an outline of needs beginning with the most basic physical
and organizational of survival and safety, moving up to affiliative/social,
achievement/intellectual, aesthetic, to self-actualization. It can be seen that survival and affective
needs must be fulfilled before children can be motivated to seek knowledge and be motivated for
school learning.
Bandura <s social-cognitive theory focuses on several factors that effect learning. Adults
serve an important function as models of appropriate behavior. He focuses not so much on direct
imitation or copying of adult behavior but on what children learn through observation.
Observation is the major tool for learning about social behavior. Mentally children decide the
5
importance of what they observe as applied to their own behavior. Observation alone does not
guarantee that children will perform the actions they observe.
Theories of development and learning are stranded through all early childhood courses.
Students must apply theoretical elements to children=s growth and development, curriculum,
guidance, planning, and instruction. For example, in Human Growth and Development students
observe children and apply theory to observed behaviors. In Guidance candidates interpret
children=s behavior and apply guidance techniques based on theory. In Advanced Guidance and
Planning and Student Teaching candidates are assessed on their ability to apply theory to
practice by using theory to explain instructional decisions. The final capstone essay exam has a
major question on theory and its application to practice.
5. Indication of whether the program has a unique set of program assessments and the
relationship of the program=s assessments to the unit=s assessment system.
The Early Childhood Education program has a unique set of assessments which are
invoked as the students proceed through the early childhood course sequence which may be prior
to or parallel to progression through the teacher education elementary sequence. These
assessments include student teaching rating scales, a teacher Work Sample (TWS), a teaching
portfolio based on NAEYC and INTASC Standards, a pre-post teacher beliefs and practices
survey, and an exit questionnaire. Teacher Education assessments include evaluation of public
school student teaching performance and evaluation of the final INTASC/NAEYC standards
portfolio.
6
Attachment 1: Program of Study
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION MAJOR
BACHELOR DEGREE (B.S. OR B.A.)
The Departments of Child and Family Studies and Teacher Education offer a major in
Early Childhood Education with certification for teaching in programs which serve children
from age three through eight years of age (Pre-K through 3rd grade). Students preparing to
teach in a public school's early childhood programs graduate with a major in Early Childhood
Education.
+ Program Prerequisite: Students must have completed at least 30 credit hours of general
education and relevant prerequisite courses and have either a cumulative GPA of 3.00 or above
or a minimum GPA of 3.25 on the last 30 semester hours taken. Students must also meet the
Teacher Education admission and certification requirements (see Teacher Education Department
in this catalog).
+ Minor: Not required.
+ Grade Requirements: A GPA of 3.00 or higher in courses required for this major in addition
to a cumulative GPA of 3.00 for all courses. Students will receive the final grade they have
earned in each course. If a grade in a major course does not meet the minimum requirement for
graduation, the student may retake the course once. In special circumstances, by the judgment of
the department chair, the student may petition to the Family Studies or Early Childhood
Committee, as appropriate, to graduate with the lower grade.
+ Credit Hour Requirements: A total of 120 credit hours is required for a bachelors degree B 88
of these are required within the major. A minimum of 40 upper division credit hours is required
(courses numbered 3000 and above).
$Advisement
Students must follow the Department of Child and Family Studies Advisement procedures.
Contact the student advisor located in the Education Building, Room 230D (801-626-6411).
$Admission Requirements
Declare your program of study. Early Childhood Education majors must meet the Teacher
Education admission and certification requirements (see Teacher Education Department)
As part of the Teacher Education admission requirements and/or before enrolling in ChFam
2600, 2610 or 2620, students must be fingerprinted and have a background check. If the
background check reveals misconduct you will not be allowed to enroll in these courses or any
others which include field experiences, practica, or student teaching. This is in compliance with
Utah State law. Allow an eight week response time from the state.
$General Education
See pages 36-41 for either Bachelor of Science or Bachelor of Arts requirements. ChFam
SS1500 will satisfy a general education requirement and is prerequisite to most Child and Family
courses. Comm HU1020 may be taken to fulfill both a support course and a general education
requirement.
Course Requirements for B.S. or B.A. Degree
Pre Core Course Required (3 credit hours)
ChFam SS1500 Human Development
(This course will satisfy a general education requirement.)
Core Courses Required (28 credit hours)
ChFam 2500 Development of the Child: Birth Through Eight (3)
ChFam 2600 Intro to Early Childhood Educ (3)
ChFam 2610 Guidance Based on Developmental Theory (3)
ChFam 2620 Planning Creative Experiences for Young Children (3)
ChFam 3500 Young Children at Risk (3)
or Educ DV3260 The Exceptional Student (3)
ChFam 3640 Working with Parents (3)
ChFam 4710* Advanced Guidance & Planning (3)
ChFam 4720* Student Teaching-Children's School (6)
ChFam 4990A Seminar in Child Development (1)
* Taken concurrently
Support Courses Required (19 credit hours)
Comm
HU1020* Principles of Public Speaking or
Comm HU1050*Intro to Interpersonal & Small Group Comm (3)
or Comm 3070 Performance Studies (3) or equivalent
*Will satisfy a general education requirement
MathEd 2310 Mathematics for Elem Teachers (3)
MathEd 2320 Mathematics for Elem Teachers (3)
Educ 2000
Social Studies Concepts for Elementary Teachers (3)
Engl 3300
Children's Literature (3)
PE 3630
Physical Education K-6 (2)
Health 4300 Health Education in the Elementary School (2)
Support Course Elective (2-4 credit hours)
Select one course from the following
Music 3824 Music for the Elementary Teachers (4)
Educ 3430
Creative Processes in Elementary School (3)
Theater 4603 Creative Drama (3)
Dance 3640 Creative Movement in Elementary School (2)
Art CA1030* Studio Art for the Non-Art Major (3)
* May not be used as both a support elective and general education
Professional Education Courses Required (39 credit hours)
Educ 3390
Literacy in the Primary Grades (2)
$ Level 1 (Core)
Educ 3100
Instructional Planning and Assessment (3)
Educ 3110
Instructional Technology (1)
$ Level 2 (Learners and Literacy)
Educ DV3200
Foundations of Diversity: Culturally, Linguistically
Responsive Teaching (3)
Educ 3280
Elementary Social Studies Methods (3)
Educ 3240
Foundations, Methods & Assessments of Elementary
Reading (3)
ChFam 3500 Young Children at Risk or
Educ DV3260 The Exceptional Student (3)
$ Level 3 (Interdisciplinary Methods)
Educ 4300
Elementary Math Methods (3)
Educ 4320
Elementary Language Arts Methods (3)
Educ 4330
Elementary Science Methods (3)
Educ 4340
Elementary Art/Music Methods (3)
$ Level 4 (Synthesis)
Educ 3840 Student Teaching in Elementary Education (8)
Chfam 4980 Early Childhood Senior Synthesis Seminar
Suggested Course Sequence
Please refer to this program in the on-line catalog (weber.edu/catalog) and/or contact the
department for a suggested course sequence.
EARLY CHILDHOOD AND ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
DUAL CERTIFICATION
Combination of these two programs allows students the flexibility of teaching pre-kindergarten
through sixth grade and increases job potential. Early consultation with an adviser is
recommended. See Early Childhood Education and Elementary Education major requirements.
Early Childhood Education majors who desire to obtain an Elementary Education
Certification will complete 38 hours in the Early Childhood Education major and must also
complete the following additional 19 hours:
Required Education Course (3 credit hours)
Educ DV3260
The Exceptional Student* (3)
*if not already taken
Concentration (9 credit hours)
Select an additional 9 credit hours of course work in an area of concentration. (See Teacher
Education Department advisor.)
Science Elective (3 credit hours) Select one 3-hour course that includes a lab in consultation
with a Teacher Education Department advisor.
Additional Student Teaching (4 credit hours) Length may vary depending on performance and
previous placement.
ATTACHMENT 2
Candidate Information
Program: Early Childhood Education, bachelors*
Academic Year 2003-2004
# of Candidates Enrolled in the # of Program Completers Program 95
17
2002-2003
78
21
2001-2002
68
19
*Includes ECE and ECE Elementary dual majors
ATTACHMENT 3
Faculty Information
Child and
Family
Studies
Faculty
Member
Name
Highest
Degree.
Field,
Universi
ty
Assignme
nt
Indicate
the Role
of the
faculty
member
Faculty
Rank
Tenure
Track
(yes/no
)
Scholarship, Leadership in Professional
Organizations, and Service. List up to 3
major contributions in the past 3 years
Teaching or othe
professional
experience in
p-12 schools
osalind
harlesworth
Ph.D.,
Universit
y of
Toledo
Faculty
and
Departme
nt Chair
Professo
r
tenured
$Early Childhood textbooks: Understanding
Child Development, 6th ed., Math and
Science for Young Children (co-author) (5th
ed.)
$Editorial Board, Early Childhood Education
Journal, 1998--current
$Mathematics for Preschool Children,
invited address, Seoul , Korea, 10/2004
$Spent five weeks
teaching
kindergarten durin
sabbatical $Work
with our Children=
School teachers
$Taught preK 12
years; primary LD
1 year
mes A.
rd
Ph.D.,
Universit
y of Utah
Faculty
Professo
r
tenured
$Ten years Principal Investigator and
Executive Director, TEACH Program-inclusionary program for preschoolers with
emotional and behavioral problems
$ Principal Investigator and Executive
Director, Child Care Resource and Referral
$Past member of Utah Child Care Advisory
Board
$Preschool teache
-2 years
$Director of child
care that served 15
children--3 years
$Director of Melb
S. Lehner Children
School--5years
ilek
Ph.D.,
Faculty
Assistan
Yes
$Interinstitutional Consortium Early
$Taught preschoo
uchholz
Louisian
a State
Universit
y
om Day
M.S.,
Utah
State
Universit
y
Faculty
Assistan
t
Professo
r
arole Haun
M.S.,
Universit
y of
Georgia
Profession
al
Staff/Adju
nct
Instructor
Adjunct No
Instructo
r/Direct
or
Teacher
Education
Faculty
Member
Name
Highest
Degree.
Field,
Universi
ty
Assignme
nt
Indicate
the Role
of the
faculty
member
Faculty
Rank
Ed. D.,
Curriculu
Associat
audia
t
Professo
r
Childhood Conference Committee member
$Presentations t OMEP, NSTA, & NMERA.
$Reviewed proposals for AERA
$Contributed to supplementary materials for
Understanding Child Development text
$Trained in schools .at the Elementary Level
attending All Kinds Of Minds Institute .
$Board member of a nonprofit organization
that deals with people with disabilities
No
and kindergarten in
public schools prio
to joining WSU
faculty.
$Supervises
practicum students
in public school
preschool and head
Start classrooms.
$Models for
practicum students
if requested
$TESOL Presentation
$Director of child
$Parent Invovement Workshop at Elementary care program--15
School
years
$Collaboration with Granite and Ogden
School Districts for ESL endorsement classes.
$Director of Head Start partnership grant
$Partner for Heads Up Reading class for
Head Start
$Utah Head Start Professional Development
Task Force
$Director of Melb
S. Lehner Children
School--teaches
weekly
Tenure
Track
(yes/no
)
Scholarship, Leadership in Professional
Organizations, and Service. List up to 3
major contributions in the past 3 years
Teaching or othe
professional
experience in
p-12 schools
tenured
$Co-authored 2003 text A Practical Guide to
$Facilitated a
iason
Brigham
Young
Universit
y
m
Director,
Teacher
Education,
Faculty
e
Professo
r
Forsyth
Ed.D.,
Utah
State
Universit
y
Faculty
Professo
r
hirley Leali
Ph.D.,
Universit
y of
Denver
Faculty
Professo
r
Early Childhood Curriculum (7th ed.,
Prentice Hall
$Co-editor of Utah Journal of Reading and
Literacy, 9/02--present
$Chair, WSU Storytelling Festival
$Faculty Advisor for WSU Council of the
International Reading Association
Numeracy/Literacy
Committee for
Ogden City Schoo
tenured
$President, Utah Association o Teacher
Educators. 2001-2003.
$With J. Maier, ?Affective Outcomes of
World Geography Courses@, presentation at
the National Council for Geographic
Educators Annual Meeting, Kansas City, MO,
October, 2004
$Distinguished Teaching Award, National
Council for Geographic Education, June 2004
$Nathan Hale JHS
Norwalk, CT, 197
ESL
$James Monroe
High School, Bron
NY, 1970-71, Soci
Studies
$Battelle Institute
Center for Improv
Education,
Columbus, OH
1972-74
tenured
$PMET, NSF professional project, June 1319, 2004. Worked with 25 mathematicians
from across the country on improvement of
teaching of math to future elementary
teachers
$Teaching Content to All: Effective College
Teaching Workshop. May 2003, became a
certified professional developer.
$Literacy/Numeracy team presentation to
Ogden High School faculty on mathematics
across the curriculum, 3/04. $Member,
Governor=s Black Advisory Council
$Member, Utah Council of Mathematics
$Taught grades 41972-1988
$Taught gifted and
talented, 1-2; 3-4;
6
$Taught grades 7mathematics 1988
89
$Taught high scho
math, 1989-1982
$Taught
incarcerated youth
1999-2000, grades
Teachers
8-12
Licenses:
$BS--Elementary
K-6;
Administrative
Endorsement K-12
Taught 19 years in
Public Schools
M.Ed.,
Weber
State
Universit
y
Faculty
Instructo tenured
r
Speciali
st
$Workshop for instructors for the WSU
Teaching and Learning Forum, (2003)
$First Year Experience Instructor (2004)
$Administrator for Students Teaming for
Achievement and Retention (STAR) Program
$Administrator:Teacher Assistant Path to
Teaching (TAPT)
$Creation of online class for EDUC 3100
$Elementary Education Advisor
cki Napper Ph.D.,
Utah
State
Universit
y
Faculty
Assistan
t
Professo
r
yes
$Assoc. VP e-portfolio TIG, AACE
$Column Editor:Ethically Speaking, Tech
Trends
$Researched and published article about the
impact of copyright laws on teacher education
ul Pitts
Ed.D.,
Brigham
Young
Universit
y
Faculty
Associat
e
Professo
r
yes
$2 presentations at national conferences
$3 presentations at regional conferences
$4 presentations at state conferences
$Executive Committee of WSU Storytelling
Conference--Chair of Storytelling Committee
$M. Ed. Program and Policy Committee
$Member, Admissions and Retention
Committee
$Author of children=s books
$16 years classroo
teacher, grades 2-7
$11 years as ESL
Teacher Specialist
in Jordan District=s
Bilingual Program
chard
ntius
Ph.D.,
Ohio
State
Universit
y
Faculty
Assistan
t
Professo
r
yes
$Scaffolding Techniques in Science
Classrooms, presentation with Mongkol
Tungmala at NMERA, October 8-9, 2004.
$Strategies for Increasing Science
Comprehension, presentation at Colorado
TESOL conference with Mongkol Tungmala,
13 yrs Elementary
teacher, 1 yr MS
Science teacher,
arilyn
ofgreen
October 29-30, 2004.
$Pontius & Fortman. (2003).Aspects of Selfefficacy in student teachers from a private
college. Ohio Journal of Teacher Education,
16(2), 5-10.
ike Smith
Ed.D.,
Brigham
Young
Universit
y
Faculty
Professo
r
tenured
ay Wong
PhD.,
Iowa
State
Universit
y
Faculty
Professo
r
tenured
$Co-author (2001, May). Utah Science
Teachers and leading assessment practices in
Theories and Practices in Supervision and
Curriculum
$Session presider, at Utah ASCD, 2002 and
2003
$Reviewer for Allyn and Bacon, Diversity
case book
$Field Reader (2002) Advanced Placement
Incentive Applications
$Reviewer (2002) proposal for NRMERA
*Current Student
Teaching
Supervision
ouise
oulding
Ph.D.,
Universit
y of Utah
Faculty
Assistan
t
Professo
r
Tenure
track
$Current WSU representative on the Northern
Utah Curriculum Consortium (NUCC)
$Board member of Utah Association of
Curriculum Development and Supervison
(UASCD)
$1989-1997: High
School Science
Teacher in Ogden,
Weber Districts
$1995-2002:Distri
Supervisor in
Curriculum and
Assesment in Web
and Davis Disticts
$2002-2004:
Director of
Assessment and
Evaluation at the
Utah State Office o
Education
SECTION II – ASSESSMENT AND RELATED DATA
Name of Assessment
1
[content based assessment]
PRAXIS II
2
4
5
[Assessment of candidate
ability to plan and implement
appropriate teaching and
learning experiences]
Pre-K Teacher Work
Sample
[Assessment of student
teaching or internship]
Pre-K Student Teacher
Evaluation &
K/Primary Student Teacher
Evaluation
[Assessment of student (child)
learning]
Pre-K Teacher Work
Samples
When the
Assessment Is
Administered
State licensure test
Semester prior to
public school
student teaching
Rubric with 3 level
scale
Final assessment at
end of public
school (K/P)
student teaching
Rubric with 3 level
scale
At the end of the
candidate’s pre-K
student teaching
[content based assessment]
INTASC/NAEYC Portfolio
3
Type or Form of
Assessment
Three level scale
Rubric with 3 level
scale
End of pre-K
student teaching &
End of public
school student
teaching
At the end of the
candidate’s pre-K
student teaching.
Assessment
Attachments
Scoring
Guides/Criteria
Data Table
II-1
II-2
II-2
II-2
II-3
II-3
II-3
II-4
II-4
II-4
II-5
II-5
II-5
Name of Assessment
6
Type or Form of
Assessment
Assessment
Attachments
Scoring
Guides/Criteria
Data Table
[Additional assessment that
addresses standards]
Dispositions
7
When the
Assessment Is
Administered
1) Louisiana State University
Teacher Belief and Practices
Survey
1) 5 point Likert
type questionnaire
[Additional assessment that
addresses standards]
Exit Questionnaire
7 point Likert type
questionnaire
1) Pre-post test.
Pre-test given in a
lower division
course. Post test
after student
teaching
Semester after
graduation
II-6
II-6
II-6
II-7
II-7
II-7
Attachment II-1
Praxis II Test
Weber State University has been informed by the Utah State Office of Education (USOE)
that all teacher licensure candidates who graduate after July 1, 2005 will be required to
take a Praxis II content-area exam in order to meet USOE licensure requirements. The
USOE has put a testing requirement in place to meet Federal No Child Left Behind
requirements and to meet other national standards requiring teachers to demonstrate
content-area mastery.
The WSU University Council for Teacher Education (composed of members from
various academic departments) has issued the following guidelines for Praxis II testing at
Weber State:
1. Fall Semester 2004: Student in all disciplines are encouraged to take the Praxis II
tests listed below in their major.
2. Spring Semester 2005: Students in all disciplines must take Praxis II tests prior to
or during student teaching in their academic major.
3. Fall Semester 2005: Students in all disciplines must take Praxis II tests prior to
student teaching.
4. Test dates for both Fall 2004 and Spring 2005 are available on the Educational
Testing Service (ETS) website: http://www.ets.org/praxis. WSU is an approved
ETS testing center even though it is not listed in the ETS bulletin.
5. WSU students need to take tests determined by WSU listed below. Information
from the USOE or ETS websites may be incomplete or inaccurate.
6. Currently, the USOE has not established pass rates, NCLB pass scores must be
met for “highly qualified” status
The Early Childhood Education – 20021 Praxis II exam is an approved USOE test that
will be required by Weber State for Early Childhood Education majors.
Attachment II-2
INTASC/NAEYC-Based Portfolio
PROFESSIONAL INTASC PORTFOLIO RUBRIC
Directions to rater:
Criteria
•
CONTENT
•
•
•
QUALITY and
APPEARANCE
•
•
•
•
•
ORGANIZATION
•
•
•
•
VARIETY OF
MATERIALS
MECHANICS
REFLECTIONS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Check only one box F for each criterion.
•
Circle words and phrases within cells that describe your observations
MET
DEVELOPING
NOT MET
F
F
F
Artifacts included for course work • Limited evidence of course work, • Artifacts and examples of course
and Teacher Work Sample (TWS)
TWS and/or lessons based on
work, TWS, lessons based on
INTASC standards
INTASC standards are vague or
Student centered lessons based on
absent
INTASC standards
• Artifacts not strong
demonstrations of content
• Artifacts fail to demonstrate
Artifacts are a clear demonstration
understanding, knowledge, and
content knowledge and teaching
of content knowledge and teaching
teaching pedagogy
pedagogy
pedagogy
(No resume’ at Sr. Synthesis)
• (Limited resume’ at Sr. Synthesis)
(Resume’ included for Sr.
Synthesis)
F
F
F
Work of exceptional quality and
• Examples of acceptable quality
• Materials clearly represent
scholarship
are inconsistent
compromise from quality
expected.
Portfolio is neat, nicely formatted, • Portfolio somewhat appealing but
appealing; Graphics enhance
little attention given to details;
• Portfolio seems thrown
portfolio purpose
together with little attention to
• Graphics somewhat effective
detail
Minimum of one artifact for each
• Artifact representing all standards
INTASC standard appropriate-to• Graphics absent, or fail to
appropriate-to-Level not
level of the course
enhance purpose
represented
Portfolio purpose (to document
• Some standards appropriate-to• Portfolio purpose generally
professional growth) is clearly
Level not represented by
evident
evident
examples
(All levels represented in Sr.
• Purpose of portfolio vague
Portfolio)
F
F
F
Portfolio well organized in
• Portfolio somewhat organized,
• Little evidence of organization;
logical sequence
but some artifacts not easy to
difficulty finding artifacts
locate
Layout easy to understand
• Table of Contents not included
• Layout plan not clear and
Table of Contents makes items
• Artifacts not easy to find (no
obvious
and artifacts easy to find
file names)
• Table of Contents included but
Cleary identified artifacts (file
less than effective
names)
• Artifacts identified but not easy
to find
F
F
F
Artifacts reflect broad range of
• Artifacts suggest limited
• Scope of artifacts reflects
knowledge, skills, interests,
interests and/or talents
narrowness of interests and
achievement
limited experiences
F
F
F
Professionalism evident in
• Several mistakes in spelling,
•
Many spelling, punctuation,
grammar, and sentence
spelling, grammar, punctuation,
grammar, punctuation, and
sentence structure, clarity of
sentence structure
structure errors
writing
•
Writing unclear
• Writing less than clear
F
F
F
Linkages obvious between
• Greater depth of reflection
•
Little indication of why
experience and learning theory
needed
pieces are included
Thoughtful reflections explain
• Somewhat superficial reflection
•
Reflections lack depth and
why pieces are included
on strengths and weaknesses
insight
•
Lacks interest in own work
Reflections are relevant,
Future goals not thoughtfully
demonstrate personal strengths
chosen
•
Lacks future goals
and weaknesses, show depth in
reflecting on practice
Future goals indicate a
commitment to professional
growth
PHILOSOPHY
OF
EDUCATION
F
•
•
Philosophy shows depth of
understanding and practicality
Clearly and succinctly written
F
•
Philosophy lacking in depth,
insight, and/or may be
impractical
•
F
Philosophy lacks originality,
relies on clichés or sweeping
or vague generalizations
Scoring Criteria
Overview: A major activity and responsibility for early childhood education (ECE)
teacher candidates throughout the teacher education program is the creation and
maintenance of an INTASC/NAEYC-based portfolio. Candidates will have an electronic
portfolio from which they will select artifacts for the hard-copy professional portfolio.
As candidates look retrospectively in their portfolios, they should see growth in their
development as a professional teacher. An INTASC/NAEYC-based professional
portfolio is also part of the requirements for Utah Level II licensure.
When the Assessment is Administered: Each course the ECE candidate completes in
Teacher Education will have major requirements (Critical Performance Indicators or
CPIs) that should be included in the portfolio. In their Child and Family Studies classes
they add Pre-Kindergarten artifacts. The portfolio is a work in progress. Candidates
should continue to reflect and update their portfolio throughout their education
experiences. Through this process students choose which items best reflect their
knowledge, skills and dispositions for each INTASC/NAEYC standard. The completed,
approved portfolio is a licensure requirement and will be assessed by faculty during the
Senior Synthesis.
General Instructions for Candidates: The portfolio is one set of evidence to
demonstrate competence as a teacher. The portfolio will represent the breadth and depth
of the candidate’s knowledge, skills, and dispositions as a teacher. The portfolio is
organized using the ten INTASC standards as aligned with the five NAEYC standards.
The portfolio includes a cover page, table of contents, personal introduction, resume,
transcripts, and teaching philosophy. Sections of the portfolio are arranged by the ten
INTASC/NAEYC standards. Each section should begin with a reflective page or two on
the candidate’s growth, development, and personal reflections on those particular
standards. Creativity of the portfolio is up to the candidate. Although organized around
the ten INTASC and five NAEYC standards, there is ample opportunity for individual
style and creativity. Each portfolio should include artifacts, reflections, and rationale
statements (statements for each artifact as to why the candidate chose the particular
artifact). A miscellaneous section may include artifacts of the candidate’s own choosing
such as awards, scholarships, and other honors.
An Early Childhood instructor rates the candidate’s portfolio on 7 criteria; Content,
Quality and Appearance, Organization, Variety of Materials, Mechanics, Reflections, and
Philosophy of Education. Each criteria is rated as either Met, Developing, or Not Met. A
rating of Met or Developing is necessary for successful performance.
Professional INTASC Portfolio Rubric Data:
The following data is based upon the Senior Synthesis Teacher Education instructor
ratings of 11 Early Childhood Education candidates enrolled in the course during fall,
2004. Using the Professional INTASC Portfolio Rubric, two instructors reviewed each
candidate’s portfolio, and rated the 7 criteria; Content, Quality and Appearance,
Organization, Variety of Materials, Mechanics, Reflections, and Philosophy of
Education. A three-level rating criteria was used; met, developing, or not met. A rating
of Met or Developing is necessary for successful performance.
The information in the box listed below is organized by student #, level in major
(5=senior), year of rating, and the seven rubric areas; Content, Quality and Appearance,
Organization, Variety of Materials, Mechanics, Reflections, and Philosophy of
Education.
The ratings correspond to M=Met, D=Developing, and NM=Not Met.
As the information in the box below indicates all of the 11 candidates passed the seven
areas by scoring either Developing or Met.
Spring 2004 Early Childhood Final INTASC
Portfolio
Student
LEVEL_
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SEMESTER
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
YEAR CONTENT
2
2004 M
2
2004 M
2
2004 M
2
2004 M
2
2004 M
2
2004 M
2
2004 M
2
2004 M
2
2004 D
2
2004 M
2
2004 M
QU_&_AP
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
D
M
D
ORGAN
M
D
M
M
M
M
M
M
D
M
M
VARIETY MECHANICS
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
REFLECTION
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
D
M
M
PHILOSOPHY
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Table 1, listed below, indicates each of the seven INTASC areas that are rated on the Professional INTASC Portfolio Rubric.
Corresponding to each of the areas is the percentage of students who rated Met, Developing, or Not Met. As the Table demonstrates
from 81.8 to 100% of the students received a “Met” level rating. All 11 students were rated as having “Met” the necessary criteria for
Mechanics and Philosophy.
Table 1, listed below, also demonstrates that 18.2% of the students are still “Developing” on the “Quality/Appearance” and
“Organization” of their portfolio. Additionally, 9.1% are “Developing” in the areas of “Content” and “Reflections”. Finally, as Table
1 illustrates there were no students who were rated as “Not Meeting” the necessary requirements for each of the seven rubric areas.
Summary
Percentage
n = 11
M
D
N
Unmarked
Content
90.9%
9.1%
0.0%
Quality/Appearance
81.8%
18.2%
0.0%
Organization
81.8%
18.2%
0.0%
Variety
90.9%
0.0%
0.0%
Mechanics
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Reflections
90.9%
9.1%
0.0%
Philosophy
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Table 1. Percentage of students who were rated as “Met”, “Developing”, and “Not Met”.
9.1%
Section II-3
(November 2004) TEACHER WORK SAMPLE CHFAM 4710
Melba S. Lehner Children’s School - Weber State University
Date/Semester__________________________
Student_______________________________
Degree: ____ EC ____ECE ____ Other____________________
EXCEEDS CRITERIA
Includes additional pertinent
information about the school.
classroom demographic information.
Includes addition information on
student’s homes from other sources
including personal history forms.
information about the classroom.
MEETS CRITERIA
CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
Demonstrates a basic understanding of
the school including type of school, ages
of children served, accreditation or
licencing, and programs within the
school.
Includes at least the following classroom
demographics:
children’s
ages, gender and diversity.
Demonstrates a knowledge of student’s
homes from home visits.
Demonstrates a knowledge of the classroom environment including room
arrangement, atmosphere and length of
day.
EXCEEDS CRITERIA
MEETS CRITERIA
In addition to being clear and
OBJECTIVES/ INTENDED
LEARNING OUTCOMES
Objective is clear and measurable.
DOESN’T MEET
CRITERIA
Leaves out information
considered basic as listed in
meets criteria.
Does not include all
demographics listed in meets
criteria.
Does not demonstrate a
knowledge of student’s
Does not include all the
information included under
meets criteria
DOESN’T MEET
CRITERIA
Objective is not clear or
measurable, objective contains
conditions and standards for being
met.
Student discusses and makes a case for
the tie between objective and
assessment.
Student ties objective to more than one
national or state standard.
measurable.
Objective ties clearly to assessments
Objective does not tie clearly
to assessments.
Student states which national or state
standard the objective aligns with.
Objective is not tied to
national or state standards.
Appendix contains form used for
planned assessment and examples of
all unplanned assessment that were
gathered.
ASSESSMENT PLAN
Student has one well conceived, planned
assessment tool that is used for pre and
post assessment.
Student collects other informal
observations and work, on assigned
children, in an organized and timely
manner.
planned assessment as well as examples
of unplanned assessments that were
gathered.
EXCEEDS CRITERIA
MEETS CRITERIA
Student’s assessment tool is
innovative and comprehensive.
Other informal observations and work
is collected on all children, at regular
intervals, and in an organized manner.
Discusses assessment outcomes and
interest assessments on the children
that relate to the instructional plan.
Very specifically describes strategies
and how they will meet objective.
Student does not have a
planned assessment tool or
the tool is not well conceived.
Other informal observations
and work, if evident, seem
random and unorganized.
Does not include all things
listed in meets criteria.
DOESN’T MEET
CRITERIA
DESIGN FOR INSTRUCTION &
INSTRUCTIONAL DECISIONMAKING
Discusses assessment outcomes from
pre-test.
Does not discuss assessment
outcomes from pre-test.
List both set up and implementations
strategies that are used to meet objective.
Does not list both set up and
implementation strategies or
Very specifically describes how study
topic and other interest strategies meet
the objective.
Lists both study topic and other interest
Lesson plans are annotated to specify
how they meet the plan. Activities
which meet the objective are marked
or highlighted.
Lesson plans in appendix support the
plan as outlined. Activities which meet
the objective are marked or highlighted.
Graphs and /or charts in the appendix
clarify and support data.
Data demonstrates significant positive
outcomes relative to the objective and
specifies # of children who have
improved..
EXCEEDS CRITERIA
Interprets what they learned through
doing the work sample using theory
and current Early Childhood best
practice.
Discusses the implications of what
they learned on future teaching as it
relates to theory and best practice.
ANALYSIS OF STUDENT (CHILD)
LEARNING
Data is clearly written and interpreted.
Data demonstrates positive movement
relative to the objective and specifies #
of children who have improved.
MEETS CRITERIA
REFLECTION AND SELFEVALUATION
Discusses what they learned through
doing the work sample, as it applies to
teaching and learning.
Discusses the implications of what they
learned on future teaching.
it is unclear how activities
relate to objective.
Does not list both study topic
and other interest strategies or
relate to objective, study topic
or other interests.
Lesson plans are not in
appendix, are not marked, or
do not demonstrate that the
plan was followed.
Data is presented in an
unclear manner.
Data does not demonstrate
movement toward the
objective.
DOESN’T MEET
CRITERIA
Does not discuss what they
learned through doing the
work sample, as it applies to
teaching and learning or does
so ineffectively.
Does not discuss the
implications of what they
learned on future teaching or
does so ineffectively.
they learned with regards to
professional development as it relates
to theory and best practice.
learned with regards to professional
development.
learned with regards to
professional development or
Section II-3
TEACHER WORK SAMPLE
Scoring Criteria
Overview: This assignment was adopted to assess the candidate’s ability to plan and implement appropriate teaching and learning
experiences as evidenced by the candidate’s submission of Work Samples.
When the Assessment is Administered: This assessment is administered at the end of the Candidates Pre-Kindergarten student
teaching.
General Instructions for Candidates: Each candidate submits Work Samples that correspond to the following criteria as defined in
the attached rubric: contextual factors; objectives/intended learning outcomes; assessment plan; design for instruction & instructional
decision-making; analysis of student (child) learning; and reflection & self-evaluation. The Instructor for the Advanced Planning and
Guidance course (CHFAM 4710) reviews the Work Samples and rates them on each criteria using a 3 point scale; exceeds criteria (3),
meets criteria (2), and doesn’t meet criteria (see example below). The Advanced Planning and Guidance course (CHFAM 4710) is
taken by the candidate concurrently with the Pre-Kindergarten Student Teaching.
Pre-Kindergarten Teacher Work Sample Data
At the end of the fall, 2004, semester each student teachers (candidates) Work Sample report
was evaluated on the following criteria: contextual factors; objectives/intended learning
outcomes; assessment plan; design for instruction & instructional decision-making; analysis of
student (child) learning; and reflection & self-evaluation. The Candidates Work Samples need to
contain items that relate to the criteria, as listed below
A. Contextual Factors: The teacher uses information about the learning-teaching context and
student individual differences to set learning objectives and plan instruction and assessment.
• Knowledge of School.
• Knowledge of Classroom Demographic-age, gender, diversity, etc.
• Knowledge of Students’ Home-home visits.
• Knowledge of Environmental Setting.
B. Objectives/Intended Learning Outcomes: The teacher sets a measurable objective based on
the Children’s Schools goals.
• Objective-Children’s School Assessment Sheets
• Alignment with National and/or State Standards-Head Start Outcomes, Utah State Pre-K
Standards, DAP
C. Assessment Plan: The teacher uses assessment tools aligned with the objective to assess
student learning before, during, and after instruction.
• Informal or Formal Planned Assessment-checklist, rating scales, work samples, etc.
• Informal Observations and Collection of Work
D. Design for Instruction & Instructional Decision-Making: The teacher designs instruction
from assessments, taking into account students needs and interests. The teacher uses ongoing
analysis of student learning to make instructional decisions.
• Assessment Outcomes
• Objectives
• Teacher Strategies
--Study Topic-Strategies
--Other Interests-Strategies
• Lesson Plans
E. Analysis of Student Learning: The teacher uses assessment data to profile student learning
and communicate information about student progress and achievement.
• Interpretation of Data and Student Learning
• Evidence of Impact on Student Learning
• Graphs, charts, etc.-To clarify written data (optional)
F. Reflection and Self-Evaluation: The teacher reflects on his or her instruction and student
learning in order to improve teaching practice.
• Insights on Effective Instruction and Assessment
• Implications for Future Teaching
• Implications for Professional Development
The Instructor for the Advanced Planning and Guidance course (CHFAM 4710) reviewed
these Work Samples and rated them on a 3-point scale (see rubric Assessment II-3); exceeds
criteria (3), meets criteria (2), and doesn’t meet criteria.
Table 1 lists the average score and if the criteria were passed by the 15 students. A score of 2
or higher reflects meeting or exceeding the criteria. Table 1 below does not include rubric E,
Analysis of Student Learning. This item is used to report on the learning outcomes of the
children whom the candidate instructed.
Table 1 (n=15)
Pre-Kindergarten Work Sample
Areas
Average Score
A. Contextual Factors
2.15
B. Objectives/Intended Learning
Outcomes
2.20
C. Assessment Plan
2.16
D. Design for Instruction &
Instructional Decision Making
1.95
F. Reflection & Self Evaluation
2.00
Overall Average
2.13
Criteria/Performance
Pass
Pass
Pass
Fail
Pass
Pass
As indicated in Table 1, the average score of the 15 candidates resulted in a “Pass” for
criteria A, B, C, & F, and the Overall Average. However, although the students appear to fail to
meet the necessary cut-off for criteria D, Design for Instruction & Instruction Decision Making,
an analysis of the directions to the students suggests they were unclear. This was the first time
this assignment was given and some students failed to highlight this area on their lesson plans.
The plans related to area D were there, but the rubric stated they had to be highlighted.
(August 2004)
PRE-KINDERGARTEN STUDENT TEACHER EVALUATION
CHFAM 4720
1
Date/Semester__________________________
Supervising Teacher
Signature____________________________________
Student_______________________________
Student
Signature_______________________________________________
Degree: ____ EC ____ECE ____ Other____________________
EXCEEDS CRITERIA
MEETS CRITERIA
GUIDANCE
1. Builds positive trust
relationships, with all
children, that form the basis
of guidance and interaction.
(The teacher exhibits basic
faith in humanity;
nonjudgmental acceptance;
consistency; honest and
sincere communications;
and a mutuality of feelings,
understanding and
commitment.)
2.Guidance strategies are
developmentally
appropriate; the teacher is
able to evaluate the
appropriateness of guidance
strategies; etc.
1. Builds positive trust
relationships, with most
children which generally
form the basis of guidance
and interaction. The teacher
will exhibit basic faith in
humanity; nonjudgmental
acceptance; consistency;
honest and sincere
communications; and a
mutuality of feelings,
understanding and
commitment.)
2. Guidance strategies are
developmentally
appropriate.
DOESN’T MEET
CRITERIA
Mark specific things that
need to improve to meet
criteria.
1. Does not build positive
relationships with all
children display basic faith
in humanity show
nonjudgmental acceptance
maintain consistency use
open and honest
communication display
mutuality of feeling other
(list)
2. Strategies not
appropriate unable to
evaluate appropriateness
other (list)
EXCEEDS CRITERIA
MEETS CRITERIA
3. Articulates theoretical
and DAP reasons for
guidance decisions without
being asked.
4 Is alert and watches the
whole room. Is aware of
the emotional climate of
the room. Anticipates and
averts problems before
they begin. Influences the
emotional climate of the
room through careful
planning and spontaneous
adjustments.
5. Routinely recognizes
patterns in children’s
behavior and plans for
problems, before they
arise, with appropriate
strategies. Steps in before
problems occur.
6. Recognizes and
responds to the causes of
children’s behaviors with
varied and appropriate
strategies that are
individualized. Is willing
and able to take a risk by
trying new approaches to
guidance.
7. Always responds
appropriately when
children’s behavior is age
appropriate, and guides
children to find positive
ways to exhibit that
behavior.
8. Always gets on the
children’s level physically
and intellectually. Is
involved with children and
can extend their play
without dominating.
3. When asked can explain
theoretical and DAP
reasons for guidance
decisions.
4. Is alert and watches the
whole room. Is aware of
the emotional climate of the
room. Responds
appropriately by making
changes, moving to areas of
the room as needed,
involving other teachers
etc.
DOESN’T MEET
CRITERIA
3. Difficulty explaining
theory difficulty explaining
why DAP
4. Does not watch whole
room does not seem aware of
emotional climate does not
make appropriate changes
other
5. Is beginning to
recognize patterns in
children’s behavior and
plans for problems, before
they arise, with appropriate
strategies. Steps in early
when problems occur.
6. Recognizes and
responds to the causes of
children’s behaviors with
appropriate strategies. Is
flexible and adjusts to
group and individual
children’s needs.
5. Does not anticipate
problems waits for problems
to begin before dealing
w/them other
7. Generally responds
appropriately when
children’s behavior is age
appropriate, and guides
children to find positive
ways to exhibit that
behavior.
8. Generally gets on the
children’s level physically
and intellectually. Is
involved with children
without dominating.
7. Expectations for children’s
behavior is not age
appropriate. __to high __to
low __ both does not respond
appropriately, does not help
children find positive
alternatives, other
8. Not on child’s level
physically not on child’s
level intellectually needs
more involvement with
children dominates children
6. Uses limited repertoire of
strategies to respond to
children’s behaviors does not
adapt responses to causes of
behavior is not flexible
adjusting to group/individual
need other
EXCEEDS CRITERIA
MEETS CRITERIA
9. Puts children’s
emotional well being ahead
of rules and routines when
appropriate.
9. Allows children the right
to: privacy, personal
opinions, expression of
emotions directed toward the
teacher, other adults and
children, and to take
responsibility for their
actions.
Maintains a safe and healthy
environment. Sets appropriate
limits. Follows through with
promises and instructions.
10. Plans and implements
developmentally appropriate
curriculum that engages the
young learner in both
developmental and content
areas.
Environment is not safe,
environment is not healthy,
limits not appropriate
__expectations too high;
__expectations too low,
does not follow through
with promises and
instructions
criteria
10 Plans not age
appropriate plans not
individual appropriate plans
do not engage children in
the group plans do not
include content areas
11. When asked can explain
theoretical and DAP reasons
for planning decisions.
11. Difficulty explaining
theory difficulty explaining
D.A.P.
12. Plans tie directly to the
goals (outcomes) of the
Children’s School and are
based on documented
authentic assessments
(observations, work samples,
checklists,anecdotal records,
portfolios, formal
assessments, etc.) of
individual children’s needs
and interests.
12. Plans do not tie to goals
of the school plans do not
tie to individual
assessments documentation
of assessment not evident
documentation of
assessment limited weak on
need assessments weak on
interest assessments
PLANNING
10. Plans and implements
developmentally
appropriate curriculum that
is creative, innovative and
engages the young learner
in both developmental and
content areas
11. Spontaneously
articulates theoretical and
DAP reasons for planning
decisions
12. Plans tie directly to the
goals (outcomes) of the
Children’s School, in
innovative ways, and are
based on documented,
authentic assessments
(observations, work
samples, checklists,
anecdotal records,
portfolios, formal
assessments, etc.) of
individual children’s needs
and interests.
DOESN’T MEET
CRITERIA
9. Does not:
Allow privacy
Allow to have personal
opinions
Allow to express emotions
Allow to take responsibility
for own actions
EXCEEDS CRITERIA
MEETS CRITERIA
13. Plans are consistent
with early childhood theory
and practice (i.e. plans
provide rich play based
experiences; hands on
learning; a scope and
sequence that allows
children to build on the
past and bridge to the
future, opportunities to
bring language to learning;
a chance to experience
trust, autonomy, initiative
and industry; learning
experiences within the
children’s ZPD; an
atmosphere where
children’s varying needs
are met; etc.). The student
articulates how the plans
support theory and practice
14. Plans for all
developmental domains in
a way that demonstrates an
understanding of the whole
child.
13. Plans are consistent
with current early childhood
theory and practice (i.e.
plans provide rich play
based experiences; hands on
learning; a scope and
sequence that allows
children to build on the past
and bridge to the future,
opportunities to bring
language to learning; a
chance to experience trust,
autonomy, initiative and
industry; learning
experiences within the
children’s ZPD; an
atmosphere where
children’s varying needs are
met; etc.)
14. Plans for all
developmental domains.
PLANNING
15. Employs a balanced
integrated teaching model
that excites and stimulates
children’s learning beyond
normal levels.
16.Uses a wide variety of
hands on teaching
strategies, that are
innovative and creative,
including center work,
outdoors, field trips, and
visitors and plans for all
times of the day including
transitions, meals, outdoors
etc.
EXCEEDS CRITERIA
15. Employs an integrated
teaching model such as
study topics, projects etc. in
a balanced manner, without
excluding other important
objectives.
16. Uses a wide variety of
hands on teaching strategies
including center work,
outdoor plans, field trips,
and visitors and plans for all
times of the day including
transitions, meals, outdoors
etc.
MEETS CRITERIA
DOESN’T MEET
CRITERIA
13. Weak on the following
play based
hands on
scope and sequence
language tied to learning
encouraging trust
allowing autonomy
allowing initiative
allowing industry as
appropriate
encouraging learning
withing ZPD
meeting children’s needs
Other:
14. Plans for the following
are limited: _social,
_physical, _ emotional,
_moral, _aesthetic,
_cognitive, _language /
literacy
criteria
15. Does not use an
integrated model or uses one
in very limited way project
or study topic dominates,
excluding other important
objectives
16. Does not use a wide
variety of hands on teaching
strategies, does not plan for
__transitions __meals
__outdoors __other (list)
DOESN’T MEET
17. Plans innovative and
creative open-ended
activities that support play
creativity, originality,
curiosity, discovery etc.
17. Plans open-ended
activities that support play
creativity, originality,
curiosity, discovery etc.
18.Weaves anti-bias
strands, which emphasize
culture, race, gender and /
or handicapping conditions,
over an extended period of
time and revisits them in a
variety of developmentally
appropriate ways.
18. Weaves anti-bias
strands, which emphasize
culture, race, gender and / or
handicapping conditions,
over time.
19. Takes risks by moving
outside their comfort zone
in using a wide variety of
developmentally
appropriate circle activities
that are original and
creative and connect with
study topics and objectives.
19. Uses a wide variety of
circle time activities such as
stories, games, music,
movement, discussions and
visitors that connect with
study topics and objectives.
FAMILIES
20. Celebrates and includes
children’s family and
culture in teaching. Shows
respect and sensitivity to
parent preferences, needs
and goals in both daily
interactions and planning.
21. Involves the majority of
parents in the education of
their children in more than
one way.
20. Respects the family and
cultural differences of
children in the class. Shows
respect and sensitivity to
parent preferences, needs
and goals in both daily
interactions and planning.
21. Involves some parents
in the education of their
children and supports
parents during daily
encounters, home visits,
parent conferences, etc.
CRITERIA
17. Plans do not support
play
creativity
curiosity
discovery
other (list)
18. Does not address anti
bias curriculum, visits antibias curriculum in sporadic
or tourist fashion, anti bias
issues are addressed in a way
that encourages stereotypes,
anti-bias issues are
addressed in manner that is
not developmentally
appropriate
19. Circle times do not
include the following (list)
criteria
20. Does not recognize, feel
comfortable or respond to
family and cultural
differences of children in the
group. Is disrespectful of
culture and differences
21. Does not involve
parents in school, does not
support parents during daily
encounters, home visits,
parent teacher conferences
etc.
EXCEEDS CRITERIA
MEETS CRITERIA
22. Builds positive
professional relationships
and communicates with
parents. Listens to them as
well as talks with them.
Communicates important
information to parents,
from documented
assessments formally
(notes, newsletters,
conferences, etc.) and
informally through
conversations.
22. Communicates with
parents. Listens to them as
well as talks with them.
Communicates important
information to parents, from
documented assessments,
formally (notes, newsletters,
conferences, etc.) and
informally through
conversations.
TEAMWORK
23. Demonstrates an
unusual effort to support
and build up other adults
(especially co-student
teachers) in the school.
23. Is supportive of peers,
school staff and parents in
both speech and action.
24. Demonstrates an
unusual effort in
collaborating with a
teaching team to enhance
the learning environment
for young children in a
supportive role by sharing
important and pertinent
classroom experience.
25.As a support teacher
respects the Head Teacher
by reading lesson plans
daily and coming prepared
to implement them as
planned, following
instructions, supporting
decisions, participating
without taking over, etc.
Makes suggestions and
asks questions in a positive
way.
24. Collaborates with a
teaching team to enhance the
learning environment for
young children in a
supportive role by sharing
important and pertinent
classroom experience.
25. As a support teacher
respects the Head Teacher
by reading lesson plans
daily, following instructions,
supporting decisions,
participating without taking
over, etc
DOESN’T MEET
CRITERIA
22. Does not keeps parents
informed does not
communicates by listening
as well as talking
Other
criteria
23. Is negative about peers,
school staff or parent
complains or is negative
about placement/ workload
discusses concerns with
inappropriate people
Other:
24. Does not bring ideas and
information to the teaching
team, does not listen to and
support ideas and
information brought by
others.
25. As a support teacher
does not: read lesson plans,
follow head teacher
instructions, support
decisions, participate
without taking over
EXCEEDS CRITERIA
MEETS CRITERIA
26. Effectively leads the
collaboration of a teaching
team in planning and
implementation of
developmentally
appropriate curriculum in a
way that encourages and
elicits input from and
growth of other team
members.
26. Effectively leads the
collaboration of a teaching
team in planning and
implementation of
curriculum that engages the
young learner.
As the head teacher takes
responsibility for the
classroom: knows number of
children there and accounts
for them; reminds teaching
team about objectives and
strategies and guides them in
their teaching; makes
decisions and keeps other
teachers informed about
changes in plans; and
prepares for and leads
transitions.
As head teacher helps all
assistants by greeting them,
overseeing their
participation, supporting
their efforts, and allowing
them to try things on their
own and grow.
Does own share of set up,
clean up, and keeping the
school in order in all
teaching roles and takes
charge when Head Teacher.
PERSONAL
27. Goes beyond minimal
requirements and/or is
consistently prepared ahead
of time.
27. Meets minimal student
teaching requirements in a
timely manner
DOESN’T MEET
CRITERIA
26. Does not: lead
collaboration by being
prepared, allow input and
growth of other team
members
As Head Teacher does not
know number of children
there, account for them,
remind team of objectives
and strategies
guide team in teaching,
make decisions and keep
teachers informed, prepare
for and lead transitions.
As Head Teacher, does not:
greet assistants
oversee their participation
support their efforts
allow them to try things on
their own and grow.
Does not do share of
routine work, take charge
of routine work when Head
Teacher.
criteria.
27. Did not do all
requirements. Assignments
were late.
EXCEEDS CRITERIA
MEETS CRITERIA
28. Develops and uses a
system that tracks
planning and work with
children. Discusses
children’s progress in
planning meetings.
29. Self-evaluates and
implements goals from
that evaluation to progress
as a teacher.
28. Reflects on planning and
work with children
discussing children’s
progress in planning
meetings. Carefully
evaluates plans and progress.
29. Reflects accurately on
personal strengths and
weakness and makes
progress toward becoming a
capable teacher.
Is responsible and
dependable: always here,
comes on time and prepared,
stays whole time, work is
complete, neat, thoughtful,
timely, etc.
Demonstrates an enjoyment
of working with children.
Identifies self as a
professional.
Acts in an ethical manner;
maintains confidentiality;
shows trust and respect; etc.
(refer to NAEYC code of
ethics.)
DOESN’T MEET
CRITERIA
28. does not reflect on
planning, discuss children’s
progress in planning
meeting, and/or carefully
evaluate plans and progress.
29. Does not reflect
accurately on personal
strengths and weakness and
progress toward becoming a
capable teacher.
Absent without an excuse,
late, assignments are late,
assignments are incomplete,
work is sloppy, doesn’t
follow through on plans
Does not appear to enjoy
working with children.
Talks about children in a
non-professional manner or
setting. Talks about other
adults in non-professional
manner or setting. Talks
about a child in his/her
presence without including
them.
Other:
Overview: This instrument was adopted to assess the student teacher’s ability to implement
developmentally appropriate curriculum that address five areas: Guidance, Planning, Family,
Teamwork, and Personal. The form uses a 3 point criteria; Exceeds Criteria = 3, Meets Criteria =
2, Doesn’t Meet Criteria = 1. A minimum score of 2 is required for passing. . The professional
lead (supervising) teacher in the Melba Lehner Children’s School administers this assessment
based on the student teacher’s performance.
When the Assessment is Administered: This assessment is administered after the student has
completed the pre-K student teaching experience.
General Instructions for Rater: The supervising teacher selects the performance level that the
student achieves in 24 different performance areas. The areas are clustered into five groups;
Guidance, Planning, Family, Teamwork, and Personal. The performance level uses a 3 point
criteria; Exceeds Criteria = 3, Meets Criteria = 2, Doesn’t Meet Criteria = 1. A minimum score
of 2 is required for passing.
Student Teaching Rating Scale Data: During the academic year 2003-2004, a total of 36
students were assessed. These included 13 during fall semester, 2003, and 23 spring semester,
2004. The total population included 21 Early Childhood Education and 15 Early Childhood
majors.
The overall average of the 36 students for both semesters was 2.4, which is slightly higher
than the previous year of 2.27. These scores indicate that the students continue to meet the
competency requirements established by the department. These scores were also examined by
major. The Early Childhood Education majors totaled an average of 2.43. The other students
scored an average of 2.37.
AREA
Fall 2003 &
Spring 2004
TOT AVG
ECE AVG
EC AVG
CRITERIA
PERFORMANCE
GUIDANCE
PLANNING
FAMILY
TEAMWORK
PERSONAL
2.42
2.36
2.49
2.37
2.45
2.44
2.40
2.38
2.42
2.50
2.41
2.32
2.65
2.29
2.39
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
These scores demonstrate that the Early Childhood Education majors “Pass” all of the
criteria. They also tend to perform better than the other majors.
A past comparison of the results between Spring 2003 with Fall 2003 and Spring 2004
reveals the students performed better during the last academic year. The Early Childhood
Education majors improved in every area except Personal, where the average declined by .12.
However, it is unlikely that this decline is significant given the high overall scores during both
years. It is felt that the scores improved because of our examination and feedback on the
individual questions for this exam that were incorporated into our teaching.
Assessment
Kindergarten/Primary Student Teacher Final-Term Evaluation
STUDENT TEACHER FINAL ASSESSMENT
Please print the following:
Student Teacher: ____________________________________________ Date _____-_____-______
Collaborating Teacher: ___________________________________ School __________________
Subject/Grade Level: ____________
This form was completed by: Univ Supervisor ____ Content Supervisor ____ Collaborating
Teacher ____ Teacher Candidate _____
When you have completed this form, please mail to: Weber State University, Teacher Education,
Coordinator Field Experience/ Clinical Practice, 1304 University Circle, Ogden, UT 84408-1304.
Directions: Please address the student teacher’s strengths, weaknesses, and their development in
each of the following. Circle the letter which best represents your judgment concerning the student
teacher.
RATING SCALE:
M
= Standard Met (evidence of satisfactory performance)
D
= Developing Standard (evidence of progress toward satisfactory performance)
N
= Standard Not Met (evidence fails to show adequate performance)
Standard #1: Knowledge of subject matter
The student teacher:
M
D
N
Creates meaningful learning experiences
M
D
N
Demonstrates a solid grasp of the subject matter
M
D
N
Has enthusiasm for the content taught
M
D
N
Helps the students see the connections between classroom knowledge
and everyday life
Comments:
Standard #2
Knowledge of human development and learning
M
D
N
Understands how children learn and develop
M
D
N
Considers the developmental needs of all learners when designing
instruction
Comments:
Standard # 3 Adapting instruction for individual needs
M
D
N
Appreciates and values student diversity
M
D
N
Creates instructional opportunities that are adapted to diverse learners
M
D
N
Makes appropriate provisions for individual students who have particular
learning differences
Comments:
Standards #4 Multiple instructional strategies
M
D
N
Uses various instructional strategies (i.e. cooperative
learning,questioning) to promote active learning, critical thinking,
problem solving and inquiry
M
D
N
Understand and uses a wide variety of materials
M
D
N
Understands and uses various technologies
Comments:
Standard #5
Classroom motivation and management skills
M
D
N
Creates a positive learning environment
M
D
N
Organizes, allocates, and manages the resources of time, space,
activities, and attention to provide productive learning
M
D
N
Analyzes the classroom environment and makes decisions and
adjustments to enhance social relationships, student motivation, and
productive work
M
D
N
Anticipates problem behavior and effectively employs a variety of
management strategies
Comments:
Standard #6
Communication skills
M
D
N
Uses effective verbal and non-verbal communication
M
D
N
Is a thoughtful and responsive listener
M
D
N
Communicates expectations and assignments clearly
M
D
N
Communicates cultural sensitivity
M
D
N
Commands respect within the classroom
Comments:
Standard #7
Instructional planning skills
M
D
N
Makes appropriate short and long range plans
M
D
N
Plans instruction based upon knowledge of subject matter, students, the
community, and curriculum goals
M
D
N
Plans substantive, detailed daily lesson plans and teacher work samples
M
D
N
Carefully aligns instruction with objectives
Comments:
Standard #8
Assessment of student learning
M
D
N
Accurately determines whether desired learning outcomes have been
attained
M
D
N
Clearly communicates assessment results to students
M
D
N
Frequently monitors and adjusts instruction in response to learners
M
D
N
Uses a variety of assessments
Comments:
Standard #9
Professional commitment and responsibility
M
D
N
Uses feedback from multiple sources (i.e. self, students, peers,
M
M
D
D
cooperating teacher, supervisors) to refine practice
Seeks out opportunities for professional growth
Is professional in appearance, behavior, and commitment to ethical
practice
Reflects on practice and makes thoughtful changes
N
N
M
D
N
Comments:
Standard #10 Partnerships
M
D
N
Communicates with and seeks to involve parents and caregivers in the
educational process
M
D
N
Uses community resources as appropriate in the educational process
M
D
N
Strives to develop collaborative teaching relationships
Comments:
Summary Narrative
In narrative form (preferably word processed) please describe in detail this student teacher. Include the
teacher’s strengths, weaknesses, and address the candidate’s teaching dispositions.
Signature of observer
Signature of student teacher
DIRECTIONS FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION FORMS
The following directions and guidelines are to be used in the completion of the individual forms in
documenting the progress (assessment and evaluation) of the student teacher by various individuals.
There are 4 forms to be completed:
1.
Student Teacher Observation - 01 ST Observation [2 pages 2 part NCR]
2.
Student teacher Mid Term Assessment - 02 ST Mid Term Assessment [3 pages 2 part NCR]
3.
Student Teacher Disposition - 03 ST Disposition Assessment [1 page scantron form]
4.
Student Teacher Final Term Evaluation - 04 ST Final Term Evaluation [3 pages scantron
form]
The rating scale used is as follows:
RATING SCALE:
M
=
Standard Met
(evidence of satisfactory performance)
D
=
Developing Standard
performance)
(evidence of progress toward satisfactory
N
=
Standard Not met
performance)
(evidence
N/O =
required)
(observer did not witness the performance
Not Observed
fails
to
show
adequate
(used only on the observation form; not on the mid-term assessment form or final
evaluation form)
The assessment and evaluation forms contain some language that may need definition.
Diversity - is more than skin color, includes age variations, ethnic differences.
Lesson Plans - lesson plans are plans developed by the student and/or collaborating teacher from which
the student teaches and the observer and/or evaluator follows the student through the teaching
process for that session.
N/O - not observed means that on this day, at this time, during this observation, this item was not
observed and/or was not able to be documented as (M) meeting a standard, or (N) not meeting a
standard, or (D) developing the standard.
Technology - includes overhead projector, chalkboard, maps, power point presentations, CD disks,
DVD disks, VHS tapes, etc.
TWS - teacher work sample - a specific unit plan composed of 7 components designed by the student
teacher per the TWS model as required by the University, in conjunction with the collaborating
teacher, in which the student teaches from for at least a fifteen (15) day period. Elementary
student teachers are to complete one TWS for the clinical practice assignment. Secondary
student teachers are to complete one TWS for the major and one for the minor in the clinical
practice assignment.
04 - ST Final Term Evaluation [3 page scantron]
a.
The final term evaluation form is to be completed by all individuals: the University
Supervisor, the Collaborating Teacher, and the Secondary Arts-Sci Supervisor
b.
The original scantron copy of the final term evaluation is to be mailed, along with the
disposition assessment, within five (5) days of completion to the Office of the Coordinator of
Field Experience/Clinical Practice at Weber State University.
c.
This form is designed to be read in a scantron scoring machine to collate the data.
d.
The form is not to be stapled.
e.
The form can only be folded in half and placed in the large mailing envelope.
f.
This envelope will contain the final term evaluation and the disposition form as completed.
g.
The final term evaluation and the disposition assessment are to be completed during the final
week of the student teaching assignment and reflect the entire assignment.
h.
If the assignment is Early Childhood, Early Childhood Dual elementary, Elementary Dual
Early Childhood, it will be in two parts and each part is to have a final-term evaluation
completed by the Collaborating Teacher for the assignment completed.
i.
The University Supervisor will complete one final term evaluation based upon the entire
assignment of both parts.
j.
The rating scale options do not include N/O on this form. The observer is to record that if a
standard was not observed, then the standard was not met at this time.
k.
The final term evaluation has some space between standards for additional comments if
needed, however, the majority of comments should occur in the "Summary Comments" on the
last page.
l.
It would be very helpful if this page was word processed or typed, as opposed to handwritten.
m.
The bottom of the last page is a place for the evaluator to mark the final recommendation for
the student teacher.
n.
A "credit" recommendation is to be based on the overall performance of the student teacher.
In your best judgment, a credit indicates this student has met some of the standards, or, the
standards are being developed, and progress is evident toward the development, and the
student disposition assessment form indicates many of the dispositions are "usually" checked,
and the student is ready to be licensed.
o.
A "no credit" recommendation is to be based on the overall performance of the student
teacher. In your best judgment, a no credit indicates the student has not met several standards,
and/or the evaluator does not see any progress and there is no evidence of progress in
developing the standards, and/or the evaluation reflects many standards not met.
p.
A "retrain" recommendation is to be based on the overall performance of the student
teacher. In your best judgment, a retrain indicates that the student may have met several
standards, and/or developing many standards, but may be lacking in some of the dispositions
and critical standards whereby additional time student teaching will provide the evidence that
the student teacher will be a successful teacher.
Student Teacher Final-Term Evaluation Data:
This instrument was adopted to assess the student teacher’s ability to implement developmentally
appropriate curriculum in the kindergarten and primary grades. The assessment addresses 10
Standards:
1. Knowledge of subject matter,
2. Knowledge of human development and learning,
3. Adapting instruction for individual needs,
4. Multiple instructional strategies,
5. Classroom motivation and management skills,
6. Communication skills,
7. Instructional planning skills,
8. Assessment of student learning,
9. Professional commitment and responsibility, and
10. Partnerships.
Each standard has from 3 to 5 sub-standards. The candidate’s University Supervisor (US) and the
Collaborating Teacher (CT) complete this assessment.
Data from this assessment has been collected for two semesters, Fall 2003 and Spring 2004. In Fall
2003, data was collected on eight kindergarten and primary grade student teachers by eight University
Supervisors (US) and 13 Collaborating Teachers (CT). In Spring 2004, eight USs and 11 CTs
collected data on eight kindergarten and primary grade student teachers.
The two charts listed below show the results from Fall 2003 and Spring 2004. The top of these charts
consist of five columns; Standard, Standard Met, Developing Standard, Standard Not Met, and Not
Marked. Each column has a sub-column for University Supervisor (US) and Collaborating Teacher
(CT).
The column on the far left side lists the Standard, followed by its sub-standards. For example, under
the Early Childhood Fall 2003 Chart, Standard 1, Knowledge of subject matter, there are four substandards labeled A through D. The rows corresponding to each of the sub-standards contain the
number of USs and CTs who rated the students under those criteria. An example is Standard 1, A.
Eight USs and 12 CTs rated the students as meeting the standard (Standard Met). One CT did not
mark that criteria, Not Marked. Therefore, all eight of the USs believed the students Met Standard 1A, and 12 of the CT reported the students Met this standard (one CT did not mark this area).
Listed at the bottom of the Early Childhood Fall 2003 chart are the percentages of University
Supervisors and Collaborating teachers who rated the students on the 3 criteria; Standard Met,
Developing Standard, and Standard Not Met. It also indicates the percentage who did not respond to
particular items. The Early Childhood Fall 2003 chart demonstrates that USs rated 94.10% of the
standards as Met, 5.56% as Developing Standard, and .35% were Not Marked. The CTs rated 92.52%
of standards as Met, 6.62% Developing Standards, and .64% and Standard Not Met. .21% was Not
Marked.
Clinical Practice Final Assessment
Early Childhood Fall 2003
NOTE: Total Student Teachers: 8. Total University Supervisors (US): 8.
Total Collaborating Teachers (CT): 13
Standard Met
Developing Standard
Standard Not Met
Standard
1
US
CT
A
B
C
D
8
7
8
8
12
13
13
11
A
B
8
7
13
10
A
B
C
8
8
8
13
13
11
A
B
C
8
8
7
13
13
12
A
B
C
8
8
7
13
11
12
US
CT
US
CT
Not Marked
US
CT
1
1
2
2
1
3
3
2
4
1
1
1
2
1
5
D
7
9
1
4
A
B
D
C
E
6
8
6
8
8
12
13
11
12
11
2
1
2
2
1
2
A
B
C
D
8
8
6
8
12
12
13
13
A
B
C
D
8
8
8
7
13
10
13
11
A
B
C
D
8
6
8
8
13
12
13
13
6
7
1
1
1
1
8
3
1
2
2
1
9
10
A
B
C
8
10
5
12
8
12
Standard Met
US
CT
94.10%
92.52%
2
3
Developing Standard
US
CT
5.56%
6.62%
1
1
1
Standard Not Met
US
CT
0.00%
0.64%
Not Marked
US
CT
0.35%
0.21%
Listed below is the chart displaying the Spring 2004 ratings made by the USs and CTs At the bottom
of this chart are the percentages of University Supervisors and Collaborating teachers who rated the
students on the 3 criteria; Standard Met, Developing Standard, and Standard Not Met. It also indicates
the percentage who did not respond to particular items. The Early Childhood Spring 2004 chart
demonstrates that USs rated 96.18% of the standards as Met, 2.43% as Developing Standard, and
1.39% were Not Marked. The CTs rated 95.18% of standards as Met, and 4.04% Developing
Standards.
Clinical Practice Final Assessment
Early Childhood Spring 2004
NOTE: Total Student Teachers: 8 Total University Supervisors 8 (US): Total Collaborating Teachers
(CT): 11
Standard Met
US
CT
Standard
Developing Standard
US
CT
Standard Not Met
US
CT
Not Marked
US
CT
1
A
B
C
D
8
8
8
7
11
11
10
10
A
B
8
7
11
10
A
B
C
8
8
7
11
9
10
A
B
C
8
8
8
11
11
9
A
B
C
D
8
8
8
8
11
11
11
11
A
B
D
C
E
8
8
8
8
8
11
10
11
11
11
A
B
C
D
7
8
6
8
10
11
11
11
1
A
B
C
7
8
8
11
10
11
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
3
4
2
5
6
1
7
1
2
8
1
D
7
9
A
B
C
D
8
8
7
8
11
11
11
11
1
2
9
1
10
A
B
C
8
10
1
8
10
1
6
10
2
1
Standard Met
Developing Standard
US
CT
US
CT
96.18% 95.96%
2.43%
4.04%
Standard Not Met
US
CT
0.00%
0.00%
Not Marked
US
CT
1.39%
0.00%
Section II-5
Pre-Kindergarten Teacher Work Sample Assessment of Child Outcomes
(November 2004) TEACHER WORK SAMPLE CHFAM 4710
Date/Semester_____________________ Student____________________Degree: ____ EC ____ECE ____ Other________
EXCEEDS CRITERIA
information about the school.
classroom demographic information.
Includes addition information on
student’s homes from other sources
including personal history forms.
information about the classroom.
In addition to being clear and
measurable, objective contains
conditions and standards for being
met.
MEETS CRITERIA
CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
Demonstrates a basic understanding of
the school including type of school, ages
of children served, accreditation or
licencing, and programs within the
school.
Includes at least the following classroom
demographics:
children’s
ages, gender and diversity.
Demonstrates a knowledge of student’s
Demonstrates a knowledge of the classroom environment including room
arrangement, atmosphere and length of
day.
OBJECTIVES/ INTENDED
LEARNING OUTCOMES
Objective is clear and measurable.
DOESN’T MEET
CRITERIA
Leaves out information
considered basic as listed in
meets criteria.
Does not include all
demographics listed in meets
criteria.
Does not demonstrate a
knowledge of student’s
Does not include all the
information included under
meets criteria
Objective is not clear or
measurable.
Student discusses and makes a case for
the tie between objective and
assessment.
Student ties objective to more than one
national or state standard.
Student’s assessment tool is
innovative and comprehensive.
Other informal observations and work
is collected on all children, at regular
intervals, and in an organized manner.
planned assessment and examples of
all unplanned assessment that were
gathered.
Discusses assessment outcomes and
interest assessments on the children
that relate to the instructional plan.
Very specifically describes strategies
and how they will meet objective.
Very specifically describes how study
topic and other interest strategies meet
the objective.
Objective ties clearly to assessments
Objective does not tie clearly
to assessments.
Student states which national or state
standard the objective aligns with.
ASSESSMENT PLAN
Student has one well conceived, planned
assessment tool that is used for pre and
post assessment.
Student collects other informal
observations and work, on assigned
children, in an organized and timely
manner.
planned assessment as well as examples
of unplanned assessments that were
gathered.
Objective is not tied to
national or state standards.
DESIGN FOR INSTRUCTION &
INSTRUCTIONAL DECISIONMAKING
Discusses assessment outcomes from
pre-test.
List both set up and implementations
Lists both study topic and other interest
Student does not have a
planned assessment tool or
the tool is not well conceived.
Other informal observations
and work, if evident, seem
random and unorganized.
Does not include all things
listed in meets criteria.
Does not discuss assessment
outcomes from pre-test.
Does not list both set up and
implementation strategies or
relate to objective.
Does not list both study topic
and other interest strategies or
relate to objective, study topic
Lesson plans are annotated to specify
how they meet the plan. Activities
which meet the objective are marked
or highlighted.
Graphs and /or charts in the appendix
clarify and support data.
Data demonstrates significant positive
outcomes relative to the objective and
specifies # of children who have
improved..
Interprets what they learned through
doing the work sample using theory
and current Early Childhood best
practice.
Lesson plans in appendix support the
plan as outlined. Activities which meet
the objective are marked or highlighted.
ANALYSIS OF STUDENT (CHILD)
LEARNING
Data is clearly written and interpreted.
Data demonstrates positive movement
relative to the objective and specifies #
of children who have improved.
REFLECTION AND SELFEVALUATION
Discusses what they learned through
doing the work sample, as it applies to
teaching and learning.
they learned on future teaching as it
relates to theory and best practice.
learned on future teaching.
they learned with regards to
professional development as it relates
to theory and best practice.
learned with regards to professional
development.
or other interests.
Lesson plans are not in
appendix, are not marked, or
do not demonstrate that the
plan was followed.
Data is presented in an
unclear manner.
Data does not demonstrate
movement toward the
objective.
Does not discuss what they
learned through doing the
work sample, as it applies to
teaching and learning or does
so ineffectively.
learned on future teaching or
learned with regards to
professional development or
Scoring Guide/Criteria
Pre-Kindergarten Teacher Work Sample
Assessment of Child Outcomes
Overview: This assignment was adopted to assess the candidate’s ability to plan and implement
appropriate teaching and learning experiences as evidenced by the candidate’s submission of
Work Samples. This assessment contains six criteria arranged in a rubric. One of the criterion,
analysis of student (child) learning, is designed to obtain information about the children’s
learning outcomes.
When the Assessment is Administered: This assessment is administered at the end of the
Candidates Pre-Kindergarten student teaching.
General Instructions for Candidates: Each candidate submits Work Samples that correspond
to the following six rubrics: contextual factors; objectives/intended learning outcomes;
assessment plan; design for instruction & instructional decision-making; analysis of student
(child) learning; and reflection & self-evaluation. The Instructor for the Advanced Planning and
Guidance course (CHFAM 4710) reviews the Work Samples and rates them on a 3-point scale;
exceeds criteria (3), meets criteria (2), and doesn’t meet criteria (see example below). The
Advanced Planning and Guidance course (CHFAM 4710) is taken by the candidate concurrently
with the Pre-Kindergarten Student Teaching.
The Instructor assesses the candidate’s Work Samples on student (child) learning using the
following criteria:
• The candidate demonstrates the use of assessment data to profile child learning and
communicate information about children’s progress and achievement.
• The candidate submits supportive documentation regarding the interpretation of the data
and children’s learning.
• The candidate provides documentation regarding evidence of the candidate’s impact on
children.
• The candidate supplies graphs charts, etc.-to clarify written data (optional).
Assessment of Child Outcomes
Data Table
Pre-Kindergarten Teacher Work Sample Assessment of Student (Child) Outcomes Data:
Table 1, listed below, is the average score of 15 candidates whose Teacher Work Samples were
rated by the instructor of CHFAM 4710, Advanced Planning and Guidance. The candidates take
this course concurrently with their Pre-Kindergarten student teaching. The Work Samples are
based on the educational activities they had implemented during their student teaching. The
instructor rated these candidates using three criteria; exceeds criteria (3), meets criteria (2), and
doesn’t meet criteria (1).
E. Analysis of Student (Child)
Learning (n=15)
Table 1
2.30
Pass
As Table 1 indicates, the average score of the candidates, as rated by the instructor, was 2.30,
and received a rating of “Pass”. This score shows that the children who participated in the
candidates’ classes demonstrated learning and development that met the established criteria as
indicated by Work Sample evidence.
Assessment 6
Scoring Guide/Criteria – Pre-Kindergarten Student Dispositions
Louisiana State University Teacher Beliefs and Practices Survey
Modified version of the teacher questionnaire developed by Rosalind Charlesworth,
Craig Hart, Diane C. Burts, Sue Hernandez & Lisa Kirk at Louisiana State University,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Modified at Louisiana State University by Diane Burts, Terry
Buchanan, and Michele DeWolf using suggestions from Rosalind Charlesworth, Donna
Wadsworth, Pamela O. Fleege, other colleagues, and students.
For information contact: Dr. Rosalind Charlesworth, Department of Child and Family
Studies, jerry and Vicki Moyes College of Education, 1301 University Circle, Weber
State University, Ogden, Utah 84408-1301, 801-626-7386; or Dr. Dilek Buchholz,
Deparment of Child and Family Studies, Jerry and Vicki Moyes College of Education,
1301 University Circle, Weber State University, Ogden, Utah 84408-1301, 801-6268075.
Overview: This questionnaire was adopted to assess candidates’ understanding and
implementation of developmentally appropriate practices (DAP), developmentally
inappropriate practices (DIP), and Appropriate Special Education Practices (APSE). The
purpose of this survey is to determine if the candidates’ attitudes and practices change as
they progress through their course work.
When the Assessment is Administered: This assessment is a pre/post-test. Candidates
majoring in Early Childhood Education take the pre-test in a lower division course
(CHFAM 2600) and then re-take the test approximately 4 semesters later at the
completion of their student teaching experience in the Melba Lehner Children’s School.
The initial pre-test began in Fall 2001. The last post-test data was collected in Spring
2004.
General Instructions for Candidates: Your answers to this survey will be confidential
and anonymous. Reports of results will not include names of respondents. Teacher
Beliefs Survey: Recognizing that some things in education programs are required by
external sources, what are YOUR OWN PERSONAL BELIEFS about early childhood
preschool programs? Please mark an “X” in the box that most nearly represents YOUR
BELIEFS about each item’s importance for preschool. (1=Not at all important;
5=Extremely important). Instructional Activities Survey: Please mark an “X” in the
box that best represents the average frequency of each activity [almost never (less than
monthly), rarely (monthly), sometimes (weekly), regularly (2-4 times a week), very often
(daily)]. Appropriate Practices Special Education: For the following questions,
please think about the children with special needs who might be in your classroom, and
how often these children are involved in the following activities. Please mark an “X” in
the box that best represents the average frequency of each activity [almost never (less
than monthly), rarely (monthly), sometimes (weekly), regularly (2-4 times a week), very
often (daily)].
Beliefs and Practices Data: A total of 19 students were paired on their pre-post-test.
The initial pre-test began in Fall 2001. The last post-test data was collected in Spring
2004. Table 1 demonstrates the range of responses. Higher scores on DAP demonstrate
answers consistent with developmentally appropriate practices. Higher scores on DIP
indicate answers consistent with developmentally inappropriate practices. Higher scores
on APSE are indicative of appropriate practices in special education. As the average
scores demonstrate, DAP scores increase between pre post-test, X=4.27, 4.43. DIP
averages decrease, X=2.58, 1.97. The APSE averages increase slightly, X=4.11, 4.14.
DAP
DIP
APSE
PRE
POST
PRE
POST
PRE
POST
avg =4.27
avg =4.43
avg =2.58
avg =1.97
avg =4.11
avg =4.14
3.31 – 4.90
3.83 – 4.93
1.46 – 3.23
1.23 – 2.46
2.92 – 5.00
3.33 – 4.58
Table 1. Average scores and Range of average scores (n=19)
.
Table 2 displays the results of a 1-tailed T-Test comparing the pre-post-tests for DAP,
DIP, and APSE
Pre/Post DAP
0.024*
Table 2 T-Test (n=19)
Pre/Post DIP
0.000**
Pre/Post APSE
0.39
As indicated in Table 2, this assessment demonstrates students have a significant
positive change in their developmentally appropriate beliefs and practices as measured by
the Teacher Beliefs and Practices Survey (DAP, T < .05; DIP, T < .01). As Table 2
shows, students selected items that are more developmentally appropriate and fewer
items that are developmentally inappropriate after their student teaching experience as
compared to their scores taken in an earlier introductory course. Their beliefs and
practices toward special education do not change significantly, although it is in a positive
direction.
Exit Interview Questions Spring 2004 Graduates
In the effort to assess the effectiveness of the Child & Family Studies programs we would appreciate your
response to the following questions. Please return in the self-addressed stamped envelope provided.
1.
My major was: Early Childhood
Family Studies
2.
My experiences in Child and Family Studies prepared me for my chosen career.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
3.
My experiences in Child and Family Studies provided me with new knowledge.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
4.
My experiences in Child and Family Studies allowed me to gain skills needed for my future career.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
5.
My experiences in Child and Family Studies allowed me to gain skills needed to be an educator of
parents and/or children.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
6.
My experiences in Child and Family Studies gave me an opportunity to meet professionals in my
field.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
7.
My experiences in Child and Family Studies taught me how to plan educational experiences.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
8.
My experiences in Child and Family Studies exposed me to real world issues.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
9.
My experiences in Child and Family Studies exposed me to professional organizations and
publications in my field.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
10.
My experiences in Child and Family Studies exposed me to a wide breadth of educational material.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
11.
My experiences in Child and Family Studies provided many educational experiences.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
12.
I would choose a major in Child and Family Studies if I could do it all over again.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
-OVER-
13.
Overall, my satisfaction level with my education and training in Child and Family Studies is:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Extremely Dissatisfied Disagree
Satisfied
Extremely Satisfied
14.
I feel I received appropriate support during my experiences in Child and Family Studies.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
15.
What classes, readings, experiences have been most important to you?
16.
What will you take with you as the most important gains from Child and Family Studies?
17.
What was the greatest challenge for you in your major?
18.
If an incoming student asked, “Why should I choose to major in Child and Family Studies?” how
would you answer?
19.
If you are employed, how did you get your job? (Did your advisor help?)
20.
Are there further training opportunities you think Weber State University should be offering and
what are they?
Other comments about Child and Family Studies.
Scoring Guide/Criteria
Exit Interview
Overview: This questionnaire was adopted to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Child and
Family Studies program as experienced by recent departmental graduates.
A response of 4, on the 7-point scale, is midpoint between Disagree and Agree. Any question falling below
a 4 is considered below average, and would not meet minimum requirements.
When the Assessment is Administered: This assessment is mailed to all departmental graduates at the
end of the spring semester. It was also mailed to those who graduated in the fall of 2003.
General Instructions for Candidates: In the effort to assess the effectiveness of the Child & Family
Studies programs we would appreciate your response to the following questions. Please select your major,
Early Childhood, Early Childhood Education, or Family Studies. Each question asks you to select the
statement that bests reflects your belief. The statements range from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree
on a 7-point scale. A response of 4 is midpoint between Disagree and Agree. Please return the
questionnaire in the self-addressed stamped envelope provided.
Exit Interview Data:
The original Exit Interview Questionnaire, which was sent in 2003, consisted of 13 questions (items 2-12,
& 14) that the Early Childhood Education (ECE) graduate rated using a Likert Scale; 1=strongly disagree
to 7 = strongly agree. Question 13, which asked about overall satisfaction of the respondent’s education in
the department, was rated on a 10 point Likert Scale; 1=Extremely Dissatisfied and 10 = Extremely
Satisfied. In 2004, the questionnaire was revised to have question number 13 use a 7-point Likert scale,
making it consistent with the other questions. The questionnaire also included 6 opened ended questions.
The first table listed below, Table 1, is a summary of the Early Childhood Education students who
graduated in ECE in Spring 2003. The second table is a summary of ECE students who graduated Fall
2003 and Spring 2004. The Tables are listed by question number and the year the survey was conducted.
These tables contain the average score for each question, and if they substantially deviate from the mean
(one or more standard deviations). Note, question #1 asks the students to identify their major and,
therefore, is not included in the data.
Exit Interview Spring 2003
Early Childhood Education (N=8)
Question #
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Average response
6.1
6.3
6.3
6.5 1 STD > MEAN
5.75
6.5 1 STD > MEAN
5.75
5.38
5.63
6.38
6.25
14
5.5 1 STD < MEAN
AVERAGE
6.03
STD DEV
0.40
*Question 13 8.63 (Used Likert scale 1-10)
Table 1 Spring 2003 Exit Data
Exit Interview Fall 2003 and Spring 2004
Question #
Avg (N=13)
2
5.74
3
6.01
4
5.93
5
5.83
6
5.30
7
5.63
8
5.37
9
5.32
10
5.54
11
5.79
12
6.49
13
5.92
14
5.24
AVERAGE
STND DEV
1 STD < MEAN
1 STD < MEAN
2 STD > MEAN
1 STD < MEAN
5.70
0.35
Table 2 combined averages for Fall 2003 and Spring 2004
A Likert response of 4 is midpoint between Disagree and Agree. Any question falling below a 4 is
considered below average, and would not meet minimum requirements. As both Table 1 and Table 2
indicate, the overall average for ECE students was above 4 on all questions for both the 2003 and 20032004 survey years. Additionally, an examination of each of the questions in both Tables demonstrates that
the students achieved above a 4. Again, this indicates their comments regarding the ECE major met the
necessary requirements.
The ECE majors scores for questions #6 and #14 averaged one standard deviation below the mean,
although they still are higher than the minimum score required (5.30 & 5.24, respectively). Question #6
states, “My experiences in Child and Family Studies gave me an opportunity to meet professionals in my
field”. Question #14 states, “I feel I received appropriate support during my experiences in Child and
Family Studies.
The ECE majors rated item 12 two standard deviations above the mean. Item 12 states “I would choose a
major in Child and Family Studies if I could do it all over again.” This appears to be a very favorable
comment on the department.
SECTION III--STANDARDS ASSESSMENT CHART
NAEYC STANDARD
(Initial Teacher Preparation)
1. Promoting Child Development and Learning. Candidates
use their understanding of young children=s characteristics
and needs, and of multiple interacting influences on
children=s development and learning, to create
environments that are healthy, respectful, supportive, and
challenging for all children.
Pedagogical/ Effect on
Content
Professional Student
knowledge
KSD
Learning
___
___
___
APPLICABLE ASSESSMENTS
FROM SECION II
_X_#1 _X__#2 ___#3 _X_#4
___#5 _X_#6 __#7 ___#8
2. Building Family and Community Relationships.
Candidates know about, understand, and value the
importance and complex characteristics of children=s
families and communities. They use this understanding to
create respectful, reciprocal relationships that support and
empower families, and to involve all families in their
children=s development and learning.
___
3. Observing, Documenting, and Assessing to Support
Young Children and Families. Candidates know bout and
understand the goals, benefits, and uses of assessment. They
know about and use systematic observations,
documentation, and other effective assessment strategies in
a responsible way, in partnership with families and other
professionals, to positively influence children=s development
and learning.
___
4. Teaching and Learning. Candidates integrate their
understanding of and relationships with children and
___
___
___
_X_#1 _X_#2 ___#3 _X_#4
___#5 ___#6 ___#7 ___#8
___
___
_X_#1 _X_#2 _X_#3 _X_#4
___#5 ___#6 ___#7 ___#8
___
___
_X_#1 _X_#2 ___#3 _X_#4
families; their understanding of developmentally effective
approaches to teaching and learning; and their knowledge
of academic disciplines to design, implement, and evaluate
experiences that promote positive development and
learning for all children.
5. Becoming a Professional. Candidates and conduct
themselves as members of the early childhood profession.
They know and use ethical guidelines and other
professional standards related to early childhood practice.
They are continuous, collaborative learners who
demonstrate knowledgeable, reflective, and critical
perspectives on their work, making informed decisions that
integrate knowledge from a variety of sources. They are
informed advocates for sound educational practices and
policies.
___#5 _X_#6 __#7 ___#8
___
___
___
_X_#1 _X_#2 __#3 __X_#4
___#5 __X_#6 _X_#7 __#8
SECTION IV--EVIDENCE FOR MEETING STANDARDS
1. PRAXIS II has been adopted by the state of Utah as a requirement for initial licensure. Initial
standardization data is being collected during the Spring of 2005. Therefore no data is available
at this time. In the future the results of this examination will provide an overview of candidate
knowledge across the five NAEYC standards and the ten INTASC standards.
2.INTASC/NAEYC PORTFOLIO: Content based assessment. As students proceed through the
program they select work which they believe meets the NAEYC and INTASC standards. They
write a reflection on each artifact that explains how it meets the standards, what they learned
from their experience, and what their future goals are in the area. We encourage selection across
the standards and across age/grade levels. Artifacts should address all the NAEYC and INTASC
stadards by the end of student teaching in the elementary school. The portfolios are evaluated
using a standard rubric. The results show that our ECE candidates are meeting the criteria in
construction of their portfolios. We believe the results indicate that the candidates demonstrate
competence in collecting and organizing artifacts that reflect their progress. They also are able to
related each artifact to the INTASC and NAEYC standards and write a reflective statement
supporting the significance of each artifact.
3. PRE-K TEACHER WORK SAMPLE: Plan and implement appropriate teaching and learning
experiences. This is a fairly new assignment in the early childhood education program. A TWS is
required at the prek and at the K/P level. No data is yet available on the K/P TWS=s.
The pre-k Teacher Work Sample artifact demonstrates the student=s ability to meet NAEYC
Standard 4 and INTASC standards 6 and 7. The TWS particularly addresses the students= ability
to meet 4c, Understanding content knowledge in early education, and 4d, building meaningful
curriculum. The results show that on the average the candidates met the criteria for competence
on 4/5 sets of criteria. We believe the results indicate that the students demonstrate competence
in planning and teaching following the TWS model. After analyzing the data, there was an
indication that candidates did not meet the criteria for ?designing instruction and making
instructional decisions@. The faculty determined that this problem stemmed from a lack of clear
reporting directions provided for the assignment.
4. PRE-K STUDENT TEACHER EVALUATION & K/PRIMARY STUDENT TEACHER
EVALUATION: Assessments of student teaching.
Pre Kindergarten Stuent Teaching Evaluation.
The students are evaluated using a prekindergarten student teacher evaluation form which is
divided into the following sections: guidance, planning, families, teamwork and personal
qualities. This form was developed over several years by the Early Childhood faculty and the
children=s School staff. Three levels of competence are defined for each of 29 items: exceeds
criteria, meets criteria, and doesn=t meet criteria. Students who meet or exceed criteria
demonstrate competence in all five NAEYC standards areas. Looking back at attachment II-4 it
can be seen that the items relate as follows:
1
NAEYC STANDARD
EVALUATION ITEM
Standard 1. Promoting Child Development
and Learning
1. Builds trust
2. Uses DAP guidance strategies
3. Applies theories and DAP guidelines
4. Alert to total classroom environment
5. Recognizes individual child=s behavor
patterns and acts accordingly
6. Individualizes strategies relative to causes
of behavior
7. Guides age appropriate behavior
8. Gets down to child=s level without
dominating
9. Respects children=s expression of emotions
Standard 2. Building Family and Community
Relationships
20. Respects family and cultural differences
of students
21. Involves parents in the education of their
children
22. Communicates with parents in a
professional manner
Standard 3. Observing, Documenting, Ad
Assessing To Support Young Children And
Families
12. Plans tie to Children=s School outcomes
and are based on documented authentic
assessments of individual children=s needs
and interests
Standard 4. Building Meaningful Curriculum
10. Plans and implements DAP curriculum
11. Explains theoretical basis for curriculum
plans
13. Plans are consistent with early childhood
theory and practice (play based/hands-on)
14. Plans for all developmental domains
15. Employs balanced, integrated teaching
model
16. Employs a variety of hands-on teaching
models.
17. Plans innovative and creative open-ended
activities
18. Weaves in anti-bias strands
19. Uses a wide variety of circle time
activities
Standard 5. Becoming a Professional
25. Supportive and respectful of Head
Teacher
2
26. Effectively leads the teaching team
27. Prepared and prompt
28. Reflects on plans and children=s progress
29. Reflects accurately on personal strengths
and weaknesses.
Items not included in analysis:
$Responsible and dependable
$Enjoys work and identifies self as a
professional.
$Acts in an ethical manner (NAEYC code)
The results from this instrument show that the students meet the competency requirements
established by the department. We believe the results over the past two years reflect an increase
in performance due to our attention to areas of weakness identified earlier which led to changes
in emphases within the curriculum.
Kindergarten/Primary Student Teaching Evaluation.
Candidates are evaluated at mid-term and end of term for each period of student teaching: 35
days in kindergarten and 35 days in a primary grade. The criteria are evaluated as standard met,
standard developing, and standard not met. The criteria are arranged in 10 INTASC standards
groups as can be seen in Attachment II-4 .
NAEYC STANDARD
INTASC STANDARD
Standard 1. Promoting Child Development
and Learning
2, 3, 5, 7
Standard 2. Building Family and Community
Relationships
3, 7, 10
Standard 3. Observing, Documenting, And
Assessing To Support Young Children And
Families
5, 7, 8
Standard 4. Building Meaningful Curriculum
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10
Standard 5. Becoming a Professional
9, 10
The results from this instrument indicate that our candidates met the INTASC/NAEYC
standards. We believe the results indicate that our candidates are prepared very well for their
kindergarten and primary grade student teaching experiences.
3
5. PRE-K TEACHER WORK SAMPLES: Assessment of candidate effects on student
learning.
The Teacher Work Sample reflects the student=s ability to effect student learning. As they
proceed through the TWS=s candidates must demonstrate their ability to plan instruction based
on assessment information and evaluate student learning following instruction and present the
evaluation data in a clear and understandable way. The data from the pre-k TWS
assignment shows that the candidate= instructional activities had a positive effect on the
children=s learning. We believe the results indicate that our teacher candidates are competent at
implementing programs that enhance the development of children and additionally are capable at
assessing for planning and at evaluating the results of their instruction.
6. DISPOSITIONS, Louisiana State University Beliefs and Practices Survey: Student
professional attitudes and beliefs regarding developmentally appropriate practice.
The Teacher Questionnaire.
Administered in CHFAM 2600 at the beginning of the pre-k professional sequence and readministered at the end of pre-k student teaching. It includes two sections The Teacher Beliefs
Scale (TBS) and Instructional Activities Scale (IAS). The results indicate that our candidates
begin the program strongly favoring developmentally appropriate practice and the provision of
developmentally appropriate instructional activities. They finish the program with slightly
stronger beliefs and support for developmentally appropriate practice. These dispositions relate
to NAEYC Standards 1, 4, and 5. We believe the results indicate that our program maintains and
strengthens our candidates regard for developmentally appropriate practice.
Several items on the prekindergarten student teacher evaluation also indicate level of
dispositions. See items 1, 20, 23, 24, 27, 29.
7. EXIT QUESTIONNAIRE: Provides assessment of candidates= satisfaction with their
professional education program and provides us with information regarding modifications we
might need to make. The questionnaire includes 14 statements to which the graduate responds on
a 7 point Likert scale and 7 open-ended response items. The 14 statements are aggregated
quantitatively. The seven open-ended responses are examined for both positive and negative
comments and for any common trends that indicate further consideration.
The results from this instrument show that candidates believe they leave the program well
prepare for their careers as early childhood teachers. They strongly agree that they would make
the same selection if they had to do it again. The only weakness shown is a weak degree of
exposure to professional organizations and publications in the field. We believe the results
indicate that we need to find a method for providing more professional involvement for our
students. There has been a gradual increase in the number of Early Childhood students joining
the Child and Family Studies Student Association which provides an excellent first step in
professional involvement. SFSSA is an affiliate of the National Council on Family Relations. We
4
wish there as a means to also affiliate with NAEYC for a reasonable fee.
5
SECTION V--USE OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS TO IMPROVE CANDIDATE AND
PROGRAM PERFORMANCE
Since inaugurating outcome assessments we have made many modifications in our program and
in our assessment instruments as we reflected on and interpreted the results.
Principal Findings and Faculty Interpretation
Content Knowledge
In 2000/2001 we developed a preschool student Teacher Performance Assessment which was
used by our Children=s School Head Teachers to assess our student teachers.The initial results
from the Student Teaching Performance Assessment indicated that the program provided an
education arena that developed ethical instructors who plan open-ended developmentally
appropriate activities that support creativity and the development of the whole child. Areas for
instructional improvement identified were anti-bias curriculum, realms of theory, and planning
for non-traditional learning times. We have strengthened our requirements in application of
theory and providing for anti-bias elements in planning as areas that needed to be strengthened
as indicated in the student teacher performance data. Beginning in January 2005 all teacher
candidates will take the PRAXIS II prior to student teaching in the public schools. No data is yet
available.
In fall 2003 Teacher Education developed an INTASC based evaluation which is used to
evaluate our candidates during their public school student teaching. Our ECE candidates were
rated as meeting criteria related to knowledge of subject matter.
In 2001-2002 we added a self-evaluated portfolio. Students could include six artifacts
that overall supported that they met the five NAEYC Standards. Students had ample
documentation in 4/5 areas. The weakest area was Building Family and Community Relations.
They had accomplished a number of activities in this area but had failed to document them. We
have continued with this portfolio which currently blends in with the Teacher Education
INTASC portfolio which is evaluated by Early Childhood Education faculty at the end of Public
School Student Teaching.
In 2003--2004 Teacher Education developed a portfolio format based on a blending of
INTASC and NAEYC standards as the basis for reflection. A standard rubric was developed in
2003-2004. In 2003-2004 Teacher Education revised their student teacher evaluation instruments
so they are congruent with the state required INTASC Standards. The data indicates that our
candidates met most of the standards (over 90%) and were developing toward the others.
Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions
Our preschool student teaching evaluation form has undergone a number of changes since it=s
inauguration in 2000/2001. The form was designed on the basis of NAEYC standards in
collaboration with the staff of our laboratory school. Criteria are organized into categories which
make sense to our head teachers: Guidance, Planning, Families, Teamwork, and Personal (ability
to reflect, goes beyond what is required, ethical behavior). The evaluation format has just been
reviewed and was updated in format in light of our experience in using it, which indicated that
we needed a format that was more evaluator friendly and which the Head Teachers could use for
1
candidate conferencing.
The 2001-2002 the results from the Teacher Performance Assessment indicated that our
students do an excellent job of guidance and developmentally appropriate planning and
instruction. Our students had internalized our philosophy into practice but needed to improve on
articulating the rationale for what they do.
The Teacher Education student teacher evaluation was revised in 2003--2004 to reflect
the INTASC Standards. The results indicate that our candidates meet the INTASC standards for
pedagogy and professional commitment and responsibility. In 2001-2002, in order to measure
dispositions toward developmentally appropriate practice, we administered the Teachers Beliefs
and Practices Survey (preschool version) to our incoming students in the Autumn semester with
the intent of re-administering it at the end of the candidates= student teaching in the preschool.
Our follow-up findings show that our students enter our program with beliefs that are congruent
with developmentally appropriate practice and exit the preschool part of the program with even
stronger dispositions.
Effects of Student Learning and on Creating Environments that Support Learning
Although our planning format is based on children=s competencies and interests we hadn=t
collected and aggregated any data on children=s learning in the past. During the Autumn 2004
semester we inaugurated a modified Teacher Work Sample which will provide more information
in the future.
The initial teacher work sample data documented that the instruction has a positive effect
on children=s learning. For Spring semester 2005 the procedure has been modified to provide for
more ongoing checks of the candidate=s progress in assessment, planning, teaching and
evaluating. The results of the Student Teaching evaluations at all levels reflect that our students
do an excellent job of creating environments that support children=s learning.
Changes Made -- Steps to Improve the Program and Student Performance
The results of all our assessments indicated that our teacher candidates= competencies were
continuously improving. Based upon the data obtained the following strategies were
implemented to improve students= comprehension and application of course material:
1. More instruction on assessing and referring children who need specialized help was
incorporated in two courses.
2. Consideration of the preschool student teaching evaluation resulted in the decision to review
and adopt procedures to improve students= abilities to incorporate anti-bias curriculum in the
classroom.
3. An apparent weakness in application of theory to practice has influenced us to increase this
emphasis in all our courses.
4. Analysis of graduating seniors responses to the exit questionnaire indicated the need to
improve the support the department offers its students. We were able to obtain funding to hire a
professional academic advisor to provide more in-depth student advisement.
5. Recognizing that we had no data on the effectiveness of our candidates= instruction, we
inaugurated the development of a Teacher Work Sample to be used for planning, instruction, and
2
assessment during student teaching at the preschool level in the Children=s School.
Future Plans to Improve Assessment and Instruction
1. Beginning in July 2005 all teacher candidates will take the PRAXIS II prior to student
teaching as required by the state of Utah
2. The department modified the ECE program to include the Senior Seminar 4990A in the ECE
program to facilitate the synthesis of early childhood principles and practices. In 2000-2001 we
instituted a comprehensive capstone essay exam which was taken by our EC (preschool nonlicensure program) majors during their senior seminar. We find that the results from this exam
have been valuable for identifying weaknesses in our program as well as assessing student
content knowledge. Beginning with students who entered the University on the 2003-04 catalog
the capstone exam seminar will be required for ECE as well as EC students. We expect ECE
majors to be attending the seminar in 2005-2006.
3. In 2005 a third year follow-up post graduate study will be done.
4. We will continue to monitor and improve instruction, especially in the areas of application of
theory to practice, anti-bias curriculum, and referral of students with learning and/or behavioral
problems. We will also work on methods of strengthening candidates= competency in design of
instruction and instructional decision making when working in the TWS format.
5. We will continue to evaluate our student teaching evaluation instrument with the objective of
providing outcomes data for the program, information for the candidates, and a useful guide for
the Head Teachers to use in evaluating student teacher performance.
3

Program Report for the Preparation of early Childhood Teachers

Transcription

Similar documents

Document 6521891

Careers in Early Childhood Education The ABC's

KOURAGEOUS KIDS ROCK!!!!!!!!!

Directions from NCTAMS to Helemano Elementary School

Quality Improvement System

COMBATING TUBERCULOSIS IN CHILDREN ZERO DEATHS QUICK FACTS

Early Childhood Inte..

About Us Contact Us Did you know? Varhaisiän musiikinopettajat ry /

Kids Growing Up Too Fast

ARMED FORCES MEDICAL COLLEGE PUNE (AFMC 2012) EXAM DATE: 6