X Major                               X Graduate                       q Curricular                       (check all that apply)

q Minor                              X Undergraduate         q Co-curricular

 

 

Student Learning Goals/Objectives	Assessment Methods	Assessment Results and Reporting	Meaning of Results
Dimension 1	What We Do	Concepts &Strategies of Teaching
B. Planning Instruction & Instructional strategies.(Standard 4 and 7)Students will demonstrate knowledge of lesson plan development that properly incorporates appropriate instructional strategies, encourage critical thinking, demonstrate knowledge of subject matter, and curriculum goals.	a. Teacher Evaluation b. Pedagogy Competency Test c. Student self-assessment d. Alumni Program survey	See Table 1 See Table 4 See Table 2 See Table 3	Mean-4.24 100% passing Mean-4.59 84.2%-Moderate to Great
C. Learning Environment & Assessment Standards 5 & 8) ) Students will demonstrate an understanding of creating a positive learning environment through the use of motivational strategies that promote social interaction. Students will demonstrate knowledge of the development of appropriate assessment tools that incorporate formal and informal assessment strategies and are able to interpret results to direct further instruction	a. Teacher Evaluation b. Pedagogy Competency Test c. Student self-assessment d. Alumni Program survey	See Table 1 See Table 4 See Table 2 See Table 3	Mean-4.25 100% passing Mean-4.32 72.2%-Moderate to Great
Dimension 2	Who We Teach	Knowledge of Children & Youth
A. Student Learning & Diverse Learner. (Standard 2 & 3) The student will demonstrate an understanding of developmentally appropriate instruction and learning styles through the development of learning opportunities that adapt to individual student needs.	a. Teacher Evaluation b. Pedagogy Competency Test c. Student self-assessment d. Alumni Program survey	See Table 1 See Table 4 See Table 2 See Table 3	a. Mean-4.52 100% passing Mean-4.45 67%-Moderate to Great
Dimension 3	Where We Work	Contexts of Schools
E. Reflection, Professional Development, Collaboration, Ethics and Relationships.(Standards 9 & 10) Students will demonstrate collaboration and relationship building through participation in the team setting and through parent communications. Students will demonstrate reflection by evaluating the effects of choices made within the learning environment.	a. Teacher Evaluation b. Pedagogy Competency Test c. Student self-assessment d. Alumni Program survey	See Table 1 See Table 4 See Table 2 See Table 3	Mean-4.7 100% passing Mean-4.77 69.1%-Moderate to Great
Dimension 4	Who We Are as Individuals & Teachers	Personal Stance and Knowledge Base
F. Subject Matter and Communication.(Standards1 & 6) Students will demonstrate knowledge of the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the discipline taught and be able to create learning experiences that make these aspects of subject matter meaningful for students. Students will use communicational techniques that foster active inquiry	Content Competency Test. Teacher Evaluation. PPST Scores Pedagogy Competency Test Student self-assessment d. Alumni Program survey	See Table 5 See Table 1 Table 6 See Table 1 See Table 4 See Table 2 See Table 3	a.       100% passing b.       Mean-4.52% c.       94-97% pass rate d.       Mean-4.355 e.       100% passing f.        Mean-4.675 g.       84.3%-Moderate to Great

Designated department/program assessment contact: Lynn Lindow and Vicki Olson Date: June 5, 2003

 

 

NOTE: There are some changes from the original Assessment Plan submitted last year. First, the naming of some of our assessment tools have been changed to better reflect who responded in the survey data. Also, we removed Portfolios as an assessment tool. We intend to use components of the portfolio as assessment tools in the future. We will develop these assessments over the summer and fall.

 

FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS:

• Need revise assessment forms to insure better accuracy in the assessments
• Need to determine a better method of return from Cooperating Teacher on student teacher evaluations.
• Need to align our assessment tools to better represent the four dimensions of our program as stated in our mission statement (document attached at end of this report). The current assessment tools are developed around the Minnesota Standards of Effective Practice (MSEP) and our four dimensions also fit the MSEP’s; it would be helpful to bring these tools into closer alignment.

 

 

Table 1 represents the evaluations of Cooperating Teachers of their student teachers at the culmination of our students’ programs. The student teachers are representative of all the Education programs-Day and Weekend undergraduate, degreed students seeking licensure only, and the EBD students at both graduate and undergraduate levels, The Cooperating Teachers complete student evaluations for their student teachers at the end of the student teaching experience. The evaluations were completed using a Lickert Scale with 1 indicating low competency and 5 indicating high competency. The numbers in each category were tabulated and the number in the Table represents the mean of the scores. It must be pointed out that the ranking done by the cooperating teacher was done on a continuum rather than on a numbered scale. The calculations are based on dividing that continuum into the five-point scale. In order to have this be a more accurate representation of Cooperating Teachers evaluation, we will need to improve the evaluation form for Fall, 2003 by segmenting the continua into numbered sections.

 

A second concern related to this evaluation is the low return rate from the Cooperating Teachers. These numbers do not represent 100% return of student teacher evaluations. Evaluations will continue to be returned to the department during the summer so these numbers will be recalculated in the Fall of 2003. Augsburg supervisors will be asked to help ensure return of the evaluations.

 

 

 

The categories represent the ten Minnesota Standards of Effective Practice. Competency in these ten standards must be demonstrated by each of our students in order for them to be licensed to teach in the state of Minnesota.

 

TABLE 1. COOPERATING TEACHER RANKINGS OF STUDENT TEACHERS

Category	Elem.	Sec.	K-12	Mean	Range
Planning Inst.	4.6	4.38	4.0	4.33	2-5
Subject Matter	4.8	4.63	4.14	4.52	3-5
Student Learn	4.8	4.0	4.14	4.52	3-5
Diverse Learn	4.8	4.25	4.14	4.40	3-5
Inst. Strategies	4.8	3.88	3.86	4.18	2-5
Learn Environ	4.8	4.13	4.14	4.36	3-5
Communication	5.0	3.75	4.29	4.35	3-5
Assessment	4.8	4.25	3.71	4.25	N/A-5
Reflection/Prof.	5.0	4.0	4.86	4.62	3-5
Collaboration	5.0	4.63	4.71	4.78	3-5

 

This chart indicates that our cooperating teachers feel that the majority of our students perform in the 4-5 range in all categories; this indicates that classroom teachers perceive our student teachers as being prepared to well prepared in each of these categories. Students score highest in the categories of collaboration and reflection and lowest in the categories of Instructional Strategies and Assessment, although these results indicate above average abilities in each of those areas. The mean indicates the average of all students in each of the categories. For the purpose of the Program Assessment Plan, the mean represents the mean in combining categories-Student learning and Diverse Learning; Planning Instruction and Instructional Strategies; Learning environments and Communication; Assessment; Reflection and Collaboration; and Subject Matter. With the combining of categories as done in the Assessment Plan, students were continually evaluated by cooperating teachers as above average to high.

 

Students are also rated high on Subject Matter both at the elementary and secondary levels. This is an indication that our students develop a strong content knowledge in their subject area which is an important component for effective teaching.

 

 

Tables 2 and 3 represent student self assessments at the completion of student teaching in Spring 2003 (Table 2) and as alumni following graduation and/or licensure in the year of 2002, January through December (Table 3). Each of these tables represent student ratings on a Lickert Scale with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest. The categories listed across the top of each table represent the six standards (A-F) identified in the Program Assessment Plan.

 

TABLE 2. ASSESSMENT STANDARDS STUDENT SURVEY Spring 2003 – Student Teachers

Major	# of students	Student Learn.	Planning	Learn Envir	Assess.	Reflect	Subject Matter
Elem. Ed	10	4.5	4.7	4.7	4.2	4.9	5.0
Soc. St.	3	4.67	5.0	5.0	4.67	5.0	4.33
Science	1	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0
PE/Health	4	4.25	4.25	4.25	4.0	4.25	5.0
Comm. Arts	1	4.0	4.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0
Art Ed.	3	4.33	4.67	4.67	4.67	4.67	4.33
AVERAGE	22	4.45	4.59	4.68	4.32	4.77	4.77

 

Students were asked to evaluate their abilities in each of the categories identified in the Program Assessment Plan. The above table indicates the averages for each of the content areas as well as the overall mean of all the students in each category. As indicated by the averages, students perceived their preparation in each category as very strong. This would indicate that they felt prepared for success in the teaching profession. This would be supported by the cooperating teachers evaluation of their skills although the students rank themselves slightly higher than the cooperating teacher did.

 

 

 

TABLE 3. ASSESSMENT STANDARDS ALUMNI SURVEY – EARLY SUMMER 2002

Standard	Not at all	A little	Moderate	Considerable	Great
Student Learn	6.5%	20%	29%	26%	12%
Plan Inst.	1%	12%	25%	34.7%	22.7%
Learn Envir.	1%	8%	25%	38.9%	20.4%
Assessment	4.6%	16.7%	29.6%	29.6%	13%
Reflection	7.1%	17.9%	30.2%	24.4%	14.5%
Subject Matter	2%	6.1%	36.7%	42.9%	12%

Number of surveys sent=132                                              

Number of surveys returned=54                                        

Licensure areas represented                        67% employment in education field of surveys

                                                                                    Returned, June 2002

k-6=43                                                                        Classroom Teachers=32

            English=3                                                      Substitute Teachers=4

            Music=1                                                         Other education related jobs=4

PE=2

Science=2                              

            Social Studies=2

Speech/Theatre=1                                                    

 

 

This table represents how 41% (survey return rate) of the alumni from the 2001-2002 academic year rank themselves after seeking and, in the majority of cases of those who responded, experiencing employment in the teaching profession. The items under the table indicate further employment data.

 

The results of the survey would indicate a drop in confidence levels in the stated categories as compared to the students completing licensure this Spring. Alumni continue to see their abilities to be in the moderate to considerable range, which would indicate continuing confidence in their preparation to teach, but a more realistic evaluation of themselves in terms of the actual work of being a teacher. From a program evaluation perspective, we need to monitor response from this summer’s survey to the categories of Student Learning, Assessment, and Reflection to determine whether we have a repeat of more than 20% of alumni feeling underprepared in these areas. That would indicate a need to examine our program in those areas.

 

 

 

 

Tables 4 and 5 identify our students (degree seeking and licensure only) results on the Minnesota teacher testing requirements. In order to be licensed, each student is required to pass a pedagogy test (Table 4) at the level appropriate for each individual license and a content knowledge test (Table 5) for the appropriate subject area. The results below indicate the number of students who have taken each test during academic year 2002-2003. This is the first year that passing test scores have been required by the Minnesota Board of Teaching (BOT) in order to obtain a teaching license in our state. The table indicates the number of students taking the test, the number of students passing the test, the state designated passing score, the Augsburg College student mean, and the pass rate. As indicated on the table, Augsburg students have a 100% passed rate on each test.

 

 

TABLE 4. PRINCIPLES LEARNING AND TEACHING (9/1/02-5/31/03)

Level	# Taking	# Passing	Pass Rate	Pass Score	Mean Score Received	Range of Scores
K-6	24	24	100%	152	176.96	156-189
5-9	2	2	100%	144	166	156-176
7-12	7	7	100%	153	177.57	161-190

 

TABLE 5. CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (9/1/02-5/31/03)

Major	# Taking	# Passing	Pass Rate	Pass Score	Mean Score Received	Range of Scores
Elem. Content	16	16	100%	140	166.56	149-186
English	1	1	100%	148	190	190
Health	2	2	100%	500	735	730-740
Art				155
Social St.	2	2	100%	145	166.5	163-170
PE	4	4	100%	141	160.25	156-167
Music	2	2	100%	141	171.5	155-188
Gen Sci	2	2	100%	143	176.5	173-180

 

As a department, we will continue to monitor these scores. At this point, they indicate that we are preparing our students to pass state tests.

 

 

The data in Table 6 refers PPST score of all students in the Education Program who student taught and competed their program as of Spring, 2003. “Completers” include all Day and Weekend undergraduates, all licensure only students, and all EBD program students. Eventually Graduate school students will also be included in these statistics.

 

 

TABLE 6. PPST I (Spring, 2003 Completers)

Category	# Taking Elem.	#Taking Sec.	#Passing	Pass Rate	Pass Score
Reading	18	18	34	94%	173/320
Writing	18	18	34	94%	172/318
Math	18	18	35	97%	169/314

 

 

All licensure candidates are required to take the PPST prior to admission to the department and pass all portions of the PPST I test in order to be licensed. This test measures basic competency in the areas of Math, Reading, and Writing. By state law, assistance must be made available to students to help them pass these tests. The students who have not yet passed the PPST will be retaking it during the summer months so that they hopefully will qualify for a license by Fall, 2003. State law requires that students be allowed to proceed in the program even if they don’t pass the PPST. As a department, we need to determine whether we want to and have the right to prevent students from student teaching if they have not passed the PPST. We will discuss this in the fall.