Unit: Institute for Teacher Education
Program: Education: Teaching (MEdT)
Degree: Master's
Date: Wed Sep 26, 2012 - 11:49:24 am

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

[Please Note: Some of the text found below for #1 (SLOs) was taken directly from the MEdT report submitted last year (2011) where applicable. Other elements of this assessment report were copied directly from the MEdT IL/PB Program Report that was submited to the National Council for Accredition of Teacher Education (NCATE) in September, 2012.]

The MEdT program has adopted the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) Initial Licensure/Post Baccalaureate (IL/PB) Standards for  teacher candidates pursuing the secondary areas of English, mathematics, science and social studies. Teacher candidates pursuing elementary (grade K-6) licensure have standards created by the NCATE SPA: Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI). Together, ACEI for elementary and IL/PB for secondary have standards and student learning outcomes (SLOs) for graduate students seeking intial teacher licensure in the two-year MEdT program that is part of the Institute for Teacher Education within the College of Education.

The MEdT faculty created assessments aligned with the IL/PB Principles for secondary MEdT teacher candidates and the ACEI Standards for elementary teacher candidates. Some of these assessments were implemented for the first time during the 2010/2011 academic year. Although the MEdT program has assessments aligned with NCATE IL/PBstandards (secondary) and the ACEI standards (elementary), the program faculty still incorporate the Hawaii Teacher Performance Standards (HTPS) for some seminar and field-based assessments. The use of state and national assessments is essential since the Hawaii Teacher Standards Board (HTSB) has endorsed the HTPS as their own licensing standards. Additionally, the College of Education has actively pursued and obtained NCATE unit accreditation as per the recommendation of the HTSB. A set of new program reports MEdT IL/PB (secondary) and MEdT ACEI (elementary) have have been or will be submitted to NCATE for review during the 2012-13 academic year. 

The current HTPS Standards based on 2003 InTASC Standards contained in this report are:

Hawaii Teacher Performance Standards (HTPS)

Standard 1: Focuses on the Learner

Standard 2: Creates and maintains a safe and positive learning environment

Standard 3: Adapts to learner diversity

Standard 4: Fosters effective communication in the learning environment

Standard 5: Demonstrates knowledge of content

Standard 6: Designs and provides meaningful learning experiences

Standard 7: Uses active learning strategies

Standard 8: Uses assessment strategies

Standard 9: Demonstrates professionalism

Standard 10: Fosters parent and school community relationships

The following information concerning the adoption of the new InTASC Standards was obtained directly from the HTSB Website: (http://htsb.org/html/details/teacherstandards/teachers.html).

"The Hawaii Teacher Standards Board approved adoption of the Interstate New Teacher Assessment Consortium (InTASC) Model Core Teaching Standards for Hawai’i’s Teacher Performance Standards on August 26, 2011, as NBI #11-06 revised.

Hawaii State Approved Teacher Education Programs (SATEP) shall incorporate these Performance Standards into their programs no later than July 1, 2013.  These new standards will replace the existing Teacher Performance Standards in license renewal for teachers renewing their licenses that expire on or after July 1, 2013.

The Council of Chief State School Officer’s (CCSSO) Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) developed new “core teaching standards” which represent a major revision to the Model Standards for Beginning Teacher Assessment and Development which were developed nearly two decades ago.  No longer limited to assessment and support of new teachers, the new standards define standards of professional practice for all teachers.

There are 10 individual standards organized into four priority areas:

  • the Learner & Learning (standards 1–3);
  • Content (standards 4–5);
  1. Instructional Practice (standards 6–8); 
  1. Professional Responsibility (standards 9–10).

Each standard is divided into the areas or “performances,” “essential knowledge,” and “critical dispositions.”

The core teaching standards include a focus on 21st century knowledge and skills; personalized learning for diverse learners; a collaborative professional culture; improved assessment literacy; and new leadership roles for teachers and administrators.

Core teaching standards describe what teachers should know and be able to do in today’s learning context to ensure students attain these learning goals, as well as encourage teachers to build literacy and thinking skills across the curriculum, and help students address multiple perspectives in exploring ideas and solving problems.  The core teaching standards also address interdisciplinary themes (e.g., financial literacy, global awareness) and the teacher’s ability to build on content that draws upon multiple disciplines.

The core teaching standards are listed below—click on the link for that specific standard to view its criteria.

Standards:

Standard 1: Learner Development

Standard 2: Learning Differences

Standard 3: Learning Environment

Standard 4: Content Knowledge

Standard 5: Application of Content

Standard 6: Assessment

Standard 7: Planning for Instruction

Standard 8: Instructional Strategies

Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration

Along with the HTPS and the InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards noted above, the NCATE IL/PB principles and ACEI Standards provide an overarching assessment domain which is targeted in all of the course and field based assessments. The NCATE IL/PB Principles consist of the following:

Standard 1: CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

Program assessments demonstrate candidates’ knowledge of the content they plan to teach. Content has been defined by each SPA through a list of topics that address the discipline’s knowledge base that must be evaluated as part of the transcript review. The list for each SPA can be found at the end of this document.

Standard 2:  CONTENT PEDAGOGY

Program assessments demonstrate candidates’ knowledge and skills in effective teaching strategies that make the discipline comprehensible to P-12 students. Each SPA has developed a brief list of topics that address discipline-specific content pedagogy. These items must be evaluated in Assessments #3, #4 and/or #5. The list for each SPA can be found at the end of this document.

Standard 3: LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

Program assessments demonstrate candidates’ ability to apply their knowledge appropriately in their education role by creating and maintaining safe, supportive, fair, and effective learning environments for all students, including students with disabilities, students who are limited English proficient, students who are gifted and talented, and students with low literacy levels.  Assessments demonstrate that candidates are proficient in the following areas: 

  • individual and group motivation for a disciplined learning environment and engagement in learning;
  • assessment and analysis of student learning, making appropriate adjustments in instruction, and monitoring student progress to assure meaningful learning experiences for all students; and
  • use of a variety of instructional strategies, materials, and applications of technology to encourage students’ development of critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills.

Standard 4:  PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS

Program assessments demonstrate candidates’ knowledge of professional practices in their field and readiness to apply them and their proficiency in the following areas:

  • engagement in professional experiences, and reflection on them, to enhance each candidate’s professional growth, including a knowledge of professional organizations in the discipline;
  • understanding and ability to demonstrate a commitment to equitable and ethical treatment of all students and colleagues;
  • knowledge of the collaborative roles of other school professionals and readiness to work with colleagues, families, and community agencies; and
  • ability to identify opportunities for collaborative and leadership roles as members of teams.

Below are the requirements for each of the five SPAs regarding content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge.
 

Content and Content Pedagogy Components required for IL/PB programs in English Education (taken from NCTE Standards)

Content Knowledge:

  • Language development and acquisition including history of the English language
  • Language structure and skills including grammar systems and semantics
  • Traditional literature study (American, British, World) including literary criticism/theory and literary terminology
  • Multi-cultural literature, young adult literature, and literature of diversity including that by women
  • Literacy study including major aspects of written, oral, and visual literacy
  • Reading processes for understanding text including critical analysis and meaning making strategies
  • Writing processes for difference purposes, situations, and audiences
  • Media (print and non-print) and communication technology understanding

Content Pedagogy:

  • Use English language arts to help their students become familiar with their own and others’ cultures, establishing meaningful connections between the English language arts curriculum and developments in culture, society, and education (also applicable to the Learning Environments Principle 3).
  • Examine and select resources for instruction such as textbooks, other print materials, videos, films, records, and software, appropriate and research based for supporting the teaching of English language arts.

The following can only be met during an active classroom instructional assessment such as student teaching:

  • Engage students in activities that demonstrate the role of arts and humanities in learning
  • Engage students often in meaningful discussions for the purposes of interpreting and evaluating ideas presented through oral, written, and/or visual forms
  • Engage students in critical analysis of different media and communications technologies
  • Engage students in learning experiences that consistently emphasize varied uses and purposes for language in communication
  • Engage students in making meaning of texts through personal response
  • Demonstrate that their students can select appropriate reading strategies that permit access to, and understanding of, a wide range of print and nonprint texts

For more detailed information and definitions of these topics, refer to the NCTE/NCATE Program Standards for Initial Preparation of Secondary English Language Arts Grades 7-12 (2003).

Content and Content Pedagogy Components required for IL/PB programs in Mathematics Education (taken from NCTM Standards)

Content Knowledge:

  • Knowledge of Number and Operation
  • Knowledge of Different Perspectives on Algebra
  • Knowledge of Geometries
  • Knowledge of Calculus
  • Knowledge of Discrete Mathematics
  • Knowledge of Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability
  • Knowledge of Measurement

For more detailed information and definitions of these topics, please refer to the NCTM Mathematics Secondary Education program standards 9-15.

Content Pedagogy:

  • Knowledge of instructional technology specifically for the mathematics classroom
  • Demonstration of selection and use of appropriate instructional strategies and materials specifically for the mathematics classroom
  • Demonstration of the ability to lead classes in mathematical problem solving and in development in-depth conceptual understanding as well as procedural fluency
  • Knowledge of mathematical reasoning, communication, connections, and representations and demonstration of such knowledge in the mathematics classroom and instructional planning
  • Demonstration of attention to equity through the use of multiple instructional strategies including listening to and understanding the ways students think about mathematics
  • Demonstration of attention to research results in the teaching and learning of mathematics

For more detailed information and definitions of these topics, please refer to the NCTM Mathematics Secondary Education program standards 1-8.

Content and Content Pedagogy Components required for IL/PB programs in Social Studies Education

Content Knowledge for NCSS should be based on transcript analysis of candidates' undergraduate content courses with a provision for addressing remediation of content knowledge for standards not sufficiently addressed.

Each candidate must address at least seven of the ten NCSS Standards. All candidates must address NCSS Standards 1.2, 1.3, 1.6 (which may also address 1.10), and 1.7.  In addition, they must address at least two of the remaining standards: NCSS Standard 1.1 or 1.5; 1.4 (which may be sufficiently addressed by a Human Growth and Development course); 1.8; or 1.9. The concepts addressed by NCSS Standards 1.8 and 1.9 are frequently imbedded within courses and are therefore seldom addressed in the transcript review process.

NCSS Thematic Standards:

1.1       Culture and Cultural Diversity.

1.2       Time, Continuity, and Change.

1.3       People, Places, and Environment

1.4       Individual Development and Identity.

1.5       Individuals, Groups and Institutions.

1.6       Power, Authority, and Governance.  

1.7       Production, Distribution, and Consumption.

1.8       Science, Technology and Society. 

1.9       Global Connections

1.10     Civic Ideals and Practices.

Content Pedagogy:

  • Candidate ability to plan lessons that integrate multiple standards as appropriate for social studies education
  • Candidate ability to involve students in processes such as critical thinking, identification and utilization of primary sources and other processes as appropriate for social studies education
  • Candidate ability to appropriately utilize technology and other forms of interactive learning as appropriate for social studies education.
  • Evidence for this principle should indicate candidate success in planning and teaching content and activities that address at least three of the NCSS content Standards.

For more detailed information and definitions of these topics, please refer to the NCSS Standards for Social Studies Teachers.

Content and Content Pedagogy Components required for IL/PB programs in Science Education (taken from NSTA Standards)

Content Knowledge:

All Single Field (Biology, Chemistry, Physics, or Earth/Space Sciences)

  • 1 year introductory in field of licensure
  • Coursework for a major in a single field of licensure (30 semester hours)
  • 20 of the 30 credit hours will be third and fourth year coursework
  • Supporting coursework in each of the three remaining content areas (generally 1 to 3 survey courses
  • Research in science content
  • Mathematics appropriate for the discipline (calculus, statistics)

Advanced competencies in licensure area below

Biology Advanced Competencies (usually 3rd or 4th year courses)

  • Genetics
  • Ecology
  • Molecular Biology
  • Evolution or Evolutionary Biology

Chemistry Advanced Competencies (usually 3rd or 4th year courses)

  • Analytical Chemistry
  • Organic Chemistry
  • Biochemistry

Earth/Space Sciences Advanced Competencies (usually 3rd or 4th year courses)

  • Hydrogeology
  • Oceanography
  • Global Climate Change
  • Geologic Age of the Earth

Physics Advanced Competencies (usually 3rd or 4th year courses)

  • Thermodynamics
  • High Energy Physics
  • Advanced Mechanics
  • Advanced Electricity or advanced light

Dual Field (two content areas: Biology, Chemistry, Physics, or Earth/Space Sciences):

Items listed above for all licensure areas including coursework for a major in a single discipline. Advanced competencies include the relevant content areas.

Broad Field (three or four science content areas: Biology, Chemistry, Physics, or Earth/Space Sciences):

Items listed above for all licensure areas including coursework for a major in a single discipline. Advanced competencies include 2 advanced areas in each of the four disciplines.

Content Pedagogy:

  • Evidence of planning in science content, nature of science, inquiry. (NSTA Standard 1a, 2c, and 3b)

The following standards can only be met during active classroom instructional assessment such as student teaching:

  • Evidence of appropriate practice safety procedures; chemical storage and use; and animal care and use. (NSTA Standard 9b, 9c, and 9d)
  • Evidence of learning science content, nature of science (NSTA Standard 1a and 2c)

For more detailed information and definitions of these topics, please refer to the NSTA Standards for Science Teachers.

The MEdT elementary level teacher candidates complete assessments based on the ACEI standards. The ACEI standards are based on the following broad categories:

#1. Development, Learning and Motivation

#2. Curriculum Standards

#3. Instructional Standards

#4. Assessment Standards

#5. Professionalism Standard.

PLEASE NOTE: SELECTED MEDT IL/PB ASSESSMENT DATA WILL BE REPORTED AND ANALYZED IN THIS ASSESSMENT REPORT.

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

Department Website URL:
Student Handbook. URL, if available online:
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: http://wiki.coe.hawaii.edu/Academic_Departments/MEdT/MEdT_Course_Syllabi
Other: http://htsb.org/html/details/teacherstandards/teachers.html
Other: http://www.ncate.org/Standards/ProgramStandardsandReportForms/tabid/676/Default.aspx#ILPB

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.

For reporting purposes, goals for assessments 3 (Unit Plan Evaluation), 4 (Student Teaching Evaluation), 5 (Candidate Impact on Student Learning) are provided here.

#3 Unit Plan Evaluation

The Unit Plan assessment is designed for all MEdT candidates—secondary candidates in English, mathematics, science, and social studies, and candidates in elementary education. This assessment is aligned with ILPB principles and SPA elements for secondary candidates, and it is aligned with ACEI standards for elementary candidates. The following table contains the ILPB Principles, secondary SPA Elements, and the elementary SPA Standards.

Secondary

Elementary

ILPB Principle

NCTE Element

NCTM Element

NCSS Element

NSTA Element

ACEI

Standards

P2

P3, P3a-c

2b

2a-f

2a-b

2a-b

1

3.1-3.5

4

The ILPB Principle 2 (Content Pedagogy, Acceptable Indicator: Candidate designs instruction and delivers lessons that impact student learning from within the context of a series of thematically connected lessons.), Principle 3 (Learning Environments, Acceptable Indicator: Candidate designs the unit plan to meet the physical, emotional, social, and cognitive needs of all students including those with special needs, limited English proficiency, gifted and talented, as well as those with low literacy levels.), Principle 3a (Group Motivation), Principle 3b (Assessment & Monitoring), and Principle 3c (Instruction Strategies) are assessed for all of the MEdT ILPB candidates. Additionally, each of the secondary SPAs (NCTE, NCTM, NSTA, NCSS) have subject specific SPA Elements assessed in subject addendums. The subject specific SPA elements are further linked to precise SPA Standards. The principles, elements, and standards are criteria in the far left column of the Unit Plan Rubric. In this design, there is 100% alignment of the ILPB Principles and SPA elements for the Unit Plan Rubric used to assess the secondary MEdT candidates in their abilities to plan for instruction—see Attachment B: Scoring Guide.

#4 Student Teaching Evaluation

The Student Teaching assessment is designed for all MEdT candidates—secondary candidates in English, mathematics, science, and social studies, and candidates in elementary education. This assessment is aligned with ILPB principles and SPA elements for secondary candidates, and it is aligned with ACEI standards for elementary candidates. The following table contains the ILPB Principles, secondary SPA Elements, and the elementary SPA Standards by number and letter.

Secondary

Elementary

ILPB Principle

NCTE Element

NCTM Element

NCSS Element

NSTA Element

ACEI

Standards

P2

P3, P3a-c

P4, P4a-d

2a, 2c-2g

2a-f

2a-2d

2c

1

2.1-2.7

3.1-3.5

4

5.1-5.2

The ILPB Principle 2 (Content Pedagogy, Acceptable Indicator: Candidate demonstrates content and pedagogical content knowledge of the discipline in a manner that engages all students in recalling, summarizing, symbolizing, analyzing, and applying their thinking skills in relation to the discipline.), Principle 3 (Learning Environments, Acceptable Indicator: Candidate understands and adopts instruction based on the physical, emotional, social, and cognitive needs of all students including those with special needs, limited English proficiency, gifted and talented, as well as those with low literacy levels.), Principle 3a (Group Motivation), Principle 3b (Assessment & Monitoring), and Principle 3c (Instruction Strategies), and Principle 4 (Professional Knowledge and Skills, Acceptable Indicator: Candidate participates in partnership activities with parents or guardians and incorporates the information gained from these partnerships into instructional practices.), Principle 4a (Professional Experiences), Principle 4b (Equitable and Ethical Treatment), Principle 4c (Collaborative Roles), and Principle 4d (Collaborative and Leadership Roles) are assessed for all of the MEdT ILPB candidates. Additionally, each of the secondary SPAs (NCTE, NCTM, NSTA, NCSS) have subject specific SPA Elements that are assessed in subject specific addendums within Assessment 4. The subject specific SPA elements are further linked to precise SPA Standards. The principles, elements, and standards are listed as criteria in the far left column of the Student Teaching Evaluation rubric. In this design, there is 100% alignment of the ILPB Principles and SPA elements for the Student Teaching Evaluation that are used to assess the secondary MEdT candidates in their student teaching performance—see Attachment B: Scoring Guide

#5 Candidate Effect on Student Learning

The Candidate Effect on Student Learning (CESL) assessment is designed for all MEdT candidates—secondary candidates in English, mathematics, science, and social studies, and candidates in elementary education. This assessment is aligned with ILPB principles and SPA elements for secondary candidates, and it is aligned with ACEI standards for elementary candidates. The following table contains the ILPB Principles, secondary SPA Elements, and the elementary SPA Standards by number and letter.

Secondary

Elementary

ILPB Principle

NCTE Element

NCTM Element

NCSS Element

NSTA Element

ACEI

Standards

P2

P3, P3a-c

P4, P4a-d

2c, 2e-g

2b-f

2b, 2d

2d

4

5.1-5.2

The ILPB Principle 2 (Content Pedagogy, Acceptable Indicator: CESL provides evidence that candidate demonstrates content and pedagogical content knowledge of the discipline in a manner that engages all students in recalling, summarizing, symbolizing, analyzing, and applying their thinking skills in relation to the discipline.), Principle 3 (Learning Environments, Acceptable Indicator: CESL provides evidence that candidate understands and adopts instruction based on the physical, emotional, social, and cognitive needs of all students including those with special needs, limited English proficiency, gifted and talented, as well as those with low literacy levels.), Principle 3a (Group Motivation), Principle 3b (Assessment & Monitoring), and Principle 3c (Instruction Strategies), and Principle 4 (Professional Knowledge and Skills, Acceptable Indicator: CESL provides evidence that candidate participates in partnership activities with parents or guardians and incorporates the information gained from these partnerships into instructional practices.), Principle 4a (Professional Experiences), Principle 4b (Equitable and Ethical Treatment), Principle 4c (Collaborative Roles), and Principle 4d ( Collaborative and Leadership Roles) are assessed for all of the MEdT ILPB candidates. Additionally, each of the secondary SPAs (NCTE, NCTM, NSTA, NCSS) have specific subject SPA Elements that are assessed in subject addendums within Assessment 5. The subject specific SPA Elements are further linked to precise SPA Standards. The principles, elements, and standards are listed as criteria in the far left column of the Candidate Impact on Student Learning (CESL) rubric. In this design, there is 100% alignment of the ILPB Principles and SPA elements for the Candidate Effect on Student Learning that is used to assess the secondary MEdT candidates in their impact on student learning—see Attachment B: Scoring Guide

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 #1:
Praxis II Licensure Exam
English #0041
Math #0061
Sci #0235, or
0245, or 0435, or
0481, or 0265
Social Studies
#0081.


Assessment #2:
Transcript analysis
by subject specific
(English, Math,
Science, Social
Studies)


Assessment #3:
Unit Plan (subject
specific).


Assessment #4:
Student Teaching
Evaluation for
NCATE.

Assessment #5:
Candidate Effect on
Student Learning
(CESL).


Assessment #6:
Professional
Teaching Portfolio.
Portfolio.


Assessment #7:
Professional
Dispositions.
Reflection Rubric.


Assessment #8:
Safety Assessment
Module (SAM) for
science teacher
candidates only.
Safety Test & Safety Plan.

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

Numbers of MEdT candidates for NCATE ILPB report

For Assessments 1 & 2

Fall 2011 admits

Fall 2012 admits

English 15

English 5

Math 8

Math 8

Science 3

(Praxis: all bio-test 0235)

Science 6

(Praxis: 2bio,2chm,1gensci, 1 took wrong bio test)

Social Studies 4

Social Studies 3

Total 30

Total 22

For Assessments 3-8

All

English

Math

Science

Social Studies

2012 Spring (2011 admits)

30

15

8

3

4

2011 Fall

(2010 admits)

19

7

7

4 (net gain one from previous semester)

1 (net lost one from previous semester)

2011 Spring (2010 admits)

19

7

7

3

2

2010 Fall

(2009 admits

45

8

17

7

13

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: NCATE Program Report Writers

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: Praxis II Test Scores provided by Educational Testing Service (ETS)

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

#3 Unit Plan Evaluation

  1. Interpretation of data as evidence for meeting principles, elements, and standards

As noted above, the criteria of the Unit Plan Rubric consisted of the ILPB Principles and secondary SPA Elements. The quality indicators for each criterion (Target, Acceptable, Unacceptable) were aligned with each criterion in the rubric. The first pattern to note is that the secondary MEdT candidates achieved success with their unit planning based on their outcomes on the Assessment 3 rubric. A Plan for Remediation was needed for one student in the use of technology for instruction. Since the NCATE assessments were indicators of candidate performance at a given time, the reported “unacceptable” score remained in the data set even though the candidate later achieved acceptable score for this criterion based on a Plan of Remediation. Also, there was a missing score entry for two of the ILPB Principles for the 2010-2011 reporting year. This oversight may have been due to the 2010 transition to the new ILPB Unit Plan Assessment as well as the Student Information System database used in the MEdT program for the first time in 2010. 

The second pattern was that the MEdT math candidates, especially those in the 2011-2012 reporting year, did not perform quite as well in planning for using technology for instruction. This may have been due, in part, to the lack of technology in the secondary math classrooms where they conduct field experience. In some mentor teacher classrooms, there may not have been technology available or the technology may have been under-utilized when it was available.

A third pattern was the math teacher candidates from the 2010-2011 reporting year scored considerably higher than their peers in the 2011-2012 reporting year for each principle and element. This may have been due to the differing MEdT faculty members administering the assessment for each year. MEdT is a cohort program whereby cohort faculty loop with their candidates throughout the two-year teacher education program. This difference in reported outcomes may could possibly have resulted from a variation in how cohort faculty interpret the rubric quality indicators as well as their differing expectations for MEdT candidate performance.

#4 Student Teaching Evaluation

The single Unacceptable score for 6 of the 10 ILPB Principles for All Secondary Candidates table from the 2011-2012 reporting year resulted in a formal Plan for Remediation for a MEdT ILPB secondary teacher candidate. The Plan for Remediation, in this case, was part of an “Incomplete” course grade that included specific requirements for overcoming rubric-related deficiencies. The candidate with the Unacceptable scores was able to meet “Acceptable” quality indicators as noted on the rubric through an extension of student teaching during the fourth semester of the MEdT program. The broad areas for growth of improvement addressed content pedagogy, motivation, assessment, technology, professional knowledge and skills, and professional organizations. The Plan for Remediation was essential for the candidate to focus on specific topics and earn recommendation for teacher licensure as a program completer. A strength of the MEdT two-year cohort program is the addition of the fourth semester internship that comes after student teaching. This allows struggling candidates to take an additional semester to conduct mentored student teaching to overcome deficiencies and hone teaching skills.

The other perceived pattern for the data deals with the high average percentage score for the candidates in the 2011-2012 reporting year. This difference, most noticeable when comparing the SPA rubric addendum outcomes, is attributed to the alternative faculty who serve as course instructors for the MEdT cohorts. Although the rubric quality indicators use specific terminology in defining levels of performance, there remains a degree of individual interpretation of the language of the quality indicators as well as alternative perceptions of what is expected of MEdT candidate outcomes. The essential point to this interpretation is that although there were variations in “Target” score outcomes with differences ranging from 9-42% when comparing the two reporting years, the MEdT candidates achieved passing outcomes for their student teaching and earned recommendation for teaching licensure within their secondary fields.  

#5 Candidate Effect on Student Learning

The MEdT faculty, as well as supporting mentor teachers in the grade 7-12 classrooms, achieved success in guiding the secondary MEdT teacher candidates in positively impacting student learning based on the principles, elements, and standards for this assessment. This result indicated the specific and overall effectiveness of the 8 Step-by-Step instructional components of the CESL assignment consisting of: Justification, Assessments, Use of Data, Diverse Learning Needs, Overall Class Achievement, and Reflection.

The two areas with the lowest average Target score address working collaboratively with colleagues, families, and community agencies as well as engaging in collaborative and leadership roles as members of a team for the 2010-2011 reporting year. At the secondary level, involvement with families often consisted of meeting with parents during school open house in the fall of the school year when candidates completed the CESL. Candidates also notified parents of student performance periodically during their student teaching in the fall semester. Working productively in collegial and leadership roles may be facilitated when candidates complete the student teaching assignment in a middle or intermediate school setting as the middle grade-levels were divided into teams of core academic teachers (English, math, science, social studies) who worked with the same set of students. In many middle and intermediate schools, teams of teachers met regularly, in some cases daily, to plan for instruction, review state and school-wide assessments, and address student learning and behavioral outcomes and performances. However, this form of sustained and structured collaboration did not occur as frequently at the high school level where many of the MEdT teacher candidates student taught and would engage in less frequent content area faculty meetings.

The third lowest Target score on the assessment was content pedagogy for the 2010-2011 reporting year. The “Target” quality indicator for this assessment was “CESL provides evidence that candidate meets the Acceptable indicators and has all students synthesize, evaluate, predict, and question the content and process knowledge of the discipline and their relationship to this knowledge.” In this case, the level of in-depth analysis to achieve “Target” was beyond the scope of some candidates.

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

The overarching goal of this ongoing MEdT program review is to enhance candidate competencies in teaching and learning in the context of their MEdT coursework including their 7-12 English, mathematics, science, or social studies field experience. What has been learned through this standards-based, data-driven review process will spark rich faculty conversations and interventions aimed at improving candidate outcomes during the months ahead. Plans for improvement will be drafted during the 2012-2013 academic year. Specific modifications to the MEdT secondary program will be finalized by summer 2013, submitted for full faculty review and approval by fall 2013, and implemented thereafter.

A content knowledge consideration deals with ways to more closely monitor candidate understanding of subject area competencies through their planning, instruction, and assessment in 7-12 field experience classrooms. Although all of the ILPB assessments are in full alignment with ILPB Principles and SPA Elements and Standards, there may be areas to imbed specific content knowledge concepts as additional assessment criteria without making the assessment instruments or process too onerous for both candidates and MEdT faculty. For example, science candidates with identified content knowledge gaps in the earth sciences could be assigned to illustrate their earth science content knowledge in their middle or high school science field experiences. In this case, the knowledge criteria would consist of earth science knowledge competencies identified on the Science Content Analysis Table (see Section IV, Assessment 2, Scoring Guide Attachment B: Science).

Technology, especially digital media, is not only a means to disseminate knowledge but also a tool to enhance thinking. Professional and pedagogical knowledge constructed from the interplay of visual, auditory, and kinesthetic inputs may create a more meaningful sensory-based learning experience for candidates. Technology skills in the form of using interactive whiteboards with audio interface and Internet connectivity need to be more fully implemented in MEdT face-to-face seminars to model effective use of technology when possible. In turn, candidates need to utilize technology resources available within their 7-12 field experience. One method of introducing digital technology is by providing a portable interactive whiteboard that the MEdT program has purchased recently. Another method is to have candidates track down, reserve, and use technology devices that are available within the schools. For this to happen, candidates need the prerequisite knowledge and skills for using technology for teaching and learning. This is where the MEdT seminars and, in some cases, a college level course in educational technology can be helpful. MEdT faculty who are not current with using the latest technology for teaching and learning need professional development that may be provided within the university. Additionally, technology hardware needs to be available in MEdT seminar rooms which can be a challenge since many seminars are held off campus. Regarding the use of technology to enhance thinking involves issues such as flipping classrooms whereby candidates are introduced to pedagogical knowledge and skills outside of the seminar. Then, candidates seek answers to problems and further refine their thinking about pedagogy within the seminar setting as faculty, and other candidates, support one another’s learning. 


Broadly speaking, 7-12 student learning is central to the MEdT program since candidate success is measured by what their students learn. Although all of the ILPB assessments can be considered “student learning” assessments based on this perspective, some assessments such as the “impact on student learning” and “portfolio” provide primary evidence of student learning. Also, the clinical experience evaluation is based on candidate teaching of grade 7-12 students in the classroom setting. All of these assessments are predicated on candidates’ ability to document student learning and use the assessment outcomes to inform their own instructional effectiveness. To improve, it would be helpful to involve 7-12 students more directly in the reflection-on-learning process. For example, students could provide written reflections regarding their own learning and the effectiveness of the MEdT candidates in helping them attain their learning outcomes. This kind of metacognitive exercise can be instructive for both students and candidates alike.

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.

Content Knowledge

Recent MEdT program policy changes have impacted the content knowledge of secondary MEdT candidates. A mandate for accepting a cohort of “emergency hire” secondary candidates was lifted for the 2012-2013 admission cycle. Before that time, some of the MEdT candidates in the “emergency hire” cohort were less likely to meet the content course requirements as compared to the professional practice school MEdT candidates who engaged in mentored field placements. Since the MEdT program no longer enrolls an “emergency hire” secondary cohort, it is anticipated that this change in policy may coincide with an increase in the overall content knowledge qualifications of the newly admitted candidates. Another recent content knowledge change deals with the Praxis II Subject Area test. Beginning with the 2010-2011 admission cycle, MEdT applicants are required to submit passing scores for a Praxis II subject area test to be eligible for program admission. Another policy issue for consideration is making the core set of knowledge competencies available to applicants so they can check their own subject area backgrounds against the minimum content knowledge requirements. In this way, potential applicants could complete, or enroll in, content coursework to bridge their knowledge gaps before applying to the MEdT program. Additionally, during the admission process, applicants could be asked to identify their previous coursework alignment with the knowledge competencies of their subject area.

A content knowledge concern is scheduling time for candidates who need additional content coursework as part of a Plan for Remediation. The MEdT faculty will address how to schedule field experiences, seminars, and other education coursework with the need for some secondary candidates to take undergraduate content coursework either before or after entering the program. Since many of the undergraduate content courses are offered during times when 7-12 schools are in session, it may be problematic for candidates to complete field experience assignments in professional practice schools far from the UH Manoa campus while trying to  attend face-to-face undergraduate class meetings at a college or university campus. One area that may hold promise in this area is online content coursework--especially courses with asynchronous delivery. A few of the online course providers beyond the UH system include the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, American Museum of Natural History (AMNH), and Open Universities Australia. A free non coursework option is the OpenCourseWare Consortium (OCWC). Determining how to measure candidate content knowledge outcomes for the OCWC has yet to be considered, but this is a potential resource for MEdT candidates who need to shore up their content knowledge.   

Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge, Skill, and Dispositions

Some general areas for consideration regarding professional and pedagogical knowledge, skill, and dispositions include expanding the involvement of candidate engagement with student parents, families, and other school/community stakeholders, and monitoring assessment implementation and outcomes more carefully each year to identify shortcomings and gaps and make necessary adjustments in a timely manner.

Candidates need to explicitly understand that parents, other family members, and school/community stakeholders are central to student learning and to their own understanding of students. How can this understanding occur in the context of the MEdT program? During field experiences at professional practice schools, candidates may meet with parents at school-sponsored functions like parent coffees, open houses, and parent-teacher meetings. Another method for meeting with parents is through home visits or meetings with parents at community locations such as local parks, beaches, or restaurants. Beyond general introductions, meetings with parents can focus on expectations for student learning, student learning styles and interests, student family histories, and student interests beyond school. Meetings with parents and other family members can help candidates better understand the cultural values, beliefs, and practices of their students that can be key to building productive and professional relationships with students.

There is general consensus that MEdT faculty ought to be accountable for candidate learning and attainment of professional and pedagogical knowledge, skill, and dispositions. An essential aspect of understanding candidate learning is based on objective feedback provided by the assessment system. The ILPB assessment process offers vital information for faculty members to base their educational decisions and designs at the program, course, and assignment level. Secondary MEdT faculty, or a subset of the faculty, can access ILPB data annually and conduct a sustained inquiry into the effectiveness of the program in attaining standards-based goals through documented-outcomes. The resulting analysis and interpretation can focus on such topics as: identifying essential learning outcomes, assessment instrument design, instructional methods and methodologies, and logistical issues surrounding the assessment system. For example, it was perplexing to learn that a group of candidates regressed in the disposition of  equity and ethical treatment of students and colleagues between the second and third semesters of the program. This disposition identifies the degree to which candidates exhibit caring and kindness in their teaching. This kind of feedback can serve as a pivotal point of inquiry about the assessment instrument, the candidates’ field experience, and what faculty can do to help candidate achieve success.

Student Learning

Although content knowledge acquisition of secondary core subjects is essential for student learning, understanding can be optimized in secondary classroom contexts supporting the social and emotional growth of students. In this case, MEdT candidates need to learn how to promote positive dispositions for learning among their students. This can be accomplished through implicit or explicit instruction in social skills that are embedded within cooperative learning structures or other methods of instruction whereby students learn content and social skills. Other means could consist of character education instruction with the goal of promoting individual responsibility in socially supportive classroom environments. MEdT candidates need to be sensitive to and work with the cultural and subcultural values, beliefs, and practices of their students. Candidate instruction can be premised on culturally responsive teaching whether it is meant to promote personal connections to content thereby promoting student motivation and interest or whether it is designed to focus on supplemental moral and ethics-based curricula whereby students come to appreciate and respect the similarities and differences between themselves and others.

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.

No additional information to add. However, if you have questions, I can be reached at:

scottdr@hawaii.edu

(808) 341-0265

Scott