How To Become A College Professor

(1)

2013-2014

Early Childhood Education Program

Annual Assessment Report

Programs Covered by This Report:

Bachelor of Arts in Early Childhood Education (BA)

Early Childhood Practice (ECP)

Master of Arts in Early Childhood Education (MAT)

Subsequent Certification in Early Childhood Education (SubCert)

(2)

Section I: Program Overview

A. 2012-2013: Number of Candidates: Undergrad (BA) Graduate (MAT) Alternative Program (SubCert) Alternative Program (ECP) Number of Students

Admitted to the Program - 24 14 64

Number of Students

Enrolled in the Program 17 42 8 107

B. Overview of Program

The Department of Early Childhood Education follows the professional standards established by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) in preparing student candidates. This program assessment report covers four programs:

1. BA program: awards bachelor’s degree and leads to the Illinois Early Childhood (Birth-Grade 3) Type 04 teaching certificate.

2. Early Childhood Practice program: awards BA degree but not the Type 04 certificate. 3. MAT program: awards master’s degree and the Type 04 certificate.

4. SubCert program: is a non-degree sequence for teachers who currently holdvalid initial or standard Illinois teaching certifications in elementary education, secondary education, or special education, but want to add additional certification in early childhood education. Because these four programs share the SAME assessment system and methods, we combined the report for the programs (called “nested reports” in the SPA review). However, the assessment data were reported separately for each program.

C. Sequence and Courses within Program (see next 4 pages) D. Delivery Models within Program

_x

_ Alternative Certification (ECP and SubCert)

_x

_ Face to Face __ Online

__ Blended/Hybrid __ Offered in FL __ Offered in WI

(3)

BA program (ECE460 and 470 are the transition points and benchmark courses) General Education Requirement

Communication Two written communication courses Humanities One Humanities course

Fine Arts One Fine Arts course

Quantitative Reasoning Two college level Mathematics courses Physical and Life

Sciences

One Life Science course One Physical Science course

One science course, must have a lab component Social Sciences One U.S. Politics course

One Non-Western/Global Social Science course Behavioral Science One Developmental Psychology course

Total semester hours 60

We accept IAI approved coursework that is transferred in from other institutions to fulfill these requirements and many of our candidates take these courses at the community colleges

Foundational Courses Title Semester hours

ECE 202 Developmental theory and Practice 5 ECE 205 Child Study I – Infant and Toddler 2

ECE 206 Child Study II – Preprimary 2

ECE 310 Child, Family & Community 5

ECE 320 Speech and Language Development 3

ECE 405 Preprimary Methods - Language Arts, Art, Music, and Movement

3 ECE 406 Preprimary Methods – Social Studies, Math, & Science 3

ECE 460 Early Childhood Practicum 7

LAE 307 Children’s Literature (includes children 0-8 years old) 5

History One American History course 5

SPE 300 Survey of Exceptional Children 5

Behavioral Science One Developmental Psychology course 5

Total semester hours 50

Professional Sequence Title Semester hours

ECE 207 Child Study III - Primary 2

ECE 315 ECE315 History & Philosophy of ECE 5

ECE 330 Instructional Technology 3

ECE 340 Classroom Management 5

CIS481 Theory and Method: Primary Social Studies 1

MHE481 Theory and Method: Primary Math 3

RLL481 Theory and Method Primary Reading 3 SCE481 Theory and Method: Primary Science 2

ECE470 Full-Day Student Teaching 14

(4)

ECP Program (ECE460 and 492/493 are the transition points and benchmark courses) General Education Requirement

LAE 101 English Composition l LAE 102 English Composition ll LAT210 Effective Speaking

One Humanities course

Fine Arts

LAA110 Introduction to Art; and LAU110

Quant. Reasoning

Two Math courses

Physical/ Life Sciences

LAN110 LAN150

Introduction to Music

General Biology

Survey of Physical Science

Social Sciences LAS120 LAS110 LAS300 LAS302 LAS303 LAS304 Behavioral Science LAP200 LAP201 LAP202 LAP303 LAP320 LAP321

Introduction to American Politics; and Introduction to Cultural Anthropology; or Contemporary World Cultures: or

Asian History and Culture; or Sub-Saharan African Cultures: or Middle and South American Cultures

Psychology of Development in the infant/Toddler Years; or Psychology of Early Childhood; or

Psychology of Middle Childhood and Adolescence; or Introduction to Psycholinguistics; or

Psychology Assessment of the Young Child--Part l; with Psychological Assessment of the Young Child—Part ll

Foundational Courses Title 50QH

Literature for Children

U.S. History and Culture: 1492-1828; or U.S. History and Culture: 1828- 1898; or U.S. History and Culture 1898- Present; and Developmental Theory and Practice; and Child Study l: Infant and Toddler; and Child Study ll: Preprimary; and Child, Family and Community; and Speech and Language Development; and

Preprimary Methods: Language Arts/ Art/Music/Movement Preprimary Methods: Social Studies/Science /Math; and

Early Childhood Practicum; and

Survey of Exceptional Children and Adolescents; and Psychology of Early Childhood; or

Psychology of Early Childhood; or

Psychological Assessment of the Young Child--Part l; with Psychological Assessment of the Young Child—Part ll LAE307 LAS200 LAS201 LAS203 ECE202 ECE205 ECE206 ECE310 ECE320 ECE405 ECE406 ECE460 SPE300 LAP200 LAP201 LAP320

(5)

Professional Sequence Title 31 QH

ECE 301 Understanding Infants and Toddlers ECE 302 Essentials of Infants and Toddlers

ECE 321 Curriculum and Teaching in the Infant and Toddler Classroom

ECE 322 Developing Early Childhood Programs ECE 326 Administration of Early Childhood Programs ECE 330 Instructional Technology

ECE 335 Best Practices in Family Childhood Education for Infants and Toddlers and Families

ECE 336 Best Practices in Early Childhood Education for Infants and Toddlers and Families

ECE 337 Ethics and Professionalism in Early Childhood Education ECE 340

Internship ECE492

ECE493

Classroom Management in Early Childhood Education

Title

Internship: Child Care Center and Preschool Practice or Internship: Infant and Toddler Care and Development

7 QH

MAT program (ECE580 and 590 are the transition points and benchmark courses)

Core courses Title Semester Hours

EPS 500a Human Development with a Focus on Early Childhood 3 ESR 514 Research in Action: Becoming Practitioner Researchers 3 FND 503 Historical and Philosophical Foundations of Early

Childhood Education

3

Program courses

ECE 501 Instructional Methods/Primary: Language Arts, Social Studies

2 ECE 502 Infant-Toddler Preclinical Experiences 2 ECE 505 Instructional Methods/Pre-Primary: Lang Arts, Art,

Music, Movement

2 ECE 506 Instructional Methods/Pre-Primary: Math, Science,

Social Studies

2

ECE 510 Child, Family and Community 3

ECE 580 Early Childhood Education Practicum 2

MHE 482 Methods for Teaching Primary-Grade Mathematics and Science

2 RLL 537 Early Literacy Methods PreK-3 3 ESR 504 Assessment in Early Childhood Education Settings:

Purpose &Practice

2 SPE 500 Introduction to Exceptional Children and Adolescents 3

ECE 590 Student Teaching: Early Childhood Education 5

(6)

SubCert program (ECE569 and 575 are the transition points and benchmark courses) SubCert Required Courses

Program courses Title Semester hours

ECE 569 Portfolio Development 4

ECE 575 Practicum 3 - 6

the hours depends on the portfolio evaluation

SubCert Optional Courses

(Students take one or more below courses only if they have deficiency in certain areas based on the professional portfolio evaluation)

Program courses Title Semester hours

EPS 500a Human Development with a Focus on Early Childhood

3 FND 503 Historical and Philosophical Foundations of

Early Childhood Education

ECE 501 Instructional Methods/Primary: Language Arts, Social Studies

2 ECE 505 Instructional Methods/Pre-Primary: Lang Arts,

Art, Music, Movement

2 ECE 506 Instructional Methods/Pre-Primary: Math,

Science, Social Studies

2

ECE 510 Child, Family and Community 3

ECE 512 Early Childhood Curriculum 2

MHE 482 Methods for Teaching Primary-Grade Mathematics and Science

2

RLL 537 Early Literacy Methods PreK-3 3

ESR 504 Assessment in Early Childhood Education Settings: Purpose &Practice

2 SPE 500 Introduction to Exceptional Children and

Adolescents

(7)

Section II: Relationship of Assessments to Program Outcomes and Standards

The Early Childhood Education programs aim to promote the following learning outcomes for future teachers who serve young children and their families:

 Understand the contextual nature of learning

 Construct their own knowledge

 Integrate theory and practice

 Assess, reflect upon, and critique their own knowledge, practice, schools, and society

 Engage in inquiry

 Collaborate with students, teachers, administrators, parents and the community at large

 Advocate for young children and their families

As showed in the two tables below, these program learning outcomes are well aligned with the conceptual framework/outcomes of the National College of Education, and are highly consistent with the five NAEYC professional standards.

A. Alignment of Program Assessments to NCE Conceptual Framework/Outcomes NCE Conceptual Framework/Outcomes

NCE Candidates:

Program Assessments

Envision, articulate and model democratic and progressive education

LiveText electronic portfolio Lesson plan rubric

Competency Appraisal Content test

Design powerful learning environments that integrate appropriate technologies

Competency Appraisal

Assessment of professional teaching test Design powerful learning environments that utilize multiple

meaningful assessments

Assessment of professional teaching test Design powerful learning environments that enable self-directed

learning

Assessment of professional teaching test Work collaboratively in diverse communities and with diverse

learners to achieve learning goals

Professional disposition evaluation Competency Appraisal

Advocate for democratic values, equity, access and resources to assure educational success for all

LiveText electronic portfolio Professional disposition evaluation Competency Appraisal

Cultivate curiosity and excitement for learning in themselves and others

Professional disposition evaluation Competency Appraisal

Respect and learn from other peoples, cultures, and points of view Professional disposition evaluation Competency Appraisal

Demonstrate a caring attitude in recognizing the needs of others and acting to promote their growth

LiveText electronic portfolio Professional disposition evaluation Competency Appraisal

Act with confidence and self-knowledge to assume professional leadership roles and responsibilities

(8)

B. Alignment of Program Assessments to Professional Standards and Program Outcomes Program Outcomes Professional Standards Program Assessments

1. Understand the contextual nature of learning;

2. Construct their own knowledge

Standard 1: Promoting child development and learning Standard 5: Becoming a professional

Assessment of professional teaching test Content test

3. Integrate theory and practice Standard 4: Teaching and learning;

Standard 5: Becoming a professional

Assessment of professional teaching test

4. Assess, reflect upon, and critique our own knowledge, practice, schools, and society;

Standard 3: Observing, documenting, and assessing young children

5. Engage in inquiry Standard 5: Becoming a professional

Professional disposition evaluation

6. Collaborate with students, teachers, administrators, parents and the community at large;

7. Advocate for young children and their families

Standard 2: Building Family and Community Relationships Standard 5: Becoming a professional

LiveText electronic portfolio Competency Appraisal

(9)

Section III: Program Key Assessments

Using the chart below, indicate the name, type, and administration point for each of the assessments that the program uses to assess candidate learning and evaluate program effectiveness. Refer to the specific requirements for your program’s SPA (if any) to ensure you are meeting the standards. For non-SPA programs, only 1 content knowledge assessment is necessary.

Name of Assessment Type or Form of Assessment

When the Assessment Is Administered Transition Point in Program (as applicable) Assessment of Content Knowledge I (i.e., Licensure assessment, or other content-based assessment)

*Note: Non-SPA programs do not have state content tests)

State Licensure Test: Content Test (107) Assessment of

Professional Teaching Test (101)

The content test is administrated several times throughout the year. The BA and MAT candidates are encouraged to pass the test before student teaching. SubCert candidates are required to pass the test before student teaching.

Note: ECP candidates do not take state tests.

ECE470, 590, & 575: student teaching for BA, MAT and SubCert students

Assessment of Content Knowledge II

LiveText Electronic Portfolio

For BA, ECP, and MAT candidates, LiveTextportfolios are reviewed two times across the program by faculty when candidates take the two benchmark courses that occur at the middle and end of the programs.

For SubCert candiates, LiveText portfolios are reviewed at the beginning of the program ( ECE569) and the end of the practicum. First Review: ECE460- BA & ECP ECE580 – MAT ECE569: SubCert Second Review: ECE460- BA ECE492/493: ECP ECE590 – MAT ECE575: SubCert Assessment of Professional Knowledge (Pedagogical content knowledge) LiveText Electronic Portfolio & Lesson Plan Evaluation

1. The APT test is administrated several times throughout the year. The BA and MAT candidates are encouraged to pass the test before student teaching. SubCert candidates are required to pass the test before student teaching.

First Review: ECE460- BA & ECP ECE580 – MAT ECE569: SubCert Second Review: ECE460- BA ECE492/493: ECP ECE590 – MAT ECE575: SubCert Assessment of Field Experiences Survey: Competency Appraisal

TheCompetency Appraisal is a survey administered during student teaching and completed by candidates themselves, university supervisors, and cooperating teachers at the 5th and 10th week of the student teaching placement(ECE470,

ECE470 - BA ECE492/493 - ECP ECE590 - MAT ECE575 - SubCert

(10)

Assessment of Candidate Impact on Student Learning

Lesson Plan Evaluation During both practicum and student teaching, one lesson that was implemented by the candidatesis evaluated by thecandidates themselves, university supervisors, and seminar course leaders.

BA: ECE460 and 470;

ECP: ECE460 & 492/493;

MAT: ECE580 and 590; SubCert: ECE575. Assessment of Candidate Dispositions Survey: Professional Disposition Evaluation

Candidates’ professional dispositions are evaluated during their practicum

experience, by themselves, cooperating teachers, and university supervisors at the end of the experience

ECE460, 580, and 575, for BA, ECP, MAT, and SubCert, respectively

Assessment of Candidate Diversity Proficiencies

LiveText Electronic Portfolio

LiveText portfolios are reviewed two times across the program (middle and end of the programs). First Review: ECE460- BA & ECP ECE580 – MAT ECE569: SubCert Second Review: ECE460- BA ECE492/493: ECP ECE590 – MAT ECE575: SubCert Assessment of Candidate Technology Proficiencies LiveText Electronic Portfolio

LiveText portfolios are reviewed two times across the program (middle and end of the programs). First Review: ECE460- BA & ECP ECE580 – MAT ECE569: SubCert Second Review: ECE460- BA ECE492/493: ECP ECE590 – MAT ECE575: SubCert

(11)

Section IV: Assessment Tools and Data Analysis

Content Knowledge I:

Assessment: Content Test & Assessment of Professional Teaching Test

Description of the assessment

Candidates who seek a Type 04 certification must pass the Early Childhood Education Content Test (107) and the Assessment for Professional Teaching Test (101). The tests are administrated several times throughout the year. The candidates in BA and MAT programs are encouraged to pass the exams before their student teaching, while the candidates in SubCert are required to pass the exams prior to student teaching.

The content test covered three subareas: (1) Language and Literacy Development, (2) Learning

across the Curriculum, and (3) Diversity, Collaboration, and Professionalism in the Early Childhood Programs. The test consists of 125 multiple-choice questions that measure an examinee's mastery of the test objectives and the questions include both practical scenarios and conceptual understandings. A total test scaled score of 240 or above is required to pass the test. The test has established reliability and validity.

The APT test covers six subareas: (1) Foundations, Characteristics, and Assessment, (2) Planning

and Delivering Instruction, (3) Managing the Learning Environment, (4) Collaboration,

Communication, and Professionalism, (5) Language Arts, and (6) Educational Technology. The test consists of 120 multiple-choice questions and 2 constructed-response assignments. A total test scaled score of 240 or above is required to pass these tests.

How and when the assessment is implemented

This is a computer-based test that is implemented by ISBE. The tests can be taken multiple times each year.

When data ia analyzed and by whom

The state test data are usually analyzed by the end of the academic year by our program assessment coordinator, one faculty member. In the meanwhile, the dean’s office also provides the test

statistics by the end of the academic year.

Remediation provided to candidates not meeting criteria

To address the low performance on state tests, several remediation strategies have been implemented. First, NLU enhanced both online tutor and tutoring resources and face-to-face tutoring services to students who experience difficulties with state tests and other general learning tasks. The early childhood program works closely with the Student Advising Center to help

students locate resources and support. For students who failed the tests, more intensive one-on-one tutoring services are provided. Second, in collaboration with the advising center, the program plans to hold more workshops on state test preparation. We bring all students in benchmark courses who are more likely to take the tests to the workshops. Third, we also believe that the tutoring services (24/7) will help to support students’ writing skills, which is one of the main reasons that caused students’ lower scores on the constructed response assignment in APT test.

(12)

How data from assessment is used by program, instructors, and candidates

Our faculty review the state test data on an annual basis, and the test results have been used to inform curriculum revisions, program updates, and program supervision in general.

Data interpretation [see data table in the Appendix 1]

The 2013-2014 data suggested that candidates in the three certification programs (ECP students do

NOT take state test) achieved an average score that was above the passing cutoff (240 points) in all

test areas of the both state exams. The MAT candidates gained better scores than SubCert and BA students, but with relatively larger variation in their scores. Compared to the graduate candidates, the undergraduate candidates had relatively lower average total and subscale scores.

Each program maintained a 100% passing rate on both tests, except that the MAT program had an 86% passing rate on the content test. For the BA program, the passing rate on content test was significantly improved in comparison to last two years’ data (although the number of students who took the tests was small).

Overall, the state test data demonstrate that the candidates in all four programs possessed a satisfactory level of content knowledge.

(13)

Appendix 1:

Content Test Data

BA (N = 7) MAT (N = 14) SubCert (N = 5)

Mean (SD) Range Mean (SD) Range Mean (SD) Range

Total Score _{257.71 (8.34)} _247-267 _{263.71 (20.21) 216-288} _{251.40 (7.20)} _240-258

Subscale: Language & Literacy Development _{257.29 (16.00)} _238-286 _{265.50 (23.18) 208-295} _{251.40 (22.47)} _232-286 Subscale: Learning Across the Curriculum _{248.00 (18.68)} _228-276 _{258.43 (20.40) 220-286} _{251.00 (11.47)} _243-271 Subscale: Diversity, Collaboration, Professionalism _{270.43 (8.50)} _257-282 _{267.86 (19.47) 223-294} _{251.00 (18.01)} _233-276

Rate of passing 100% 86% 100%

APT Test Data

MAT (N = 13) SubCert (N = 4)

Mean (SD) Range Mean (SD) Range

Total Score 272.62 (12.14) 246-286 273.00 (1.83) 271-275

Foundations, Characteristics, & Assessment 278.77 (12.23) 253-300 272.75 (12.42) 259-286 Plan & Deliver Instruction 274.92 (15.31) 255-300 273.75 (18.87) 255-300 Management the Learning Environment 280.54 (17.42) 241-300 270.25 (20.74) 241-285 Collaboration, Communication, &

Professionalism 280.31 (14.41) 239-293 286.25 (5.32) 280-293 Language Arts 279.23 (15.49) 250-300 281.25 (16.86) 259-300 Educational Technology 278.23 (11.69) 253-293 282.75 (3.77) 279-286 Constructed Response Assignment 247.15 (30.54) 193-300 248.00 (18.60) 227-270

Rate of passing 100% 100%

(14)

Content Knowledge II

Assessment: LiveText Electronic Portfolio

Description of the assessment

In addition to the state tests, we use a local assessment, professional portfolio, to provide a more holistic and extensive measure of the candidates’ content knowledge. LiveText is an internet-based platform that allows students to create their professional portfolios, which are organized around all NAEYC standards (ISBE standards for the SubCert students) and two additional institutional standards (i.e., Diversity and Technology). Those state and national standards represent all the expected content, pedagogical, and professional knowledge that ECE teacher candidates should master.

We requirecandidates to submit at least 4artifacts under each standard to demonstrate their knowledge in meeting each standard. For each submitted artifact, candidates need to provide a brief summary andrationale forwhy and how this artifact can demonstrate their knowledge in meeting a specific standard. Candidatesare also required to write a reflection statement for each standard which includes a self-assessment relative to the components of the standard. Their portfolios were evaluated based on a 4-point rubric. This assessment is a comprehensive and straightforward system in demonstrating evidence that our students have attained the state and national requirements.

To demonstrate students’ content specific knowledge, data from four standards of the portfolio were presented for BA, ECP, and MAT students:

- NAEYC Standard 1: Promoting child development and learning (artifact example: child study paper that covers all domains of development, including language, physical, cognitive, social and emotional developments)

- NAEYC Standard 2: Building family and community relationships (artifact example: lesson plans that cover parent participation).

- NAEYC Standard 4: Teaching and learning (a. connecting with children and families, using developmentally effective approaches, understanding content knowledge in early education, and building meaningful curriculum). Artifact examples include lesson plans that cover various subject areas, such as fine arts, social studies, physical development, literacy, math, and science activities.

- Institutional Standard 6: Diversity (artifact example: case studies of children with special needs, from low-income families, or from culturally and linguistically diverse

backgrounds).

Since the SubCert students followed the ISBE standards (well aligned with the NAEYC standards), data from 11 relevant ISBE standards were presented:

- Standard 1: Curriculum – content

- Standard 2: Curriculum – English language arts - Standard 3: Curriculum – Mathematics

- Standard 4: Curriculum – Science - Standard 5: Curriculum – Social science

- Standard 6: Curriculum – Physical development and health - Standard 7: Curriculum – final arts

(15)

- Standard 13: Communication

- Standard 15: Collaborative relationships How and when the assessment is implemented

Candidates’ portfolios are evaluated twice across the whole program period (middle and end of the program for BA, MAT, and ECP candidates; beginning and end of the program for SubCert

candidates), as defined by program benchmark courses. Candidates’ portfolios are evaluated based on a 4-point rubric that covers the quality of: (1) artifacts; (2) rationale statement; (3) overall writing; and (4) self-reflection. [The rubric was attached in the Appendix 2]

When data is analyzed and by whom

The portfolio reviews were conducted by all faculty in the Early Childhood Education programs. The data were analyzed by the end of the academic year by the program assessment coordinator. However, the benchmark review data for specific programs (e.g., BA and MAT) were also reported to the field placement coordinator periodically in order to ensure the candidates’

eligibility for field placement. It is a program policy that prior to applying for student teaching, the candidates’ portfolio reviews need to be at the “minimal expectations” level (out a 4-point rubric). Remediation provided to candidates not meeting criteria

For candidates who did not pass the review, the faculty reviewers met with students individually, gave them detailed feedback, and allowed them to resubmit their portfolios up to two times. In addition, our faculty hold one free LiveText workshop each term to support students.

How data from assessment is used by program, instructors and candidates

The livetext review data were used to determine whether the candidates are eligible for student teaching and whether they are qualified for graduation. In each class, candidates were required to submit benchmark assignments into livetext and each instructor review their submission as a part of teaching. Therefore, we facilitate students to build their portfolios on a continuous basis. Data interpretation (see data tables in Appendix 3)

The assessment data suggested that: (1) ECP candidates’ overall ratings on the artifact quality and rationale statement were at the “Minimal Expectations” level, but the scores tend to be relatively higher in the areas of overall writing quality and self-reflection. The ECP candidates achieved lower ratings in standard 2 (building family and community relationship).

(2) BA candidates achieved an average rating at the “Meeting Expectations” level, with slightly better scores in the area of writing quality and self-reflection. The candidates’ scoring on four standards was quite balanced.

(3) MAT candidates had well balanced performance in different standards and assessment areas and their overall rating was at the “Meeting Expectations” level. They had relatively higher ratings in self-reflection and writing quality.

(4) SubCert Candidates showed relatively smaller variation across all standards and assessment areas. On average, the students were rated at the “Meeting Expectations” level for all the standards. The ratings on the standard 13 (communications) and standard 15 (collative relationships) were higher than the ratings on the curriculum specific knowledge.

(16)

Appendix 2:

LiveText Portfolio Rubric

The teacher candidate utilizes high-quality artifacts in order to provide an argument (i.e., rationale statement) to demonstrate the candidate’s knowledge, skills, and dispositions related to current competency in each NAEYC performance standard. For example: “This artifact reflects my current level of proficiency in and relates to NAEYC standards ___ in many ways.” For a teaching episode a high quality artifact might include reflection and analysis of a lesson plan, an evaluation of a lesson plan observed by the cooperating teacher or university supervisor, analysis of student work, etc.

Below Expectations (1 point) Minimal Expectations (2 points) Meeting Expectations (3 points) Exceeds Expectations (4 points) Artifact

Artifacts show a weak degree of understanding, knowledge, and/or performance of the NAEYC standards; no description of what was read, prepared,

completed and/or observed related to the artifacts/ assignments.

Artifacts show relatively weak understanding, knowledge, and/or performance of the NAEYC standards; include some but limited description of what was read, prepared,

completed and/or observed related to the artifacts/ assignments. Artifacts show a moderate degree of understanding, knowledge, and/or performance of the NAEYC standards; include a detailed description of what was read, prepared,

Artifacts show a high degree of understanding, knowledge, and/or performance of the NAEYC standards; include a detailed description of what was read, prepared,

Rationale

The connection between the artifacts and the standards to demonstrate the candidate’s

proficiency in understanding the standards at the given time is not established or is illogically established.

Describes the connection between the artifacts and the standards to

demonstrate the

candidate’s proficiency in understanding the standards at the given checkpoint, but lacks necessary detail.

Clearly describes the connection between the artifacts and the

standards to demonstrate the candidate’s

proficiency in understanding the standards at the given checkpoint, but lacks adequate detail.

Clearly and thoroughly describes the connection between the artifacts and the standards to

demonstrate the

candidate’s proficiency in understanding the standards at the given checkpoint.

(17)

Self-refection

Little, if any, description of what was learned, the candidate’s strengths and areas for

improvement in meeting the standards.

Describes what was learned, the candidate’s strengths and areas for improvement in meeting the standards, but lacks necessary specifics.

Clear analysis of what was learned, the candidate’s strengths and areas for

improvement in meeting the standards, and a plan for growth, but lacks adequate specifics.

Clear, well developed, and specific analysis of what was learned, the candidate’s strengths and areas for

improvement in meeting the standards, and a detailed plan for growth. Quality of writing Poorly written; obtrusive

errors

(18)

Appendix 3 LiveText Portfolio Data: Content Knowledge

ECP Program (N =6)

Artifacts Rationales Quality of writing Self-reflection

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

NAEYC STD1: Promoting Child Development and Learning 2.00 (1.41) 1.83 (1.21) 3.50 (.50) 3.50 (.50) NAEYC STD2: Building Family and Community Relationships 1.83 (1.21) 1.83 (.121) 3.50 (.50) 3.50 (.50) NAEYC STD 4: Teaching and Learning 2.50 (1.12) 2.00 (1.41) 2.60 (.80) 3.50 (.50) Institute STD 6: Diversity 2.00 (1.27) 2.00 (1.27) 3.50 (.50) 3.50 (.50)

BA Program (N = 17)

NAEYC STD1: Promoting Child Development and Learning 2.77 (1.06) 2.88 (.76) 3.07 (.70) 3.07 (.70) NAEYC STD2: Building Family and Community Relationships 2.71 (1.02) 2.71 (1.02) 3.07 (.70) 3.07 (.70) NAEYC STD 4: Teaching and Learning 2.67 (1.00) 2.67 (1.00) 2.93 (.85) 3.07 (.70) Institute STD 6: Diversity 2.71 (1.02) 2.71 (1.02) 3.07 (.70) 3.07 (.70)

(19)

MAT Program (N = 14)

NAEYC STD1: Promoting Child Development and Learning 2.86 (1.19) 2.79 (1.26) 3.21 (.77) 3.20 (1.08) NAEYC STD2: Building Family and Community Relationships 2.57 (1.29) 2.71 (1.28) 3.00 (.93) 2.75 (1.30) NAEYC STD 4: Teaching and Learning 2.64 (1.23) 2.64 (1.23) 2.86 (1.06) 2.75 (1.23) Institute STD 6: Diversity 2.50 (1.04) 2.64 (1.23) 2.79 (1.08) 2.67 (1.25)

SubCert Program (N = 6)

ISBE Standard 1: Curriculum - Content 2.92 (.49) 3.08 (.64) 3.08 (.64) 2.92 (.49) ISBE Standard 2: Curriculum – English Language Arts 3.08 (.64) 3.08 (.64) 3.08 (.64) 2.92 (.49) ISBE Standard 3: Curriculum – Mathematics 2.92 (.49) 3.08 (.64) 3.08 (.64) 2.92 (.49) ISBE Standard 4: Curriculum – Science 2.92 (.49) 3.08 (.64) 3.08 (.64) 2.92 (.49) ISBE Standard 5: Curriculum – Social Science 2.92 (.49) 3.08 (.64) 3.08 (.64) 2.92 (.49) ISBE Standard 6: Curriculum – Physical Dev. and Health 2.92 (.49) 3.08 (.64) 3.08 (.64) 2.92 (.49) ISBE Standard 7: Curriculum – Fine Arts 2.92 (.49) 3.08 (.64) 3.08 (.64) 2.92 (.49) ISBE Standard 8: Human Development and Learning 3.08 (.64) 3.08 (.64) 3.08 (.64) 2.92 (.49) ISBE Standard 9: Diversity 3.00 (.41) 3.17 (.55) 3.17 (.55) 3.00 (.41) ISBE Standard 13: Communication 3.17 (.55) 3.17 (.55) 3.17 (.55) 3.00 (.41) ISBE Standard 15: Collaborative Relationships 3.17 (.55) 3.17 (.57) 3.17 (.55) 3.00 (.41)

(20)

Professional Knowledge (Pedagogical Content Knowledge)

Assessments: LiveText Electronic Portfolio & Lesson Plan Rubric

Description of the assessment: (1) LiveText Portfolio

As specified in the previous section, the LiveText portfolio assessment covers all domains of expected knowledge, including pedagogical knowledge, for teacher candidates as outlined by the state and national standards. We presented the proportion of assessment data related to content knowledge in the previous section. In this section, another proportion of portfolio data related to candidates’ pedagogical, professional knowledge were provided. Specifically, to demonstrate students’ pedagogical knowledge, data from four standards of the portfolio were presented for BA, ECP, and MAT students:

- NAEYC Standard 3: Observing, documenting, and assessing to support young children and families (artifact example: child observation study that covers specific domains of development, such as language, fine motor, cognitive, and social behaviors).

- NAEYC Standard 4: Teaching and learning (a. connecting with children and families, using developmentally effective approaches, understanding content knowledge in early education, and building meaningful curriculum). This standard certainly covers both content and pedagogical knowledge. Artifact examples include lesson plans that cover various subject areas, such as fine arts, social studies, physical development, literacy, math, and science activities.

- NAEYC Standard 5: Becoming a professional (artifact examples include field practice reflections, teaching philosophy statements, advocacy for children and families, and engagement in professional organizations)

- Institutional Standard 7: Technology (artifact examples: lesson plans that involve use of technology in instruction and assessment and Open House presentations to parents). Since the SubCert students followed the ISBE standards, which are well aligned with the NAEYC standards, data from the following six relevant ISBE standards were presented:

- Standard 10: Planning for instruction - Standard 11: Learning environment - Standard 12: Instructional delivery - Standard 14: Assessment

- Standard 16: Reflection and professional growth - Standard 17: Professional conduct and leadership

Description of the assessment: (2) Lesson Plan Rubric [attached in the Appendix 4] In addition to the portfolio assessment, we also evaluate candidates’ specific lesson plans that they implemented in classrooms during practicum and student teaching to assess their

pedagogical knowledge. A 5-point rubric was used to examine several aspects of the lesson design: (a) specification of learning outcomes that are aligned with the state learning standards, (b) inclusion of child assessments, (c) the process of implementation (introduction, material design, closing, and extension of lesson), and (d) differentiation strategies.

(21)

In this section, we provided data from a proportion of items of the tool (10 out of 14 items) to demonstrate candidates’ professional knowledge. As you will see in a later section, this tool is also used to assess impact on learning. The internal consistency reliability of the tool is established at α = .80 for this year’s data.

How and when the assessment is implemented

One lesson was evaluated during both practicum (at the half-way of the program) and student teaching (at the end of the program) by the candidates and supervisors. A 5-point rubric was used to perform the evaluation.

When data is analyzed and by whom

The data were analyzed by the program assessment coordinator by the end of the academic year. However, when alarming qualitative comments were noticed during data entry, the seminar leaders were quickly informed.

Remediation provided to candidates not meeting criteria

For candidates who received low ratings on lesson evaluation, they met with supervisors and mentor teachers to discuss the issues, identify the components that need to be revised, and re-implemented the lesson when it is necessary.

How data from assessment is used by program, instructors and candidates

The lesson evaluation data provided important information in revising our method courses. Faculty reviewed the assessment data from last year, and reinforced the components of lesson design within the method courses. In addition, the data helped us to see the importance of practice alignment across different stages of the program. The evaluation conducted during the practicum (half way through the program) prepared students for their final student teaching. Data interpretation [see data tables in the Appendix 5]

The LiveText data indicated that: (1) ECP candidates’ overall performance was at the “Minimal

Expectations” level, with higher scores in the areas of overall writing quality and self-reflection.

(2) BA candidates achieved an average rating at the “Meeting Expectations” level. The candidates had relatively lower ratings in standard 4 (teaching and learning) and standard 7 (technology). (3) MAT candidates had well balanced performance in different standards and assessment areas and their overall rating was at the “Meeting Expectations” level, moving towards “Exceeds Expectations”. (4) SubCert Candidates were rated at the “Meeting

Expectations” level for all the standards. The ratings on the Standard 10: Planning for Instruction

were slightly lower.

The lesson evaluation data indicated that: the candidates in all programs were doing well. Almost all ratings were above 4 points (out of 5 points), and none of the ratings were below 3 points. One consistent data trend that found within both undergraduate and graduate students was that students received relatively lower ratings in the areas of lesson assessment, closing, and extended experiences.

(22)

Appendix 4 Early Childhood Education Lesson Plan Rubric

Student Name: Date:

Supervisor Name: Name of Lesson:

Prepared by:

(Student or Supervisor) Lesson Number:

(Please include comments under each section)

Items Being

Assessed Not Evident 0 Below Standard 1 Satisfactory 3 Excellent 5

Introduction Did not include any _{information in the}

introduction

Left out one or two areas of

the introduction All areas of the intro are completed All areas of the introduction are completed and developmentally appropriate Score Learning Objectives Essential questions/learning objectives are missing

Essential question/learning objectives are not clearly stated

Essential questions/learning

objectives are clearly stated Essential questions/learning objectives are clearly stated and differentiated

Score

State Standards No evidence of state _{standards are included in}

the lesson

State standards are inappropriate for the age group and state standards are not aligned with learning objectives

State standards are

appropriate for the age group, but are not aligned with learning objectives

Identifies age appropriate state standards and aligns with learning objectives

Score

Comments:

Items Being

Pre-Assessment Strategies Evidence of pre-assessment strategies is missing Pre-assessment strategies are not clearly stated

*Clearly identifies the knowledge and skills needed to participate in the lesson *Pre-assessment strategy is explained clearly

*Modifications are clearly explained for those students lacking prior knowledge and skills

*Clearly identifies the knowledge and skills needed to participate in the lesson

*Pre-assessment strategy is explained clearly

*Modifications are clearly explained for those students lacking prior knowledge and skills *An example of the

pre-assessment tool is included with the plan

Score

Lesson Assessment

Evidence of an assessment

strategy is missing The assessment strategy is disconnected from the learning objectives

*The assessment strategy is explained clearly

*The assessment strategy correlates directly to the learning objectives

*The assessment strategy is explained clearly

*The assessment strategy correlates directly to the learning objectives

*An example of the assessment tool is included with the plan

Score

(23)

Assessed 0 1 3 5

Materials and Resources

(Including Technology)

Materials for all parts of the

lesson are missing Materials for one or two parts of the lesson are missing

*Specific materials for all parts of the lesson are listed and directly relate to the learning objectives

*Materials and resources are age appropriate

*Specific materials for all parts of the lesson are listed and directly relate to the learning objectives *Materials and resources are age appropriate

*The components and preparation of the learning environment are clearly described

Score

Differentiation Modifications to meet the _{needs of various learners}

are not identified

Modifications to meet the needs of various learners are unclear

Modifications and strategies to meet the needs of various learners are clearly identified

*Modifications and strategies to meet the needs of various learners are clearly identified *Materials and resources needed to support the needs of individual students are included

Score

Comments:

Items Being

Anticipatory Set Anticipatory set is missing Anticipatory set is not _{focused or connected to}

prior knowledge

Anticipatory set:

*connects to prior knowledge *focuses attention on the lesson

Anticipatory set:

*connects to prior knowledge *focuses attention on the lesson *engages learners in the content in a creative and age appropriate way

Score

Main Activity Teaching strategies are _missing Teaching strategies are _{unclear and disconnected}

from the learning objectives

Teaching strategies are explained in detail and relate directly to the learning objectives

*Teaching strategies are explained in detail and relate directly to the learning objectives *Teaching strategies engage the learners in the content in a creative and age appropriate way

Score

Closing Closing is not included Closing is unclear Closing summarizes the _{lesson and connects to future}

learning

*Closing summarizes the lesson and connects to future learning *Closing includes directions for ‘clean up’ and transition

Score Extended Experiences and/or Home-School Connections Extended experiences or home-school connections are not included

Extended experiences or home-school experiences are not clearly stated

Extended experience or home school connection is

summarized and connects to the lesson

*Extended experience or home school connection is summarized and connects to the lesson *Connects to future learning

Score

(24)

Items Being

Analysis of Pre-Assessment

Analysis of pre-assessment

is missing. Analysis of pre-assessment is not clear. The reflection and analysis includes a discussion of how the pre-assessment connected to the learning objectives.

* The reflection and analysis includes a discussion of how the pre-assessment connected to the learning objectives

*The reflection and analysis highlights strengths and weaknesses of the pre-assessment.

Score

Comments:

Items Being

Assessment Analysis

(Interpretation of Assessment Data) for

Impact on Student Learning Analysis of assessment is missing. Analysis of assessment is not clear.

*The reflection and analysis includes a discussion of how the assessment connected to the learning objectives *The reflection includes a discussion of the impact on learning for all students based on the analysis of the data.

* The reflection and analysis includes a discussion of how the assessment connected to the learning objectives

* The reflection includes a discussion of the impact on learning for all students based on the analysis of the data.

*The reflection and analysis highlights strengths and weaknesses of the assessment.

Score

Comments:

Items Being

Next Steps and Ideas for Future Revisions to Impact Student Learning (This may

include changing upcoming lessons)

Next steps and ideas for future revisions to impact student learning are missing.

Next steps and ideas for future revisions to impact student learning are not clear.

*The next steps and ideas for future revisions demonstrate proof of impact on student learning.

*The next steps and ideas for future revisions demonstrate proof of impact on student learning. *Discussion includes a reflection on the impact of the differentiation strategies.

Score

Comments:

(25)

Appendix 5 LiveText Portfolio Data: Pedagogical Knowledge

ECP Program (N =6)

NAEYC STD 3: Observing, Documenting, and Assessing to

Support Young Children and Families 1.83 (1.21) 2.00 (1.16) 3.50 (.50) 3.50 (.50) NAEYC STD 4: Teaching and Learning 2.50 (1.12) 2.00 (1.41) 2.60 (.80) 3.50 (.50)

NAEYC STD 5: Becoming a Professional 2.17 (1.34) 2.17 (1.34) 3.50 (.50) 3.50 (.50)

Institution STD 7: Technology 2.80 (.98) 2.80 (.98) 2.60 (.80) 3.50 (.50)

BA Program (N = 17)

Support Young Children and Families 2.83 (.76) 2.83 (.76) 2.93 (.85) 3.07 (.70) NAEYC STD 4: Teaching and Learning 2.67 (1.00) 2.67 (1.00) 2.93 (.85) 3.07 (.70) NAEYC STD 5: Becoming a Professional 2.71 (1.02) 2.71 (1.02) 3.07 (.70) 3.07 (.70) Institution STD 7: Technology 2.67 (1.00) 2.67 (1.00) 2.93 (.85) 3.07 (.70)

(26)

MAT Program (N = 14)

Support Young Children and Families 3.07 (1.03) 2.79 (1.26) 3.21 (.77) 2.83 (1.28) NAEYC STD 4: Teaching and Learning 2.64 (1.23) 2.64 (1.23) 2.86 (1.06) 2.75 (1.03) NAEYC STD 5: Becoming a Professional 2.57 (1.24) 2.64 (1.23) 2.86 (1.06) 2.67 (1.25) Institution STD 7: Technology 2.64 (1.20) 2.64 (1.23) 2.79 (1.08) 2.67 (1.25)

SubCert Program (N = 6)

ISBE Standard 10: Planning for Instruction 2.92 (.49) 3.08 (.64) 3.08 (.64) 2.92 (.49) ISBE Standard 11: Learning Environment 3.17 (.55) 3.17 (.55) 3.17 (.55) 3.00 (.41) ISBE Standard 12: Instructional delivery 3.08 (.64) 3.08 (.64) 3.08 (.64) 2.92 (.49) ISBE Standard 14: Assessment 3.00 (.41) 3.17 (.55) 3.17 (.55) 3.00 (.41) ISBE Standard 16: Reflection and Professional Growth 3.17 (.55) 3.17 (.55) 3.17 (.55) 3.00 (.41) ISBE Standard 17: Professional Conduct and Leadership 3.17 (.55) 3.17 (.55) 3.17 (.55) 3.00 (.41)

(27)

Lesson Plan Evaluation Data: Pedagogical Knowledge

BA: Practicum

(N = 20)

BA: Student teaching

(N = 7)

Candidates Mean (SD) Supervisors Mean (SD) Candidates Mean (SD) Supervisors Mean (SD) Introduction 4.75 (.71) 4.67 (.78) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) Learning objectives 4.75 (.71) 4.83 (.58) 4.60 (.55) 5.00 (.00) State standards 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) Lesson assessment 4.50 (.93) 4.83 (.57) 3.80 (1.10) 4.80 (.45)

Materials and resources 4.88 (.35) 4.75 (.62) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00)

Differentiation 4.25 (1.04) 4.67 (.78) 4.80 (.45) 5.00 (.00) Anticipatory set 4.63 (.74) 4.83 (.58) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) Main activity 4.63 (.74) 4.83 (.58) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) Closing 3.88 (1.46) 4.42 (.79) 4.80 (.45) 4.40 (.89) Extended experiences 4.63 (.74) 4.75 (.62) 4.40 (.89) 5.00 (.00)

ECP: Practicum

(N = 47)

Candidates Mean (SD) Supervisors Mean (SD) Introduction 4.87 (.50) 4.72 (.75) Learning objectives 4.87 (.50) 4.52 (.99) State standards 4.75 (.68) 4.59 (.87) Lesson assessment 4.31 (.95) 4.55 (.95)

Materials and resources 4.81 (.54) 4.75 (.75)

Differentiation 4.56 (.81) 4.38 (.90)

Anticipatory set 4.63 (.81) 4.71 (.76)

Main activity 4.50 (.89) 4.69 (.89)

Closing 4.25 (1.00) 4.61 (.88)

(28)

MAT: Practicum

(N = 9)

MAT: Student Teaching

(N = 12)

SubCert: Practicum

(N =2)

Candidates Mean (SD) Supervisor Mean (SD) Candidates Mean (SD) Supervisors Mean (SD) Supervisors Mean (SD) Introduction 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) Learning objectives 3.75 (1.50) 4.60 (.89) 4.67 (.58) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) State standards 4.50 (1.00) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) Lesson assessment 3.50 (1.00) 3.80 (1.30) 4.67 (.58) 5.00 (.00) 4.00 (.00)

Materials and resources 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00)

Differentiation 4.00 (.82) 4.00 (1.41) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00)

Anticipatory set 4.75 (.50) 5.00 (.00) 4.67 (.58) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00)

Main activity 4.00 (2.00) 5.00 (.00) 4.33 (.58) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00)

Closing 3.50 (1.91) 5.00 (.00) 4.33 (.58) 4.00 (1.41) 5.00 (.00)

(29)

Field Experiences

Assessment: Competency Appraisal

Description of the assessment:

During student teaching experience, a summative assessment of candidates’ performances was implemented by use of the Competency Appraisal. This survey covers all five NAEYC standards and two additional institutional standards: (1) child development and learning; (2) building relationships with community and families; (3) observing and assessing child development; (4) teaching practice; (5) becoming a professional; (6) diversity proficiencies; and (7) technology proficiencies.

The survey consists of 60 items, and each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Needs significant improvement; 2 = Approaching competency; 3 = Competent; 4 = Very good; 5 = Excellent). [The rubric is attached in Appendix 6].

Based on the 2013-2014 data, the scale shows an overall high internal consistency reliability (average α = .96). The candidates, cooperating teachers, and the university supervisors all completed the same version of the survey half way through the student teaching (the 5th week of the student teaching), and then again at the end of the student teaching (the 10th week).

How and when the assessment is implemented: The assessment was conducted by student teaching, filled out by candidates, supervisors, and cooperating teachers, at middle and end of the term.

When data is analyzed and by whom: The data were analyzed by the program assessment coordinator by the end of the academic year. However, when alarming qualitative comments were noticed during data entry, the seminar leaders were quickly informed.

Remediation provided to candidates not meeting criteria: For candidates who received low ratings on the Competency Appraisal, they met with the supervisors and mentor teachers to discuss specific issues and identify the areas that they need to improve. By final evaluation, if the

candidate still received consistent low ratings, and had low performance on other evaluation tasks, then the decision of re-taking student teaching will be made by the program director, in

consultation with the seminar leader and the supervisor.

How data from assessment is used by program, instructors and candidates: The Competency Appraisal was used as a tool to monitor student performance and to facilitate field supervision. The data provided important information for supervisors to identify specific areas that students might need support. The collected data were also used to fulfill program assessment purpose.

Data interpretation: [see data tables in the Appendix 7]

A few findings emerged from the data: First, candidates in all four programs had fairly high ratings across all 7 standards/areas, by all raters. All the average scores for all standards were above 3 or 4 (most were above 4, out of 5 points), and the only exception was that the average ratings on standard 3 (observing and assessing young children) for ECP program were slightly

(30)

Second, generally speaking, the candidates in the MAT and SubCert programs had relatively higher ratings than candidates in the BA programs.

Third, even though the average ratings were positively skewed and had limited variability, the

paired-samples T-tests showed statistically significant improvement between the mid-term and final evaluations (6 standards showed significant differences for both MAT and BA candidates).

Fourth, three standards, building family and community relations (standard 2), observing,

documenting, and assessing to support young children and families (standard 3) and technology

(standard 7), had relatively lower ratings in comparison to the rest of thestandards. This was true across all programs.

In summary, our student candidates performed very well during student teaching on all NAEYC standards and the two additional institutional standards (i.e., diversity and technology) based on the competency appraisal evaluation.

(31)

Appendix 6:

STUDENT TEACHING COMPETENCY APPRAISAL

STUDENT TEACHER_____________________________________________________ GRADE/CONTENT AREA_________________________________________________ MIDTERM DATE_____/_____/_____ FINAL DATE_____/_____/_____

PREPARED BY__________________________________________________________ SIGN AT FINAL CONFERENCE___________________________________________ STUDENT TEACHER_____________________________________________________ COOPERATING TEACHER________________________________________________ UNIVERSITY SUPERVISOR_______________________________________________ RATING DESCRIPTION

The student teacher has demonstrated a consistently excellent performance

The student teacher has demonstrated a very good or better than competent performance The student teacher has demonstrated a competent performance

The student teacher has demonstrated a movement toward competency The student teacher has demonstrated that significant improvement is needed

USE THE FOLLOWING SCALE TO COMPLETE THE APPRAISAL FORM: 1 = Needs Significant Improvement 4 = Very Good

2 = Approaching Competency 5 = Excellent

3 = Competent IE = Insufficient Evidence at this time

The appraisals completed by student self, the cooperating teacher, and the university supervisor become part of the student teacher’s permanent record.

NAEYC STANDARD 1

PROMOTING CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING

Strives to build supportive relationships with children 5 4 3 2 1 IE Creates learning environments that support children’s health, and respect their culture and

individuality 5 4 3 2 1 IE

Creates developmentally appropriate and effective learning environments

(32)

Creates learning environments that promote positive development and challenge children to gain

new competencies 5 4 3 2 1 IE

NAEYC STANDARD 2

BUILDING FAMILY AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS

Demonstrates commitment to collaboration with families in order to understand and support the development of the child 5 4 3 2 1 IE

Demonstrates an understanding of the significant characteristics of the families and community

of the school 5 4 3 2 1 IE

Uses various strategies to communicate effectively with families 5 4 3 2 1 IE NAEYC STANDARD 3

OBSERVING, DOCUMENTING, AND ASSESSING TO SUPPORT YOUNG CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

Uses assessment data to inform planning and implementation 5 4 3 2 1 IE Aligns goals, curriculum, teaching strategies, and assessment 5 4 3 2 1 IE Applies responsible assessment practices when working with diverse children

5 4 3 2 1 IE Uses a variety of appropriate assessment strategies and tools 5 4 3 2 1 IE NAEYC STANDARD 4

TEACHING AND LEARNING

Element 4A. Positive Relationships and Supportive Interactions

Speaks and writes at a level understandable to children 5 4 3 2 1 IE Builds a positive classroom community 5 4 3 2 1 IE Supports and encourages peer learning 5 4 3 2 1 IE Creates an atmosphere of respect 5 4 3 2 1 IE Encourages children to express their creativity 5 4 3 2 1 IE Element 4B. Effective Approaches and Teaching Strategies

(33)

Plans and implements a curriculum that incorporates play 5 4 3 2 1 IE Plans meaningful routines and transitions 5 4 3 2 1 IE Uses a variety of appropriate instructional strategies 5 4 3 2 1 IE

Incorporates an understanding of children’s characteristics, needs, and interests into planning and

implementation 5 4 3 2 1 IE

Shows consistency of application of management techniques 5 4 3 2 1 IE Fosters language and communication skills with respect to culture 5 4 3 2 1 IE Organizes and plans thoroughly 5 4 3 2 1 IE Utilizes effective questioning techniques 5 4 3 2 1 IE Element 4C. Content Knowledge

Applies knowledge of theories and research to planning early childhood curriculum 5 4 3 2 1 IE Demonstrates knowledge of subject matter in all disciplines 5 4 3 2 1 IE Utilizes appropriate resources to supplement content knowledge 5 4 3 2 1 IE Plans high quality meaningful experiences across the curriculum 5 4 3 2 1 IE Identifies realistic and appropriate goals and objectives and professional standards

5 4 3 2 1 IE Element 4D. Curriculum Design

Designs curriculum to foster children’s academic and social competence

5 4 3 2 1 IE Encourages students to initiate activities and problem solve 5 4 3 2 1 IE NAEYC STANDARD 5

BECOMING A PROFESSIONAL

Projects a professional demeanor 5 4 3 2 1 IE Exhibits enthusiasm and demonstrates initiative 5 4 3 2 1 IE Demonstrates dependability, cooperation and understanding of role responsibility

(34)

Demonstrates flexibility and adaptive behavior 5 4 3 2 1 IE Works cooperatively with classroom teacher and is collegial with school personnel

5 4 3 2 1 IE Participates in student support team meetings and professional development

5 4 3 2 1 IE Utilizes research to support professional practice with children 5 4 3 2 1 IE Demonstrates effective oral and written communication skills 5 4 3 2 1 IE Accepts and utilizes constructive criticism from cooperating teacher, supervisor and

administrators 5 4 3 2 1 IE

Exhibits skills in self evaluation 5 4 3 2 1 IE Reflects on performance to enhance development as a professional teacher

5 4 3 2 1 IE NAEYC STANDARD 6

DIVERSITY

Demonstrates respect for and affirms culturally and linguistically diverse children and their

families 5 4 3 2 1 IE

Creates learning environments and experiences that are free of bias and are culturally responsive 5 4 3 2 1 IE

Adapts curriculum and strategies for the diverse or exceptional learner

5 4 3 2 1 IE NAEYC STANDARD 7

TECHNOLOGY

Designs appropriate learning environments and activities using various technologies 5 4 3 2 1 IE Adapts curriculum using technology to address the diverse needs of students

5 4 3 2 1 IE Creates assessment tools using technology 5 4 3 2 1 IE

(35)

Appendix 7:

Competency Appraisal Data

BA Program (N = 27)

The internal consistency reliability was .96.

Candidates Cooperating Teachers

Faculty Supervisors Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

NAEYC STANDARD 1: Promoting Child Development and Learning 4.78 (.30) 4.81 (.22) 4.94 (.11) NAEYC STANDARD 2: Building Family and Community Relations 4.37 (.51) 4.63 (.42) 4.67 (.71) NAEYC STANDARD 3: Observing, Documenting, and Assessing to Support

Young Children and Families 4.38 (.52) 4.38 (.38) 4.25 (.81)

NAEYC STANDARD 4: Teaching and Learning

Element 4A: Positive Relationships and Supportive Interactions 4.80 (.35) 4.83 (.20) 4.98 (.07) Element 4B: Effective Approaches and Teaching Strategies 4.44 (.59) 4.60 (.24) 4.67 (.40)

Element 4C: Content Knowledge 4.54 (.45) 4.65 (.38) 4.53 (.69)

Element 4D: Curriculum Design 4.55 (.64) 4.69 (.37) 4.64 (.55)

NAEYC STANDARD 5: Becoming a Professional 4.69 (.43) 4.93 (.09) 4.76 (.53)

NAEYC STANDARD 6: Diversity 4.77 (.32) 4.75 (.35) 4.81 (.44)

(36)

The paired-samples T-tests showed: final ratings were statistically significantly higher than midterm evaluations on 6 standards.

*p < .05; **p < .01.

ECP Program (N = 4)

Assessment Point

Mid-term Final

Mean (SD) Mean (SD) T-test

NAEYC STANDARD 1: Promoting Child Development and Learning 4.69 (.34) 4.84 (.23) 2.00 NAEYC STANDARD 2: Building Family and Community Relations 4.18 (.78) 4.53 (.56) 2.25* NAEYC STANDARD 3: Observing, Documenting, and Assessing to Support

Young Children and Families 4.07 (.68) 4.32 (.59)

2.60*

Element 4A: Positive Relationships and Supportive Interactions 4.77 (.32) 4.86 (.25) 1.77* Element 4B: Effective Approaches and Teaching Strategies 4.22 (.56) 4.56 (.41) .08

Element 4C: Content Knowledge 4.32 (.64) 4.56 (.52) 3.30**

Element 4D: Curriculum Design 4.26 (.67) 4.60 (.53) 2.49**

NAEYC STANDARD 5: Becoming a Professional 4.66 (.48) 4.78 (.41) 1.90*

NAEYC STANDARD 6: Diversity 4.59 (.46) 4.77 (.41) 2.57*

NAEYC STANDARD 7: Technology 3.87 (.82) 4.15 (.80) 3.73**

Faculty Supervisors Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) NAEYC STANDARD 1: Promoting Child Development and Learning 4.82 (.34) 4.74 (.40) 4.78 (.57) NAEYC STANDARD 2: Building Family and Community Relations 4.64 (.51) 4.59 (.48) 4.59 (.76) NAEYC STANDARD 3: Observing, Documenting, and Assessing to Support

NAEYC STANDARD 4: Teaching and Learning 4.70 (.36) 4.72 (.36) 4.76 (.62)

(37)

Note: ECP program has a shorter version of the survey and only collects final evaluations due to limited practicum hours.

MAT Program: (N = 25)

Paired-samples T-tests showed: final ratings were statistically significantly higher than midterm evaluations on 6 standards.

NAEYC STANDARD 7: Technology 4.62 (.63) 4.73 (.44) 4.57 (.82)

Faculty Supervisors Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

NAEYC STANDARD 1: Promoting Child Development and Learning 4.83 (.25) 4.75 (.32) 4.92 (.25) NAEYC STANDARD 2: Building Family and Community Relations 4.48 (.38) 4.52 (.47) 4.52 (.53) NAEYC STANDARD 3: Observing, Documenting, and Assessing to Support

Element 4A: Positive Relationships and Supportive Interactions 4.87 (.17) 4.83 (.31) 4.89 (.23) Element 4B: Effective Approaches and Teaching Strategies 4.61 (.26) 4.65 (.44) 4.74 (.36)

Element 4C: Content Knowledge 4.56 (.37) 4.74 (.34) 4.73 (.28)

Element 4D: Curriculum Design 4.50 (.56) 4.57 (.45) 4.89 (.33)

NAEYC STANDARD 6: Diversity 4.75 (.26) 4.42 (.71) 4.90 (.22)

NAEYC STANDARD 7: Technology 4.31 (.56) 4.44 (.56) 4.22 (.71)

Assessment Point

Mid-term Final

Mean (SD) Mean (SD) T-test

NAEYC STANDARD 1: Promoting Child Development and Learning 4.61 (.50) 4.84 (.27) 2.70* NAEYC STANDARD 2: Building Family and Community Relations 4.16 (.59) 4.51 (.44) 2.81*