The unit has an assessment system that collects and analyzes data on applicant qualifications, candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate and improve the unit and its programs.
----- Index -------------
Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation
Use of Data for Program Improvement
--------------------------
Assessment has taken a more central focus in the Augsburg Education Program since the 1999 visit. Through the process of aligning the education program to the Minnesota Standards of Effective Practice (MSEP), performance assessments have been identified within courses that indicate candidate competencies. The College also has initiated an assessment plan requiring all departments to assess student outcomes. This initiative has further enhanced the unitÕs assessment process.
At the time of the last visit, the unit was deeply involved in a program realignment process in order to meet the criteria for licensure established by the Minnesota Board of Teaching through Minnesota Standards of Effective Practice standards. New license requirements meant that the program at the elementary and secondary levels would be expanded to insure candidate competencies in pedagogy and content. Through this process, performance assessments were identified that would show evidence of student learning and support the unitÕs Conceptual Framework. Assessment of these competencies was attached to courses. Upon completion of the realignment to meet state standards, the unitÕs education programs in elementary, secondary, and special education were approved by the Minnesota Board of Teaching.
The unit believes in a systematic assessment plan that is grounded in state and national standards as well as the Conceptual Framework that reflects the beliefs of the department. The goal of the unit is to ensure that all teacher candidates exit the program with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that are necessary to enhance student learning in the classroom. The current plan is still in its infancy and will be continually evaluated for its ability to reflect candidate effectiveness.
College Level Assessment:
In 2001-2002, Augsburg College charged each department to develop their assessment plan to show evidence of student learning. Campus-wide attention to assessment has been highly stressed since Augsburg CollegeÕs 1997 reaccreditation by North Central Association (NCA). North Central Association designed an alternative approach to reaffirmation of accreditation referred to as AQIP that stands for Academic Quality Improvement Program. The purpose of AQIP is to replace the traditional 10-year self-study. It is based on a continuous quality improvement model. Assessment is an important component of AQIP. Augsburg College selected assessment as one of its three Action Projects (one requirement of AQIP). AQIP requires that colleges undertake systematic assessment of student learning.
The purpose of the college assessment plan is to evaluate programs. The individual department assessment plans use individual results in aggregate to review quality of the program. As a result, workshops were provided to assist departments with the development of a systematic assessment plan for program evaluation and the use of a college template to follow. A college assessment committee was also formed to help oversee the process and provide assistance where needed. The development occurred over time. By Spring, 2002, each department identified student outcomes and the data sources to be used. By December 2002 a progress report was submitted to show progress toward program evaluation. In Spring, 2003, the first results of those assessment plans were submitted. These assessment reports included data and analysis of that data. This was the first of what are now annual reports required of each department on campus.
Unit Level Assessment:
The unit was able to take this opportunity to develop a purposeful and systematic assessment plan through this process. The assessment committee attended the assessment workshops and used the information from that to develop a systematic assessment plan. The committee took the Minnesota Standards of Effective Practice, national standards and the UnitÕs Conceptual Framework as the foundation for developing the student outcomes to be assessed. The committee determined six student outcomes to track and assess. The draft of student outcomes was brought before the education faculty for evaluation and input. Upon review, suggested changes were made and additional data collection was started. The results of the assessment plan are used to evaluate the quality of our program. A summary was prepared in December 2002, and the first annual report was submitted in June 2003. This data collection assists the unit to be more intentional on decisions regarding the program.
One of the key factors in the Assessment Plan is the collection and analysis of data on candidate proficiencies and competencies. This data is used initially to evaluate individual candidates. The data is then aggregated to evaluate the unit program. Performance assessment of teacher candidates began with the realignment of the curriculum with state and individual national standards. Using this as a starting point, the unit continues to focus on evaluating program effectiveness and candidate performance.
The data collection includes both internal and external sources that will assess what our teacher candidates know and are able to do. Internal sources include performance in general education courses (GPA), identified performance assessment embedded in education courses, and checkpoints within the program. The unit continues to refine the student portfolio so that it is reflective of candidate competencies at the end of their program that align with state and national standards.
External sources of data include performance on state standardized tests, Praxis II, Title 2 data, end of program survey, alumni survey, field experience evaluation forms, and student teacher evaluations. This data is collected, analyzed, interpreted and used to inform and improve the program, the curriculum and pre-service teacher effectiveness.
Candidate assessments include Praxis I test, field experience assessment, student portfolio, cooperating teacher evaluation, Praxis II tests in pedagogy and content, and student teaching self evaluation. Unit assessments include program assessment survey completed by student teachers, student teacher exit interview, alumni survey, and employer survey. Each of these items becomes evidence of candidateÕs competencies and program effectiveness.
Course Level Assessment:
During the process of realignment of the curriculum to address Minnesota Standards of Effective Practice, faculty identified performance assessment tools to evaluate candidate progress toward development of knowledge, skills and dispositions. These performance assessments are used to evaluate candidates as they progress through the program toward meeting standards. Assessment tools and their related standards are included in department syllabi.
Student opportunity to give input on course effectiveness and by extension, program effectiveness is given through course evaluations. The course evaluations assess the courses and instructional effectiveness. These course evaluations are reviewed by the Dean of the College, the department chair, and given to individual faculty members. Faculty members are able to review and make adjustments in their teaching. These adjustments are reported in the annual report to the Dean.
The current assessment system generates data about the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of our candidates, evaluates our faculty, and informs the unit of program effectiveness. The unit continues to examine the system to insure that the sources reflect the information needed to inform the program.
Links:
link to MSEP document-- www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/arule/8710/2000.html-
see Conceptual Framework
see BOT program Approval documents-hard copy in exhibit room
see College Assessment Plan- college-assess_plan.doc (Word) (HTML)
see Education Department Report- Assess_2003.doc (Word) (HTML)
see 2002-2003 Education Department Assessment Report- Assess_2003.doc (Word) (HTML)
see department minutes Š see hard copy in exhibit room
see department initial results- Fall_assess_report.doc (Word) (HTML)
see final portfolio criteria-LearningPortfolio Prepar.doc (Word) (HTML)
see Praxis item analysis document-see hard copy in exhibit room
see student course evaluation form- See hard copy in exhibit room
see DeanÕs Report form- report_for_untenure.doc (Word) (HTML)
tenure_DeanReport.doc (Word) (HTML)
see department syllabi
The assessment system must generate decision-making capabilities at the candidate, program and unit levels. The assessment system can be the vehicle for direction and change. As the unit has developed and implemented a purposeful assessment plan, we have made significant progress toward systematizing the data collection process to inform us of candidate performance as they progress through the education program.
As teacher candidates begin the education program they are informed early of the policies and procedures to be admitted to the education department, progress through the program and attain a teaching license. The first step is admission into the department. Criteria that must be met at the undergraduate level include meeting with an education advisor, attaining a GPA of at least a 2.5, taking the Praxis I basic competency test, and securing two letters of recommendation, with one being from an Augsburg College faculty member. Secondary education candidates must also secure clearance from their major department.
Admission to the graduate level license and degree program has three admissions checkpoints. These include admissions to Weekend College, admissions to the Education Department graduate level program, and declaration of intent to complete a masterÕs degree.
Admission to Weekend College is completed through the Weekend College Admissions Office. Within that application, designation of the program intent (undergraduate or graduate) is made. Admission is granted at the graduate level to applicants who have a 3.0 or better GPA in all previous coursework. These applicants will take Orientation to Education and Diversity/MN American Indians at the graduate level.
Applicants to the graduate licensure/degree program who have cumulative GPA between 2.5 and 3.0 will be admitted to Weekend College as an undergraduate and may reapply for the graduate program when they have achieved a minimum 3.0 GPA in 2 courses at Augsburg College.
Graduate students are granted admission into the Education Department if they have a minimum GPA of 3.0, two letters of recommendation with a least one from an Augsburg Faculty member, completion of the Praxis I test, a signed authorization form, and, for k-12 and 5-12 licensure students, a signed secondary department clearance form.
Students who do not pass the Praxis I test follow an established intervention process to assist with passing the praxis I test prior to student teaching. This process includes assistance through the Tutor Center and, monitoring of progress by faculty advisors. Students also have access to the writing lab for assistance with their writing skills and the Augsburg Library maintains a collection of Praxis I study guides.
Admission to the Education Department occurs after students have completed one or more terms at Augsburg College and before students start upper division coursework. The Admissions Committee of the Education Department completes student admission decisions. This committee is responsible for informing the RegistrarÕs Office of admission to the Education Department.
Graduate students must declare intent to complete the Masters Degree Program. This can be done at any point after being admitted to the Education Department graduate level licensure/degree program and up to one year after completing student teaching. The declaration of intent is made to the Graduate Program Director and an audit of coursework follows to determine which courses apply to the graduate program. Student GPA must reflect a 3.0 or better and no course GPA below 2.5. A total of nine courses are required for the MasterÕs of Arts Degree in Education. A minimum of five of those courses is from the Education Department. The remainder of the courses is drawn from courses in the Masters of Arts in Leadership Program.
The Education Department admissions committee is responsible for monitoring the admissions process, for monitoring student progress through the licensure program, and for receiving faculty concerns about specific students who have been admitted to both the undergraduate and graduate licensure programs. When a concern is raised, the admissions committee can:
Teacher candidates admitted to the Education Department at both the graduate and undergraduate levels have the right to use the collegeÕs grievance procedure as they feel necessary. An academic grievance may be initiated when a student believes he/she has been treated unfairly, unjustly or inequitably with respect to the academic personnel or programs of the college. A student in the process of filing a grievance should seek the appropriate forms in the office of the Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs.
As undergraduate and graduate students progress through the licensure program, they must demonstrate continuous progress throughout the program. Each candidate must maintain a 2.5 GPA, undergraduate, 3.0 graduate, as well as pass all education courses with a minimum of 2.0, undergraduate, 2.5 graduate. If a student fails to do this, they will not be allowed to student teach and will need to retake courses in which they did not receive an appropriate GPA.
Candidates that are struggling in their coursework can be referred by faculty or academic advisor to the admissions committee who review student concerns. Depending on issues identified in the referral, the committee will make recommendations about intervention procedures that may be implemented. In extreme situations, candidates can be counseled out of the program. Issues and recommendations identified during the referral process are noted in the candidateÕs department file. Progress toward improvement is monitored by the admissions committee and the candidateÕs education advisor.
Upon completion of coursework, candidates must complete a student teaching application identifying their GPA, individual course grades, course completion and completion of required field experience hours. An education advisor authenticates each application to insure that each candidate has completed all requirements prior to student teaching.
During student teaching, a studentÕs placement can be terminated if the classroom teacher and/or the Augsburg supervisor and/or the student teaching director and/or the student feel it is necessary. When a studentÕs placement is terminated, several actions are set in motion.
As part of the unitÕs continuous self-study, the assessment system was evaluated and elements were added to reflect Minnesota and national standards. One of these elements was a standard way to evaluate dispositions of teacher candidates. The faculty identified characteristics of an effective teacher as part of the redesigning of the Conceptual Framework. These descriptors of an effective teacher were also aligned with state standards. These descriptors were placed in a self-survey format and have been piloted in fall 2003. This survey will help to inform candidates of professional expectations of the education department and the teaching profession.
The unit makes continuous efforts to document student feedback on program satisfaction and areas of concern. Candidates give feedback during the final student teaching seminar where they participate in exit interviews. Information is also gathered through alumni surveys conducted annually. Information gathered at these points is brought back, first to the student teacher and the curriculum committees for analysis. Cooperating teachers complete a program survey, which is collected by the student teaching director and brought to the student teaching committee for analysis. Program concerns are brought to the department faculty so that appropriate action can take place.
In summary, sources of assessment of teacher candidate competencies include:
Links:
see Education Department Handbook-see hard copy in exhibit room
see admissions handbook Š www.augsburg.edu/education/admission
see Library list of PPST resources, the Admissions Committee will soon be
developing a web site and handout of PPST resources
see Education Data base and files-Education Office
see Graduate Program Handbook-see hard copy in exhibit room
see grievance policy in the Augsburg Student Guide-
Grievance_Procedures.doc (Word) (HTML)
see admissions committee minutes and docs- Adm_Commyearend.doc (Word) (HTML)
see student teacher application- elem_st__tch_application.doc (Word) (HTML)
sec__st__tching_application.doc (Word) (HTML)
EBD_st__tching_applic.doc (Word) (HTML)
see Disposition Survey- Dispositions_Survey.doc (Word) (HTML)
see student teacher evaluation document- st.teach_assess.doc (Word) (HTML)
see Alumni Survey document- AlumniSurvey.doc (Word) (HTML)
see cooperating teacher survey form Š see hard copy in exhibit room
The Augsburg Education Unit has identified assessment tools that can reflect teacher candidate competencies and can help us make decisions about the effectiveness of the program and the unit. Over the past several years, we have striven to become more systematic and deliberate with our data analysis to make needed decisions. Additional assessment tools include Praxis II test results and the student teacher self evaluation. Through the development of the Program Assessment Plan, the department systematically examines accumulated data and interprets the results. In the future this process will lead to appropriate program changes that will contribute to the effective development of competencies in pre-service candidates.
The data is currently being hand collected and analyzed. Some data is being entered in to the departmentÕs student database. The college database will be updated in the near future so the department is reluctant to move to a technology-based data analysis system until the department is convinced that the two data systems are compatible. Once the new college system is in place, the hope is that the process of data collection will become more fluid, more accessible and more efficient.
As sources of data that lead to program improvement, the unit uses alumni surveys, employer surveys, exit interview surveys, and feedback from the advisory board. Information gathered from these sources has continuously been used to improve the unitÕs program.
In summary, sources of assessment of Unit quality include:
The assessment committee has determined that a cooperating teacher survey related to how prepared student teachers are during student teaching could be a good addition to this assessment list. This would be a survey that would be developed in the future.
Unit changes since the previous NCATE review.
Graduate and program completers have been surveyed yearly since 2000 related to program satisfaction following their first year of teaching. These surveys are reviewed annually by the curriculum committee and recommendations are forwarded to the faculty of the Education Department for approval. Recommended program changes are then implemented.
In 2000, the admissions committee established a procedure for students who did not pass the Praxis I test. Students who do not pass the Praxis I test are directed to the Tutor Center to create a skill development plan designed to remediate deficiencies in reading, writing, and/or math. Department advisors may ask students for their plans and monitor progress.
The admissions committee goal for this year, 2003-2004, is to look for lists of resources to support passage of the PPST. The committee will create a document that lists these resources. These documents could then be available to faculty to use when advising students.
The initial licensure at the graduate level was started in Fall, 2002. Admission procedures were put in place for the graduate program and other policies developed.
Candidate application for student teaching was revised to occur the semester preceding student teaching. There was a one-year pilot procedure to have the applications completed two terms prior to student teaching. This procedure created additional work for faculty and the student teaching director as well as confusion for students. Because of this, the student teaching committee reverted back to having applications due one semester prior to student teaching.
During the 2002-2003 school year, faculty initiated an examination of the conceptual framework and characteristics of the program. From this list of characteristics, a disposition survey was developed over the summer. That survey has been piloted with Orientation to Education students as well as School and Society students. The strategy is to introduce new students to professional dispositions in the field of teaching and the expectations we have for their field experiences. The second candidate survey will be conducted in the final course prior to student teaching. The purpose for this is to indicate candidate knowledge of dispositions expected of teachers and prepare candidates for the professional expectations we have for them in the field. As we examine our results, this survey and the process of implementation will be reexamined to determine its effectiveness.
In Fall, 2003, an alumni/employer survey was initiated. Alumni from 2001, 2000, 1999, and 1998 were included in this survey. The survey asked for permission to contact employers of alumni for input on teacher competencies. As the final results are obtained, data analysis will follow and interpretation of that data will be forwarded to education faculty on the various committees to act on as needed.
One change has already been initiated from the results of the alumni/employer survey. A number of alumni reported that there should be an additional course on classroom management. A proposal has been developed for an elective course to be offered in a summer school format. The first offering will occur in Summer, 2004.
A new faculty member was hired starting in Fall, 2003 to help with the field experience portion of our program. It was determined that more focus needed to be placed on partner school development and service learning experience placements. As a result of the additional help, we expect that there will be better consistency in field experience expectations. As another result of this, the field experience evaluation form is in the process of being redesigned. This field experience evaluation form will reflect teacher dispositions as well as expectations in the classroom and will be piloted in Spring, 2004.
Changes in the Education Program include the dropping of EDC 315 Critical Issues Seminar. This seminar course was designed to monitor field experience hours as well as the student program portfolio. The seminar structure was judged to be ineffective and work-intensive so the course was dropped. This also reduced the licensure program by a .5 course. The field experience hours and portfolio assessment were attached to courses. Students now are expected to complete a minimum of 100 hours of field experience during their program. Field experiences start early and occur frequently throughout the program. The portfolio is examined within EDC 480 School and Society and portions are reexamined at the completion of student teaching. This procedure continues to be developed as we consider more effective ways of evaluating candidate performance.
Adjustments have been made to the number of courses taken by Elementary and Secondary Education students and the length of required student teaching. These adjustments coincide with state Board of Teaching requirements and changes in our general education requirements. All education students are required to take Minnesota American Indian Studies. A full course previously met general education requirements. With our new general education, adopted in Spring, 2003, this course does not meet general education requirements. To lessen course load for students, this course was scaled back to a half course. This course is now taken in conjunction with EDC 210, Diversity in the Schools, to meet Minnesota standards requirements.
As a department, we have continued to assess our grading policies. These discussions help faculty to become more uniform in grade administration. These conversations will continue as the unit discusses the criteria for each grade level (4.0, 3.5, 3.0, 2.5, 2.0, etc.).
Adjustments have been made in the student teaching experience. Student teaching placements were reduced to a single placement of twelve weeks. The remaining two weeks of the semester are to be used to finalize the program portfolio. Because of the reduction in the weeks needed for student teaching, student teaching has a minimum requirement of two courses rather than three courses. The purpose of this change was to reduce the size of the licensure program while still maintaining adequate time in the field.
In Fall, 2003, the Education Department proposed a degree change for Elementary Education candidates. Augsburg College adopted a new General Education structure and under those new requirements, education students would take additional courses, increasing the program in order to meet general education requirements. The Education Department proposed to move to a Bachelor of Science Degree rather than a Bachelor of Arts Degree because of the state requirements of a higher concentration in math and science.
The assessment system will be continually reviewed and revised due to Augsburg College requirements and the units desire to insure that we provide a quality teacher education licensure program. This continuous review process is evident in the committee minutes for the curriculum committee, the admissions committee, and the student teaching committee housed within the Education Department. As data is collected and analyzed, assessment tools may be revised and new ones added in order to provide maximum information for the unit and the decision-making process. The CollegeÕs assessment committee provides feedback and recommendations to improve program evaluation procedures. Through this process the unit will continue to make informed decisions on program change and improvement.
Links:
see student teacher self evaluation form- stTchrSelfSurvey.doc (Word) (HTML)
see Curriculum committee minutes- Ed_Dept_Curr.doc (Word) (HTML)
see student teaching committee minutes- St_Tchng_CommReport.doc (Word) (HTML)
see advisory board minutes- advisory_Board_Dinner.doc (Word) (HTML)
see student teacher exit survey- Exit_Interview.doc (Word) (HTML)
see Alumni Survey Results Š see hard copy in exhibit room
see Graduate Program Handbook-see hard copy in exhibit room
see Disposition Survey- Dispositions_Survey.doc (Word) (HTML)
see Field Experience form- Field_Evaluation.doc (Word) (HTML)
see Department meeting minutes Š see hard copy in exhibit room