Workshop: Teachers Know Their Content and Teach

Transcription

Workshop: Teachers Know Their
Content and Teach Effectively:
CAEP Standard 1 (CAEP 201)
Stevie Chepko, Sr. VP for Accreditation
[email protected]
CONNECT WITH CAEP | www.CAEPnet.org | Twitter: @CAEPupdates
Culture of Evidence
• EPPs intentionally and purposefully select evidence
that documents a standard is met
 Not a compliance model
 Not a checklist
 CAEP seeks to partner with EPPs in creating a culture of
evidence •
•
•
•
That encourages and allows for innovation
That asks and answers important questions
Documents what works and what does not work
That changes or staying the course is based on data driven
decisions
Testing hypotheses, teaching strategies,
and innovations
 Testing assumptions about EPPs effectiveness
• Through data collection and analyses
• Using assessments that have been validated and field
tested
• Ensuring the reliability of the data
• Demonstrating that data have been used appropriately
and support conclusions
• Finding out what does not work is as important as finding
out what does not work!
– All the data does not have to be positive
– Using data to support change is important
Assessment Rubric (DRAFT)
• Assessment rubric is available on CAEP’s website
 Provides guidance on what reviewers will be seeking
specific to EPP created assessments
 Why Rubrics?
• EPPS need to define the criteria used to determine
candidate’s classroom readiness
• Important conversations for faculty and P-12 partners to
have together
– Define expectations in conjunction with partners
– Provide on-going and specific feedback to candidates on EPP’s
performance expectations
– Most important part of process – the conversations on
expectations
Six Big Questions on Assessments




What is the purpose and use of the instrument?
How was the instrument developed?
What are respondents told about the instrument?
Are assignments aligned with standards?
• Informs content and construct validity and relevance
 Do the instruments require the assessment of higher
levels of intellectual behavior (e.g., creating, evaluating,
analyzing, applying, etc.)?
 Do scoring levels provide distinct levels of candidate
performance?
First Category of Evidences for Submission –
EPP created Assessments
• EPP created assessments
 Instrument purpose and use in the program
 Instrument development
• What stakeholders participated in the development?
• Were other frameworks used?
 What information was provided to respondents?
• Instructions
• Description of assignment
All items on all assessments must be tagged
First Category of Evidences for Submission –
EPP created Assessments (cont.)
 Upload any protocols associated with the assessment
 Upload the assessment and the rubric used with the
assessment if applicable
• Includes such evidence as surveys (exit, employers, inservice, etc.)
• Includes any EPP created assessments such as observation
instruments, work samples, lesson or unit plans, etc.
 Upload data charts for each submitted assessment
 Narrative on how validity was established
 Narrative on how reliability has been or will be
established
Second Category of Evidence –
Other forms of Evidence
• Evidence that is not data related or collected using
an instrument of some kind







Minutes from meetings
MOU on Partnerships with PDS
Requirements for various entry points into the program
Portions of student teaching handbook
Catalogue information
Narrative data from focus groups
Other types of narrative data
Third Category of Evidence –
Proprietary Assessments
• Proprietary Assessments
 Assessments where an outside agency or company
holds the copyright on the assessment
• State licensure exams
• edTPA, PPAT, VAM, etc.
• Other national assessments including surveys
 For proprietary assessments, EPPs submit the data from
the assessment
• Report any validity or reliability data on the assessment
provided by the agency or company
• Data must be aligned to standard/component
Fourth Category of Data –
EPPs Plans
• Any plans submitted by EPPs as evidence during the
transition phase-in period
 For Early Adopters, this includes how the feedback will
be used from the Optional 3 year out review
 Applies to Component 1.4 under Standard 1
• Fifth Category of Data – State
requirements
 Only applies to EPPs in states that allow the
Program review with Feedback Option
 Reviewed by the state representative on the visitor
team
Standard by Standard Buckets of
Evidence
• Think of each standard as a bucket
 EPPs drop (valid) evidence in the bucket specific to the
standard
• Requires multiple data points for each standard
• Addresses each component, but EPPs do not have to
“meet” each component
• Having an identified weakness in an area or component is
NOT a bad thing
– How have you use the data to determine that weakness?
– What are you next steps to address that area of weakness?
Standard 1 Bucket
 Component 1.1 – Content and Pedagogical Knowledge
• Four categories of InTASC Model Teaching Standards
– Learner and learning
» Internship/student teaching observation instrument
» Grades from required classes specific to development
» Work Sample
» edTPA or PPAT
» State licensure tests
– Content Knowledge
» Grades
» State licensure test
» Application of knowledge from observation instrument(s), work
samples, unit plans, etc
Component 1.1 (cont.)
 Instructional Practice
•
•
•
•
•
Clinical observation instrument
Work Sample
Any impact on student learning measures
Assessment assignments with scoring guides
Lesson and unit plans
 Professional responsibilities
• Any disposition measures
• Any professional participation requirements
– Faculty meetings
– Professional development
– Memberships in professional associations
Everything placed in Bucket for
Component 1.1
• Ask - have we addressed the standard completely
with multiple data points?
• Even if you just have one data point for each of the
four InTASC principles – you have provided multiple
data points
 Only the items specific to component 1.1 are cited as
evidence
 All evidence is linked directly to standard/component
by specifically tagging that item
 For Standard 1, some items may provide evidence for
other components
Bucket for Component 1.2 – Research
and Evidence
• Evidence specific to candidates’ use of research and
evidence




Work sample
Lesson or unit plans
Clinical observation instruments
Others?
Bucket for 1.3 – Application of Content
and Pedagogical Knowledge
• Evidence specific to application of content
knowledge
 Evidence includes SPA reports or state review of
program specific data
 States can add specific requirements to this component
• For example, specific list of required courses
 Make sure the evidence is congruent with the
“application” of Content and Pedagogical Knowledge
Bucket for 1.4 – College and Career
Readiness
• Evidence specific to college and career readiness
 Plans, assignments, or observational data demonstrate
candidates’ skills for –
• Deep content knowledge
• Eliciting P-12 student application of their knowledge to solve
problems and think critically
• Cross-discipline teaching
• Differentiation of instruction
• Ability to identify and interpret assessments to match P-12
college and career readiness goals/objectives
 What goes in this bucket?
 What would be in the plan for addressing 1.4?
Bucket for 1.5 – Model and Apply
Technology
• Evidence specific to technology
 Accessing data bases, digital media, and tools to
improve learning
 Knowing why and how to aid student access and
evaluation of digital content
 Ability to design and facilitate digital learning
 Using social networks as a resource
 Using digital networks to report and track student
learning
• What do you have for this bucket?
Summary Reflection
• For each standard, EPP completes a summary
reflection based on the evidence presented
 Reviewers determine if the standard is met based on the
preponderance of evidence presented.
 All components must be addressed, but not all
components have to be met.
 There can be weaknesses in evidence for
component(s), but overall the standard was met
 Decision is made on the overall strength of the
evidence and not individual components
Engaged
is vital to CAEP.
You will have an opportunity to complete
a survey at the end of the conference.
Surveys will be sent via email
on Friday, April 10.
We encourage your participation.
Thank you!

Workshop: Teachers Know Their Content and Teach

Transcription

Similar documents

Making Your Case for Accreditation

CAEP Standard 4, Program Impact

Quality of Evidence - CAEP

Partnerships for Practice: CAEP Standard 2 (CAEP 101)

Reporting Your Evidence

CAEP and States: A Collaboration on Accreditation and Approval

Investigating EPP Claims: The CAEP Inquiry Brief (IB) Pathway

CAEP Standard 1 Providing Evidence in the Self

Preparing the Self-Study

Optional Early Instrument Evaluation