Unit: Institute for Teacher Education
Program: Elementary Education (BEd)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Fri Oct 12, 2012 - 8:05:19 am

1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.

Our goal as a college is to employ and prepare educators who are knowledgeable, effective, and caring professionals who contribute to a just, diverse, and democratic society. Specifically, the EECE program learning outcomes are aligned with the standards of the Association of Childhood Education International (ACEI),upon which our accreditation with the National Council of Teacher Accreditation is based. We received national recognition as an accredited program in 2007, continuing through 2012. The alignment of the ACEI Standards with the Hawaii Teacher Standards follows. In addition, the specific learning outcomes of each content area course is based on the National/International standards for that area.

ACEI Standard: I. Development, Learning, and Motivation:  Candidates know and understand, and use the major concepts, principles, theories, and research related to development of children and youth to construct learning opportunities that support individual students’ development, acquisition of knowledge, and motivation.

Hawai‘i Teacher Standards (HTS)

1. Focuses on the Learner
2. Creates and Maintains a Safe and Positive Learning Environment
4. Fosters Effective Communication in the Learning Environment

ACEI Standard: II. Curriculum: Candidates demonstrate a high level of competence in their knowledge and application of the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of content for students across the K-6 grades in the areas of English language arts, science, mathematics, social studies, the arts, health education, and physical education.

 Hawai‘i Teacher Standards (HTS)

5. Demonstrates Knowledge of Content

ACEI Standard: III. applying knowledge for instruction—Candidates plan and implement instruction based on knowledge of students, learning theory, subject matter, curricular goals, and community.

Hawai‘i Teacher Standards (HTS)

3. Adapts to the Learner
6. Designs and Provides Meaningful Learning Experiences
7. Uses Active Student Learning Strategies

ACEI Standard: IV. Assessment: Candidates know, understand, and use formal and informal assessment strategies to plan, evaluate and strengthen instruction that will promote continuous intellectual, social, emotional, and physical development of each elementary student.

Hawai‘i Teacher Standards (HTS)

8. Uses Assessment Strategies

ACEI Standard: V. Professionalism: Candidates understand and apply practices and behaviors that are characteristic of developing career teachers.

Hawai‘i Teacher Standards (HTS)

9. Demonstrates Professionalism
10. Fosters Parent and School Community Relationships

2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.

Department Website URL: http://students.coe.hawaii.edu/Departments/Elementary_Education
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: http://students.coe.hawaii.edu/Departments/Elementary_Education
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: http://eecehandbook.weebly.com/
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: Each course has specific learning outcomes based on the national standards fro that content area, and are included in each course syllabi.
Other:
Other:

3) Select one option:

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2012:

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 assessment activities between June 1, 2011 and September 30, 2012? (e.g., establishing/revising outcomes, aligning the curriculum to outcomes, collecting evidence, interpreting evidence, using results, revising the assessment plan, creating surveys or tests, etc.)

Yes
No (skip to question 14)

6) For the period June 1, 2011 to September 30, 2012: State the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goals. Include the SLOs that were targeted, if applicable.

ASSESSMENT 3: Candidates Ability to Plan Instruction

Third Semester Integrated Unit Plan

1. To what degree are our signature assessments aligned with our SPA standards?

2. How well did our Teacher Candidates perform on our signature assessments?

3. What were their strengths and areas in need of improvement?

4. What  programatic changes can our EECE Department implement to enhance the Teacher Candidates' strengths and remediate their areas for continued improvement?

5. Are there specific program structure concerns that seem to be correlated with Teacher Candidates' inability to meet identified SPA standards and what can we do about them?

7) State the type(s) of evidence gathered to answer the assessment question and/or meet the assessment goals that were given in Question #6.

ASSESSMENT 3: Candidates Ability to Plan Instruction

Third Semester Integrated Unit Plan

1. To what degree are our signature assessments aligned with our SPA standards: Content Analysis Table produced which shows the alignment between the SPA elements and the Teacher Candidates' evidence (i.e., through the Integrated Unit Plan).

2. How well did our Teacher Candidates perform on our signature assessments: Tables with descriptive data were generated for each SPA element and specific standard and were disaggregated by program (i.e., campus-based Oahu cohorts or Statewide distance learning cohorts).

3. What were their strengths and areas in need of improvement: Tables with descriptive data were generated for each SPA element and specific standard and were disaggregated by Oahu and Statewide cohorts. Percentages, ranges, and changes over time were tracked by program cohort.

4. What  programmatic changes can our EECE Department implement to enhance the Teacher Candidates' strengths and remediate their areas for continued improvement: In progress--Current discussions facilitated during monthly department faculty meetings.

5. Are there specific program structure concerns that seem to be correlated with Teacher Candidates' inability to meet identified SPA standards and what can we do about them: In progress--Current discussions facilitated during monthly department faculty meetings.

8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.

No sampling; all faculty teaching Social Studies methods courses or Cohort Coordinators overseeing the Teacher Candidates' completion of the Assessment 3 exercise assessed the products.

For the period between June 1, 2011 and September 30, 2012, approximately 200 persons submitted evidence that were evaluated.

9) 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:

10) 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:

11) For the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goal(s) stated in Question #6:
Summarize the actual results.

ASSESSMENT 3: Candidates Ability to Plan Instruction

Third Semester Integrated Unit Plan

1. To what degree are our signature assessments aligned with our SPA standards: Content Analysis Table produced which shows the alignment between the SPA elements and the Teacher Candidates' evidence (i.e., through the Integrated Unit Plan).

Standards Alignment Chart:

ACEI Standard

How Assessment Aligns

1.0 Development, Learning, and Motivation

Candidates reference and demonstrate the ability to apply relevant concepts, principles, theories and/or research related to the development of the children and youth.

2.1 Reading, Writing, Oral Language

Candidates demonstrate knowledge, understanding and use of K-6 English language arts concepts, learning theory, and processes to design instruction.

2.2 Science

Candidates demonstrate knowledge, understanding and use of K-6 science concepts, learning theory, and processes to design instruction.

2.3 Mathematics

Candidates demonstrate knowledge, understanding and use K-6 mathematics concepts, learning theory, and processes to design instruction.

2.4 Social Studies

Candidates demonstrate knowledge, understanding and use of K-6 social studies concepts, learning theory, and processes to design instruction.

3.1 Integrating and applying knowledge for instruction

Candidates design learning activities that use a variety of instructional strategies, integrate knowledge of students, subject matter and curricular goals, make connections across the curriculum, incorporate a variety of resources, and use technology where possible.

3.2 Adaptation to diverse students

a. Candidates research and describe the following: community characteristics, school factors, classroom factors, and student characteristics.

b. Candidates design student-centered instructional tasks and incorporate varied strategies, including differentiation, to enable all students to achieve unit learning goals

3.3 Development of critical thinking and problem solving

Candidates reference and demonstrate the ability to apply relevant concepts, principles, theories and/or research related to cognitive processes associated with various kinds of learning.

3.4 Active engagement in learning

  1. Candidates demonstrate knowledge of individual and group motivation, and plan instruction that uses a variety of effective classroom management strategies, helps students to assume responsibility for themselves and others, and fosters positive relationships and social interaction.

  2. Candidates plan instruction that fosters student motivation, decision-making, active engagement in learning, and collaboration.

3.5 Communication to foster collaboration

Candidates plan instruction that uses oral and written discourse between themselves and students to foster active inquiry and supportive interaction in the classroom, and develop student use of effective communication strategies

4.0 Assessment for instruction

Candidates plan appropriate pre-, post-, formative and summative assessments to guide, assess, and strengthen student learning, including scoring criteria.

2. How well did our Teacher Candidates perform on our signature assessments (i.e., their ability to plan instruction through an integrated unit plan): Tables with descriptive data were generated for each SPA element and specific standard and were disaggregated by program (i.e., campus-based Oahu cohorts or Statewide distance learning cohorts).

Standards 1.0, 3.1-3.5, 4.0

The overwhelming majority of candidates demonstrated successfully meeting the standards for the Assessment # 3: Unit Plan assignment by achieving scores of Target or Acceptable on each of the seven standards (1.0, 3.1-3.5, 4.0). The majority of scores for the Oahu group were at the Target level for the first cycle, and fairly evenly split between Target and Acceptable in the second cycle. In contrast, the majority of the scores for the statewide group fell in the Acceptable category in the 2010-11 cycle, while in the 2011-12 cycle, the majority of the scores were Target.

Over the two cycles, a small number of candidates in both programs received scores of Unacceptable on one or more of the seven standards. For the Oahu program, there were 9 scores at the Unacceptable level in cycle one and 18 in cycle two. For the statewide program, there were 20 scores of Unacceptable in the first cycle and 3 in the second. The highest number of Unacceptable scores for both programs was for standard 3.2: Adaptation to Diverse Students, along with standard 4.0: Assessment for the Oahu group and 3.3: Development of critical thinking and problem solving for the statewide program.

Standards 2.1-2.4 (Language arts, Science, Mathematics, and Social Studies)

Again, the majority of candidates achieved passing scores on standards 2.1-2.4, with scores of Target or Acceptable for each standard. Most of the Oahu candidates’ scores were fairly evenly split between Target and Acceptable over the two cycles, with slightly more scores falling in the Acceptable category for each standard (56%-59%) in cycle one. For the statewide candidates, the clear majority of scores for the 2010-11 cycle fell in the Acceptable category. This pattern reversed itself in the 2011-12 cycle with slightly more scores at the Target level. No candidates in either program were scored at the Unacceptable level in the 2010-11 cycle, however a small number of candidates in the Oahu group did receive a score of Unacceptable on one or more of the four standards in the 2011-12 cycle. The standards receiving the most Unacceptable scores were 2.2: Science followed by 2.3 Mathematics.

The analysis of the two cycles of data for this assessment is presented in terms of (i) the range of Target scores for the Oahu campus-based and statewide distance learning programs over the two cycles, (ii) candidate strengths, (iii) areas of demonstrated improvement, and (iv) areas for continued improvement.

Range of Target scores

Standards 1.0, 3.1-3.5, 4.0

For the Oahu candidates, there was a fairly narrow range of Target scores in the 2010-11cycle (53%-63%). The range widened in 2011-12 cycle (28%-65%). For the statewide group, the range of Target scores rose considerably in the cycle 2, from 4%-20% in 2010-11 to 40%-92% in 2011-12.

Standards 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4

In the Oahu program, the range of Target scores for standards 2.1-2.4 remained fairly stable over the two cycles of data (cycle 1: 41%-44%; cycle 2: 40%-55%). For the statewide group, the range of Target scores again increased noticeably from 18% for all four standards in 2010-11 to 52% for each in 2011-12.

3. What were their strengths and areas in need of improvement: Tables with descriptive data were generated for each SPA element and specific standard and were disaggregated by Oahu and Statewide cohorts. Percentages, ranges, and changes over time were tracked by program cohort.

Strengths

Standards 1.0, 3.1-3.5, 4.0

The data for the two cycles highlights three standards as areas of strength for candidates in both the Oahu campus-based and the statewide distance learning programs. These standards are 3.1: Integrate/Apply knowledge for instruction, 3.4: Active engagement in learning, and 3.5: Communication for Collaboration. For the Oahu program, these three standards received the highest number of Target scores for both cycles of data (along with 4.0: Assessment for cycle 1). Although standard 3.3: Develop critical thinking/problem solving received the highest number of Target scores for the statewide program in cycle one, the top three standards in cycle two were the same as for the Oahu program– 3.1, 3.4, and 3.5.

Standards 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4:

In cycle one (2010-11) there was little to no variation in the percentage of Target scores across standards 2.1-2.4 (language arts, science, mathematics, and social studies) for both groups (Oahu = 41%-44%; statewide = 18% for all). In 2011-12 the spread of Target scores widened for the Oahu group (40%-55%), with higher percentages for standards 2.4: Social studies (55%) and 2.1: Reading, writing, and oral language (54%). The percentage of Target scores increased for all four standards in the statewide program (52% for each standard).

Demonstrated Improvements:

Standards 1.0, 3.1-3.5, 4.0

Although the statewide distance learning candidates had a lower range of Target scores in the first cycle (4%-20%), the range increased considerably in 2011-12 (40%-92%). In this cycle, the number of Target scores for these candidates exceeded 50% for six of seven standards, with only 3.2 Adapt to diverse students falling slightly under at 40%.

Standards 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4

In cycle 2, the percentage of Target scores for the Oahu candidates rose for two of the four standards - 2.4: Social studies (from 41% to 55%), and 2.1: Reading, writing, and oral language (from 42% to 54%). For the statewide program the percentages rose noticeably for all four standards (from 18% to 52%).

Areas for continued improvement:

Standards 1.0, 3.1-3.5, 4.0

In 2010-2011, the number of Target scores for the Oahu candidates exceeded 50% for each of the seven standards (53%-63%), but dropped to three of the seven standards in 2011-12. The standards with the lowest number of Target scores and the largest decline from cycle 1 were 1.0: Development, learning, motivation (from 54% to 28%) and 3.3: Develop critical thinking/problem solving (from 53% to 30%).

Standards 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4:

The lowest percentages of Target scores in the Oahu program were for standards 2.2: Science (45%) and 2.3: Mathematics (40%). However, these percentages were both within one percentage point of the percentages of Target scores in the first cycle (2010-11). They simply did not increase as the percentages did for standards 2.1 and 2.4.

The above findings indicate that overall, candidates are successfully meeting the standards for Assessment # 3, with the majority of scores falling in the Target or Acceptable categories. There is, however, a need for faculty to continue to work on improving candidate proficiencies and ratings for standards1.0: Development, learning, motivation and 3.3: Develop critical thinking/problem solving, for which the percentage of Target scores dropped considerably in the Oahu program in 2011-12. In addition Oahu faculty need to consider the fact that Target scores increased in 2011-12 for standards 2.4: Social studies and 2.1: Reading, writing, and oral language, yet remained about the same for standards 2.2: Science and 2.3: Mathematics. A further consideration for the statewide faculty is that the percentages of Target scores varied considerably from the first cycle, when they were quite low, to the second cycle when they were much higher. This difference may be explained by changes in faculty teaching the courses from one cycle to the next, and, thus having differing expectations for students and varying interpretations of the rubrics for course assignments. It will be important to improve consistency in scoring both across and within programs.

12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.

Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance

  1. Content Knowledge

Principal Findings and Interpretation

Data indicate that teacher candidates perform at the acceptable and target levels across independent and internal measures of content knowledge, understanding, and application. Faculty members attribute this performance to our improved candidate selection process and cohorted program of study. Candidates complete the major portion of their study in cohort groups of about 22 students. The faculty cohort coordinator and instructors who teach and supervise each group meet periodically to assess candidate progress and the well being of each learning community. The cohorted aspect of the program is an important factor in ensuring that candidates receive timely support. All of the major areas in the elementary curriculum, including fine arts and health, receive emphasis in our program. Faculty members engage in ongoing efforts to strengthen candidates’ level of content knowledge through reassessing the university core requirements, improving the design of the cohort program, and providing individual assistance (e.g., referral to the Manoa Writing Program).

Improving Candidate Performance

An important improvement we initiated to strengthen candidate performance is the formal Plan of Assistance for Improvement. Candidates who encounter difficulties confer with their cohort coordinator, instructors, and mentor teachers to develop a written plan that identifies areas for improvement, expectations for candidates, program support, target dates, and next steps. This tool has been invaluable in providing early and targeted support to candidates who need to build their content knowledge.

Our mathematics education faculty and our Teacher Education Committee on Elementary Education collaborated with the UHM Mathematics Department to redesign and reinstate MATH 111 and MATH 112 as required courses for elementary majors. These courses are designed to develop deeper knowledge of the mathematics content of the K-6 curriculum. These courses support candidates in completing the two mathematics education courses (ITE 324 and ITE 325) in the cohort program.

Through collaboration with the General Education Program on the UHM campus, we have received approval to designate five of the courses in the EECE program (ITE 312, 313, 314, 322, and 391) as Writing Intensive courses. This designation, which must be approved at the university level, indicates that candidates will participate in a concerted effort to improve their writing skills in our program.

Improving the EECE Program

The EECE program improved its candidate selection process through initiation of a new small group interview with representative program faculty in spring 2006. In addition, we stopped the process of conditional admissions. Prospective candidates must meet all GPA and Praxis I requirements to be admitted to the program.

EECE faculty members recently undertook an important discussion with regard to redistributing our methods courses in the program. Currently, candidates take three methods courses (linked to field experience) per semester prior to student teaching. Our focus is on repackaging all methods courses into modules so that candidates engage with all subject areas each semester. We believe this restructuring also will support our candidates’ ability to integrate subject matter across the K-6 curriculum.

II. Pedagogical and Professional Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions

Principal Findings and Interpretation

Results related to pedagogical and professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions were positive overall. However, faculty members have identified a number of areas for discussion and program planning. Data indicate that candidates perform strongly in terms of planning and instruction but tend to perform less well in terms of alignment of assessment with instruction and deeper reflection. We find that these areas are unfamiliar to our candidates when they enter the program and take time to build through experience and feedback. Similarly, student teaching data indicate that assessment is the one area in which more candidates perform at the acceptable rather than target level at the end of the program. We also find that candidates need more experience in building parent and school community relationships during our program. We are pleased with our students’ performance on professional dispositions, particularly in terms of collaboration. We believe our cohort program provides important experiences in working as real team members and quality contributors.

Improving Candidate Performance

To help our candidates “think like assessors,” the EECE faculty agreed to adopt Tomlinson and McTighe’s text, Integrating Differentiated Instruction + Understanding By Design (ASCD, 2006), throughout the program and across departments (e.g., Special Education, Educational Technology) this year. We often heard candidates say in the past “every instructor has a different lesson format.” While there is value in becoming familiar with various approaches to planning, this decision to use “backward design” as the basis for lessons and units has brought important continuity to candidates’ work. The backward design focus also helps candidates incorporate assessment as a central part of lesson and unit planning.

Each semester, mentor teacher and field supervisor evaluations are used to make recommendations for individual teacher candidates. These recommendations apply equally to candidates’ strengths and areas for improvement and ensure that candidates continue to progress across the four semesters of the program.

The written Plan of Assistance for Improvement has been an important factor in helping candidates who experience difficulty in pedagogical and professional areas. The POAI assures candidates that faculty members are there to support them. However, candidates realize that they carry a concomitant responsibility to solve problems and improve their own practice and approach to teaching. We involve mentor teachers in the process of developing and carrying out the plans, and in providing feedback on candidates’ progress.

Improving the EECE Program

Continuing improvement based on data collection and analysis requires a systematic process. TK20 is a new system for us that we used successfully for Assessment 3 in Spring 2006. Our goal is to upload data for five of our other assessments this year, rather than keeping track of paper documents. We will be able to examine reports in a more timely fashion and in new ways. For example, we can compare and contrast candidates’ work depending on their semester in the program.

EECE faculty members want to give more attention to improving inter-rater reliability and reducing subjectivity in assessment. This change will involve refining our assessments to make them as clear as possible for instructors, mentors, and candidates while also providing anchor papers and exemplars to illustrate candidate performance.

III. Effects on Student Learning and on Creating Environments that Support Learning

Principal Findings and Interpretation

Results from assessments related to effects on student learning were the biggest eye-opener for program faculty in this report. We learned that our candidates were stronger in planning and implementing lessons than in aligning and using the results of assessment to improve K-6 student learning. Our candidates performed at acceptable and target levels, but we see tremendous need for program growth and candidate development in these areas. As we have reviewed our data, faculty members have commented that we must help candidates understand and apply different kinds of assessment. Candidates are able to focus on what they did and how they could have implemented their lessons better. They are less able to reflect on the quality of work that children did and what that implies about students and, thus, their instruction. As one faculty member said, we need to help our candidates come full circle—from learning where children are before beginning lessons to understanding where both they and the children have come in the process. We want our candidates to focus on multiple indicators of student learning, including affective responses to implemented lessons.

Improving Candidate Performance

Candidates need earlier and more frequent opportunities in semesters 2 and 3 to engage in designing assessments matched with content and learning goals, analyzing student work, and, in particular, making instructional plans for individuals and the class as a whole based on their analysis. We need to provide more guidance and practice in the varied uses of assessment and reflection related to children’s learning and, in turn, to candidates’ growth.

Faculty members need to provide candidates with anchor papers and exemplars of quality candidate work to assist them in preparing their own work for our assessment system. Our faculty members need to plan the best ways of doing this so that we provide thoughtful guidance rather than a directive, cookie-cutter approach to planning and assessment.

Improving the EECE Program

The EECE faculty members are in discussion about further improving the preparation of our general elementary education candidates in working with children and families with special needs. We partner closely with the Department of Special Education in our college to offer an additional emphasis in Dual Preparation (preparation for a dual teaching license in Elementary Education and Special Education) for candidates who select this option. However, we believe that all candidates would benefit from additional preparation. The courses we are considering for all candidates include SPED 425 Partnerships with Families and Professionals and SPED 461 Assessment, Planning, and Instruction for Students with Mild/Moderate Disabilities.

The EECE faculty members also need to refine the performance indicators that form the rubrics for our assessment system. The past year was a time of bringing our assessment system to life after several years of planning, revision, and refinement. Now that the system is in motion, we must ensure that we provide increasingly clear definitions and understandable expectations for candidates in their coursework and field experiences. We also must ensure that all stakeholders—candidates, mentors, administrators, faculty, and field supervisors—are engaged in the refinement process.

13) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries?
This can include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, program aspects and so on.

Discussion topics and areas for future research include consistency in faculty members' expectations of students and varying interpretations of the rubrics for course assignments and signature assessments. Inter-rater reliability and consistency in scoring need to be enhanced. Evidence-based practices in distance education pedagogy need to be identified. Course sequencing, explicit and varied field experience opportunities (modeled on instructional rounds), content area liberal arts requirements (before entering the College of Education) need to be modified. Induction mentoring programs could assist our graduates during the first year transition to their own classrooms.

We are also working toward improving our signature assessments so they reflect the two, significant, up-coming changes in standards. The standards held of teachers as professionals is changing from the Hawaii Teacher Performance Standards (HTPS) to the InTASC (Interstate Teacher Assessment Support Consortium) and the standards held of students in Grades K-12 changing from the Hawaii Content and Performance Standards (HCPS) to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Our assessments of our teacher candidates is constantly evolving and provides our department with valued information about how well we prepare our students for teaching and how we can improve.

14) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please explain.
Or, if the program did engage in assessment activities, please add any other important information here.

Other Major Assessment Activities:

Assessment 4

Evaluation of Student Teaching

A brief description of the assessment and its use in the program:

The EECE Program uses two instruments (EECE Professional Dispositions and EECE Final Student Teaching Evaluation) to assess student teachers in their field placements. The Professional Disposition scores are provided in the NCATE Institutional Report. The Student Teaching Evaluation is provided below.

Mentor teachers, in consultation with UHM faculty supervisors, complete the assessments at mid-semester and at the end of the semester. Student teachers initiate the process by completing and discussing their self-assessments with mentor teachers and field supervisors. Mentor Teachers (in consultation with faculty supervisors) and student teachers score each standard as Target, Acceptable, or Unacceptable and provide evidence statements to describe performance.

SPA standards by number, title, and/or standard wording:

ACEI Standard

How Assessment Aligns

1.0 Development, Learning, and Motivation

Student teachers demonstrate the ability to apply relevant concepts, principles, theories and/or research related to the development of the children and youth to design, implement and evaluate learning activities in the classroom.

3.1 Integrating and applying knowledge for instruction

Student teachers design, implement and evaluate learning activities that use a variety of instructional strategies, integrate knowledge of students, subject matter and curricular goals, make connections across the curriculum, incorporate a variety of resources, and use technology where possible.

3.2 Adaptation to diverse students

Student teachers design, implement and evaluate student-centered instructional tasks that incorporate varied strategies, including differentiation, to enable all students to achieve unit learning goals.

3.3 Development of critical thinking and problem solving

Student teachers demonstrate the ability to utilize relevant concepts, principles, theories and/or research related to cognitive processes to design, implement and evaluate instruction.

3.4 Active engagement in learning

  1. Student teachers demonstrate knowledge of individual and group motivation to plan, implement and evaluate instruction that uses a variety of effective classroom management strategies, helps students to assume responsibility for themselves and others, and fosters positive relationships and social interaction.

  2. Student teachers plan, implement, and evaluate instruction that fosters student motivation, decision-making, active engagement in learning, and collaboration.

3.5 Communication to foster collaboration

Student teachers plan, implement, and evaluate instruction that uses oral and written discourse between themselves and students to foster active inquiry and supportive interaction in the classroom, and develop student use of effective communication strategies

4.0 Assessment for instruction

Student teachers plan appropriate pre-, post-, formative and summative assessments to guide, evaluate, and strengthen student learning, including scoring criteria.

5.1 Professional growth, reflection, and evaluation

Student teachers demonstrate the ability to thoughtfully reflect on their practice; evaluate the effects of their professional decisions and actions on students, families, and other professionals in the learning community; and actively seek out opportunities to grow professionally.

5.2 Collaboration with families, colleagues, and community agencies

Student teachers demonstrate the willingness and ability to establish and maintain positive collaborative relationships with families, school colleagues, and agencies in the larger community to promote the intellectual, social, emotional, physical growth, and well-being of children.

A brief analysis of the data findings:

This assessment reports on nine ACEI Standards (1.0, 3.1-3.5, 4.0, 5.1-5.2). Two cycles of data (2010-11/2011-12) are provided separately for candidates in the campus-based Oahu program and the Statewide distance learning program.

Candidates who progress to the completion of their student teaching semester have shown consistent growth in their progress toward meeting standards as new teachers. Analysis of the two cycles of data reveals consistency over time in the number of candidates earning scores in the three categories (Target, Acceptable and Unacceptable). For the 2010-11 and 2011-12 cycles, all candidates achieved scores in the Target or Acceptable categories, with no scores in the Unacceptable category. There were some differences in the percentage of candidates scoring Target or Acceptable on the individual standards between the Oahu campus-based and statewide programs. The similarities and differences across and between the two groups of candidates are discussed below.

An interpretation of how the data provide evidence that your candidates are meeting standards, indicating the specific standards by number, title, and/or standard wording.

Analysis of the assessment data disaggregated by standards revealed similarities and differences in scoring patterns for the two programs. All candidates in both programs successfully achieved

Target or Acceptable in both cycles of data for this assessment. There were no scores of Unacceptable in either cycle. That there were no Unacceptable scores is not surprising. As the student teaching evaluation is a summative assessment of candidates knowledge and skills at the culmination of the program, we would not expect underachieving candidates to have progressed to that point.

In comparing scores for the Oahu campus-based and statewide distance learning programs across the two cycles, four patterns emerged. The first pattern concerned areas of candidate strengths. The number of candidates achieving Target scores in both programs across both cycles were highest for standards 3.2: Adaption to diverse students and 5.1 Professional growth, reflection, and evaluation, indicating candidates’ overall strengths in these areas over time. In addition, in the 2011-2012 cycle, candidates in both programs achieved high levels of Target scores in 3.1: Integrating and applying knowledge for instruction, and standard 3.4: Active engagement in learning, indicating improved proficiency on these standards for both groups. Candidates in the statewide program also had high numbers of Target scores on standard 5.2: Collaboration with families, colleagues, and community agencies and 4.0: Assessment.

A second pattern addressed improvement in candidate proficiencies. The number of Target scores for all standards in both programs increased in the latest cycle of data (2011-12), with the exception of two standards for which the number of Target scores remained stable, in the statewide program, (3.4 Active engagement in learning and 1.0: Development, learning, and motivation).

The third pattern that emerged was areas of weaker candidate proficiencies. Candidates in the Oahu program achieved lower numbers of Target scores on Standard 4: Assessment. Although the number of Target scores on this standard increased for this group in the latest cycle (34% to 44%), it remained a weaker area for the Oahu program. For candidates in the statewide program, the lowest number of Target scores in 2010-11 was on standard 1.0: Development, learning, and motivation (44%). However, in the 2011-12, the number of Target scores for this standard was among the highest (76%), indicating significant improvement in this area for the statewide candidates.

The fourth pattern that became apparent was differences in the range of Target scores across the two programs, with the range being consistently higher for the statewide program over the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 cycles (44%-65% and 60%-76% respectively) compared to the Oahu program (34%-60% and 44%-74%).

The above findings indicate that overall, candidates are successfully meeting the standards for Assessment #4. There is, however, a need for faculty to continue to work on improving candidate proficiencies in the weaker areas, particularly in the area of assessment in the Oahu program. In addition, findings warrant investigating why the range of Target scores were consistently higher for candidates in the statewide program over the two cycles compared to the Oahu program. The data suggest a need to conduct an inter-rater reliability analysis with faculty from both programs to help us understand and address this issue.          

Assessment documentation: The assessment tool, or a rich description of the assessment—often the directions given to candidates.

The final evaluation of student teaching is a critically important opportunity for candidates to provide evidence of their knowledge, skills, and dispositions as knowledgeable, effective, and caring teachers. Candidates must demonstrate that they are ready to begin as new teachers in their own classrooms.

The final student teaching evaluation requests that mentor teachers provide a rating of student teachers’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions related to the Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI) Elementary Standards. Student teachers are responsible for arranging a conference toward the end of the semester with their mentor teacher to discuss the evaluation.

The mentor teacher’s evaluation is an official document. The UHM field supervisor collects the forms to file with the EECE Program. The evaluation is organized according to a reference chart (see below) that aligns the five ACEI Standards and indicators with the ten Hawai‘i Teacher Performance Standards (HTPS) and indicators.

Teacher Candidates are rated on each ACEI Standard and indicator on a 0-2 point scale: 2= Target, 1=Acceptable, and 0=Unacceptable. Zero (0) indicates that teacher candidates are not meeting expectations. Both one (1) and two (2) indicate passing scores.

Mentor teachers complete the Student Teaching Evaluation Form, in consultation with the UHM field supervisor, and add their comments in the Summary Statement on the second page of the Student Teaching Evaluation Summary. Supervisors, in consultation with the mentor teacher, should complete all other items on the Student Teaching Evaluation Summary. The teacher candidate, the mentor teacher, and the UHM field supervisor should sign both the Student Teaching Evaluation Form and Student Teaching Evaluation Summary. The teacher candidate and mentor teacher should each receive copies of all documents, and the UHM field supervisor should collect the original. Thank you for your assistance.

Assessment 5

Candidate Effect on K-6 Learning: Teacher Work Sample

  1. A brief description of the assessment and its use in the program

The assignment for Assessment #5: Candidate Effect on K-6 Learning is implemented in the student teaching semester. The assignment involves planning, teaching and assessing student achievement in a learning segment of 3-5 sequential literacy or mathematics lessons (Teacher Performance Assessment), or a unit of instruction during the student teaching semester. It specifically addresses the teacher candidate’s effect on K-6 student learning (ACEI 4.0: Assessment); reflection on professional growth (ACEI 5.1); and collaboration with families and school colleagues (ACEI 5.2).

Description of how this assessment specifically aligns with the standards it is cited for in Section III of your report.

ACEI Standard

How Assessment Aligns

4.0 Assessment for instruction

Candidates implement appropriate pre-, post-, formative and summative assessments to guide, assess, and strengthen student learning, including scoring criteria.

5.1 Professional growth, reflection, and evaluation

Candidates demonstrate the ability to thoughtfully reflect on their practice; evaluate the effects of their professional decisions and actions on students, families, and other professionals in the learning community; and actively seek out opportunities to grow professionally.

5.2 Collaboration with families, colleagues, and community agencies

Candidates demonstrate the willingness and ability to establish and maintain positive collaborative relationships with families, school colleagues, and agencies in the larger community to promote the intellectual, social, emotional, physical growth, and well being of children

Brief analysis of the data findings (it’s appropriate to give actual data here)

This assessment reports on three ACEI Standards (4.0, 5.1 and 5.2). Two cycles of data (2010-11/2011-12) are provided separately for candidates in the campus-based Oahu program and the Statewide distance learning program.

The overwhelming majority of candidates demonstrated successfully meeting the standards for Assessment 5: Candidate effect on K-6 learning for both cycles of data. All candidates in the Oahu campus-based and statewide distance learning programs achieved scores of either Target or Acceptable in the first cycle. In the second cycle a very small number of candidates (n=1-3) received scores of Unacceptable. The scores for the Oahu group were fairly evenly split between Target and Acceptable in both cycles, with more candidates achieving scores of Target on standards 4.0 and 5.1 in the recent 2011-12 cycle. The majority of scores for the candidates in the statewide distance learning program fell in the Acceptable category for both cycles, but the percentage of Target scores for all three standards increased for this group in the second cycle. Additional similarities and differences in scoring patterns across and between the two programs are discussed below.

The analysis of the two cycles of data for this assessment is presented in terms of the range of Target scores for the Oahu campus-based and statewide distance learning programs over the two cycles, and candidate strengths, areas of demonstrated improvement, and areas for continued improvement.

Range of Target scores:

The range of Target scores remained fairly similar for the Oahu candidates over the two cycles (46%-48% 1st cycle; 39%-55% 2nd cycle), and exceeded the statewide group in both periods. However the range for the statewide group rose considerably in the second cycle (13%-21% 1st cycle; 36%-44% 2nd cycle).

Strengths:

Candidates in the Oahu program achieved their highest number of Target scores on standards 4.0: Assessment and 5.1: Professional growth, reflection, and evaluation in both cycles. In comparison, the statewide distance learning candidates had a lower range of Target scores in the first cycle, with the highest percentage of Target scores for standard 5.2: Collaboration with families, colleagues, and community agencies.

Demonstrated Improvements:

The range and percentage of Target scores increased for both the Oahu and statewide groups of candidates in the second cycle for standards 4.0: Assessment and 5.1: Professional growth, reflection, and evaluation. For the Oahu candidates, Target scores for these two standards went from just under 50% in the first cycle (48% for both standards) to over 50% in the second cycle (52% -55%). For the statewide candidates the percentage of Target scores jumped from 13% for each of these standards in the first cycle to 44% for both in the second cycle.

Areas for continued improvement:

Although candidates in the statewide program had slightly higher percentages of Target scores for standard 5.2: Collaboration with families, colleagues, and community agencies in the first cycle, percentages of Target scores for this standard dropped below those for standards 4.0 and 5.1 for both the statewide and Oahu in the second cycle.

The above findings indicate that overall, candidates are successfully meeting the standards for Assessment #4, with the overwhelming majority of scores falling in the Target or Acceptable categories. There is, however, a need for faculty to continue to work on improving candidate proficiencies and ratings for standard 5.2: Collaboration with families, colleagues, and community agencies. In addition, conducting an inter-rater reliability analysis may provide insight regarding the variation of Target scores between the Oahu campus-based and statewide distance learning programs.

Assessment 6

Professional Portfolio

During the four semesters of the EECE program, teacher candidates develop a Professional Teaching Portfolio providing evidence of their ability to meet the knowledge, skills, and dispositions developed in the EECE Program. Candidates submit multiple exemplars with cover sheets for each of the five ACEI Standards. The five ACEI Standards indicate relevant Hawaii Teacher Performance Standards (HTPS). Candidates are expected to meet expectations for all the ACEI Standard Elements for every ACEI Standard. Teacher candidates present their final portfolio and reflections to peers, mentor teachers, university faculty and school administrators during the student teaching seminar.

Description of how this assessment specifically aligns with the standards:

ACEI Standard

How Assessment Aligns

1.0 Development, Learning, and Motivation

Candidates demonstrate the ability to apply relevant concepts, principles, theories and/or research related to the development of the children and youth.

2.1 Reading, Writing, and Oral Language

Candidates demonstrate knowledge, understanding and use of K-6 English language arts concepts, learning theory, and processes to design instruction.

2.2 Science

Candidates demonstrate knowledge, understanding and use of K-6 science concepts, learning theory, and processes to design instruction.

2.3 Mathematics

Candidates demonstrate knowledge, understanding and use K-6 mathematics concepts, learning theory, and processes to design instruction.

2.4 Social studies

Candidates demonstrate knowledge, understanding and use of K-6 social studies concepts, learning theory, and processes to design instruction.

2.5 The arts

Candidates design learning activities that use a variety of instructional strategies, integrate knowledge of students, subject matter and curricular goals, make connections across the curriculum, incorporate a variety of resources, and use technology where possible.

2.6 Health education

Candidates demonstrate knowledge, understanding and use of K-6 health education concepts, learning theory, and processes to design, implement and evaluate learning activities in the classroom.

2.7 Physical education

Candidates demonstrate knowledge, understanding and use of K-6 physical education concepts, learning theory, and processes to design, implement and evaluate learning activities in the classroom.

3.1 Integrating and applying knowledge for instruction

  1. Candidates demonstrate knowledge of individual and group motivation, and plan instruction that uses a variety of effective classroom management strategies, helps students to assume responsibility for themselves and others, and fosters positive relationships and social interaction.

  2. Candidates plan instruction that fosters student motivation, decision-making, active engagement in learning, and collaboration.

3.2 Adaptation to diverse students

Candidates design student-centered instructional tasks and incorporate varied strategies, including differentiation, to enable all students to achieve unit learning goals

3.3 Development of critical thinking and problem solving

Candidates demonstrate the ability to apply relevant concepts, principles, theories and/or research related to cognitive processes associated with various kinds of learning.

3.4 Active engagement in learning

  1. Candidates demonstrate knowledge of individual and group motivation, and plan instruction that uses a variety of effective classroom management strategies, helps students to assume responsibility for themselves and others, and fosters positive relationships and social interaction.

  2. Candidates plan instruction that fosters student motivation, decision-making, active engagement in learning, and collaboration.

3.5 Communication to foster collaboration

Candidates plan instruction that uses oral and written discourse between themselves and students to foster active inquiry and supportive interaction in the classroom, and develop student use of effective communication strategies

4.0 Assessment for instruction

Candidates plan appropriate informal and formal assessments to guide, assess, and strengthen student learning, including scoring criteria.

5.1 Professional growth, reflection, and evaluation

Candidates demonstrate the ability to thoughtfully reflect on their practice; evaluate the effects of their professional decisions and actions on students, families, and other professionals in the learning community; and actively seek out opportunities to grow professionally.

5.2 Collaboration with families, colleagues, and community agencies

Candidates demonstrate the willingness and ability to establish and maintain positive collaborative relationships with families, school colleagues, and agencies in the larger community to promote the intellectual, social, emotional, physical growth, and well-being of children.

This assessment reports on 16 ACEI Standards (1.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.73.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 4.0, 5.1 and 5.2). Two cycles of data (2010-11 and 2011-12) are provided separately for candidates in the campus-based Oahu program and the statewide distance learning program.

The overwhelming majority of candidates achieved passing scores on all standards for Assessment # 6, with scores falling in either the Target or Acceptable categories. The scores for the Oahu group were split between Target and Acceptable, with more of the scores falling into the Acceptable category in both cycles of data. For the statewide group, the majority of scores also fell into the Acceptable group in cycle one, but more candidates were scored at the Target level in cycle two. There were no scores of Unacceptable for either program in the first cycle, however in the second cycle, a small number of Unacceptable scores were received by candidates in the Oahu program (n=29). The standards with the highest number of these scores were 2.7: Physical Education (n=9), 2.6: Health (n=8), and 2.2: Science (n=8).

The analysis of the two cycles of data for this assessment is presented in terms of (i) the range of Target scores for the Oahu campus-based and statewide distance learning programs over the two cycles, (ii) candidate strengths, (iii) areas of demonstrated improvement, and (iv) areas for continued improvement, along with a summary section.

Range of Target scores

For the Oahu candidates, the range of Target scores remained fairly stable from the 2010-11 cycle (41%-61%) to the 2011-12 cycle (37%-68%). For the statewide group, the range of Target scores rose considerably in the cycle two, from 9%-32% in 2010-11 to 52%-56% in 2011-12.

Strengths

Notably, the five standards with the highest numbers of Target scores in cycle one were the same for both the Oahu and the statewide programs: 3.1: Integrating and applying knowledge for instruction, 3.2: Adapt to diverse students, 3.3: Develop critical thinking/problem solving, 3.4: Active engagement in learning, and 3.5: Communication for collaboration. There was little variation in the percentage of Target scores for these standards within each program, however the percentages were higher in the Oahu program in cycle one. In cycle two, the number of Target scores remained highest for these same standards with two exceptions for the Oahu candidates. The percentage of Oahu Target scores dropped to below the 50% mark for 3.2: Adapt to diverse students and 3.3: Develop critical thinking/problem solving.

Demonstrated Improvements:

In the 2011-12 cycle, teacher candidates in both the Oahu and the statewide programs achieved considerably higher numbers of Target Scores for standard 1.0 Development, learning, motivation. For the Oahu group, Target scores also rose noticeably for standard 5.1: Professional growth. Although the range of Oahu Target scores for the seven content areas (2.1-2.7) was fairly narrow (41%-44%) in the first cycle, the percentage of Target scores rose in 2011-12 for three of the seven standards - 2.4: Social studies (from 41% to 55%), 2.1: Reading, writing, and oral language (from 42% to 54%), and 2.6: Health (from 42%-48%). For the statewide program the percentages rose noticeably for all four standards (from 18% to 52%).

Although the statewide candidates had a lower range of Target scores in the first cycle (9%-32%), the range increased considerably in 2011-12 (52%-56%), with the number of Target scores exceeding 50% for all 16 standards.

Areas for continued improvement:

For the Oahu group, the percentage of Target scores dropped in the second cycle from above the 50th percentile to below the 50% mark for 3.2: Adapt to diverse students and 3.3: Develop critical thinking/problem solving. The two content area standards for which the percentage of Target scores dropped somewhat were 2.3: Mathematics and 2.7: Physical Education. Although the numbers of Unacceptable scores were small, the largest of these numbers fell in standards 2.6: Health, 2.7: Physical education, 2.2: Science and 2.3: Mathematics.

The above findings indicate that overall, candidates are successfully meeting the standards for Assessment # 6, with the majority of scores falling in the Target or Acceptable categories. The higher percentages of both Oahu and statewide Target scores for three of the standards over both cycles suggests the following areas to be ones of relative strength for our teacher candidates: 3.1: Integrating and applying knowledge for instruction, 3.4: Active engagement in learning, and 3.5: Communication for collaboration, with the addition of 3.2: Adapt to diverse students and 3.3: Develop critical thinking/problem solving for Oahu candidates in cycle one, and statewide candidates in both cycles one and two. In addition, the percentage of Target Scores for standard 1.0 Development, learning, motivation rose noticeably in the second cycle for candidates in both programs.

Faculty need to consider the fact that in cycle two, Oahu Target scores dropped somewhat for standards 3.2: Adapt to diverse students, 3.3: Develop critical thinking/problem solving, 2.3: Mathematics, and 2.7: Physical Education. A task for the statewide faculty is to investigate causes for the considerable variation between the percentage of Target scores from the first cycle to the second.