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
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
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 and Communication.(Standards 5 & 6) Students will demonstrate an understanding of creating a positive learning environment through the use of motivational strategies that promote social interaction and uses communicational techniques that foster active inquiry.	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-4.355 100% passing Mean-4.675 84.3%-Moderate to Great
D. Assessment.(Standard 8) 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
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
F. Subject Matter.(Standard 1) 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.	a. Content Competency Test. Teacher Evaluation. PPST Scores	a.     See Table 5 b.     See Table 1 c.     Table 6	100% passing Mean-4.52% 94-97% pass rate

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 such as lesson plans. We will develop these assessments over the summer.

 

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 our four dimensions of our program as stated in our mission statement. These tools are developed around the Minnesota Standards of Effective Practice (MSEP) and our four dimensions also fit the MSEP but it would be helpful to reorganize them so that we can show how we address our mission statement.

 

 

 

Table 1 represents the evaluations of Cooperating Teachers of their student teacher in the classroom at the culmination of our students programs. The student teachers are representative of all the Education program-Day and Weekend undergraduate, degree students seeking license only, and the EBD program, The Cooperating Teacher completes a student evaluation on their student teacher at the end of the student teaching experience. The evaluation is done on 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.

 

A second issue with this evaluation is the low return 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.

 

 

 

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 the majority of our students perform in the 4-5 range in all categories, which indicates that classroom teachers perceived 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 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 as indicated in the No Child Left Behind legislation.

 

 

Tables 2 and 3 represent student self survey at the completion of student teaching in Spring 2003 (Table 2) and as an 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

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 that the cooperating teacher did.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 3. ASSESSMENT STANDARDS ALUMNI SURVEY 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                                               Classroom Teachers=32

Number of surveys returned=54                                         Substitute Teachers=4

Number of students-k-6=43                                                Other School position=4

            English=3                              Music=1

            Science=2                               PE=2

            Social Studies=2                                                       67% employment

            Speech/Theatre=1                                                     Survey taken Early Summer-2002

 

 

This table represents how alumni rank themselves within six months to l year plus (2002 licensure students) as they seek employment in the teaching profession. The statistics under the table indicates success rate in securing a teaching position following completion of the education program. There was a 41% return rate on the surveys sent.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Tables 4 and 5 identify the results of our students completing licensure on the Minnesota state testing requirements. In order to license, each student is required to take a test on pedagogy (Table 4) at the level appropriate for each individual license and in content knowledge (Table 5) for the appropriate subject area. The results below indicate the number of students who have taken each test during the school year of 2002-2003. This is the first year that passing test scores have been required by the Minnesota Department of Education (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
G.Science	2	2	100%	143	176.5	173-180

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

All licensure candidates are required to take and pass all portions of the PPST I test in order to license. This test measures competency in the three areas of Math, Reading, and Writing. Students are allowed to retake any portion they were not successful and assistance is available to students to help them pass these tests. The students who did not pass will be retaking the test during the summer months so that they will qualify for a license by Fall, 2003.