Program: Secondary Education (BEd)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Wed Oct 07, 2015 - 10:39:22 am
1) Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs) and Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)
1. Knowledgeable: Professional, Legal and Ethical Responsibilities - The teacher candidate demonstrates an understanding of and ability to apply and model ethical and legal responsibilities expected of professional educators. The teacher candidate is reflective, assesses the effectiveness of choices and actions on others, and actively seeks professional growth.
(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth)
2. Knowledgeable: Foundations of Secondary Education - The teacher candidate can articulate the history and role of public education and contemporary school issues in Hawai‘i and the nation.
(1b. Specialized study in an academic field)
3. Knowledgeable: Philosophical Theories of Education - The teacher candidate understands the ideas and beliefs that have influenced the purpose of education and have shaped contemporary teaching and learning.
(1b. Specialized study in an academic field)
4. Knowledgeable: Psychology of Learning - The teacher candidate demonstrates an understanding of current theories of human learning and development and research in those areas. The candidate demonstrates an understanding of how to apply theoretical concepts in these areas to education.
(1b. Specialized study in an academic field)
5. Caring: Adolescent Development - The teacher candidate understands adolescent culture and how they learn and develop in order to actively engage students in learning opportunities that support the intellectual, social, and personal development.
(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture)
6. Caring: Inclusion, Equity and Democracy -The teacher candidate acknowledges the diversity of students and schools (e.g., ethnic, cultural, language, religion, disabilities) and uses this understanding to create equitable learning opportunities that facilitate social justice.
(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture)
7. Effective: Content of the Secondary Curriculum - The teacher candidate understands the purpose, structure, and organization of the high school and middle school curriculum, and the major concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the content/subject areas to create meaningful learning experiences for all students.
(1b. Specialized study in an academic field)
8. Effective: Planning and Instructional Strategies - The teacher candidate uses long and short-term curriculum planning to create a variety of instructional strategies and resources that support the intellectual, social, and personal development of diverse learners.
(1b. Specialized study in an academic field)
9. Effective: Assessment and Accountability - The teacher candidate understands and uses developmentally appropriate formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate and ensure continuous intellectual and social development of the learner.
(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively)
10. Effective: Educational Technology - The teacher candidate uses technology effectively to enhance their productivity and professional practice and implements curriculum plans that include methods and strategies for applying technology to maximize student learning.
(1b. Specialized study in an academic field)
11. Effective: Communication and Relationships - The teacher candidate models effective speaking, writing and listening skills that enable communication and fosters relationships with multiple and diverse audiences.
(1a. General education, 2c. Communicate and report)
12. Effective: Classroom Learning Environment - The teacher candidate uses an understanding of individual and group motivation and behavior. The candidate creates a safe, healthy learning environment and develops a learning community.
(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture)
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Department Website URL: https://coe.hawaii.edu/sites/default/files/intranet/documents/Secondary%20Handbook%20083012.pdf Student Handbook. URL, if available online: https://coe.hawaii.edu/content/secondary-teacher-education-program-handbook
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: UHM Catalog. Page Number: Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: Other: Other: 3) Please review, add, replace, or delete the existing curriculum map.
- File (03/16/2020)
4) For your program, the percentage of courses that have course SLOs explicitly stated on the syllabus, a website, or other publicly available document is as follows. Please update as needed.
0% 1-50% 51-80% 81-99%
100%5) Did your program engage in any program learning assessment activities between June 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015?
Yes No (skip to question 16)6) What best describes the program-level learning assessment activities that took place for the period June 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015? (Check all that apply.)
Create/modify/discuss program learning assessment procedures (e.g., SLOs, curriculum map, mechanism to collect student work, rubric, survey) Collect/evaluate student work/performance to determine SLO achievement Collect/analyze student self-reports of SLO achievement via surveys, interviews, or focus groups Use assessment results to make programmatic decisions (e.g., change course content or pedagogy, design new course, hiring) Investigate curriculum coherence. This includes investigating how well courses address the SLOs, course sequencing and adequacy, the effect of pre-requisites on learning achievement. Investigate other pressing issue related to student learning achievement for the program (explain in question 7) Other: 7) Briefly explain the assessment activities that took place in the last 18 months.
The assessment activities for this reporting period are based on student teaching assessment consisting of a student teaching evaluation and profession disposition evaluation. The BEd Secondary teacher candidates completed student teaching in Spring 2015 semester. (Nearly all BEd Secondary teacher candidates complete student teaching during spring semesters.) ITE Secondary Program standards 5-10 and 12 and all of the InTASC standards (1-10) are evaluated on the student teaching assessment.
1. Student Teaching Evaluation: Candidates demonstrate proficiency in their field experience including classroom management, instruction, assessment, communication, professionalism, and collaboration. Data is reported for AY 2014-15. (See Secondary Data 2014-2015 Assessment Chart below) The secondary student teaching evaluation address ITE Program Standards 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12. These program standards are crosswalked with InTASC Standards 1-8.
2. Professional Dispositions: Candidates must demonstrate professional dispositions, including professionalism, diversity, communication, collaboration, and reflection. Data is reported for AY 2014-15. (See Secondary Data 2014-2015 Assessment Chart below) The secondary professional dispositions evaluation address InTASC standards 9-10.
| Secondary Data 2014-15 Assessment Chart | ||||||
| Program | Assessment | Criterion | Target | Acceptable | Unacceptable | Total N |
| EDSE-BED | SECONDARY ALL CANDIDATES - Student Teaching Evaluation Form |
Sec. St. #05 (InTASC 1) |
17 | 7 | 0 | 24 |
|
Sec. St. #06 (InTASC 2) |
15 | 9 | 0 | 24 | ||
|
Sec. St. #07 (InTASC 4, 5) |
17 | 7 | 0 | 24 | ||
|
Sec. St. #08 (InTASC 7, 8) |
15 | 9 | 0 | 24 | ||
|
Sec. St. #09 (InTASC 6) |
15 | 9 | 0 | 24 | ||
| Sec. St. #10 | 18 | 6 | 0 | 24 | ||
|
Sec. St. #12 (InTASC 3) |
14 | 10 | 0 | 24 | ||
| SECONDARY ALL CANDIDATES - Student Teaching Evaluation Form Total | Averages | 66% | 34% | 0% | ||
| SECONDARY ALL CANDIDATES Professional Dispositions in Student Teaching |
Disp 1 (InTASC 9) |
18 | 4 | 0 | 22 | |
|
Disp 2 (InTASC 10) |
16 | 6 | 0 | 22 | ||
|
Disp 3 (InTASC 2) |
14 | 8 | 0 | 22 | ||
| Disp 4 | 16 | 6 | 0 | 22 | ||
| Disp 5 | 16 | 5 | 1 | 22 | ||
| SECONDARY ALL CANDIDATES Professional Dispositions in Student Teaching Total | Averages | 73% | 26% | 1% | ||
8) What types of evidence did the program use as part of the assessment activities checked in question 6? (Check all that apply.)
Direct evidence of student learning (student work products)
Artistic exhibition/performance Assignment/exam/paper completed as part of regular coursework and used for program-level assessment Capstone work product (e.g., written project or non-thesis paper) Exam created by an external organization (e.g., professional association for licensure) Exit exam created by the program IRB approval of research Oral performance (oral defense, oral presentation, conference presentation) Portfolio of student work Publication or grant proposal Qualifying exam or comprehensive exam for program-level assessment in addition to individual student evaluation (graduate level only) Supervisor or employer evaluation of student performance outside the classroom (internship, clinical, practicum) Thesis or dissertation used for program-level assessment in addition to individual student evaluation Other 1: Other 2: Indirect evidence of student learning
Alumni survey that contains self-reports of SLO achievement Employer meetings/discussions/survey/interview of student SLO achievement Interviews or focus groups that contain self-reports of SLO achievement Student reflective writing assignment (essay, journal entry, self-assessment) on their SLO achievement. Student surveys that contain self-reports of SLO achievement Other 1: Other 2: Program evidence related to learning and assessment
(more applicable when the program focused on the use of results or assessment procedure/tools in this reporting period instead of data collection)
Assessment-related such as assessment plan, SLOs, curriculum map, etc. Program or course materials (syllabi, assignments, requirements, etc.) Other 1: Other 2: 9) State the number of students (or persons) who submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
Twenty four ITE Secondary BEd teacher candidates were evaluated with the Student teaching Evaluation in Spring 2015. Of this number, scores are avaliable 22 for the professional dispositions evaluation. All BEd candidates were evaluated with the student teaching assessment; however, scores for 2 of the BEd candidates were note uploaded into the COE Student Information System database.
The student teaching evaluation and and the professional dispositions evaluation are completed by the ITE Secondary field supervisor and/or the secondary mentor teacher at the field site where the candidate completed student teaching.
10) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)
Course instructor(s) Faculty committee Ad hoc faculty group Department chairperson Persons or organization outside the university Faculty advisor Advisors (in student support services) Students (graduate or undergraduate) Dean/Director Other: COE Director of Assessment (compiled survey results)11) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)
Used a rubric or scoring guide Scored exams/tests/quizzes Used professional judgment (no rubric or scoring guide used) Compiled survey results Used qualitative methods on interview, focus group, open-ended response data External organization/person analyzed data (e.g., external organization administered and scored the nursing licensing exam) Other: 12) Summarize the results of the assessment activities checked in question 6. For example, report the percent of students who achieved each SLO.
All of the BEd candidates met the ITE Secondary Education Program standards 5-10 and 12. Each of the program standards were evaluated with a checklist of performance indicators. Each performance category were scored on a three point scale of either Unacceptable, Acceptable, or Target. Specific levels of peformance for a given descriptor are not provided on the evaluation instrument. Collectively, two thirds of the BEd Secondary candidates obtained target scores outcomes on the student teaching evaluation. The remaining outcomes were scored accceptable. Collectively, nearly three quarters of the BEd candidates obtained target scores on the professional dispositions evaluation. (Note data wer not available for two of the 24 BEd candiates for professional dispositions.)
The lowest performing item on the student teaching evaluation was ITE Program Standard #12: Classroom Learning Environment. (This ITE Standard is crosswalked with InTASC Standard 3 Learning Environment.) For this standard 71% of the BEd candidates scored target while 19% scored acceptable. The lowest performing item on the professional dispositions evaluations was Individual & Cultural Sensitivity with scores of 64% target and 36% acceptable. This item addressed ITE Secondary Program Standard #6 Inclusion, Equity, and Democracy and InTASC Standard 2 Learning Differences.
13) What best describes how the program used the results? (Check all that apply.)
Assessment procedure changes (SLOs, curriculum map, rubrics, evidence collected, sampling, communications with faculty, etc.) Course changes (course content, pedagogy, courses offered, new course, pre-requisites, requirements) Personnel or resource allocation changes Program policy changes (e.g., admissions requirements, student probation policies, common course evaluation form) Students' out-of-course experience changes (advising, co-curricular experiences, program website, program handbook, brown-bag lunches, workshops) Celebration of student success! Results indicated no action needed because students met expectations Use is pending (typical reasons: insufficient number of students in population, evidence not evaluated or interpreted yet, faculty discussions continue) Other: 14) Please briefly describe how the program used the results.
Since all of the ITE Secondary Program BEd candidates achieved target or acceptable scores on all criteria for the student teaching assessment, it was decided that curriculum and instruction modifications were not necessary at this time. This affirmed the curriculum map and sequence as well as the instruction and assessments utilized in the ITE Secondary Program.
15) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries? This can include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, and great achievements regarding program assessment in this reporting period.
Based on the missing data for two of the 24 candiates on the ITE Secondary Professional Dispositions evaluation, it was determined that a more rigorous method of communicating assessment procedures was needed for the faculty involved in administering and reporting data outcomes for the student teaching assessment. Another area for improvement involves examining the feasibility of creating descriptors to distinguish levels of performance on the student teaching evaluation. Due to the rather large number of items (8-16) for each of the 7 standards, creating individual discriptors might make the instrument difficult to administer in the grade 6-12 classroom setting. Thus, it might be best to trim down the number of items for any given standard.
Other areas of general interest address how the candidates are building a positive and productive classroom learning environment environment as well as having candidates address individual and cultural sensitivity since these items were the lowest performing criteria on the student teaching assessment. One area of concern when addressing these areas pertains to the context in which the BEd candiates complete their student teaching since learning environment and diversity issues pertain to the general and specific expectations of individuals (gr. 6-12 students, mentor teachers, administrators, others) are unique to the context in which the classroom is located.
16) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please explain.
na