Comprehensive Assessment System Manual

Comprehensive Assessment

System Manual

Education Department

2012

1

INTRODUCTION

The Comprehensive Assessment System Manual (CASM) was initially produced at Benedictine

College in 2002. It outlined and described the elements of the newly established system for the

assessment of candidate, program, and unit performance. The document contained an overview

of the system, a transition plan, and the initial rubrics used for evaluation of candidate

professional portfolios. The CASM was first submitted to the Kansas State Department of

Education in September of 2002.

In the ten years since, many refinements have been made. This version of the CASM reflects

those refinements. In place of a transition plan, it now features a document that describes the

historical development of the system and cross-references this chronology with specific artifacts.

The professional portfolio continues to serve as the linchpin for candidate and unit assessment,

providing quantitative data on program outcomes. New documents have been developed to

explain the system to candidates and new instruments have been developed to assess growth.

Part One of this manual explains the design of the system and provides a historical chronology.

Part Two of the manual includes instruments used to evaluate teacher education program

candidates and explanatory documents. Part Three of the manual contains instruments and

materials used for assessment in the M.A. in School Leadership (MASL) and Master of Arts in

Education (M.Ed.) programs. Part Four contains examples of data and analysis submitted to the

Kansas State Department of Education in evaluating candidates and operation of specific

licensure programs.

2

Comprehensive Assessment System Manual (CASM)

Table of Contents

Part 1: CASM Overview

Comprehensive Assessment System Overview .......................................................3

Historical Development ...........................................................................................7

Standards Alignment ..............................................................................................14

The Comprehensive Assessment System in Detail ................................................21

Answers to Commonly Asked Questions ..............................................................26

Assessment Calendar .............................................................................................30

Four Year Plan for Assessment (Focal Point 2).....................................................33

Part 2: Teacher Education Program Documents

Introduction to Part 2 ........................................................................................... 38

Professional Portfolio Guide ................................................................................ 40

Standard Artifact Rubric ...................................................................................... 48

Guide to Writing Builder of Community Essay .................................................. 49

Professional Portfolio Evaluator’s Rubric ........................................................... 54

Professional Portfolio Score Summary ................................................................ 64

Benedictine Performance Assessment Rubric ..................................................... 65

Part 3: Graduate Programs in Education Documents

Introduction to Part 3 ........................................................................................... 86

Professional Portfolio Evaluator’s Rubric ........................................................... 87

MASL Practicum Portfolio Evaluation Rubric .................................................... 97

M.Ed. Directed Study Portfolio Evaluation Rubric ........................................... 104

Graduate Programs Dispositional Rubric .......................................................... 110

Part 4: Licensure Program Documents

Introduction to Part 4 ......................................................................................... 111

Example of KSDE Program Report (English Lang. Arts) ................................. 112

3

Comprehensive Assessment System Overview Introduction

The Comprehensive Assessment System Manual (CASM) at Benedictine College describes

ongoing candidate and program evaluation processes for both initial and advanced education

programs. Emphasis is placed on articulating, aligning, and assessing candidate knowledge,

performance and dispositions as they relate to NCATE/KSDE unit standards, KSDE program

licensure standards and candidate outcomes identified by the unit’s conceptual framework,

Educators as Builders of Community.

The Comprehensive Assessment System for Benedictine College’s education programs at the

initial and advanced levels is designed to:

align with the conceptual framework, Educators as Builders of Community

align with KSDE content area program standards for all licensure areas

align with NCATE/KSDE unit accreditation standards

use professional portfolios to obtain quantitative information regarding candidate

and unit performance on program outcomes

track performance over time by individual, by cohort, and by course/experience

outline a system for using assessment findingsto inform program decisions

Aligns with the Conceptual Framework, Educators As Builders of Community

The unit’s conceptual framework, Educators as Builders of Community, defines student

performance outcomes at the initial and advanced levels. These outcomes identify what is

developmentally appropriate for candidates at the undergraduate and graduate level to know and

be able to do as they prepare to teach in or administer schools, respectively. The outcomes for

the teacher education program (TEP) align with the INTASC standards. The outcomes for the

M.A. in School Leadership (MASL) align with the ISLLC and KSDE school leadership

standards and the M.A. in Education is aligned with the KSDE Teacher Leader Standards. An

alignment of the student outcomes for the conceptual framework, and INTASC/ISLLC standards

follows.

There are three benchmark points throughout the initial and advanced programs when

assessments are made of candidates’ progress toward meeting the outcomes. Candidates prepare

and expand a professional portfolio throughout their program that includes performance artifacts

representing development and mastery of the candidate outcomes. The professional portfolio is

presented by candidates at benchmark points in each program and evaluated on required

knowledge, performance, and dispositions that align with Educators as Builders of Community

and professional standards.

As defined by the unit, a benchmark point is one in which a candidate’s professional portfolio is

evaluated by a team consisting at a minimum of one member of the Education Department and

one member of the broader professional community. Portfolios are evaluated independently. If

there is a significant discrepancy (defined as a rating that is different by more than one point) a

third individual also scores that component of the portfolio.

4

It is important to note that the unit systematically makes decisions about both candidate

performance and unit operations at a number of points beyond the three benchmark points. The

unit strives for continuous improvement and evaluation. Such additional decision points include

the monthly and bimonthly meetings of the Education Department (“Candidate dispositions,” for

example are a permanent agenda item at all such meetings) and data collected from all program

completers and their employers at the end of the first year of teaching.

Aligns with Content Area Program Standards for all Licensure Areas

Each program Benedictine College offers for the licensure of professional educators is aligned

with the relevant KSDE program standards. Products and performances in courses and

experiences are identified based on their demonstration of candidate mastery on knowledge and

performance indicators that align with content area program standards. Data are input into the

Comprehensive Assessment System each semester from all courses supporting licensure

programs regarding the performance of candidates and prospective candidates.

Aligns with KSDE and NCATE Unit Accreditation Standards

The Comprehensive Assessment System (CAS) was developed with the unit’s professional

community. The CAS includes a comprehensive and integrated set of evaluation measures that

are used to monitor candidate performance and manage and improve both the teacher preparation

and administer preparation programs. Decisions about candidate performance are based on

multiple assessments made at admission into programs, at appropriate transition points, and at

program completion. The CAS uses multiple assessments from internal and external sources,

collecting data from applicants, candidates, recent graduates, faculty, and other members of the

professional community. Data derived from the CAS are regularly and systematically analyzed

to improve candidate performance, program quality and unit operations. The unit maintains the

CAS through the use of information technologies.

Uses professional portfolios to obtain quantitative data regarding performance on program

outcomes

Candidates are required to submit professional portfolios. These serve as the linchpins for

candidate and unit assessment. Artifacts in both the initial and advanced level portfolios are

organized according to knowledge, skills, dispositions and six program outcomes. Evaluation of

the portfolios produces quantitative data regarding candidate and unit performance.

Tracks Performance Over Time by Individual, by Cohort, And by Course/Experience

The Comprehensive Assessment System enables tracking and analyses of performance over time

for the candidate, the cohort, and the benchmark course/experience. Regular reports provide data

based findings of candidate and program performance and evaluate effectiveness in achieving

outcomes and standards. Candidate performance is assessed at three benchmark points during the

program: 1) program admission; 2) admission to student teaching/practicum; 3) completion of

program. Program recommendations and necessary improvements are identified based on

analyses of performance patterns within candidate cohorts and within benchmark courses and

experiences that are aligned with standards.

5

Outlines a System for Using Assessment Findings to Inform Program Decisions

Regular reports of data patterns are key to the system for using assessment findings to inform

program decisions. These reports provide an interpretive, annual picture of performance.

Systemic review of data from all initial and advanced programs occurs at the extended Education

Department meetings that occur during finals week of each term. CAS data is collected each

semester from all courses that support the various licensure areas. Chairs for licensure programs

annually review this data and provide data-driven recommendations and changes. To assure

systematic, face-to-face reflection between full-time Education Department faculty and

secondary content area faculty, the unit recently adopted the following policy, which is printed in

the current Benedictine College Catalog, “A co-chair of the Education Department meets at least

annually with representatives of other Benedictine College departments with programs leading to

teacher licensure to consider data specific to these licensure areas.”

Collection, Analysis, Summarization, and Use of Data

Types of data to be collected to evaluate candidate and program performance standards continue

to be identified by education faculty, licensure program chairs, candidates and members of the

broader professional community. Criteria used for the selection of data types and collection

points include benchmark assessments at transition points, multiple assessment measures for

licensure standards, individual candidate performance over time, cohort performance over time,

and candidate performance by course or experience. Data and artifacts used for unit assessment

are concisely described in the professional portfolio guides which follows in Part 2 and Part 3 of

this document. Data and artifacts used for licensure program assessment are determined by

content area faculty in conjunction with the Education Department.

Tests, Develops and Employs Different Information Technologies to Improve its Assessment

System

The unit employs a variety of different information technologies in implementing and improving

the CAS. Two of these are college-wide. Student evaluations of Benedictine College faculty are

summarized, analyzed and compiled by the Individual Development and Educational

Assessment (IDEA) Center of Manhattan, KS. The flagship service of this company, the IDEA

Student Ratings of Instruction system, focuses on student learning of 12 specific objectives while

factoring out extraneous circumstances via statistical adjustment. Through data provided by this

non-profit company, faculty members are able to gather information regarding their success in

achieving self-selected objectives. The IDEA system also allows the college to compare student

ratings at the department level and institutional level as well as providing comparisons with six

to ten peer colleges and members of the same general Carnegie classification nation-wide.

A software program developed by Empower Student Information Systems is used for managing

grades, enrollment, and transcript information. This program, the Online Academic Student

Information System (OASIS) provides immediate and continuous information regarding

candidate progress. The campus-wide information system OASIS, is used to collect data on

candidates such as demographics, course enrollment, and directory information. The data in

OASIS is extracted using Crystal Reports and is directly merged with data in Excel. Excel’s

analysis feathers and Crystal Reports are used to create readable tables and graphs for analysis.

6

Faculty have the ability to use OASIS via the web to monitor course enrollment and advisees.

OASIS also allows faculty to enter grades on-line.

Within the Education Department, data is primarily managed using Microsoft Excel, however,

the unit continues to test and employ other information technologies to improve the assessment

system. During the 2007-2008 academic year, using funds obtained through the NCATE

Assessment Activity Fee, the unit purchased LiveText software for use by both candidates and

unit faculty in managing data. All department members participated in training for this program.

During the 2008-2009 academic year, however, after a year of use, shortcomings apparent in the

LiveText software caused the unit to abandon this program and then consider Filemaker Pro for

the CAS. The lack of available training workshops/ personnel in Filemaker Pro kept the unit

from adopting this program (Historical Development Comprehensive Assessment System for

triangulation/ documentation regarding these efforts).

The unit is presently considering a software package developed by the company Campus Labs

for managing CAS data. A decision on this program will be made during the 2012-2013

academic year.

7

Historical Development – Comprehensive Assessment System

Time Period Development/ Modification

Pre-1999 2.75 GPA required for admission to teacher preparation program; 3.00 GPA required for admission to administrator

preparation program.

Committee on Teacher Education (formerly Faculty Committee on Teacher Education) approves/ rejects candidates

for admission into teacher education program, admission for student teaching, and program completion.

Committee on Teacher Education serves as policy-making body for teacher education program; Graduate Studies

Committee serves as policy-making body for administrator preparation program.

Educational Advisory Committee and Educational Administration Advisory Committee consulted formally and

informally regarding all aspects of program development.

1998-1999 March 15, 1999 all four members of the Education Department attend Kansas State Department of Education

workshop held in Topeka describing new NCATE 2000 standards.

1999-2000 December 16, 1999, Education Department holds all-day meeting focusing on ways of meeting new NCATE

standards. Concerns expressed regarding need to prove what candidates know and can do. Consensus reached at the

meeting is that immediate growth area is revision of student teaching evaluation scale and all pre-student teacher field

experience evaluation instruments so that they: a) are aligned with the seven program outcomes and b) provide

performance data on what candidates can do. Items for the pilot versions of these instruments determined at this

meeting. Schedule of biannual extended meetings/ data retreats for systematic program assessment established.

Modified student teaching evaluation scale and all other pre-student teaching field experience scales piloted during

spring 2000 term.

2000-2001 Modifications are made in all field experience evaluation scales based on suggestions from piloting made by

cooperating teachers, clinical supervisors, and Education Department faculty.

During the 2000-2001 school year, Education Department meeting minutes reflect discussion in regards to requiring

candidates to submit professional portfolios at the various transition points. Unit faculty established a preliminary set

of artifacts and other criteria for the portfolio.

Extended meetings/ data retreats instituted twice a semester.

8

2001-2002 After a semester of piloting, requirements for the Professional Portfolios were revised and approved by the Faculty

Committee on Teacher Education.

Teacher Education Programs begin assessing candidate dispositions separately from the seven program outcomes as

part of the interview process for acceptance into teacher education.

MASL receives North Central Approval for its off-site campus located in Roeland Park, Kansas for the Kansas City,

Kansas metro area cohort. Approval by the Education Department and Graduate Studies Committee to waive the

GRE or MAT as admission for students who have a prior Master’s degree and graduate level GPA of 3.0

demonstrating ability to successfully complete graduate level work.

2002-2003 New evaluation rubric used for evaluating Professional Portfolios; quantitative scale implemented thereby allowing

calculation of means for comparison of unit performance on seven outcomes, knowledge, skills, and dispositions over

time. Collection of CAS data begins.

Education Department receives $53,000 KSDE Performance Assessment Grant titled, “Assessing Builders of

Community.” Grant has two components: 1) establishing inter-rater reliability in evaluating portfolios and 2)

working on curriculum issues.

Teacher Work Samples/ Benedictine Performance Assessment required of student teachers for the first time.

Teams of K-12 educators and unit faculty begin evaluating Professional Portfolios (as opposed to only Education

Department faculty)

2003-2004 “Guide to Writing the Professional Portfolio” and rubrics for it revised in accordance with suggestions from

consultants. Because of concerns that candidates are being admitted to teacher education with borderline dispositions,

evaluation of dispositions is no longer artifact-based but rather a rating arrived at collectively by members of

Education Department with input from secondary education chairs.

Education Department receives approval from dean of college for NCATE assessment activity fee of $10 per course

for education candidates. This fee provides funds to “… meet NCATE and KSDE standards regarding performance

assessment of candidates and to provide assessment training to Education Department faculty and K-12 educators

assisting with candidate evaluation.” It will be used initially to provide stipends for K-12 educators to continue

evaluating professional portfolios, and for stipends to clinical supervisors and cooperating teachers.

9

2004-2005 Faculty Committee on Teacher Education becomes Committee on Teacher Education. Three additional K-12

educators added to committee.

Committee on Teacher Education (CTE) considers aggregated data regarding candidate performance over last three

to five years and unit performance on program outcomes. Aggregated data from both Teacher Education Program

(TEP) and MASL will henceforth be presented to governing bodies (CTE for teacher education program; Graduate

Committee for MASL) twice a year for initial programs and at least once a year for advanced program.

Revision of TEP and MASL program handbooks and practicum handbooks.

2005-2006 Revised TEP/ MASL/ educaiton department policies and procedures approved by Committee on Teacher Education

and Graduate Studies Committee.

On-site NCATE/KSDE visit in October 2005.

2006-2007 Teacher work sample required for student teachers revised to improve aligned with Kansas Performance Assessment.

Revised assessment named, “Benedictine Performance Assessment (BPA).”

2007-2008 Using funds obtaining through the NCATE assessment activity fee, the Education Department purchases LiveText

software for use by both candidates and unit faculty in managing data. All unit members participate in LiveText

training.

Teacher education program outcomes revised. The revision is made to make the outcomes less holistic and more

measurable, eliminate redundancy, and bring the outcomes into a greater degree of alignment with KSDE and

INTASC standards. TEP moves from seven outcomes (plus knowledge, skills and dispositions) to six.

Student teaching evaluation scale incorporating revised TEP outcomes is piloted.

KSDE developing new template for KSDE program reviews. Unit initiates meetings with all department chairs

involved in teacher licensure to create and implement data collection systems for KSDE program templates.

First draft of elementary education comprehensive examination created. Exam is created to be in complete alignment

with the seven KSDE elementary standards. Discussion regarding comprehensive examinations for other licensure

programs.

At April 2008 Education Department meeting, discussion of shortcomings in LiveText software and whether to

continue with program.

10

Professional Portfolio rubrics revised to make criteria more clear for evaluators.

Survey from Education Advisory Committee, candidate feedback and other anecdotal information indicates there is a

desire and a market for a Master of Arts in Education program at Benedictine. The director of the Graduate Programs

in Education begins developing a proposal.

2008-2009 Unit decides not to continue with LiveText system for collection of unit and candidate data. Filemaker Pro

considered for Comprehensive Assessment System.

An assessment survey is completed at the Education Advisory Committee meeting held in October 2008 for both

TEP and MASL programs. For TEP program, lowest rating (2.5 on 4-point scale) on item, “Facilitate student

learning through the use of technology.” Unit begins taking steps to improve in this area. At January 2009

Education Department meeting, unit approves expenditures of $6800 in funds generated by NCATE activity fee for

purchase of Promethean Boards and related software. ED 662 Instructional Technology and Applications is added to

the MASL program.

Candidate rejected for student teaching because of inappropriate dispositions. Candidate follows due process/

complaint procedures for contesting decision. Special Committee on Teacher Education meeting held in January

2009 to consider candidate’s appeal of decision.

Elementary education comprehensive examination revised. A number of test items are changed, also test is expanded

from 63 to 70 items with ten for each KSDE standard.

At May 2009 extended meeting/ data retreat, format of TEP Professional Portfolios is described. Two changes (to be

made over the summer) are approved. 1) One artifact (unit) is eliminated and for a number of other artifacts,

candidates will only include the Standard Artifact Rubric and not the artifact itself. This will reduce the size of the

portfolio and allow evaluators to focus better on what is actually being evaluated. 2) Professional Portfolio will

become blind. Candidates submitting portfolios in fall 2009 will be required to remove/ white out their names. This

will help ensure fairness, consistency and absence of bias.

Department decides that for the time it will continue to manage Comprehensive Assessment Data Base with

Microsoft Excel as opposed to Filemaker Pro or other commercial software systems.

Master of Arts in Education Program is approved by the Education Department, Graduate Studies Committee and

Benedictine College Board of Directors. The director of the Graduate Programs in Education begins work to seek

approval from the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) and from KSDE for the program to lead to the Kansas

11

Teacher Leader endorsement.

2009-2010 The unit’s Committee on Teacher Education approves changes in Professional Portfolio discussed at spring 2009 data

retreat.

Cooperating teacher stipends raised from $75 to $100. Additional funds to pay for this to come out of NCATE

assessment activity fee.

Discussion at data retreat regarding inter-rater reliability. Procedure created for when two scorers vary more than 1

point on the 3-point scale. In such cases, a third person scores the outcomes on which there is the variance. New

scores are the average of the two closest scores.

Concerns are expressed at unit meetings regarding the low return rates of evaluations sent to program completers and

their employers at the end of first year and third year of teaching. These were averaging in the 20-30% range.

Decision is made to survey graduates/ employers only at the end of the first year of teaching but to increase efforts to

improve upon response rate. Return rates have subsequently increased to 66.7% for three year period from 2010-

2012.

The Master of Arts in Education is approved by the HLC, additional funds are alloted to the graduate education

budget for advertising the program.

2010-2011 Revised two year MASL program begins. Based on graduate candidate feedback, ED512 Introduction to Educational

Research is replaced with ED534 Assessment and School Improvement as a more meaningful course for school

leaders in using research and assessment data to make data driven decisions.

Based on input received from K-12 educators and on graduate surveys, unit decides to require course in differentiated

instruction for all education majors. Ed 455, Differentiated Instruction, to be required as part of the block courses for

student teaching.

Professional Portfolio rubric for “Knowledge” revised. For program completion only, knowledge score will be

determined only by GPA and knowledge section of student teaching evaluation scale (PPST and ACT scores not to

be considered) with evaluators to give each score approximately 50% weight.

Training sessions conducted for new portfolio scorers. Large increase in number of candidates applying to program

necessitates training of more scorers.

Instruction in use of Promethean Board technology examined to ensure that all students receive adequate training.

12

Secondary education program in English language arts agrees to offer grammar course in English for teacher

education program candidates. Feedback/ suggestion for this course received from students on survey of program

completers at the end of their first year of teaching.

The M.Ed. program is approved with stipulation as a Kansas Teacher Leader program (the best approval rating for

new programs in Kansas is “approved with stipulation.”).

2011-2012 Master of Arts in Education (M.Ed.) Teacher Leader program begins.

The unit decides to begin offering an English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program for education majors

and M.Ed. candidates. The director of the Graduate Programs in Education researched and began planning the

program; we may not have time to apply for this licensure until after NCATE/KSDE on-site visit in fall 2013.

Department determines that “Candidate Dispositions” will become a permanent agenda item for monthly and bi-

monthly Education Department meetings.

The Education Department formally adopts the following policies which codify past practices: “The Education

Department’s assessment system provides regular and comprehensive data on program quality, unit operations and

candidate performance at each stage of its programs extending into the first year of actual teaching. These data are

regularly and systematically compiled, aggregated, summarized and analyzed. In addition to regular monthly

discussions of anecdotal data, the unit conducts --- at a minimum --- two data retreats/ extended meetings each

semester at which time all relevant quantitative and qualitative data bearing on unit, program, and candidate

performance are reviewed. A co-chair of the Education Department also meets at least annually with representatives

of other Benedictine College departments with programs leading to teacher licensure to consider data specific to

these licensure areas. Assessment data bearing on program quality, unit operations, and candidate performance are

shared with the larger professional community and general public by being posted annually on the Benedictine

College website.”

“The Education Department and its school partners jointly determine the selection of cooperating teachers and other

specifics regarding the placement of student teachers. Student teachers are supervised by cooperating teachers,

clinical supervisors, and higher education faculty. In addition, each student teacher is observed and evaluated at least

once by an Education Department co-chair.”

The unit redefines term “benchmark points” in making terminology and practices consistent between initial and

advanced programs. Henceforward, benchmark points are those in which Professional Portfolio is submitted and

13

evaluated by teams consisting of unit faculty and members of broader professional community. There are three

benchmark points: 1) program admission, 2) admission to student teaching or practicum, and 3) program completion.

Prior to this refinement, there was another benchmark point at the end of the practicum. Candidates must still meet

all practicum requirements, however, we no longer call this a benchmark point. Both advanced programs maintain

professional portfolios assessed at three benchmark points: 1) program admission, 2) admission to practicum (MASL)

or admission to directed study (M.Ed.), and 3) program completion.

2012-2013

14

Standards Alignment: Conceptual Framework (TEP) with

INTASC Model Core Teaching Standards (2011)

Educators as Builders of Community Outcomes TEP INTASC Model Core (2011)

Knowledge: Understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry and

structures of the discipline(s) he or she teaches.

Standard 4: The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of

inquiry, and structures of the discipline(s) he or she teaches and

creates learning experiences that make the discipline accessible and

meaningful for learners to assure mastery of the content.

Skills: Uses a variety of instructional strategies to create meaningful

educational experiences that substantively increase student learning.

Standard 5: The teacher understands how to connect and use

differing perspectives to engage learners in critical thinking,

creativity, and collaborative problem solving related to authentic

local and global issues.

Standard 8: The teacher understands and uses a variety of

instructional strategies to encourage learners to develop deep

understanding of content areas and their connections, and to build

skills to apply knowledge in meaningful ways.

Dispositions: Is a professionally responsible builder of community

who models the altruistic values and characteristics desired for

students.

Standard 9: The teacher engages in ongoing professional learning

and uses evidence to continually evaluate his/ her practice,

particularly the effects of his/ her choices and actions on others and

adapts practice to meet the needs of each learner.

Outcome 1: Uses practices which nurture the whole child/

adolescent within the learning community.

Standard 1: The teacher understands how learners grow and

develop, recognizing that patterns of learning and development vary

individually within and across the cognitive, linguistic, social,

emotional, and physical areas, and designs and implements

developmentally appropriate and challenging learning experiences.

Outcome 2: Uses his/ her understanding of communication and

human behavior to create a classroom community that fosters

positive social interaction, collaboration and active inquiry.

Standard 3: The teacher works with others to create environments

that support individual and collaborative learning, and that

encourage positive social interaction, active engagement in learning

and self-motivation.

15

Outcome 3: Respects and promotes diversity while creating

instructional opportunities that meet the needs of students from

diverse cultural backgrounds and with exceptionalities.

Standard 2: The teacher uses understanding of individual

differences and diverse cultures and communities to ensure inclusive

learning environments that enable each learner to meet high

standards.

Outrcome 4: Builds partnerships with students, colleagues, families

and community to enhance communication and learning.

Standard 3: The teacher works with others to create environments

that support individual and collaborative learning, and that

encourage positive social interaction, active engagement in learning

and self-motivation.

Outcome 5: Plans and assesses instruction based upon knowledge of

subject matter, students, the community and curriculum goals.

Standard 6: The teacher understands and uses multiple methods of

assessment to engage learners in their own growth, to monitor

learner progress, and to guide the teacher’s and learner’s decision

making.

Standard 7: The teacher plans instruction that supports every student

in meeting rigorous learning goals by drawing upon knowledge of

content areas, curriculum, cross-disciplinary skills, and pedagogy, as

well as knowledge of learners and the community context.

Outcome 6: Is a reflective builder of community who continually

evaluates the effects of his/ her actions on others and who actively

seeks out opportunities to grow professionally.

Standard 10: The teacher seeks appropriate leadership roles and

opportunities to take responsibility for student learning, to

collaborate with learners, families, colleagues, other school

professionals, and community members to ensure learner growth and

to advance the profession.

16

Standards Alignment: Conceptual Framework, KSDE, ISLLC (MASL)

Educators as Builders of Community

Outcomes MASL

KSDE Building Leadership/ ISLLC MASL Areas of Professional

Competency and Administrative

Effectiveness

A. Ensure successful communication with

teachers and parents to help nurture the

whole child/ adolescent.

Standard #1: The building level

administrator is an educational leader who

promotes the success of all students by

facilitating the development, articulation,

implementation, and stewardship of a vision

of learning that is shared and supported by

the school and community.

School-Community Activities

School Improvement

Quality and accuracy in written and verbal

communication

Constructive interpersonal relationships

Facilitate and articulate a vision of learning

that is shared by other members of the

school community.

B. Demonstrate leadership by advocating,

nurturing, and sustaining a school culture

and instructional program conducive to

student learning and staff professional

growth.

Standard #2: the building level administrator

is an educational leader who promotes the

success of all students by advocating,

nurturing, and sustaining a building climate

and instructional programs conducive to


growth.

School Improvement

Faculty and staff supervision

Meeting needs of special student populations

Use and infusion of educational technology

into school programs



school community.

C. Promote success of all students by acting

with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical

manner that demonstrates respect for all

cultures.




acting with integrity, fairness, and in an

ethical manner.

Student supervision and school discipline

Faculty and staff supervision


School Law

Show efficient organizational skills

Act with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical

manner

Work effectively in resolution of conflicts

Demonstrate sound decision making

17

D. Create a community of caring

relationships that unify all educational

participants in the education process.




collaborating with families and community

members, responding to diverse community

needs and interests, and mobilizing

community resources.

School-Community Activities

School Budgeting and Finance

School Law


communication


manner




school community.

E. Incorporate student research and

information into the perpetual process of

educational improvement.



facilitates the development, articulation,

implementation and stewardship of a vision

of learning that is shared and supported by

the school and community (including school-

community communications and the

collection/analysis of statistical data related

to achieving school goals).



advocates, nurtuters and sustains a building

climate and instructional programs

conducive to student learning and staff

professional growth.

School Improvement Initiatives using data

driven decision making




Supervision of MTSS (RtI) initiatives

Case studies and implementation of action

research

F. Promote the success of all students by

understanding and influencing the larger

political, social, economic, and legal

institutions which impact education.



understands, responds to, and influences the

larger political, social, economic, legal, and

cultural context.

School Law

School Community Activities

P-12 education activies at the state and

national level

Communication with all stakeholders

18

Standards Alignment: Conceptual Framework, KSDE Teacher Leader

Standards (M.Ed.)

Educators as Builders of Community

Outcomes MASL

KSDE Teacher Leader M.Ed. Areas of Professional

Competency and Teacher Leader

Effectiveness

A. Ensure successful communication with

teachers and parents to help nurture the

whole child/ adolescent.

Standard 3: The teacher leader is able to

improve the quality of colleagues’

collaboration and interaction with families

and other stakeholders.


develop and support collaborative teams and

promote collegial interactions that improve

the effectiveness of practice.


identify and assess opportunities for

educational improvement, and advocate

effectively for them within and beyond the

school community.

Working to activily build partnerships

between, schools, families and communities




communication




school community

B. Demonstrate leadership by advocating,

nurturing, and sustaining a school culture

and instructional program conducive to


growth.


advance the professional skills of colleagues

by demonstrating and applying expertise in

observational skills and in providing quality

feedback in order to support reflective

practice focused on improving curriculum,

instruction, and assessment.


apply strategies of adult learning across

teacher leadership activities.







Supervision of MTSS (RtI) initiatives

Case studies and implementation of action

research

Mentoring and Peer Coaching Activities

Creating Individualized Professional

Development Plans

19

inform and facilitate the design and

implementation of coherent, integrated and

differentiated professional development

based on assessed student and teacher needs.

C. Promote success of all students by acting

with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical

manner that demonstrates respect for all

cultures.


inform and facilitate colleagues’ selection or

design, use, and interpretation of multiple

assessments, along with other available data,

to make informed decisions that improve the

quality of instruction and student learning.


inform and facilitate the design and

implementation of coherent, integrated and

differentiated professional development

based on assessed student and teacher needs.

Student supervision and school discipline

Mentoring and peer coaching activities


Show efficient organizational skills


manner

Work effectively in resolution of conflicts

Demonstrate sound decision making



D. Create a community of caring


participants in the education process.










identify and assess opportunities for

educational improvement, and advocate

effectively for them within and beyond the

school community.


communication.


manner.

Constructive interpersonal relationships.



school community.


between, schools, families and communities.

20

E. Incorporate student research and

information into the perpetual process of

educational improvement.


initiate and facilitate colleagues’ design and

implementation of action research and

analysis of data for individual and group

decision-making.


inform and facilitate colleagues’ selection or

design, use, and interpretation of multiple

assessments, along with other available data,

to make informed decisions that improve the

quality of instruction and student learning.

Design and implementation of action

research project

Presentation of data to the school community

Analysis of data to determine school

improvement intitiatives

Development of case studies and utilization

of data for student improvement

F. Promote the success of all students by














Effective communication among all

stakeholders


communication

P-12 education activies at the state and

national level

21

The Comprehensive Assessment System

in Detail

This section describes the:

Benchmark points and other data collection points

Major assessments used at benchmark points

Answers to commonly asked questions about the comprehensive assessment system

Assessment calendar

Assessment plan/ timeline for continued refinement of assessment system

Benchmark Points

As defined by the unit, a benchmark point is one in which a candidate’s professional portfolio is

evaluated by a team consisting at a minimum of one member of the Education Department and

one member of the broader professional community. If there are significant discrepancies in

scoring (defined as ratings that differ by more than one point) a third individual also scores that

component of the professional portfolio. When a third scorer is needed, a member of the unit

does the scoring.

The Professional Portfolio is the linchpin of our assessment system, however, it is important to

note that the unit systematically makes decisions about both candidate and unit operations at a

number of other points. These other decision points include: 1) data collected at the end of the

practicum experience (for both initial and advanced programs) but prior to program completion,

2) data collected from all program completers and their employers at the end of the first year of

licensed experience, and 3) data collected and discussed at the monthly and bimonthly meetings

of the Education Department (“Candidate dispositions,” for example, are a permanent agenda

item at all such meetings). The unit strives for continuous assessment, evaluation and

improvement.

Prior to 2012, there were four benchmark points for both initial and advanced programs. For

each program, the additional benchmark point was at the end of the practicum but before

program completion. We continue to collect data and make important decisions at this time, but

we have redefined benchmark points to include only those points at which the Professional

Portfolio is submitted by candidates.

For the initial level, candidates prepare and upgrade their Professional Portfolio when they apply

for:

Benchmark Point 1: Program Admission

Benchmark Point 2: Admission to Student Teaching

Benchmark Point 3: Completion of Program

The Professional Portfolio identifies requirements for performance and artifacts that demonstrate

progress on meeting program outcomes. The Professional Portfolio must be submitted and meet

acceptable standards at Benchmark Points 1, 2, & 3 for candidates to continue in the program.

22

Requirements are outlined in Part 2 and Part 3 of the CASM. Guidelines for submission at each

benchmark point are described in these sections of the CASM.

A team composed of at least one Education Department faculty member and one trained member

of the broader professional community evaluate the Professional Portfolios at Benchmark Points

1, 2, & 3. Criteria for evaluating the applications at each level are established and described on 0

to 3-point rubrics used by education faculty and trained K-12 educators as they assess the

candidates’ Professional Portfolios. If it is decided, based on the evidence presented, that

candidates are not yet ready to proceed to the next level of their program, the chair of the CTE

and faculty advisors work with the candidate to develop a plan of action for achieving his or her

professional goals. A variety of strategies and recommendations are explored, such as re-taking

courses and assessments, revising portfolio artifacts, establishing a plan to address areas of

concern, and career counseling. If denied admission, candidates are allowed to re-apply after

deficiencies have been addressed. Procedures for moving through each benchmark point

including the responsibilities and rights of candidates, faculty, and the CTE are described in the

Professional Portfolio Guide (see Part 2 of this document), and the Education Department

Handbook.

Use of mathematical means obtained for candidate performance on the six program outcomes,

knowledge, skills and dispositions also enables the unit to evaluate its own strengths and areas

for improvements. Each semester, members of the unit discuss this data and take appropriate

steps based upon the data to improve the unit.

For the advanced level, candidates prepare and upgrade a Professional Portfolio when they apply

for:

1. Program Admission

2. Admission to the Practicum or Directed Study

3. Completion of the Program

Requirements for performance and artifacts that demonstrate candidate progress and mastery

must be submitted and meet acceptable standards at each benchmark. Education Department

faculty including members of the P-12 community who serve as adjunct instructors in the

graduate education programs evaluate portfolio submissions and makes recommendations for full

acceptance, provisional acceptance, or denial of the candidate’s application to enter or continue

in the program. The Graduate Studies Committee (GSC) reviews portfolio submissions and

deliberates on the Education Department’s recommendations as they make the final decisions on

applications.

Criteria for evaluating the applications at each level are established and used by education

faculty as they assess the candidates’ Professional Portfolios (see Part 3 of this document). If it is

decided, based on the evidence presented, that candidates are not yet ready to proceed to the next

level of their program, the director of the graduate education programs works with the candidate

to develop a plan of action for achieving their professional goals. A variety of strategies and

recommendations are explored, such as re-taking practicum sections and assessments, revising

portfolio artifacts, establishing a plan to address areas of concern, and career counseling. If

denied admission, candidates are allowed to re-apply after deficiencies have been addressed.

23

Procedures for moving through each benchmark, including the responsibilities and rights of

candidates, faculty, and the GSC are described in the Graduate Education Student Handbook,

Practicum Handbook, Performance Assessment Handbook, Professional Portfolio Evaluator’s

Rubric (see Part 3 of this document) and the Education Department Handbook.

Major Assessments used at Transition Points

In selecting major assessments, alignment and multiple measures were central criteria. They

align with the conceptual framework, Educators as Builders of Community. The learner

outcomes described by the conceptual framework, Educators as Builders of Community align

with the INTASC, ISLLC, Kansas Teacher Leader (KTLead) and KSDE professional education

standards. The professional education program benchmarks are aligned with these standards.

Course artifacts and field experience evaluation scales are identified based on required

knowledge, performance, and dispositions that provide candidate assessment data on meeting the

professional education outcomes and standards.

The assessments for content knowledge and pedagogy align with the program and content area

standards for all licensure areas. Each program that the unit offers for the licensure of

professional educators is aligned with the relevant KSDE program standards. Benchmark course

and experiences are identified based on required knowledge and performances that provide

candidate assessment data on meeting the program standards. Each licensure program collects

and analyzes data on at least three assessments per standard. Identification of data points is based

upon ensuring multiple measures per standard and representative evaluation of candidate mastery

on standards.

The major assessments used for candidate evaluation at each benchmark in the initial program

are listed below.

PROGRAM ADMISSION: BENCHMARK POINT 1

Grade Point Average

Pre-Professional Skills Test (PPST) or ACT composite above 22

Faculty/Staff Recommendations

Essay on Builders of Community (BOC) outcomes

CTE Interview

CTE Approval

The following items are optional for program admission. If candidates have not completed

courses in which required artifacts are embedded, they are not required. If candidates have

completed these courses, the artifacts are required to be in their Professional Portfolio:

Field Experience Evaluations

Reflection on teaching students with disabilities

Reflection on multicultural field experience

Builders of Community (BOC) peer evaluations

24

ADMISSION TO STUDENT TEACHING: BENCHMARK POINT 2

Grade Point Average

Updated essay on Builders of Community outcomes

Field Experience Evaluations

Reflection on teaching students with disabilities

Reflection on multicultural field experience

Builders of Community peer evaluations

CTE Approval

COMPLETION OF PROGRAM: BENCHMARK POINT 3

Grade Point Average

Updated Essay on Builders of Community outcomes

Professional Portfolio

Student Teaching Evaluations

Classroom Management Model

Benedictine Performance Assessment

CTE Approval

The major assessments used for candidate evaluation at each benchmark in the advanced

program are listed below.

MASL PROGRAM ADMISSION: BENCHMARK POINT 1

Millers Analogies Test/GRE

Undergraduate Grade Point Average

Essay on Builders of Community

Written statement of educational philosophy, educational goals, and professional goals

Recommendations (3) for knowledge, skills, and dispositions

ADMISSION TO THE PRACTICUM: BENCHMARK POINT 2

Grade Point Average

Essay on Builders of Community (planned)

Outcomes Self-Assessment (planned)

COMPLETION OF THE PROGRAM: BENCHMARK POINT 3

Resume

Leadership Credo

School Mission and Goals Development Plan

Supervision & Evaluation reflection & video

Comprehensive Curriculum Plan

Education Law Paper

School Budget Analysis Project

Risk Management Video

Crisis Plan Analysis

School Assessment and Improvement Project

Case Study

Practicum Log

25

Documentation for Practicum Projects & School Demographic Information

Visitation Log with Student Reflections

Practicum Evaluations by Cooperating Administrator, College Supervisor, Student

Grade Point Average

Final BOC Essay

Comprehensive Examination

GSC Approval

INDUCTION PERIOD

Graduate Survey on BOC outcomes

Employer Survey on BOC outcomes

26

Answers to Questions About the

Comprehensive Assessment System

When are the data collected?

Data are collected every semester for every candidate or prospective candidate enrolled in

courses and experiences required for licensure.

How is data collected?

Data are collected in a variety of ways. At benchmark points, candidates present their

professional portfolios with all required data and artifacts to the Education Department and P-12

educators who have received special training in portfolio evaluation. Each semester there is a due

date for portfolio submissions that is publicized via emails and signs/ bulletin boards in the

hallways. The schedule for the candidate’s applications at the benchmark points is based upon

the candidate’s program of study.

Faculty collect performance data when they administer assessment measures in required courses

and experiences. Performance evaluation and survey data from clinical faculty, graduates, and

employers is submitted to the Education Department and staff enter it in the database.

Standardized assessment data is downloaded and entered into the database.

Who does the evaluating?

Evaluation of candidate performance on assessment measures is completed by the designated

faculty or supervisor. The Professional Portfolios are evaluated by education faculty, trained P-

12 educators, and Committee on Teacher Education (initial program) or Graduate Studies

Committee (advanced program) members. For self-assessment of performance, candidates,

graduates, and unit faculty all evaluate themselves on surveys and the required Faculty Annual

Review. Partners from the larger P-12 community evaluate the unit while participating on such

bodies as the Committee on Teacher Education and the Education Advisory Council. Informal

evaluation occurs in the discussions held by these bodies. Formal evaluation occurs in written

need assessments and forum groups interviewed by the Education Advisory Council.

Who summarizes and analyzes the data?

Education faculty and secondary content faculty share responsibility for summarizing and

analyzing data. This allows for checks and balances on reporting findings and trends.

Agreements are made about the design and reporting format so that data patterns can be

examined for individual candidates, for cohorts, and for required courses and experiences.

Comparison of interpretations is made and discrepancies are addressed. Combined reports of

patterns and trends for candidate and program performance are presented to and analyzed by

appropriate policy committees, either CTE for initial programs or GSC for advanced programs.

When does this take place?

Data on candidates are summarized and reported each semester. Trend analysis with

recommendations is conducted --- at a minimum --- at the extended meetings of the Education

Department held during finals week of each term. Secondary content licensure programs provide

a written summary and analysis of licensure programs annually. Face-to-face meetings between

27

secondary department chairs and full-time Education Department co-chairs are planned and

conducted a minimum of once a year.

It is important to note that the unit systematically makes decisions about both candidate

performance and unit operations at a number of points beyond the three benchmark points. The

unit strives for continuous improvement and evaluation. Such additional decision points include

the monthly and bimonthly meetings of the Education Department (“Candidate dispositions,” for

example are a permanent agenda item at all such meetings) and data collected from all program

completers and their employers at the end of the first year of teaching.

When are data shared and with whom is it shared?

Data have always been shared with education faculty each semester. Data were shared with CTE

and GSC at least annually in the fall at the committees’ first meetings. Data were also shared

with the larger professional community twice a year at the meetings of the Educational Advisory

Committee.

In addition, effective fall 2012, the unit began systematically sharing data with the public. The

policy that was adopted at this time states, “Assessment data bearing on program quality, unit

operations and candidate performance shall be shared with the larger professional community

and general public by being posted annually on the Benedictine College website.”

What mechanisms are place to ensure that the data is used to improve the programs?

Reporting trend analysis data requires faculty to consider program implications. The extended

Education Department meetings that typically occur during finals week each semester are the

initial forum in which aggregated data are examined and possible program changes discussed.

Subsequent review and comment by the Graduate Studies Committee and the Committee on

Teacher Education ensures a quality control component for program implementation and

evaluation. Reporting from the various committees and licensure programs to the dean of the

college ensures that balanced and accurate information about program effectiveness is provided

to the institutional administrator accountable for academic program quality.

What has been done in the past in assessing unit operations?

The education unit collects data from a variety of sources for the purpose of assessing unit

operations. For at least the past 15 years, the unit has collected and analyzed the following

sources of input and evaluation.

Each spring, 1st year graduates are surveyed based on their perceived effectiveness of the

program in preparing on each of the BOC outcomes. At the same time, employers of 1st

year graduates are asked to evaluate them on their performance based on the Builder of

Community (BOC) outcomes. These surveys are updated when program outcomes are

revised or refined or when new initiatives are implemented in the program. Data from

these surveys are compiled and analyzed by education faculty.

Course evaluations consistent with criteria of the conceptual framework and based on

criteria for building communities of learners are completed in each education course each

semester. Faculty performance is reviewed using the tabulated results of these

evaluations.

28

Program completers evaluate the program and the data is summarized. Analysis of data

by education faculty leads to revisions in courses, experiences, and the program.

Other members of the professional community provide feedback on the quality of the

preparation programs based upon their roles as cooperating teachers, clinical faculty, and

Education Advisory Committee members. Education faculty members solicit

recommendations based on this feedback and consider revisions to the program and

preparation experiences.

For the last twelve years, the Education Department has used the extended meetings held

typically during finals week of each term to ensure that evaluation of candidates and unit

operations occurs on a systematic as opposed to anecdotal basis.

How is technology being used for managing and monitoring the Comprehensive Assessment

System?

The unit employs a variety of different information technologies in implementing and improving

the CAS. Two of these are college-wide. Student evaluations of Benedictine College faculty are

summarized, analyzed and compiled by Individual Development and Educational Assessment

(IDEA) Center of Manhattan, KS. The flagship service of this company, the IDEA Student

Ratings of Instruction system, focuses on student learning of 12 specific objectives while

factoring out extraneous circumstances via statistical adjustment. Through data provided by this

non-profit company, faculty members are able to gather information regarding their success in

achieving self-selected objectives. The IDEA system also allows the college to compare student

ratings at the department level and institutional level as well as providing comparisons with six

to ten peer colleges and members of the same general Carnegie classification nation-wide.

A software program developed by Empower Student Information Systems is used for managing

grades, enrollment, and transcript information. This program, the Online Academic Student

Information System (OASIS) provides immediate and continuous information regarding

candidate progress. The campus-wide information system OASIS, is used to collect data on

candidates such as demographics, course enrollment, and directory information. The data in

OASIS is extracted using Crystal Reports and is directly merged with data in Microsoft Excel.

Excel’s analysis feathers and Crystal Reports are used to create readable tables and graphs for

analysis. Faculty have the ability to use OASIS via the web to monitor course enrollment and

advisees. OASIS also allows faculty to enter grades on-line.

Within the Education Department, data is primarily managed using Microsoft Excel, however,

the unit continues to test and employ other information technologies to improve the assessment

system. During the 2007-2008 academic year, using funds obtained through the NCATE

Assessment Activity Fee, the unit purchased LiveText software for use by both candidates and

unit faculty in managing data. All department members participated in training for this program.

During the 2008-2009 academic year, however, after a year of use, shortcomings apparent in the

LiveText software caused the unit to abandon this program and then consider Filemaker Pro for

the CAS. The lack of available training workshops/ personnel in Filemaker Pro kept the unit

from adopting this program (Historical Development Comprehensive Assessment System for

triangulation/ documentation regarding these efforts).

29

The unit is presently considering a software package developed by the company Campus Labs

for managing CAS data. A decision on this program will be made during the 2012-2013

academic year.

30

The Assessment Calendar: A Look At The

12 Month Cycle In Education Programs

Month Activity Responsibility

August Monthly or Bi-monthly (two a month) Education Department meetings begin. These

meetings are typically the first forum at which assessment developments are

discussed.

Co-chairs, Education Faculty

August Graduate Studies Committee dates are determined. Director of graduate education

programs and Graduate Studies

Committee (GSC).

September Annual training for unit and P-12 Professional Portfolio evaluators if necessary Co-chairs, Director of graduate

education programs.

September GSC acts on Education Department recommendations in accepting/ rejecting

candidates for MASL and M.Ed.

Graduate Studies Committee

September Interviews of candidates for admission to teacher education program Committee on Teacher Education

September Professional Portfolios due for applicants for teacher education program and student

teaching

Candidates

September Portfolios evaluated by teams of Education Department faculty and trained K-12

educators

Co-chair, Portfolios Evaluators

October Special meeting of Education Department at which dispositions for candidates

submitting portfolios and overall recommendations (accept/ deny) for Committee on

Teacher Education (CTE) are determined for initial program candidates.


October CTE acts on Education Department recommendations in accepting/ rejecting

candidates for teacher education and student teaching. Summaries of assessment data

are presented to CTE

Committee on Teacher Education

November Fall Educational Advisory Committee meeting occurs in November. Trends in

assessment data presented.

Co-Chairs, Educational Advisory

Committee, Director of Graduate

Education Programs.

December Professional Portfolios due for applicants for program completion (fall initial program

graduates)

Candidates

December Portfolios evaluated by teams of Education Department faculty and trained K-12

educators

Co-chair, Portfolio Evaluators

31

December Special meeting of Education Department at which dispositions for candidates


Teacher Education (CTE) are determined.


December Special meeting of Education Department at which grades for student teaching

(Benchmark Point 3) are determined


December CTE acts on Education Department recommendations in accepting/ rejecting

candidates for program completion. Summaries of assessment data are presented to

CTE


December Data from all courses in programs leading to teacher licensure (both Education

Department courses and content area courses) submitted.

Faculty, Department Chairs,

December Special extended (half to full day) meeting of Education Department at which all

areas of our program are discussed and assessment data is reviewed. Referred to in

meeting minutes as, “TEP or MEd. or MASL Discussion of Unit Operations,

Assessment and Program Outcomes.” This meeting is always scheduled on the study

day during Finals Week. It is scheduled so as to allow a full day for the meeting;

sometimes it doesn’t take the full day to consider all issues/ agenda items.

Education Department faculty

December Benchmark Point 2 data for Entry to Practicum or Directed Study presented to

Education Department with dispositional ratings (determined by all graduate

instructors) for overall recommendations (accept/ deny) for Graduate Studies

Committee (GSC).

Director of Graduate Education

Programs, Education Department,

GSC

February Interviews of candidates for admission to teacher education program Committee on Teacher Education

February Professional Portfolios due for applicants for teacher education program and student

teaching

Candidates

February Portfolios evaluated by teams of Education Department faculty and trained K-12

educators


February Special meeting of Education Department at which dispositions for candidates


Teacher Education (CTE) are determined.


February CTE acts on Education Department recommendations in accepting/ rejecting

candidates for teacher education and student teaching. Summaries of assessment data

are periodically presented to CTE.


March Spring Educational Advisory Committee meeting scheduled in March. Trends in

assessment data presented.

Co-Chairs, Director of Institutional

Assessment, Educational Advisory

Committee

32

April Professional Portfolios due for applicants for teacher education program and student

teaching

Candidates

April Portfolios evaluated by teams of Education Department faculty and trained K-12

educators


May Special meeting of Education Department at which dispositions for candidates

submitting portfolios and overall recommendations (accept/ deny) for CTE are

determined.


May Special meeting of Education Department at which grades for student teaching

(Benchmark Point 3) are determined


May CTE acts on Education Department recommendations in accepting/ rejecting

candidates for program completion. Summaries of assessment data are periodically

presented to CTE


May GSC acts on Education Department recommendations in accepting/ rejecting

candidates for program completion. Summaries of assessment data are periodically

presented to GSC

Graduate Studies Committee

May Special extended (half to full day) meeting of Education Department at which all

areas of our program are discussed and assessment data is reviewed. Referred to in

meeting minutes as, “TEP or MASL or M.Ed. Discussion of Unit Operations,

Assessment and Program Outcomes.”

Education Department faculty

33

Four Year Plan for Comprehensive Assessment System (Focal Point 2)

Analysis

The Education Department provides more systematic assessment of its students than any other department at Benedictine College. The

NCATE/KSDE team that visited Benedictine in 2005 identified our assessment system as an area of strength. Under the revised

NCATE Standards, each college using the “Continual Improvement” model must designate at least one area in which to seek a

“Target” rating. Assessment is probably the most logical choice for us.

Professional Portfolios serve as the linchpin for both our TEP and advanced program assessment systems. Although we are strong in

this area, numerous refinements need to be implemented. These include: 1) Streamlining the format of the portfolios so we aren’t

collecting unneeded data, 2) conducting studies of candidates and portfolio scorers to ensure that assessment procedures are fair,

accurate and consistent, 3) reporting data regarding candidate performance, program quality, and unit operations publicly to all stake

holders in our professional community, 4) systematizing the record keeping of formal candidate complaints and 5) continuing to test

different information technologies for improving the assessment system.

Goal 2.1: The Education Department, with appropriate support from Benedictine College, will assess, evaluate and revise all

initial and advanced educational programs. This evaluation will include all professional portfolio requirements, their

explanatory materials for candidates and their training procedures for scorers.

2012-13 2013-2014 2014-2016

Examine Professional Portfolio

requirements and revise where

appropriate.

Examine explanatory materials for

candidates and expand or otherwise

clarifying scoring rubrics and

procedures.

Designate different member of the unit

as having primary responsibility for

management of initial program portfolio

Involve Educational Advisory

Committee in conducting focus groups

interviewing candidates and scorers

regarding Professional Portfolios and

guides for candidates.

Develop new set of training materials

for portfolio scorers. Use funds from

NCATE Assessment line item to do

another extensive training session using

new materials and portfolio

Modify Professional Portfolio system

based on results of NCATE/KSDE off-

site and on-campus evaluations. Begin

redevelopment of assessment system

based on new standards developed with

the merging of NCATE and CAEP

(Council for the Accreditation of

Educator Preparation).

Examine new CAEP standards and

decide whether to retain Professional

34

2012-13 2013-2014 2014-2016

system. Following first submission of

initial program portfolios (September

2012), survey candidates regarding

ways in which portfolio assessment can

be improved and perceptions as to

whether assessment procedures are fair,

accurate and consistent.

Use funds from NCATE Assessment

Line Item to pay for a mock NCATE

visit approximately August 2013.

Review portfolio assessment process for

graduate programs with department

begin any needed portfolio revisions.

Develop training materials for Teacher

Leader portfolio scorers and make

revisions to Building Leadership

training materials.

Implement Professional Portfolio

requirements for the Teacher Leader

(M.Ed.) program.

requirements.

Evaluate Teacher Leader Program

Portfolio Requirements and Assessment.

Make any necessary revisions.

Evaluate and revise as needed the new

two year format of the MASL.

Evaluate and revise the M.Ed. program.

Evaluate and revise as needed the new

course Ed 534 Assessment and School

Improvement.

Portfolio system presently used for

assessment. If decision is affirmative,

develop new guidelines for portfolios

based on new CAEP standards.

35

Goal 2.2: The Education Department, with appropriate support from Benedictine College, will revise Benedictine Portfolio

Assessment (BPA) requirements and expand scoring of BPA’s to at least a second evaluator to improve reliability of BPA

scores.

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2016

Examine BPA and Kansas Performance

Teaching Portfolio (KPTP). Revise

BPA requirements appropriately.

Expand scoring of BPA’s to include

second evaluator to improve reliability

of BPA scores.

Continue dual scoring of BPA’s.

Develop procedures for handling

inconsistencies between scores

Analyze data from BPAs. Make

changes to BPA and BPA evaluation as

needed. Examine BPA in light of new

CAEP standards; make decision whether

to retain.

Goal 2.3: The Education Department will report data regarding candidate performance, program quality, and unit operations

publicly to all stakeholders in its professional community via the Benedictine College web site.

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2016

Develop a summary of important data

regarding candidate performance,

program quality and unit operations and

post on the BC website by December

2012. Information to include: 1)

quantitative data at Benchmark Points,

2) pass rates of candidates on licensure

exams, 3) employment rates, 4)

information from IDEA system

regarding faculty evaluations.

Revise and update publically reported

data. Assess public perceptions of this

information via focus groups or surveys.


data. Consider continuation of this

practice in light of new CAEP standards

and accreditation procedures.

36

Goal 2.4: The Education Department will expand and systematize the record keeping of formal candidate complaints and their

resolution.

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2016

The initial program will ensure that

extensive due process procedures

published in Education Department

Policies and Procedures Handbook are

communicated to candidates.

Adopt and publish formal Education

Department policy regarding the record

keeping of formal candidate complaints

and their resolution. Examine anecdotal

and formal records and meeting minutes

for past several years to ensure that all

formal candidate complaints have been

included in system.

Revision of grievance and due process

procedures for the advanced programs

brought to the Education Department

and Graduate Studies Committee for

approval and publication in the

Graduate Programs Handbook and

Graduate Studies Committee Handbook.


data. Assess public perceptions of this

information via focus groups or surveys.

At data retreats held at the end of

semester, discuss and identify any

possible candidate complaints expressed

that term.


data. Consider continuation of this

practice in light of new CAEP standards

and accreditation procedures.

Continue to monitor systematic

maintenance of formal candidate

complaints and documentation of

resolution of such issues.

37

Goal 2.5: The Education Department will continue to test different information technologies for improving assessment.

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2016

The Education Department will contact/

invite representatives of at least one

untried commercial software company

and consider adopting company’s

products.

Develop and circulate Survey Monkey

instrument to be sent to all 22 Kansas

institutions of higher education with

licensure programs asking them to

describe and evaluate the information

technology they use for assessment.

Act on this information by adopting new

information technology if appropriate.

Consider modification of existing

information technologies for assessment

in light of new CAEP standards and

accreditation procedures.

38

PART TWO

Introduction

This portion of the Comprehensive Assessment Manual contains information and assessment

instruments specific to the teacher education program at Benedictine College. The professional

portfolio is the linchpin of candidate and unit assessment for the teacher education program; the

materials presented here all relate in some way to candidate professional portfolios.

The first document in Part Two is the Professional Portfolio Guide. It was written and

implemented during spring 2004. Its target audience was candidates, many of who had

previously struggled in understanding the Education Department’s expectations. Prior to the

existence of this document, candidates were only given the rubric that was used for evaluating

the professional portfolio. This guide explains the process by which portfolios are judged.

The second document in Part Two is an example of a Standard Artifact Rubric (SAR). It became

evident in 2003 that portfolio scorers lacked guidance in terms of how some of the more

extended artifacts (i.e. teaching unit, philosophy of education term paper, etc.) should be

evaluated within the professional portfolio. The instructor of the particular course in which the

artifact is completed scores the artifact using the SAR. It is evaluated on the same 0 – 3 scale as

the professional portfolio. Its purpose is to provide guidance to scorers. The SAR was

implemented in fall 2004.

The third document in Part Two is the Guide to Writing the Builder of Community Essay. This

essay is a critical artifact that is redone each time the portfolio is submitted at a benchmark point.

In the essay, candidates are expected to explain and defend their progress in achieving the six

program outcomes. The first time the essay is submitted (Benchmark Point One), candidates

must only demonstrate that they intellectually understand the outcomes and are critically

reflecting on their own progress. The second time the essay is submitted (Benchmark Point

Two), candidates must demonstrate that they are making satisfactory progress and that the

outcomes have been partially achieved. The last time the essay is submitted (Benchmark Point

Three), candidates must demonstrate full realization of the six outcomes. The purpose of this

document, which was written and implemented in fall 2003, is again to provide a cogent

explanation of unit expectations to candidates.

The fourth document in Part Two is the Evaluator’s Rubric for professional portfolios. This is

the instrument on which scorers (each portfolio is evaluated independently by one unit faculty

and one P-12 educator) grade the portfolios by circling a number on the 0 – 3 scale.

The fifth document in Part Two is the one-page score sheet on which the scores of the two

portfolio evaluators are summarized. If any of the scores of the two evaluators differ by one or

more points, a third evaluator scores those areas of the portfolio and the two scores which are

within the closest range are then averaged. If a candidate has a mean score below 1.0 on any of

the nine areas (six program outcomes + knowledge + skills + dispositions), the Education

Department recommends that the Committee on Teacher Education not approve this individual

for passage to the next benchmark point.

39

The final document in Part Two is the Benedictine Performance Assessment (BPA). This teacher

work sample contains prompts and evaluation rubrics. During student teaching, all candidates

are required to complete a BPA in their licensure area. When completed, the candidate separates

the BPA into its five different parts (criterion). Each criterion is inserted in the candidate’s

professional portfolio within the appropriate teacher education program outcome.

40

Professional Portfolio Guide


41

GUIDE TO CREATING YOUR PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO

Your professional portfolio will be used to determine whether you are accepted into the Teacher

Education Program, into student teaching, and for completion of your degree in education. It is

therefore critical for you to do a good job in its preparation.

General Requirements

Your professional portfolio is to be submitted in a white hardcover three-ring notebook with a transparent

plastic cover. Insert into the cover of the notebook a title page following the format shown on pg. 6 of this

guide. This title page is available in the Education Department Office, FAC 212. Also, on the vertical

spine of the notebook, insert a strip of paper with your Student ID Number and whether you are applying

for “Admission to Teacher Education Program,” “Admission to Student Teaching,” or “Program

Completion.

To help control possible bias on the part of evaluators, we are requiring that you white out/ black out or

otherwise remove your name wherever it occurs in your professional portfolio on all artifacts. Your name

should not be visible at all once removed. Replace it with your Benedictine College Student ID Number.

Artifacts MUST be presented in the order shown on the following pages and separated by

tabbed, labeled notebook dividers (see pg. 2).

If you have completed the course in which a particular artifact is produced (or its equivalent at

another college) and for some reason do not have it, please include a written explanation in

place of the artifact. If you have not yet completed the course, a written explanation is not

necessary.

It is your responsibility to obtain copies of required artifacts/rubrics at the time they were

completed in your coursework. Make copies of all field experience evaluations at the time you

receive them from cooperating teachers. Your failure to provide required artifacts, without a

valid written explanation, may result in you being denied admission to the Teacher Education

Program, admission to student teaching, or completion of the degree in education.

Artifacts that are in your professional portfolio MUST include the professor’s grades and/or

completed rubrics. When course instructors return artifacts to students, they will be

accompanied by a Standardized Artifact Rubric (SAR). It is your responsibility to include the

completed rubric, IF REQUIRED, with its respective artifact in your professional portfolio. An

example of the SAR follows on pg. 7.

DO NOT include extraneous materials in your professional portfolio. A portfolio that includes

materials that are not in the required Portfolio Components section (pg. 3) may be returned to the

student without being scored.

Please do not put professional portfolio materials in plastic sheet protectors.

42

Evaluation Process

As you progress through the Teacher Education Program, you will submit your professional

portfolio three times. Each time, the following evaluation process occurs:

1. The team evaluating your portfolio generally consists of one Education Department

faculty member and one member of the broader professional community who has

received special training. Each member of the team individually rates your portfolio in

nine areas: 1) knowledge, 2) performance/skills, 3) professional dispositions, and 4) each

of the six program outcomes for “Educators as Builders of Community.” A copy of the

scale used in evaluating portfolios follows:

Unacceptable

Specific criteria are included

in each rubric.

Acceptable


in each rubric.

Distinguished


in each rubric. Evaluator’s

Name

0 .25 .50 .75 1.0 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.0

The evaluator simply makes a mark on the number line to indicate his/her evaluation for

the specific outcome.

2. At a special meeting the Education Department faculty summarizes the ratings your

portfolio received and agrees upon a recommendation to be made to the Committee on

Teacher Education. If your portfolio receives a mean score of less than 1.0 on

knowledge, performance/skills, dispositions or any of the six outcomes, the Education

Department recommends that you not be approved for acceptance into the Teacher

Education Program, into student teaching, or for program (degree) completion.

3. The Committee on Teacher Education votes on the Education Department’s

recommendations.

4. Students who disagree with a decision of the Committee on Teacher Education are

extended the right of a due process hearing before this committee. Following this, if

necessary, an appeal may be made to the dean of the college.

Portfolio Organization

Your professional portfolio is to be divided into the following labeled sections:

1. Applications

2. Knowledge

3. Performance/Skills

4. Dispositions

5. Outcome 1

6. Outcome 2

7. Outcome 3

8. Outcome 4

9. Outcome 5

10. Outcome 6

43

PORTFOLIO COMPONENTS

APPLICATIONS

Completed “Application to the Teacher Education Program”.

Completed “Application for Student Teaching”.

Completed “Application for Program Completion”.

If you are only applying for acceptance into the Teacher Education Program, do not

include an application for Student Teaching or Program Completion. When you apply for

Student Teaching, both completed applications should be included and applicants for

Program Completion should include all three applications.

An autobiography which includes an introduction, an explanation of why you want to be a

teacher, any experiences working with children/adolescents, and a list of pertinent interests

and accomplishments. Do not refer to yourself by name in your autobiography.

Satisfactory recommendations from three faculty members outside the Education

Department. If you are a transfer student, two of these recommendations may be from

faculty members of the college previously attended. Please put your name and Student ID

Number on these forms before giving to faculty members for recommendation.

Recommendations normally are sent directly to Mrs. Kathy Scott, FAC 212, by faculty

members, who places them in your portfolio. It is your responsibility to check with Mrs.

Scott to insure that your portfolio has all three recommendations.

You must provide documentation that you have declared education as your major for

acceptance into the Teacher Education Program. This can be done in the Education

Department Office.

NOTE: If you are a secondary education major, you MUST also provide documentation

that you have declared a major in your content area (English, math, Spanish, PE, music,

etc.) with that department. secondary education majors should have a “Petition for

Acceptance to a Major Program” form from the Education Department AND your content

area department in your portfolio.

KNOWLEDGE

A current Benedictine College transcript showing a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.75. An

unofficial transcript is acceptable which can be printed from the OASIS website.

Documentation of a minimum composite ACT score of 23 OR a copy of your PPST test

scores. Minimum acceptable PPST scores are 168 in Writing, 169 in Reading and 170 in

Math with a total score of at least 519 (note that the total score of 519 requires 12 points in

addition to the sum of the 3 minimum subtest scores).

NOTE: If you are applying for acceptance into the Teacher Education Program and have

registered for the PPST but not yet taken it or received your scores, you MUST include

either: a) a copy of the admission form, or b) a copy of your completed application to take

the PPST. If all other parts of the portfolio are acceptable, you will be conditionally

admitted to the teacher education program (the condition being that you must receive a

passing grade on the PPST.

In addition to the above, PROGRAM COMPLETERS must provide the following:

Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scales for “Knowledge” from the cooperating

teacher(s) and clinical faculty supervisor(s).

44

PERFORMANCE/SKILLS All pre-student teaching field experience evaluations based on the following chart. If you

are a transfer student, include field experience evaluations from colleges previously

attended.

LEVEL FIELD EXPERIENCE EVALUATIONS

(Required if course has been completed) Elementary & Special

Education ED 201, ED 307, ED 314, ED 317/319

Secondary Education ED 201, ED 358 or MU 309, ED 332, Cont. Methods 457 (i.e. EN

457, SS 457)


Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scales for “Skills” from the cooperating teacher(s) and

clinical faculty supervisor(s).

DISPOSITIONS*

Evaluation sheet(s) from interview with two-person subcommittee of Committee on

Teacher Education.

Applicants to Teacher Education Program only: Please schedule an interview with Mrs.

Kathy Scott, FAC 212, prior to, or at the time of, submission of your portfolio.

Note: After your interview, the interview evaluation sheet(s) is given directly to Mrs. Kathy

Scott, FAC 212, who places it in your portfolio.


Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scales for “Dispositions” from the cooperating


*The rubric score for dispositions is determined entirely by Education Department faculty

and, if the candidate is a secondary education major, the respective content area chair at a

special meeting. The professional qualities you display in courses, field experiences, and

meeting Education Department requirements are all considered in determining your rating

in this area.

OUTCOME 1 Outcome 1 portion of your Builders of Community essay

The Builders of Community essay on our six program outcomes is a critical artifact in your

Professional Portfolio. A separate guide for creating this artifact has been prepared to help

candidates and is attached to this application.


ED 455: Differentiated Instruction Multi-Media Presentation Standard Artifact Rubric

(SAR) ONLY (no artifact)

Benedictine Performance Assessment: Criterion 1: Contextual Information

Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scales for “Outcome 1” from the cooperating


45

OUTCOME 2

Outcome 2 portion of your Builders of Community essay

ED 451: Philosophy of Education paper Standard Artifact Rubric (SAR) ONLY (no

artifact)


ED 462: Classroom Management Model Standard Artifact Rubric (SAR) ONLY (no

artifact)


teacher(s) and clinical faculty supervisor(s)


ED 222: Reflection on Teaching Students with Disabilities and Standard Artifact Rubric

(SAR).

ED 313: Reflections on Multicultural Field Experiences, which include Boys and Girls

Club, Lunch Delivery, and Valentine's Dance, and the Standard Artifact Rubric (SAR).





ED 220: Builder of Community Peer Evaluation Standard Artifact Rubric (SAR) ONLY

(no artifact)





Standard Artifact Rubric (SAR) ONLY (no artifact) from one unit which was created with

lesson plans, objectives, and assessment. If you are an elementary education major, this

unit is normally created in Ed 301/307, Social Studies Methods and Media. Secondary

education majors create their unit in Ed 357/358, General Secondary Methods and Media

and Content Methods (i.e. EN 457, SS 457).


Benedictine Performance Assessment: Criterion 2: Goals & Objectives

Benedictine Performance Assessment: Criterion 3: Instructional Design

Benedictine Performance Assessment: Criterion 6: Analysis of Assessment



46



Benedictine Performance Assessment: Criterion 7: Reflection and Self-evaluation



Portfolio Submission

When submitting your portfolio, you will be asked to sign the following statement verifying that

your portfolio has been done according to directions provided for submission of portfolios and

that you understand the penalty if your portfolio does not meet the standards:

Any portfolio that doesn’t meet form or content requirement will not be scored this semester and

you will need to resubmit it again next semester. If your timeframe doesn’t allow a later

submission, you will be charged a $50 fine to pay scorers for the inconvenience of scoring it

after corrections are made.

Please be aware of the most common mistakes that are made each semester:

1. Students’ names are still on artifacts,

2. Artifacts are not in the correct place in the portfolio,

3. Artifacts are missing or missing without a legitimate explanation,

4. Extra materials are included in the portfolio that are not required.

Take time now to insure that your portfolio is done correctly.

47

(Format for Title Page of Professional Portfolio)

Student ID #

Application for Admission to Teacher

Education Program

Professional Portfolio Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of

Education Department Requirements at Benedictine College

Date __________________________

BENEDICTINE COLLEGE

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

48

Standard Artifact Rubric (SAR) Example for Professional Portfolio

Course: ED 220/ Psychoeducational Development

Artifact: Builders of Community Peer Evaluation

Brief Description: During the semester, each student works in a cooperative

learning base group on a variety of

activities related to the course. These include discussions,

simulations of teaching situations, and creating a film. At

the end of the semester, each student anonymously

evaluates each member of the group on their performance

as a team member.

How related to outcome: This artifact is related to Outcome 5: “The BC

student teacher builds partnerships with

colleagues, students’ families and community

to enhance communication and learning.” It’s

related because students are evaluated by their peers

on their ability both to lead and to be receptive to

the leadership of others.

Unacceptable Failure by the candidate to

perform at an acceptable level

Acceptable The candidate performed at an

acceptable level on this artifact

Distinguished The candidate performed at an

exemplary level on this artifact.

0 .25 .50 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0

Student’s Name ______________________________________

Instructor’s Signature

49

Guide to Writing

the

Builder of Community Essay


50

GUIDE TO WRITING THE BUILDER OF COMMUNITY ESSAY

Introduction

The Builder of Community Essay (BOCE) is probably the most important single artifact in your

Professional Portfolio. In this essay, you are to critically reflect on your developing proficiencies

as they relate to each of the six teacher education program outcomes. Self-evaluation is critical in

writing a successful BOCE. Essays that describe best practices will be rejected if they fail to

examine the candidate’s growth in acquiring such practices.

Three Levels of Evaluation

The BOCE is to be written at three points in a candidate’s program: 1) Entry to the Teacher

Education Program, 2) Entry to Student Teaching, 3) Program Completion. Because your skills

are presumably growing as you progress through the program, you must meet a higher standard

with each successive essay.

Entry to Teacher Education Program - At this benchmark of our program, you must show that

you intellectually understand key elements of each outcome and that you are honestly

considering your strengths and areas for improvement as related to each outcome. At this level,

you must only demonstrate that you are meeting the outcome to the extent to which you have

completed Education Department coursework. An important source of data for this essay is the

experiences you have had with children and adolescents in quasi-educational settings (tutoring,

coaching, teaching Sunday School, parenting, day cares, etc.).

Entry to Student Teaching - At this benchmark of our program, you must show that you

intellectually understand key elements of each outcome and that you are honestly considering

your strengths and areas for improvement as related to each outcome and that you have made

substantive progress toward meeting each outcome. Because student teaching is normally done

in your last semester at Benedictine College, this essay needs to show three years growth toward

meeting the outcomes.

Program Completion - To go successfully through this benchmark, you must demonstrate that

you have met each of the six program outcomes. Use all of your experiences in the Teacher

Education Program for making this argument. A common error made by candidates is to only

discuss student teaching in this essay. Consider, for example, the candidate who completes

student teaching at Kickapoo Nation School. If he/she in responding to Outcome 3 states,

“Because all my third graders were Kickapoo children, I really don’t know how to balance

diversity in a classroom,” the essay will be evaluated accordingly.

51

Requirements for BOCE

1. Begin a new page with each outcome.

2. State the outcome in bold at the top of the page.

3. This is an essay. Write in paragraphs and double-space your essay.

4. Appropriate use of writing conventions (grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc.) will be

considered in evaluating your essay.

5. Suggested minimum length is two pages per outcome.

The Six Outcomes

Your awareness of our program outcomes will deepen during your years at Benedictine College

because of experiences/interaction with faculty, cooperating teachers, other candidates, and

students. To assist you, however, in understanding our expectations, each outcome is stated in

bold below, followed by a number of prompts. Use the prompts to guide you in writing your

essay, however, it is essential for you to realize that your essay must stand as an integrated

whole. Essays that consist of isolated answers to these questions will be rated unacceptable.

Outcome 1: The BC candidate uses practices which nurture the whole child/ adolescent

within the learning community.

How will you build positive relationships with students?

How will you encourage and motivate students to always do their best?

What personal qualities or techniques do you use for nurturing students as human beings?

How will you apply what is known about multiple intelligences to make success possible

for every student?

How will you interact with students in ways that are appropriate to their age and/or

developmental level?

Outcome 2: The BC candidate uses his/her understanding of communication and human

behavior to create a classroom community that fosters positive social interaction,

collaboration and active inquiry.

How will you constructively manage students’ behavior to enhance learning within the

classroom community?

How will you encourage positive student interaction, collaboration, and respect for

others?

What educational methods or projects do you plan to employ that will help students

contribute to: a) the good of the classroom community, b) the good of the school

community, and c) the good of the town or regional community?

What practices will you use which engage students in active (as opposed to passive)

learning?

52

Outcome 3: The BC candidate respects and promotes diversity while creating instructional

opportunities that meet the needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds and those

with exceptionalities.

How will you balance diversity and unity within the classroom?

How will you encourage students to be proud of their own unique qualities while at the

same time encouraging them to work toward common goals?

How knowledgeable are you regarding students of other cultures, ethnicities, and

socioeconomic status?

How knowledgeable are you regarding students with exceptionalities?

What will you do to insure that you are being fair in terms of interacting equally with all

students regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic status, or exceptionality?

When students in your class do group work, how will you determine the membership in

groups?

How will you see having diverse students in your classroom - as an advantage or a

disadvantage? If such students are an advantage, how will you use their diversity as a

learning opportunity for you and other students?

Are you interested in learning from students of different cultures, ethnicities, religions,

socioeconomic status, and exceptionalities?

How will you structure learning activities so that students can make meaningful choices

and pursue their own interests?

Outcome 4: The BC candidate builds partnerships with students, colleagues, families and

community groups to enhance communication and learning.

How will you build partnerships with students and their families?

How will you build positive relationships with your co-workers at the school?

How will you work effectively with school administrators?

How will you involve your students in the larger school community?

How will you involve your students in the community outside of the school?

How will you welcome the outside community into your school and your classroom?

What will you mean to be professional and how will you model professionalism? For

example, your dress, punctuality, communication, receiving constructive feedback,

handling confidential information, your attitude, etc.

Outcome 5: The BC candidate plans and assesses instruction based upon knowledge of

subject matter, students, the community and curriculum goals.

How will you demonstrate knowledge of your subject matter?

How will your lesson planning help you to engage all students in active learning?

How will you plan lessons that take into consideration students’ interests, needs and

abilities?

How will you use questioning techniques to promote student growth?

How do you provide clear and effective feedback to students regarding their efforts?

How will you plan lessons addressing the school and grade level’s curriculum goals and

state or common core standards?

How will you plan lessons addressing the school and grade level’s curriculum goals?

How will you provide multiple ways of assessing student learning?

53

Outcome 6: The BC candidate is a reflective builder of community who continually

evaluates the effects of his/her actions on others and who actively seeks out opportunities to

grow professionally.

How will you systematically use reflection?

Give examples of your use of reflection in self-improvement.

What would your goals be for building a learning community in your classroom?

How will you consistently analyze and assess learning situations?

As you progress through the teacher education program and into P-12 schools, what will

you do to insure that you won’t stagnate but will grow professionally?

In writing to Outcome 6, be specific in describing the techniques/strategies you’ve used

to improve yourself in the past and the techniques/strategies you will use to improve

yourself in the future.

How can we be sure that five, ten, or twenty years from now you will still be a Builder of

Community?

54

PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO

EVALUATOR’S RUBRIC

TEP Student Teaching Completion

Student ID No. (Circle One) Evaluator

Evaluator’s Signature

55

The same rubrics are used for admission to the Teacher Education Program, admission to student teaching, and program/ degree completion.

However, our expectations for candidates increase as they move through the program. When you are scoring a portfolio and see the following

phrases in the rubric, “Unacceptable for ___________,” “Acceptable for ______________,” and “Distinguished for _______________,” consider

where the student is in his or her program. A student who is applying for program completion needs to demonstrate a higher degree of proficiency

than a student applying for admission to the program to receive acceptable ratings on his or her portfolio.”

Candidates for admission into teacher education and for student teaching sometimes do not have required artifacts because they have not yet taken

the course in which an artifact is produced. If in doubt, check the student’s transcript to see if he/ she has completed the course.

KNOWLEDGE

Knowledge includes both content area knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. For a more complete definition of knowledge, please

see the NCATE 2000 Standards Glossary, available in Ferrell Academic Center 212 or online at ncate.org.

Unacceptable for __________

A cumulative grade point average below 2.75,

or

ACT composite below 23 AND PPST total

below 519 or PPST subtest scores below 168

in Writing, 169 in Reading or 170 in Math

Acceptable for ________

A cumulative grade point average between

2.75 and 3.5, and

ACT composite between 23–29 OR PPST

total between 519 and 540 with PPST

subtest scores above 168 in Writing, 169 in

Reading and 170 in Math

Distinguished for __________

A cumulative grade point average above

3.5, and

ACT composite above 29 OR PPST total

above 540

*To evaluate PROGRAM COMPLETERS, consider ONLY the cumulate grade point average and Final Student

Teaching Evaluation Scale for "Knowledge" (50% each). Do not consider the ACT or PPST scores. Evaluator

0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0

Required Artifacts for KNOWLEDGE:

A current Benedictine College transcript showing a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.75. An unofficial transcript is acceptable.

Documentation of a minimum composite ACT score of 23 OR a copy of PPST test scores*. Minimum acceptable PPST scores are 168 in

Writing, 169 in Reading and 170 in Math AND at least 12 additional points in addition to the sum of the three minimum subtest scores to

make a TOTAL SCORE of at least 519.

In addition to the above, PROGRAM COMPLETERS must provide the following portfolio artifacts:

Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scales for “KNOWLEDGE” from the cooperating teacher(s) and clinical faculty supervisor(s).

*If a candidate is applying for acceptance into the Teacher Education Program and has registered for the PPST but not yet taken it/ received

scores, he/she MUST include either: a) a copy of the admission form, or b) a copy of the completed application to take the PPST.

56

PERFORMANCE/SKILLS

The qualities and levels of proficiency of a candidate in application of his/ her knowledge to classroom teaching and other

professional situations.

Unacceptable for ___________ “Unacceptable” ratings by:

cooperating teachers,

clinical faculty,

education faculty

on field experience evaluations.

Acceptable for _________

“Acceptable” ratings by:


clinical faculty,

education faculty

on field experience evaluations.


“Distinguished” ratings by:


clinical faculty,

education faculty

on all field experience evaluations.

Evaluator

0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0

Required Artifacts for PERFORMANCE/SKILLS:

ALL pre-student teaching field experience evaluations based on the following chart.

Candidates for admission into Teacher Education and for admission into Student Teaching sometimes do not have required field experience

evaluations because they have not yet taken the course in which such evaluations occur (portfolios for student teaching are due before grades/

field experience evaluations have been completed for the previous semester). Please check the student’s transcript to see if he/she has

completed the course.

Level Required Field Experience Evaluations

Elementary or Special Education ED 201, ED 307, ED 314, ED 317 or ED 319

Secondary Education ED 201, ED 358 or MU 309, ED 332, Content Methods 457 (i.e. EN 457, SS 457)

In addition to the above, PROGRAM COMPLETERS must provide the following portfolio artifacts:

Final student teaching evaluation scales for “SKILLS” from the cooperating teacher(s) and clinical faculty supervisor(s).

57

TEP Student

Student Teaching Student ID No.

Completion

DISPOSITIONS ---- TO BE SCORED BY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT FACULTY

AT SPECIAL DEPARTMENT MEETING Dispositions may be defined as the values, commitments, and professional ethics that influence behaviors toward students, families, colleagues, and communities

and affect student learning, motivation, and development as well as the educator’s own professional growth. Candidates at Benedictine College are expected to

demonstrate that they are “Professionally Responsible Builders of Community.” Indicators of Professional Responsibility are: 1) punctuality, 2) reliability in

fulfilling commitments, 3) respecting and supporting colleagues and supervisors, 4) respecting confidential information 5) displaying a professional, positive, and

enthusiastic attitude, 6) accepting feedback, 7) professional dress, 8) demonstrating the belief that all students are valuable and all can learn*, 9) demonstrating

equitable interactions with all students* and 10) seeking professional growth. Indicators of Community Building include: 1) establishing positive relationships with

students, peers, teachers, supervisors, administrators, parents, and community members; 2) demonstrating the desire to help others and the willingness to put the

needs of others first, 3) participation in service activities, 4) use of instructional activities that teach students to help others and be of service to the classroom,

school, and geographical community. Candidates must demonstrate that their dispositions provide evidence of both “Professionally Responsibility,” and

“Community Building.”

*To successfully demonstrate Professional Responsibilities Indicators 8 & 9, candidates must show through their words and actions that they value the cultural

heritage of all students and that they value the opportunity to instruct students with exceptionalities.


The failure to adequately demonstrate

EITHER:

professional responsibility, or

community building.


The candidate acceptably demonstrates

BOTH:

professional responsibility, and

community building.

Distinguished_________


BOTH:

professional responsibility

community building at an exemplary

level.

Overall Faculty

Rating*

0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0

*This score is determined by consensus as opposed to mathematical averaging of scores.

(Signatures of Education Department Faculty)

58

OUTCOME 1

“The BC candidate uses practices which nurture the whole child/ adolescent within the learning community.”


Failure by the candidate to demonstrate and

articulate practices which nurture the whole

student. These generally include:

building positive relationships with

students, providing encouragement to

students, and motivating students,

interacting with the student in a

developmentally appropriate manner.

Acceptable for __________

The candidate clearly demonstrates and

articulates practices nurturing the whole

student. These generally include:






Distinguished for _________

The candidate provides exemplary

demonstration and articulation of

practices nurturing the whole student.

These generally include:






Evaluator

0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0

To evaluate PROGRAM COMPLETERS, the essay is worth 50% of the outcome score and the artifacts collectively are worth the other

50% of the outcome score.

Required Artifacts for OUTCOME 1:

Outcome 1 portion of Builders of Community essay

In addition to the above, PROGRAM COMPLETERS must provide the following portfolio artifacts: ED 455: Differentiated Instruction Multi-Media Presentation Standard Artifact Rubric (SAR)

Benedictine Performance Assessment: Criterion 1: Contextual Information

Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scales for “Outcome 1” from the cooperating teacher(s) and clinical faculty supervisor(s).

59

OUTCOME 2

“The BC candidate uses his/her understanding of communication and human behavior to create a classroom community that fosters positive

social interaction, collaboration and active inquiry.”

Unacceptable for ________

Failure by the candidate to clearly articulate

and critically reflect on practices that

contribute to a classroom community that

fosters:

positive social interaction,

collaboration, and

active inquiry.


demonstrating fair and consistent

behavioral expectations,

using cooperative learning strategies

effectively, and

encouraging students to demonstrate

respect for others at all times.

Acceptable for ____________

The candidate clearly articulates and critically

reflects on practices that contribute to a

classroom community that fosters:


collaboration, and

active inquiry.


demonstrating fair and consistent behavioral

expectations,


effectively, and

encouraging students to demonstrate respect

for others at all times.



articulation and critical reflection with

respect to practices that contribute to a

classroom community that fosters:


collaboration, and

active inquiry.


demonstrating fair and consistent

behavioral expectations,


effectively, and

encouraging students to demonstrate

respect for others at all times.

Evaluator

0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0





ED 451: Philosophy of Education paper Standard Artifact Rubric (SAR)

(for acceptance to STUDENT TEACHING & PROGRAM COMPLETERS only)

In addition to the above, PROGRAM COMPLETERS must provide the following portfolio artifacts: ED 462: Classroom Management Model Standard Artifact Rubric (SAR)


60

OUTCOME 3

“The BC candidate respects and promotes diversity while creating instructional opportunities that meet the needs of students from

diverse cultural backgrounds and those with exceptionalities.”

Unacceptable for ___________


and critically reflect on practices respecting

and integrating:

different viewpoints,

learning styles,

cultures, and

lived experiences

into the classroom and school community.


equitable teacher interaction with all

students,

understanding students with

exceptionalities,

encouraging inclusion,

valuing cultural and socioeconomic

diversity,

encouraging students to pursue personally

meaningful questions, and

allowing them to make meaningful choices.



reflects on practices respecting and integrating:


learning styles,

cultures, and

lived experiences



equitable teacher interaction with all students,

understanding students with exceptionalities,


valuing cultural and socioeconomic diversity,




Distinguished for ________

The candidate provides exemplary articulation and

critical reflection upon practices respecting and

integrating:


learning styles,

cultures, and

lived experiences



equitable teacher interaction with all students,

understanding students with exceptionalities,


valuing cultural and socioeconomic diversity,




Evaluator

0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0 To evaluate PROGRAM COMPLETERS, the essay is worth 50% of the outcome score and the artifacts collectively are worth the other




ED 222: Reflection on Teaching Students with Disabilities and Standard Artifact Rubric (SAR)

ED 313: Reflections on Multicultural Field Experiences, which include Boys and Girls Club, Lunch Delivery, and Valentine's

Dance, and the Standard Artifact Rubric (SAR).

In addition to the above, PROGRAM COMPLETERS must provide the following portfolio artifacts: Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scales for “Outcome 3” from the cooperating teacher(s) and clinical faculty supervisor(s).

61

OUTCOME 4

“The BC candidate builds partnerships with students, colleagues, families and community groups to enhance communication and learning.”


Failure by the candidate to clearly articulate and

critically reflect on practices which build

partnerships with:

colleagues,

students’ families, and

community groups.


building positive relationships with staff,

colleagues, administrators and parents;

respecting confidential information;

accepting constructive feedback; and

demonstrating professionalism in dress,

communication, and punctuality.

Acceptable for ___________


reflects on practices that build partnerships

with:

colleagues,

students’ families and

community groups.








Distinguished for ___________


articulation and critical reflection upon

practices that build partnerships with:

colleagues,

students’ families and

community groups.








Evaluator

0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0





ED 220: Builder of Community Peer Evaluation Standard Artifact Rubric (SAR)

In addition to the above, PROGRAM COMPLETERS must provide the following portfolio artifacts: Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scales for “Outcome 4” from the cooperating teacher(s) and clinical faculty supervisor(s).

62

OUTCOME 5

“The BC candidate plans and assesses instruction based upon knowledge of subject matter, students, the community and

curriculum goals.”

Unacceptable for _____________

Failure by the candidate to clearly demonstrate

and articulate practices which contribute to the

effective planning and assessment of

instruction. Such practices generally include

incorporating knowledge of:

the students,

the community,

the curriculum, and

state standards

into the:

planning,

delivery,

assessment, and

analysis

of instruction.

Acceptable for ______________


articulates practices that contribute to the

effective planning and assessment of instruction.

Such practices generally include incorporating

knowledge of:

the students,

the community,

the curriculum, and

state standards

into the:

planning,

delivery,

assessment, and

analysis

of instruction.

Distinguished for _____________

The candidate provides exemplary demonstration

and articulation of practices that contribute to the

effective planning and assessment of instruction.

Such practices generally include incorporating

knowledge of:

the students,

the community,

the curriculum, and

state standards

into the:

planning,

delivery,

assessment, and

analysis

of instruction.

Evaluator

0 25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0 To evaluate PROGRAM COMPLETERS, the essay is worth 50% of the outcome score and the artifacts collectively are worth the other




Standard Artifact Rubric (SAR) from one unit that was created with lesson plans, objectives, and assessment. Elementary

education majors normally create this unit in Ed 307. Secondary education majors create their unit in Ed 357/358 and Content

Methods 457.

In addition to the above, PROGRAM COMPLETERS must provide the following portfolio artifacts: Benedictine Performance Assessment: Criterion 2: Goals & Objectives

Benedictine Performance Assessment: Criterion 3: Instructional Design

Benedictine Performance Assessment: Criterion 6: Analysis of Assessment


63

OUTCOME 6

“The BC candidate is a reflective builder of community who continually evaluates the effects of his/her actions on others and who actively

seeks out opportunities to grow professionally.”


Failure by the candidate to:

clearly articulate and critically reflect on

decisions he/she makes, and

to evaluate the effectiveness of such

decisions in relation to the educational

foundations which support Educators as

Builders of Community.

Practices related to this outcome generally

include:

continually evaluating the effects of one’s

choices on others,

articulating goals for building learning

communities,

accurately analyzing and assessing learning

situations,

seeking out opportunities to grow

professionally, and

participating constructively in team decision-

making.


The candidate:

clearly articulates and critically reflects on

decisions that he/she makes, and

evaluates the effectiveness of such

decisions in relation to the educational

foundations supporting Educators as

Builders of Community.


include:


choices on others,


communities,


situations,


professionally, and

participating constructively in team

decision-making.


The candidate:

provides exemplary articulation and critical

reflection on decisions that he/ she makes, and

evaluates the effectiveness of such decisions

in relation to the educational foundations

supporting Educators as Builders of

Community.


include:


choices on others,


communities,


situations,


professionally, and

participating constructively in team decision

making.

Evaluator

0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0





In addition to the above, PROGRAM COMPLETERS must provide the following portfolio artifacts: Benedictine Performance Assessment: Criterion 7: Reflection and Self-evaluation


64

Portfolio Score Summary

Student ID 123789

Scorer 1 (S1) John Doe

Scorer 2 (S2) Jane Smith

Scorer 3 (S3) (if required)

Level of Portfolio

Teacher Ed Student Teaching Completion

(Circle One)

OUTCOME SCORE

S1 S2 S3 (Mean of S1, S2, S3)

Knowledge 1.50 1.50 --- 1.50

Performance/Skills 3.00 2.50 --- 2.75

Dispositions (determined by department

members at a special

meeting)

--- --- --- 3.00

Outcome 1 1.75 1.75 --- 1.75

Outcome 2 2.00 1.75 --- 1.88

Outcome 3 1.75 1.50 --- 1.63

Outcome 4 2.00 1.75 --- 1.88

Outcome 5 1.00 1.50 --- 1.25

Outcome 6 1.25 1.50 --- 1.38

Score Range (0 – 3.0)

(initials of data

summarizer)

65

The

Benedictine

Performance

Assessment


Benedictine College

November 22, 2012

66

The Vision

Successful teachers should have an impact on student learning. Their students should gain substantive

knowledge and skills. Classroom teachers should be able to demonstrate that they can deliver an effective

instructional unit, employ meaningful classroom assessments and analyze and reflect on their experiences.

The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate:

Your ability to analyze your classroom context and make instructional decisions based upon

that analysis.

Your ability to construct and deliver an instructional unit.

Your ability to construct challenging, meaningful classroom assessments.

Your students’ learning.

Your ability to provide information on assessment data, student achievement, and the school

accreditation status.

Your ability to analyze and reflect on your experience to promote your own professional

growth.

This assessment provides teachers with feedback on their own professional development. In addition,

teachers who demonstrate evidence of their ability to plan and deliver effective instruction will be an asset

to their school district and more professionally competitive in the job market. A glossary at the end of

this document defines the terms italicized.

The Requirements

You are required to teach a multiple week instructional sequence. You will describe the learning context

and any specific instructional adaptations you made to meet the learning needs of individual students.

Your instructional goals should be based on Kansas content standards. Your learning objectives must

include outcomes in subject matter knowledge, skills, and reasoning abilities. You will also need to create

an assessment plan including (but not limited to) measures of student performance before (pretest) and

after (posttest) your instructional sequence. Finally, you need to analyze and reflect on your instructional

design, educational context and the degree of learning demonstrated by your students.

The following are format requirements for your work:

Your completed work must not exceed 25 pages (12 point font, double-spaced with one-inch

margins.) Tables and charts may be single-spaced. Be sure to insert page numbers in your

document.

Do not include any student names anywhere in your completed performance assessment. Refer to students by number or alias.

The document must be submitted in narrative format with the following criterion headings

indicated in bold print (suggested page length in parentheses):

1. Contextual Information and Learning Environment Adaptations (4 pages)

2. Unit Learning Goals and Objectives (2 pages)

3. Instructional Design and Implementation (6 pages)

4. Analysis of Assessment Procedures (6 pages)

5. Reflection and Self-Evaluation (4 pages)

67

You should include a copy of your pretest/ posttest instruments that are required in BPA Criterion 6 as

Attachment #1. The attachments will not count towards your 25 page maximum requirement. Be sure to

use page numbers in your BPA. When it is completed clip the pages together securely with either a large

stapler or a binder clip in the top left hand corner.

You must address several questions when constructing a response for each criterion of the Benedictine

Performance Assessment. These questions are found at the top of each of your scoring rubrics. You

should read each scoring rubric carefully to make sure that you provide information in your narrative to

receive the maximum score possible. The terms that are italicized throughout this document have been

defined in the glossary. Notice that the suggested page length for all the criteria totals 22 pages. This

gives you some flexibility in making the response for some criteria longer and some shorter. However,

you MUST stay within the maximum limit of 25 pages for your Benedictine Performance Assessment.

68

BPA Criterion 1

Contextual Information and Learning Environment Adaptations

The teacher understands how individuals learn, understands child and adolescent development,

demonstrates knowledge of appropriate adaptations, and has the ability to provide instructional strategies

that afford learning opportunities for all learners. [KSDE Standards 2 and 3]

1. What are some important characteristics of students in your classroom? Describe such factors

as: number of students in school and in classroom, ethnic/cultural/gender make-up, socio-

economic profile, previously demonstrated academic performance/ability, developmental

characteristics, district/school/community/classroom environmental considerations and

students with special needs. Include a brief, general description of students in your class.

Identify the groups for whom you will separate (disaggregate) data for analysis in Criterion 6.

Environmental considerations that affect learning may include such factors as district

regulations (e.g. about books), type of community (e.g., urban, suburban, rural etc.), and

physical classroom setting (e.g. self-contained, portable etc.). You must identify the grade

level(s) of the students in your class.

2. In consideration of environmental, personal, demographic and background characteristics, and

the knowledge, skill, cognitive capacities, dispositions and readiness of your students, what are

the needs of your students as a group as well as individually, and the implications for your

instruction. Describe and discuss the learning needs of individual or clusters of students and

how these considerations will influence your approach to instruction in order to address the

learning and affective needs of all students in the class.

In addition to the text description, you may use a table to illustrate the relationship between Part 1 and 2

above. Example:

Contextual Factors Given Diversity, Implications for Instruction

Gender:

12 boys, 13 girls

Provide mixed gender grouping during cooperative learning activities.

Achievement:

3 below, 17 at grade

level, 5 above grade

level

The 3 below sometimes require peer or adult assistance and more time. 2 of the 5

above are in the gifted program, and I provide more enrichment activities within

each unit such as . . .

Etc. Etc.

Checklist: The Teacher Describes His/Her: N Y

Environmental Factors (district, school, and classroom; all three must be present) ............. 0 1

Community (urban, rural, suburban etc.) ................................................................................ 0 1

Classroom’s Ethnic/Cultural Make-up .................................................................................. 0 1

Classroom’s Gender Make-up .............................................................................................. 0 1

School’s Socio-Economic Status (SES) Make-up ................................................................. 0 1

Students with Special Needs/At Risk Students ..................................................................... 0 1

Students’ Developmental Characteristics .............................................................................. 0 1

Total Checklist Score: /7

69

Rating

Indicator

0

Performance

Not

Demonstrated

1

Performance

Partially

Demonstrated

2

Performance is

Demonstrated

X Score

Demonstrates an

awareness of

students’

backgrounds,

(Socio-cultural,

class, parents,

building, community

and district factors),

and identifies

implications for

instruction

accordingly to meet

individual needs of

students.

No consideration

or recognition of

the implications

when planning

instruction for

individual

differences

Sources of student

differences are

specified, but

implications when

planning to meet the

instructional needs of

the students are not

addressed.

Sources of student

differences are

specified, and the

teacher offers

reasonable

implications that

impact plans to meet

students’ individual

needs.

1

Demonstrates an

understanding of

the cognitive/ non-

cognitive

characteristics of

the students in the

class describes how

these differences,

impact the planning

of instruction for

the class as a whole.

No consideration

or recognition of

the implications

when planning

instruction for

individual

differences

Sources of student

differences are

specified, but

implications when

planning to meet the

instructional needs of

the students are not

addressed.

Sources of student

differences are

specified, and the

teacher offers

reasonable

implications that

impact plans to meet

students’ individual

needs.

1

Total Rubric Score: _____/4

Total Score for BPA Criterion 1: _____/11

70

BPA Criterion 2

Learning Goals and Objectives

The teacher selects goals and objectives based upon knowledge of all students, subject matter, and

curriculum outcomes. [KSDE Standard 7]

1. List and describe your unit learning goal(s) and objectives for this instructional sequence.

Provide a minimum of one goal and three objectives written across all levels, (lower level, middle

level, and higher level. See examples below.) Be sure to include a description of subject matter

knowledge, skills/applications, and reasoning ability students will achieve if your unit learning

goal(s) and objectives are met.

2. Your lesson objectives should be clearly stated, developmentally appropriate, aligned with

state/district standards or local curriculum outcomes and described in terms of student

performance, not activities. (The state/district standards or local curriculum outcomes that you

follow should be written out completely so that alignment can be checked. Do not merely cite the

title or number of the standard or outcome.) Each objective must do the following: a. Describe precisely what performance is expected of students

b. Indicate exactly how student performance will be measured (multiple choice test,

observation instrument completed by student teacher, rubric completed by student

teacher, self-assessment by student, etc.

c. State the minimum mastery level that will be used in evaluating student performance.

3. Give a rationale for choosing your range of objectives. While we expect teachers to provide

objectives at all levels, we realize that in some cases it may not be appropriate to provide a wide

range (e.g. at least two higher level objectives for kindergarten, or for some special needs

students.) If this is the case, be sure to provide a fully developed rationale for not presenting a

balance across the range of objectives.

Example of Objectives:

Knowledge:

1. Each student will correctly identify the seven continents and four oceans

on a map with at least 80% accuracy.

Skills:

1. Each student will be given a detailed map of their school. Using the

map, they will correctly find 20 objects hidden in the school with 80%

accuracy.

Reasoning:

1. Given a map with six distinct geographical features, each student will be

able to evaluate the best location for building a new city, achieving a

minimum score of 80% on a teacher-developed rubric.

71

Checklist: Unit Goals and Objectives Are : N Y

Aligned with State/District Standards or local curriculum outcomes ................................... 0 1

Developmentally Appropriate Given Grade Level and Classroom Context .......................... 0 1

Objectives Describe Precisely the Expected Student Performance ....................................... 0 1

Objectives Indicate Precisely How Student Performance Will Be Measured ....................... 0 1

Objectives State Minimum Mastery Level ............................................................................ 0 1

Focus of the Objectives is on What the Student Will Learn or Be Able to Do ...................... 0 1

Total Checklist Score: /6

Rating

Indicator

0

Criterion Not Met

1

Criterion Partially

Met

2

Criterion Met

X Score

Balance in the

Range of

Objectives*

No rationale or

description is

provided for the

range of objectives

selected.

The description of

the range of

objectives selected

lacks a convincing

rationale.

The description of

and rationale for the

range of objectives

selected is fully

explained.

2

Lower

Level/Content

Knowledge

Objectives

Absent (no

knowledge objectives

listed)

At least one objective

is written at the lower

level.

1

Middle

Level/Skill or

application

Objectives

Absent (no

skill/application

objectives listed)


is written at the

middle level.

1

Higher

Level/Reasoning

Objectives

Absent (no reasoning

objectives listed)


is written at the

higher level)

1

Objectives

precisely describe

student

performance, how

it will be

measured and

mastery level.

Objectives meet one

or less of these

criteria.

Objectives meet two

of these criteria.

Objectives meet all

three criteria. 4

* Candidates are expected to provide a balance in the range of three objectives across all levels and must

also provide a rationale for why that range of objectives is selected (i.e., why it is appropriate).


Total Score for BPA Criterion 2: _____/24

72

BPA Criterion 3

Instructional Design and Implementation

The teacher understands and uses a variety of appropriate instructional strategies, including those that

represent a wide range of technological tools, to develop various kinds of students’ learning including

critical thinking, problem solving, reading, and subject matter knowledge. The teacher also uses

knowledge of parents, community and agencies to support all students’ learning and well-being when

planning and implementing instruction. [KSDE Standards 4, 10 and 12]

Describe the Instructional Design and Implementation by addressing the following questions:

Why were the activities sequenced in this way?

How did the instruction address the multiple learning strategies?

How did you encourage student use of critical thinking and problem solving?

How did you accommodate varied levels of reading skills?

What adaptations did you make for students who have reading difficulties?

What adaptations (if any) did you make from your original design based on contextual

information and/or diagnostic assessment data?

What changes did you make in the resources you used?

What technology (e.g., audio-video, overhead, computers, calculators, adaptive, etc) was

integrated into your instructional activities? Include information related to your instruction and

to the students’ use for learning purposes.

How was the use of community resources connected to the unit?

Present your instructional design and implementation in both narrative and tabular form.

Example of Design for Instruction Table:

Day/Date Objective Instruction Assessment Adaptations

Day 2/

Tues. Aug. 30

The students will

be able to edit a

paragraph for

proper

punctuation

I will read the book

Punctuation Takes A

Vacation by Robin Pulver

to help students understand

the importance of

punctuation. We will

complete a worksheet

together that has missing

punctuation.

The students

will look for

missing

punctuation

marks in a

paragraph on

their own.

I will work one-

on-one with

Student B in order

for him to

complete this task.

Day 3

Day 4

Etc.

73

Checklist: Instructional Design and Implementation of Instruction: N Y

Are Aligned with Goals and Objectives stated in BPA Criterion Two…….………. 0 1 Are Progressively Sequenced ................................................................................................ 0 1

Adaptations are made for Special Needs Students

(e.g., language, cognitive, etc. If no adaptations are made, a rationale is

stated and supported)…….…………………………………………………………....... 0 1

Provides Evidence that Context Data is Used in Instructional Decisions.............................. 0 1

Total Checklist Score: ___ /4

Rating

Indicator

0

Performance Not

Demonstrated

1

Performance

Partially

Demonstrated

2

Performance is

Demonstrated

X Score

Multiple

Instructional

Strategies

Only one strategy is

used throughout the

unit.

A variety of

instructional strategies

is incorporated

throughout the unit,

but reflects only the

more common type

(e.g., relies only on

direct instruction,

including visual,

verbal-linguistic, or

paper-pencil).

Multiple instructional

strategies utilizing

multiple types/levels of

learning - other than

direct instruction - are

incorporated

throughout the unit

(e.g., application of the

theories of multiple

intelligences, learning

styles, constructivist

techniques, cooperative

learning).

2

Provide and

Adapt

Instructional

Strategies

Teacher does not

address implications

of contextual and /or

diagnostic

information in

planning instruction

and assessment; no

adaptations are

considered or stated.

(Referring a student

to a specialist is not

an appropriate

strategy.)

Adaptations do not

address the specific

contextual needs of

individuals, small

group, or class.

(Adaptations should be

made for instruction of

those groups in need

of them as identified in

Criterion One.)

Adaptations address

the specific identified

contextual needs of the

individuals, small

group, or class; or the

teacher adequately

defends the decision to

not make instructional

adaptations.

2

74

Use of

Community

Resources

Outside of the

School

The teacher does not

attempt to use

community resources

to foster learning.

The teacher uses

community resources

to foster learning but it

is not related to the

objectives of the unit.

The teacher uses

community resources to

foster learning and it is

directly related to the

unit’s objectives.

2

Use of

Technology

Connected to

the Objectives

of the Unit

Instruction does not

include technology or

no rationale is given

why it is

inappropriate to use

technology with

students.

Technology is used but

only by the teacher.

The teacher uses

technology and guides

the students’ use of

technology, or a

rationale is given why

it is inappropriate to

use technology with

students in this

particular unit.

2


Total Score for BPA Criterion 3 _____/20

75

BPA Criterion 4

Analysis of Assessment Procedures

The teacher understands and uses formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate and ensure the

continual intellectual, social and other aspects of personal development of all learners.

[KSDE Standard 8]

You must give a pretest on two of your three objectives. On the third objective, you may estimate student

performance. Calculate learning gain scores using the learning gain worksheet. You must provide data

for your students using the two tables shown below.

Criterion 4, Table 1: Raw Scores and Learning Gains

Student K

Pre

K

Post

K

Gain

S

Pre

S

Post

S

Gain

R

Pre

R

Post

R

Gain

Avg.

Gain

Male Caucasian #1*

Male Caucasian #2

Male Caucasian #3

Male Hispanic #1

Male Hispanic #2

Female Caucasian#1

Female Caucasian#2

Female Hispanic #1

Average Female Students

Average Male Students

Average Caucasian Students

Average Hispanic Students

Overall Average

*Only eight students are shown on this table; you must do this for each individual student in

your class. You must use male/ female and one other demographic factor. Some to consider:

LEP vs. non-LEP; students identified for Title 1 or special education vs. those not so

identified; low SES vs. middle and upper SES; or cultural/ ethnic status as indicated above.

Criterion 4, Table 2: Student Mastery

Objective Male %

Mastery

Female %

Mastery

Caucasian %

Mastery

Minority

% Mastery Overall %

Knowledge Objective

Skills Objective

Reasoning Objective

Average Mastery

76

A. What did your analysis of the learning results tell you about the degree to which each of your

learning objective(s) were achieved for your class as a whole?

B. What did your analysis of each subgroup of students (if applicable) tell you about the degree to

which each of your learning objective(s) were achieved? Discuss specific evidence from the pre

and post assessment data to support your answer. Make sure you address and evaluate the

learning of all students.

C. Do the assessment results accurately reflect the degree of learning students demonstrated during

the classroom activities? Explain.

D. Was the available instructional time adequate to cover all the stated learning goals?

Checklist: N Y

Presents Graphics and Data that are Easily Read and Interpreted....................................... 0 1

Uses Narrative Which Reflects the Degree of Learning Students Demonstrated

During the Classroom Activities Compared to Assessment Results..................... 0 1

Includes Accurate Calculations of Gain Scores……………………………...................... 0 4

Includes Accurate Percentages of Students Who Attained Objective Mastery................... 0 2

Uses Identical Pretests and Posttests ..................................................................................... 0 1

Disaggregates Data By At Least Two Subgroups……………………………..…….…… 0 4

Includes “Overall Averages” as required in Table 1…………………………..…….………..0 4

Includes “Average Mastery” as required in Table 2……………………………...….………. 0 4

Total Checklist Score:_____ / 21

Rating

Indicator

0

Performance Not

Demonstrated

1

Performance

Partially

Demonstrated

2

Performance

Demonstrated

X

Score

Pretests are

Utilized for

Instruction and

Evaluation

No pretest

assessment data are

collected, or the

data/information

collected is not

appropriate for

(aligned with) unit

objectives.

Appropriate student

pretest assessment

data are collected,

but not used for

instructional

decision- making.

Student instruction is

monitored by pretest

data and used

appropriately in

instruction and

decision-making.

1

Formative

Assessment is

Utilized for

Instruction and

Evaluation

No formative

assessment data are

collected, or the

data/information

collected is not

appropriate for

(aligned with) unit

objectives.

Appropriate student

assessment data is

collected, but not

used for

instructional

decision-making.

Student progress is

monitored by

appropriate formative

assessment data and

used appropriately in

instructional decision-

making.

1

Multiple Types

of Assessment

Only one assessment

is used, or

procedures and

formats are very

limited to non-

existent.

There is more than

one assessment but

no variety in the

types and format of

assessments.

A variety of assessment

formats are used (e.g.

portfolios, observation,

tests, projects,

performance tasks, peer

assessment, etc.).

1

77

Rating

Indicator

0

Performance Not

Demonstrated

1

Performance

Partially

Demonstrated

2

Performance

Demonstrated

X

Score

Alignment of

Assessments to

Objectives, and

Instruction.

Does not align

learning objectives

to instruction, and

assessment.

Aligns only two

among learning

objectives, instruction, and

assessment (i.e.

omits alignment of

one of the three.)

Aligns learning

objectives, instruction,

and assessment.

1

Student

Evaluation and

Performance

Criteria

No evaluative or

grading criteria or

standards or

expectations are

identified.

Response includes

some criteria or

expectations, but

connections of

objectives to

instruction,

outcomes, and

evaluation are not

complete.

Response includes

consideration of criteria

which reflect grading

and evaluation based

on integration aligning

instruction,

performance

expectations, and

grading or evaluation

standards.

2

Total Rubric Score: _____ / 12

Total Score for BPA Criterion 4: ______ /33

78

BPA Criterion 5

Reflection and Self-Evaluation

The teacher is a reflective practitioner who continually evaluates the effects of his or her choices and

actions on others (students, parents, and other professionals in the learning community), actively seeks out

opportunities to grow professionally and participates in the school improvement process (Kansas Quality

Performance Accreditation).

[KSDE Standards 9 and 10]

1. Select the learning objective where your students were most successful. Provide two or more

reasons for this success. Consider your goals, objectives, instruction, and assessment along with

student characteristics and other contextual factors under your control.

2. Select the learning objective where your students were least successful. Provide two or more

possible reasons for this lack of success. Consider your goals, instruction and assessment along

with student characteristics and other contextual factors under your control. Explain any mid-

unit adaptations you made. Discuss what you could do differently or better in the future to

improve your students’ performance.

3. Reflect on possibilities for professional development. Describe at least two professional

learning goals that emerged from your insights gained while teaching this unit. Identify two

specific activities you will undertake to improve your performance as a teacher in the critical

areas you identified.

79

BPA CRITERION 5

Rating

Indicator

0

Indicator Not Met

1

Indicator Partially

Met

2

Indicator Met

X Score

Successful

Activities

Identifies no

successful activities

related to an

objective, or the

basis for the choice is

not valid.

Identifies successful

activities related to an

objective, but

provides no adequate

explanation or

analysis of reasons

for the successes

identified.

Identifies successful

activities related to

an objective, and

provides an adequate

explanation or

analysis of reasons

for the successes

identified.

2

Implications for

Future Teaching

of This Unit

Including a

Focus on

Unsuccessful

Objectives

Provides no ideas for

redesigning learning

goals/objectives,

instruction, or

assessment.

Provides ideas for


goals/objectives,

instruction, or

assessment but offers

no or an inadequate

rationale for why

these changes are

warranted.

Provides ideas for


goals/objectives,

instruction, or

assessment and

adequately explains

why these

adaptations would

improve student

learning.

2

Implications for

Professional

Development/

Continuous

Learning

Provides fewer than

two professional

learning goals that

emerge from insights

gained while

teaching this unit.

The teacher presents

at least two

professional learning

goals that emerge

from insights gained

while teaching this

unit but he/she does

not describe specific

activities planned for

meeting each

professional goal

presented.

Presents at least two

professional learning

goals that emerge

from insights gained

while teaching this

unit and describes

specific activities

planned for meeting

each professional

goal presented.

2


Total BPA Criterion 5 Score: _____/12

80

A Glossary of Terms For the purpose of the performance assessment methodology, the following terms have these definitions:

Active Inquiry: A teaching/learning strategy in which the students are active in the pursuit of knowledge.

They are asking questions, researching, and answering their own and each other’s questions. The teacher

is a facilitator and guide but not the chief instructional agent. The use of inquiry does not have to be in

every lesson, but it should occur often enough that it is a strong instructional component in the teaching of

the unit.

Adaptations: Those adjustments in preparation and delivery of instruction and monitoring the learning

environment that are made by a candidate to meet the special learning needs of any students. It also

includes adjustments deemed necessary by the candidate to provide fair treatment of students during the

assessments of learning.

Affective Domain: The affective domain includes objectives that emphasize feeling and emotion, such as

interests, attitudes, appreciation, and methods of adjustment. At the lowest level, students simply attend to

a certain idea. At the highest level, students take an idea or a value and act on that idea. Five basic

objectives make up this domain: Receiving, Responding, Valuing, Organization, and Characterization by

Value (developed by Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia).

Appropriate Rationale: (for doing or not doing something that is addressed in the rubric): A statement

or description of educationally defensible reasons for not using a device or method called for in the

rubric. The statement may also be used to explain why the candidate is doing something differently than

is called for in the rubric. To be complete, the rationale should include a statement of how the teacher’s

decision(s) will impact intended outcomes and their achievement together with a description of the

learning benefits of the choice(s) that the candidate has made.

Balance in the Range of Objectives: Candidates are required to provide a minimum of one goal and six

objectives for a unit. The expectation of balance in the range of these objectives is that the candidate will

provide two objectives for each level or type of objective. The candidate should also provide a rationale

for why all the objectives were selected for inclusion in the unit. This rationale should demonstrate the

appropriateness of these choices, or address why a balance may not be present (e.g., if it is not

developmentally appropriate).

Classroom Environment: Information related to issues of culture, safety, classroom management,

physical environment, and socio-personal interaction that have potential to influence the learning

environment.

Cognitive Domain: The cognitive domain includes objectives that emphasize intellectual outcomes, such

as knowledge, understanding, and thinking skills. This domain is important to all areas of study. It

provides a system for teachers to develop lessons that require students to move beyond memorization of

facts at the knowledge level to the development of higher level thought processing skills at the synthesis

and evaluation levels. The six major categories include: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application,

Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation (Bloom).

Collaboration: The deliberate use by the teacher of educational strategies that require students to work

together in pairs or other groupings to solve problems, accomplish tasks, or to achieve learning goals.

Collaboration may include, but is not limited to, formal cooperative learning strategies.

Community: Information about the school district or city/town as well as the attendance center that

defines the community of learners in the school or classroom. Such information should focus on

81

definitive student characteristics to which the candidate ought to pay attention and use in planning and

delivering instruction in order to help all students achieve the unit learning goals.

Community Resources: These would include institutions, agencies, organizations, industry, students’

family members with expertise/knowledge, etc. Examples would include community library, museum,

observatory, local media, local businesses or farms, community groups like 4-H or Kiwanis, etc.

Context Data: The “Contextual Information” characteristics that are narrated in Criterion One. (e.g.,

ethnic, gender, SES, special needs, varying developmental levels, varying intellectual/academic

performance levels, emotional and/or behavioral deviations, etc.).

Critical Thinking/Problem Solving: Critical thinking/problem solving requires higher cognitive

processing (e.g., using information in new ways, analyzing information/concepts and/or breaking into

sub-parts or sub-concepts, making evaluations and judgments supported by appropriate rationales,

creating new constructs, processes or products, etc.). Students are not to perform tasks which rely simply

on rote learning, list making, recitation, or on simplistic manipulation of numbers, facts, or formulae.

Developmental Characteristics: Objectives, assessments and activities should be aligned with the

skills, abilities, maturity, as well as the intellectual and emotional or behavioral characteristics of the

typical student at the grade or level at which one is teaching. Deviations from providing instruction at the

expected developmental level of a particular grade should be explained and documented as to rationale.

Diagnostic Assessment: This is given before instruction to identify the students’ ability, skills, or

knowledge about the topic that is about to be taught. The teacher uses this assessment to determine

students’ previous knowledge in order to prepare or adjust objectives appropriately.

Disaggregation of Data: Organizing and reporting data from the diagnostic assessment and summative

assessment to show the achievement levels for groups present in the classroom (gender, SES, ELL,

students with disabilities, ethnicity, low and high achievers, etc.)

Environmental Factors: Circumstances or conditions in the school, the district, the community and/or

the classroom that might affect the students and their learning. For example, school practices, district

policies or regulations, transience in the community, physical attributes of the classroom etc.

Ethnic/Cultural Make-up: The diversity of races, languages, religions, beliefs and practices of the

students in your classroom. Cultural practices might include dress, typical foods, and special customs.

Formative Assessment: Those assessments of student performance, formal or informal, done during the

unit to give both the teacher and the student feedback regarding learning and the possible need for either

enrichment or remediation.

Goals: General learning standards or outcomes. Goals are supported by more specific learning

objectives.

Group and Subgroup: A group is a number of students in a broad category – e.g. gender. A subgroup

refers to a subordinate group within the group – e.g. males or females.

Higher Level/Reasoning Objective: A reasoning objective requires students to analyze, synthesize

and/or make judgments about (evaluate) information, knowledge and ideas. Students analyze, calculate,

compare, criticize, differentiate, examine, create, organize, propose, compose, appraise, assess, and

evaluate.

82

Instrument: An assessment or test for the purpose of measuring student ability.

Integration: The teacher has the knowledge and ability to import appropriate content, information or

processes from other disciplines (subjects) as a means of expanding student thinking, and/or

understanding and showing relation and relevance between subject fields i.e., a social studies teacher

integrates math skills into a geographic map lesson, an English teacher incorporates history lessons into a

Renaissance Literature unit, an elementary teacher integrates math, science, social studies, and language

arts into a unit.

Learner-centered Instruction: Classroom learning activities in which the learner and not the candidate

is the center of focus. The candidate may serve as facilitator but not as presenter or director. The student

works independently or in a small group that is in charge of the learning sequence, timing, goal setting,

and production of evidence of learning.

Learning Context: Information about the school, community, or individual students that should impact

the manner in which the candidate plans, executes, and assesses learning for all students in the class.

Low and High Level Objectives: When Bloom (1956) originally presented his taxonomy, he described

six cognitive objectives as hierarchically arranged from low-level (knowledge, comprehension) to high

level (application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation), with higher-level objectives building on the lower

ones. Bloom’s cognitive objectives can be used when planning assessments. True/false, matching,

multiple-choice, and short answer items are often used to assess knowledge and comprehension (low-

level objectives). Essay questions, class discussions, projects, position papers, debates, student work

products, and portfolios are especially good for assessing application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluations

(high level objectives).

Lower Level/Knowledge Objective: For the purposes of the BPA a knowledge objective requires

students to define, list, memorize, name, recall, recognize, recite or record. Knowledge objectives may

involve student comprehension where students demonstrate that they understand the meaning of what

they have learned by describing, distinguishing between, discussing, explaining, expressing, identifying,

locating, or reporting.

Middle Level/Skill Objective: A skill objective requires students to apply the information that they have

learned. Students apply, demonstrate, illustrate, practice, translate, interpret or dramatize.

Non-Verbal Communication Among Students: The use of positive non-verbal strategies could include,

but is not limited to the following: using hand or body movements to indicate understanding, showing

answers, raising hands up, nodding, using eye contact, smiling, using hand gestures to indicate, for

example, “Good job!” These non-verbal strategies fall generally into the categories of active listening

and will complement such things as use of body language, paying attention, facing the speaker, etc.

Objective: A statement of what students should be able to do as a result of instruction. Objectives must

be specific, observable and measurable. They should be focused on the outcomes expected from the

instruction and not on the activities done as a part of instruction.

Properties: The characteristics, elements or contents of an assessment system or instrument.

Psychomotor Domain: The psychomotor domain is concerned with motor skills and the performance of

the skill. This domain is important to sciences, family and consumer science, technology, physical

education, art, and music teachers. The major categories range from perception at the lowest level to

origination at the highest level. The seven major categories include: Perception, Set, Guided Response,

Mechanism, Complex Overt Response, Adaptation, and Origination (developed by Simpson,).

83

Quality Performance Accreditation (QPA): A process by which schools are assigned a status based

upon performance and quality criteria established by the state board. The performance criteria include

meeting state requirements on assessments, attendance, and for high schools, graduation rates. There are

eleven quality criteria which include a school improvement plan, a staff development plan and having

fully qualified staff. Schools may be assigned one of four levels of accreditation status ranging from

“Accredited” to “Not Accredited”.

Rationale: (for doing or not doing something that is addressed in the rubric): A statement or description

of educationally defensible reasons for not using a device or method called for in the rubric. The

statement may also be used to explain why the candidate is doing something differently than is called for

in the rubric. To be complete, the rationale should include a statement of how the teacher’s decision(s)

will impact intended outcomes and their achievement together with a description of the learning benefits

of the choice(s) that the candidate has made.

Readiness: Student readiness is the students’ previous knowledge, skills and understanding of concepts

related to the unit objectives. It includes the knowledge that is foundational to achievement of the current

unit’s objectives as well as previous knowledge of the concepts to be taught.

Reading: Understanding the communication of written ideas through skills taught by every teacher across

the curriculum. Every teacher should reinforce important reading skills by incorporating them into

instruction every day. Some teaching strategies include vocabulary building; using content-based reading

material to help students identify main ideas and supporting information; providing questions to generate

interest in a reading passage; and many developed systems to teach reading skills such as Question-

Answer Relationship (QAR), Survey, Question, Read, Recite, and Review (SQ3R), and Know, Want,

Learn (KWL), which all involve questioning and reviewing.

Rubric: An assessment tool that defines quality of performance as well as identifying skills, knowledge,

or concepts possessed by the student.

Special Needs: A description of students with special needs should not be limited to Individualized

Education Program’s (IEP). Students with social, familial, emotional, cognitive, language and/or other

needs should also be addressed. Students who are functioning below grade level or who have difficulty in

reading could be included in the special needs area.

State/District Standards or Local Curriculum Outcomes: Objectives should be aligned with state

standards. However for areas where there are no state standards candidates should use district standards

or local curriculum outcomes.

Subgroup: A group is a number of students in a broad category – e.g., gender. A subgroup refers to a

subordinate group within the group – e.g. males or females.

Summative Assessment: A comprehensive test given at the end of the unit of instruction to check the

level of student learning.

Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives is a three-domain

scheme (cognitive, affective, and psychomotor) for classifying instructional objectives. Each domain is

organized in hierarchical order, ranging from low-level categories to high-level categories. The system is

based on the assumption that learning outcomes can be described in terms of changes in student

performance. Therefore, the taxonomy provides a structure for writing instructional objectives in

performance terms (Gronlund).

84

Technology: For the use of the Benedictine Performance Assessment, technology includes a wide range

of technological tools that a teacher can use to enhance instruction. Examples include audio-visual

devices, overhead projectors, computers, calculators, copy machines, telephones, cameras (video and

still), adaptive technology, robotics, etc.

Unit Learning Goal: The primary goal set by the candidate to guide the learning. The unit learning goal

is stated in terms of student performance. It will be further subdivided into subordinate tasks or unit

objectives.

85

Sample of Attachment #2 Learning Gain Scores

You must calculate a learning gain score for each individual student. Once you have figured every

student’s gain score, you must calculate the average gain score for the entire class as a whole.

Interpretation

Formula: (Post-assessment - Pre-assessment) You are dividing the actual gain

(numerator) by the potential gain

(denominator). You are calculating

------------------------------------------- how much the student gained out

of the total possible that they could have

(100% - Pre-assessment) gained from pre to post assessment.

where: pre-assessment is the percent correct on pre-unit assessment

post-assessment is the percent correct on the post unit assessment

Interpretation

Ex. for student #1 below: 70 - 45 25 Student #1 demonstrated a gain of 25

percentage points out of a potential 55

----------- = ------ = .45 percentage points that they could have

gained. Thus, they gained .45 (or 45%) of

100 - 45 55 the possible percentage points they could

have gained from pre to post assessment.

Example for when a student scores higher on their pre-assessment than they did on their post-

assessment: Interpretation

Ex. for student #2 below: 50- 75 -25 Student #2 could have gained up to 25

percentage points, but instead they lost

---------- = ------ = - 1.00 25 percentage points (or 100% of what

100 – 75 25 they could have gained).

Pre Post Individual

Assessment Assessment Student

Student # Score Score Gain Score 1 45% 70% .45

2 75% 50% -1.00

3 60% 80% .50

4 40% 40% .00

5 65% 70% .14

6 90% 95% .50

7 53% 59% .13

8 60% 90% .75

9 40% 95% .92

10 42% 45% .05

11 58% 88% .71

12 24% 30% .08

13 45% 89% .80

GROUP AVERAGE GAIN SCORE .31 (or a 31% average learning gain for the entire class)

86

Part Three

Introduction

The graduate programs in education, the Master of Arts in School Leadership (MASL) and the

Master of Arts in Education (M.Ed.), feature three (3) benchmark points when assessments are

made toward meeting the graduate programs knowledge, skills, dispositions, and teach

program’s professional standards. Upon entrance and throughout the program, candidates

submit artifacts at each benchmark point to their Professional Portfolio. The portfolio is then

evaluated at each benchmark point on required knowledge, skills, and dispositions aligned with

the conceptual framework, Educators as Builders of Community, and the professional standards

associated with each degree. The first document in Part Three is the evaluator’s rubric for the

MASL Professional Portfolio and the M.Ed. Professional Portfolio.

The four-semester Practicum experience provides the most significant section to the MASL

Professional Portfolio. The practicum semesters have dual purposes. In the formative sense, the

purpose of the practicum semesters is to provide each candidate with a “real life” apprenticeship

in school leadership, foster his/her professional development through “on the job” training. In

the summative sense, the purpose of the practicum is to ensure that each candidate for the M.A.

in School Leadership has met the standards prescribed by the KSBE, NCATE, ISLLC, and those

of Benedictine College. The practicum experiences and the accompanying evaluation criteria are

designed to be in congruence with the conceptual framework for the MASL program. The

second document in Part Three is the Practicum Completion Evaluation Rubric.

Similarly, the Directed Study in the M.Ed. program serves to provide the teacher leader

candidate with the “real life” opportunity to lead faculty in P-12 schools in the design and

implementation of action research, analysis of data, and plans for improvement. The summative

purpose of the directed study is to ensure that each candidate for the M.A. in Education has met

the standards prescribed by the KSDE, NCATE, and those of Benedictine College. The third

document in Part Three is the Directed Study Evaluation Rubric.

All candidates in the advanced programs must demonstrate appropriate “dispositions.” This term

means the values and professional ethics that the graduate student brings to becoming a principal

or teacher leader. We are required by the state of Kansas and NCATE to evaluate candidates on

their dispositions. The dispositions we expect candidates to demonstrate may be summarized in

the phrase, “Professionally Responsible Builders of Community.” These are divided into two

areas: 1) “Professional Responsibilities” and 2) “Building Community.” When MASL and

M.Ed. candidates apply for admission into the program, dispositions are evaluated using the

three letters of recommendation and an interview with the director of the program. Dispositions

are evaluated again at application to the practicum semesters (MASL) or to the directed study

(M.Ed.) by the program director and graduate program faculty who have worked with the

candidate. Finally, dispositions are evaluated by the cooperating administrators midway through

the practicum or directed study experience and again at the end of the experience. The fourth

document is the Graduate Program Dispositional Rubric.

87

GRADUATE PROGRAMS PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO

EVALUATOR’S RUBRIC

Entry Admission to Practicum/Directed Study Completion

Candidate ID No.

(Circle One)

Evaluator’s Signature

88

The same rubrics are used for admission to the MASL/M.Ed. Program, admission to the MASL practicum or M.Ed. directed study, and

MASL/M.Ed. Program/ degree completion. However, our expectations for candidates increase as they move through the program. When you are

scoring a portfolio and see the following phrases in the rubric, “Unacceptable for ___________,” “Acceptable for ______________,” and

“Distinguished for _______________,” consider where the student is in his or her program. A student who is applying for program completion

needs to demonstrate a higher degree of proficiency than a student applying for admission to the program to receive acceptable ratings on his or her

portfolio.”

Candidates for admission into the graduate programs or the MASL practicum/M.Ed. directed study sometimes do not have required artifacts

because they have earned a previous Master’s level degree and have transferred in the course in which an artifact is produced. If in doubt, check

the student’s transcript to see if he/ she has completed the course.

KNOWLEDGE

Knowledge includes both content area knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. For a more complete definition of knowledge, please see

the NCATE 2000 Standards Glossary, available in Ferrell Academic Center 212 or online at ncate.org


A cumulative grade point average below 3.0

(initial) 3.25 (completion), or

GRE scores on any two of the three

subsections below 480 or a MAT score

below 400 (MASL only), or

Unacceptable knowledge ratings on letters

of recommendation (initial) unacceptable

score on comprehensive exam (completion)


A cumulative grade point average between 3.0

and 3.5, and

GRE subscores at or above 480 or MAT at or

above 400 (MASL only), and

Acceptable knowledge ratings on letters of

recommendation (initial) passing score on the

comprehensive exam (completion)


A cumulative grade point average above 3.5,

and

GRE subscores above 480 or MAT above

400 (MASL only), and

Distinguished knowledge ratings on letters of

recommendation (initial) distinguished score

on the comprehensive exam (completion)

Evaluator

0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0

Required Artifacts for KNOWLEDGE:

Bachelor’s level degree transcript showing a minimum cumulative GPA of 3.0 in the last 60 hours of undergraduate coursework.

MASL or M.Ed. transcript showing a minimum cumulative GPA of 3.25*

A copy of the GRE or MAT test scores or Master’s degree transcript (MASL)

Acceptable Knowledge ratings on Letters of Recommendation**

Passing score on the comprehensive exam***

* For Admission to Practicum and Completion

** For Initial Admission only

*** For Completion only

89

PERFORMANCE/SKILLS

The qualities and levels of proficiency of a candidate in application of his/ her knowledge to classroom teaching and other

professional situations.

Unacceptable for ___________ “Unacceptable” ratings by:

Letters of Recommendation,

MASL/M.Ed. faculty, or

cooperating administrator

on practicum evaluations.


“Acceptable” ratings by:






“Distinguished” ratings by:





Evaluator

0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0

Required Artifacts for PERFORMANCE/SKILLS:

Acceptable skills ratings on Letters of Recommendation

MASL or M.Ed. transcript of performance/skills*

Performance ratings on final practicum evaluations**

* This artifact is produced after the first year of MASL/M.Ed. courses

** This artifact is produced during the practicum semesters and is presented at program completion

90

DISPOSITIONS ---- TO BE SCORED BY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT FACULTY

AT SPECIAL DEPARTMENT MEETING

Dispositions may be defined as the values, commitments, and professional ethics that influence behaviors toward students, families, colleagues, and communities

and affect student learning, motivation, and development as well as the educator’s own professional growth. Candidates at Benedictine College are expected to

demonstrate that they are “Professionally Responsible Builders of Community.” Indicators of Professional Responsibility are: 1) punctuality, 2) reliability in

fulfilling commitments, 3) respecting and supporting colleagues and supervisors, 4) respecting confidential information 5) displaying a professional, positive, and

enthusiastic attitude, 6) accepting feedback, 7) professional dress, 8) demonstrating the belief that all students are valuable and all can learn*, 9) demonstrating

equitable interactions with all students* and 10) seeking professional growth. Indicators of Community Building include: 1) establishing positive relationships with

students, peers, teachers, supervisors, administrators, parents, and community members; 2) demonstrating the desire to help others and the willingness to put the

needs of others first, 3) participation in service activities, 4) use of instructional activities that teach students to help others and be of service to the classroom,

school, and geographical community. Candidates must demonstrate that their dispositions provide evidence of both “Professionally Responsibility,” and

“Community Building.”

*To successfully demonstrate Professional Responsibilities Indicators 8 & 9, candidates must show through their words and actions that they value the cultural

heritage of all students and that they value the opportunity to instruct students with exceptionalities.


The failure to adequately demonstrate

EITHER:

professional responsibility, or

community building.



BOTH:

professional responsibility, and

community building.

Distinguished_________


BOTH:

professional responsibility

community building at an exemplary

level.

Overall Faculty

Rating*

0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0

*This score is determined by consensus as opposed to mathematical averaging of scores.

Acceptable disposition rating on Letters of Recommendation

Acceptable dispositional ratings by director of graduate programs and MASL/M.Ed. faculty*

Acceptable disposition ratings on Final Practicum Evaluation

* determined by all faculty who have worked with the candidate

** This artifact is produced during the practicum/directed study semesters and is presented at program completion

91

OUTCOME A

The graduate candidate ensures successful communication with teachers and parents to help nurture the whole child/adolescent.


Failure by the candidate to demonstrate and

articulate practices that ensure successful

communication with teachers and parents to

help nurture the whole child/adolescent.



articulates practices that ensure successful

communication with teachers and parents to

help nurture the whole child/adolescent.



demonstration and articulation of

practices that ensure successful

communication with teachers and parents

to help nurture the whole

child/adolescent.

Evaluator

0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0

Required Artifacts for OUTCOME A:

Outcome A portion of Builders of Community essay

MASL Practicum Final Evaluation for Standard #1 or Directed Study final evaluation for Standards #3 and #5/6*

Final Professional Portfolio Artifacts*

* These artifacts are produced throughout the program and during the practicum/directed study and are submitted at program

completion

92

OUTCOME B

The graduate candidate demonstrates leadership by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional

programs conducive to candidate learning and staff professional growth.

Unacceptable for ________


and demonstrate leadership by advocating,

nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and

instructional programs conducive to

candidate learning and staff professional

growth.

Acceptable for ____________

The candidate clearly articulates and

demonstrates leadership by advocating,

nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and

instructional programs conducive to candidate

learning and staff professional growth.



articulation demonstrates leadership by

advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a

school culture and instructional programs

conducive to candidate learning and staff


Evaluator

0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0

Required Artifacts for OUTCOME B:

Outcome B portion of Builders of Community essay

Final Practicum Evaluation for Standard #2 or Directed Study final evaluation for Standards #1, #2, and #8*



completion

93

OUTCOME C

The graduate candidate promotes success of all students by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner that

demonstrates respect for all cultures.



critically reflect on practices that promote

success of all students by acting with integrity,

fairness, and in an ethical manner that

demonstrates respect for all cultures.



reflects on practices that promote success of all

students by acting with integrity, fairness, and

in an ethical manner that demonstrates respect

for all cultures.

Distinguished for ________



practices that promote success of all students

by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an

ethical manner that demonstrates respect for

all cultures.

Evaluator

0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0

Required Artifacts for OUTCOME C:

Outcome C portion of Builders of Community essay

Final Practicum Evaluation for Standard #5 or Directed Study final evaluation for Standards #1 and #4/7*



completion

94

OUTCOME D

The graduate candidate creates a community of caring relationships that unify all educational participants in the educational

process.



critically reflect on practices that create a

community of caring relationships that unify all

educational participants in the educational

process.

Acceptable for ___________


reflects on practices that create a community of

caring relationships that unify all educational

participants in the educational process.

Distinguished for ___________



practices that create a community of caring



Evaluator

0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0

Required Artifacts for OUTCOME D:

Outcome D portion of Builders of Community essay

Final Practicum Evaluation for Standard #3 and Standard #4 or Directed Study final evaluation for Standards #1, #2, #3, #5, #6,

and #8*



completion

95

OUTCOME E

The graduate candidate incorporates sound research and information (including action research generated by the school

community) into the perpetual process of educational improvement.

Unacceptable for _____________

Failure by the candidate to clearly demonstrate

and articulate practices that incorporate sound

research and information (including action

research generated by the school community) into

the perpetual process of educational

improvement.

Acceptable for ______________


articulates practices that incorporate sound

research and information (including action

research generated by the school community)

into the perpetual process of educational

improvement.

Distinguished for _____________


demonstration and articulation of practices

that incorporate sound research and

information (including action research

generated by the school community) into the

perpetual process of educational

improvement.

Evaluator

0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0 Required Artifacts for OUTCOME E:

Outcome E portion of Builders of Community essay

Final Practicum Evaluation for Standards #1, #2, and #3 or Directed Study final evaluation for Standard #4 and #7*



completion

96

OUTCOME F

The graduate candidate is a reflective builder of community who promotes the success of all students by understanding and

influencing the larger political, social, economic, and legal institutions which impact education.


Failure by the candidate to promote the

success of all students by understanding and

influencing the larger political, social,

economic, and legal institutions which impact

education.



articulates practices that promote the success

of all students by understanding and

influencing the larger political, social,

economic, and legal institutions which impact

education.



articulation and demonstrates ability to

promote the success of all students by




Evaluator

0 .25 .5 .75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0

Required Artifacts for OUTCOME F:

Outcome F portion of Builders of Community essay

Final Practicum Evaluation for Standards #4, and #6 or Directed Study final evaluation for Standard #5 and #6*


*These artifacts are produced throughout the program and during the practicum/directed study and are submitted at program

completion

97

MASL Practicum Portfolio Evaluation

MASL Candidate Student ID# __________________________

Evaluator’s Signature ________________________________

98

STANDARD #1

The building level administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by facilitating the

development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school

community.

MASL Outcome A: Ensure successful communication with teachers and parents to help nurture the whole child/adolescent.

MASL Outcome E: Incorporates sound research and information (including action research generated by the school community) into

the perpetual process of school improvement.

Required Artifacts Standard

# 1: Outcomes A & E

1) Welcome Back to School

Letter to Faculty and Staff

2) Principal Newsletter

3) Assessment & School

Improvement Project

4) School Mission and Goals

Development Plan

5) Additional Artifacts and

Logged Experiences

6) Final Practicum

Evaluation, page #1

Unacceptable for ______

Failure by the MASL candidate to

demonstrate understanding and

skills in promoting the success of

all students by facilitating the

development, articulation,

implementation, and stewardship

of a vision of learning that is

shared and supported by the

school community. Candidate

does not provide acceptable

evidence to ensure the

incorporation of sound research

and information (including action

research generated by the school

community) into the perpetual

process of school improvement.

Acceptable for ______

The MASL candidate provides

acceptable evidence to ensure

promoting the success of all

students by facilitating the





school community. In addition,

the candidate provides acceptable







Distinguished for ______


exemplary evidence to ensure


students by facilitating the





school community. In addition,

the candidate provides acceptable







Evaluator

0 .25 .5 .75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3

99

STANDARD #2

The building level administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students advocating, nurturing, and

sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.

MASL Outcome B: Demonstrates leadership by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional programs

conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.




# 2: Outcomes B & E

1) Supervision Video and

Reflection

2) Curriculum Coherence

Project


Logged Experiences

submitted

4) Final Practicum

Evaluation, page 2



provide acceptable evidence of the

school leader’s role in advocating

and nurturing a school culture and

instructional program conducive

to student learning and staff

professional growth. The

candidate does not supply



and information into the perpetual




acceptable evidence of the school

leader’s role in advocating and

nurturing a school culture and




candidate provides acceptable







exemplary evidence of the school

leader’s role in advocating and

nurturing a school culture and




candidate provides exemplary





Evaluator

0 .25 .5 .75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3

100

STANDARD #3

The building level administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by ensuring management of

the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.

MASL Outcome D: The MASL Candidate promotes the success of all students by creating a community of caring relationships that

unify all educational participants in the educational process.




# 3: Outcomes D & E 1) Risk Management Video

2) Crisis Plan Analysis

3) School Budget Analysis


Logged Experiences

5) Final Practicum

Evaluation, page 3



demonstrate knowledge and skills

ensuring the management of the

organization operations, and

resources for a safe efficient, and

effective learning environment.

The candidate does not supply






The MASL candidate provides an

acceptable demonstration of

knowledge and skills ensuring the

management of the organization

operations, and resources for a

safe efficient, and effective

learning environment. The

candidate provides acceptable







exemplary demonstration of

knowledge and skills ensuring the

management of the organization

operations, and resources for a

safe efficient, and effective

learning environment. The

candidate provides exemplary





Evaluator

0 .25 .5 .75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3

101

STANDARD #4

The building level administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by collaborating with

families and community members, responding to diverse community needs and interests, and mobilizing community

resources.

MASL Outcome D: The MASL Candidate promotes the success of all students by creating a community of caring relationships that

unify all educational participants in the educational process.

MASL Outcome F: The MASL Candidate promotes the success of all students by understanding, responding to, and influencing the

larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context.


# 4: Outcomes D & F 1) Case Study and

Accompanying Data


Logged Experiences

submitted for Standard #4

3) Final Practicum

Evaluation, page 4



demonstrate creating a community

of caring relationships that unify

all educational participants

(students, teachers, families,

community members, etc.) in the

education process.




creating a community of caring

relationships that unify all

educational participants (students,

teachers, families, community

members, etc.) in the education

process.






educational participants (students,

teachers, families, community

members, etc.) in the education

process.

Evaluator

0 .25 .5 .75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3

102

STANDARD #5

The building level administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by acting with integrity,

fairness, and in an ethical manner.

MASL Outcome C: The MASL Candidate who promotes the success of all students by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical

manner.


# 5: Outcome C 1) Leadership Credo

2) Philosophy of Education

and Leadership


Logged Experiences


4) Final Practicum

Evaluation, page 5


Failure by the candidate to

promote the success of all students

by acting with integrity, fairness,

and in an ethical manner.





students by acting with integrity,






students by acting with integrity,


Evaluator

0 .25 .5 .75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3

103

STANDARD #6

The building level administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by understanding,

responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context.

MASL Outcome F: The MASL Candidate promotes the success of all students by understanding, responding to, and influencing the

larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context.


# 5: Outcome F 1) Education Law Paper

2) Reflection and Log from

Alternative School


Logged Experiences


4) Final Practicum

Evaluation, page 6



promote the success of all students

by understanding, responding to,

and influencing the larger

political, social, economic, legal,

and cultural context.





students by understanding,

responding to, and influencing the

larger political, social, economic,

legal, and cultural context.






responding to, and influencing the

larger political, social, economic,


Evaluator 0 .25 .5 .75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3

104

M.Ed. Directed Study Portfolio Evaluation

M.Ed. Candidate Student ID# __________________________

Evaluator’s Signature ________________________________

105

KTLead STANDARDS #1 & #2

The teacher leader is able to apply strategies of adult learning across teacher leadership activities.

The teacher leader is able to advance the professional skills of colleagues by demonstrating and applying expertise in

observational skills and in providing quality feedback in order to support reflective practice focused on improving curriculum,

instruction, and assessment.

Graduate Outcome B: Demonstrates leadership by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional programs

conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.

Graduate Outcome C: Promotes the success of all students by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner.

Graduate Outcome D: Promotes the success of all students by creating a community of caring relationships that unify all educational


Required Artifacts Standards

# 1 & #2: Outcomes B, C, &

D:

1) Adult Learners Report

2) Case Study

3) Peer Coaching and

Mentoring Project

4) Directed Study

Evaluation for

Standards #1 and #2



demonstrate leadership by

advocating, nurturing, and

sustaining a caring community

and instructional programs

conducive to student learning

through staff professional

growth. Failure of the

candidate to act with integrity,

fairness, and in an ethical

manner.


The candidate provides

acceptable evidence and

demonstrates leadership by






growth. The candidate acts

with integrity, fairness, and in

an ethical manner.



exemplary evidence and

demonstrates leadership by






growth. The candidate

consistently acts with integrity,


manner through all processes.

Evaluator

0 .25 .5 .75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3

106

KTLead STANDARD #3

The teacher leader is able to improve the quality of colleagues’ collaboration and interaction with families and other

stakeholders.

Graduate Outcome A: Ensure successful communication with teachers and parents to help nurture the whole child/adolescent.




# 2: Outcomes B & E

1) Action Plan for School,

Family and Community

Collaboration

2) Evaluation for Standard

#3



provide acceptable evidence of

successful communication with

teachers and parents and

creation of a caring community

that unifies all educational

participants.



acceptable evidence of





participants.



exemplary evidence of





participants.

Evaluator

0 .25 .5 .75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3

107

KTLead Standards #4 & #7

The teacher leader is able to initiate and facilitate colleagues’ design and implementation of action research and analysis of

data for individual and group decision making

The teacher leader is able to inform and facilitate colleagues’ selection or design, use, and interpretation of multiple

assessments, along with other available data, to make informed decisions that improve the quality of instruction and student

learning.

Graduate Outcome C: Promote success of all students by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner that demonstrates

respect for all cultures.

Graduate Outcome E: Incorporates sound research and information (including action research generated by the school community)

into the perpetual process of school improvement.


# 3: Outcomes D & E 1) Action Research Plan

including project, data

presentation and

reflection

2) Evaluation for

Standards #4 & #7


The candidate fails to

demonstrate sound action

research design and

implementation for the purpose

of school improvement. The

candidate fails to act with

integrity, fairness, and in an

ethical manner that

demonstrates respect for all

cultures.


The candidate demonstrates

sound action research design

and implementation for the

purpose of school

improvement. The candidate

acts with integrity, fairness, and

in an ethical manner that

demonstrates respect for all

cultures.


The candidate provides an


sound action research design

and implementation for the

purpose of school

improvement. The candidate

consistently acts with integrity,


manner that demonstrates

respect for all cultures.

Evaluator

0 .25 .5 .75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3

108

KTLead STANDARDS #5 & #6

The teacher leader is able to develop and support collaborative teams and promote collegial interactions that improve the

effectiveness of practice.

The teacher leader is able to identify and assess opportunities for educational improvement, and advocate effectively for them

within and beyond the school community.

Graduate Outcome A: Ensure successful communication with teachers and parents to help nurture the whole child/adolescent



Graduate Outcome F: Promotes the success of all students by understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social,

economic, legal, and cultural context.


# 4: Outcomes D & F 1) Assessment and

School Improvement

Project

2) Curriculum

Development Plan

3) Final Evaluation for

Standards #5 & #6



demonstrate effective

communication, creating a

community of caring


educational participants


community members, etc.) in

the education process.

Candidate does not

demonstrate promotion of the

success of all students by

understanding, responding to,


political, social, economic,





effective communication and the

creation of a community of

caring relationships that unify all



community members, etc.) in the

education process. Candidate

demonstrates promotion of the

success of all students by

understanding, responding to,


political, social, economic, legal,

and cultural context.




effecting communication and





community members, etc.) in

the education process.

Candidate demonstrates

promotion of the success of all


responding to, and influencing

the larger political, social,

economic, legal, and cultural

context in an exemplary

manner.

Evaluator

0 .25 .5 .75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3

109

KTLead STANDARD #8

The teacher leader is able to inform and facilitate the design and implementation of coherent, integrated and differentiated

professional development based on assessed student and teacher needs.

Graduate Outcome B: Demonstrate leadership by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional programs

conducive to candidate learning and staff professional growth.

Graduate Outcome D: Create a community of caring relationships that unify all educational participants in the educational process.


# 5: Outcome C 1) Professional

Development Plan

2) Final Evaluation for

Standard #8



demonstrate leadership and

create a caring community by


sustaining a school culture and

instructional programs

conducive to candidate

learning and staff professional

growth.




leadership and creation a caring

community by advocating,

nurturing, and sustaining a

school culture and instructional

programs conducive to

candidate learning and staff





leadership and creation a caring

community by advocating,

nurturing, and sustaining a

school culture and instructional

programs conducive to

candidate learning and staff


Evaluator

0 .25 .5 .75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3

110

Graduate Programs Dispositional Rubric

Dispositions may be defined as the values, commitments, and professional ethics that influence

behaviors toward students, families, colleagues, and communities and affect students’, teachers’,

and staff members’ learning, motivation, and development, as well as a school leader’s own

professional growth. MASL and M.Ed. candidates at Benedictine College are expected to

demonstrate that they are “Professionally Responsible Builders of Community.”

Indicators of Professional Responsibility are:

a) fulfilling commitments in a reliable and satisfactory manner,

b) respecting and supporting all members of the school community,

c) respecting confidential information,

d) accepting constructive feedback,

e) displaying a positive and enthusiastic attitude about being a teacher leader,

f) demonstrating the belief that all students are valuable and all students can learn*,

g) demonstrating equitable interactions with all students*,

h) seeking opportunities to grow professionally.

*To successfully demonstrate Professional Responsibilities Indicators “f” and “g,” candidates

must show through their words and actions that they value the cultural heritage of all students

and that they value the opportunity to instruct students with exceptionalities.

Indicators of Community Building include:

a) establishing positive relationships with students, faculty, staff, parents, and community

members,

b) demonstrating the desire to help others,

c) demonstrating the willingness to put others’ needs before your own,

d) participation in service activities that contribute to the good of the community,

e) supporting instructional strategies/ activities that involve students in contributing to the

good of the classroom community, the larger school community, and the geographical

community.

Unacceptable

The candidate fails to adequately

demonstrate either professional

responsibility or community

building.

Acceptable

The candidate acceptably

demonstrates both professional

responsibility and community

building.

Distinguished

The candidate demonstrates

exemplary professional

responsibility and community

building. 0 .25 .5 .75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3

(please circle a number along the line indicating a score)

* This score is determined by consensus of all evaluators as opposed to a mathematical averaging of scores.

_________________________________ ___________________________________

Director of Graduate Programs Graduate Faculty Member

_________________________________ ___________________________________

Graduate Faculty Member Graduate Faculty Member

_________________________________ ___________________________________

Graduate Faculty Member Faculty Member/Cooperating Administrator

111

PART FOUR

Introduction

Data pertaining to Kansas State Department of Education licensure programs is recorded each

semester by the Administrative Assistant for the Education Department. Quantitative data is

stored and tabulated in Microsoft Excel files. In addition, according to the policies and

procedures for the Education Department, “A co-chair of the Education Department meets at

least annually with representatives of other Benedictine College departments with programs

leading to teacher licensure to consider data specific to these licensure areas.”

Licensure program data in Kansas is evaluated by KSDE teams. The teams report their findings

to the Evaluation Review Committee (ERC). The ERC makes recommendations to the Kansas

State Board of Education which ultimately approves or denies approval to institutions of higher

education. Findings from the most recent review of Benedictine College’s licensure programs in

education are reported and discussed in Standard 1 of the Institutional Report.

An example of one licensure program’s report to KSDE is presented in the pages of Part Four.

This report is for English Language Arts Grades 6-12. Data tables reported to KSDE have been

included; examples of rubrics have not.

112

Revised 6-15-09

Program Report Format

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS

Kansas State Department of Education

COVER SHEET

Institution: Benedictine College

Accredited By: KSDE NCATE

Date Submitted: February 2, 2012

Name of Preparer(s): Dr. Chuck Osborn, Dr. George Nicholas

Unit Head Name: Dr. Chuck Osborn, Dr. Dianna Henderson

Unit Head Phone Number: 913-360-7601 Unit Head Email: [email protected]

Level of the Program: Initial Advanced

Grade levels for which candidates are being prepared:

6-12

Is this program being offered at more than one site? Yes No

If yes, please list the sites at which the program is offered:

Program Report Status:

New Program Continued Program Dormant Program

(NEW PROGRAMS MUST SUBMIT SYLLABI)

A PROGRAM WILL NOT BE RECOMMENDED FOR FULL APPROVAL IF IT

MEETS FEWER THAN 75% OF THE STANDARDS.

113

GENERAL DIRECTIONS

The following directions are designed to assist institutions as they complete this program report. To

complete the report, institutions must provide data from multiple assessments that, taken as a whole, will

demonstrate candidate mastery of the Kansas standards. These data will also be used to answer the

following questions. Reviewers expect these prompts to be answered by the report.

Have candidates mastered the necessary knowledge for the subjects they will teach or the jobs they

will perform?

Do candidates meet state licensure requirements?

Do candidates understand teaching and learning and can they plan their teaching?

Can candidates apply their knowledge in classrooms and schools?

Are candidates effective in promoting student learning?

To that end, the program report form includes the following sections:

I. Contextual Information – provides the opportunity for institutions to present general information

to help reviewers understand the program.

II. Assessments and Related Data – provides the opportunity for institutions to submit

multiple assessments, scoring guides or criteria, and assessment data as evidence that standards are

being met.

III. Standards Assessment Chart – provides the opportunity for institutions to indicate which of the

assessments are being used to determine if candidates meet program standards.

IV. Evidence for Meeting Standards – provides the opportunity for institutions to discuss the

assessments and assessment data in terms of standards.

V. Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance – provides the

opportunity for institutions to indicate how faculty are using the data from assessments to improve

candidate performance and the program, as it relates to content knowledge; pedagogical and

professional knowledge, and skills; and effects on student learning.

Page limits are specified for each of the narrative responses required in Sections IV and V of the report,

with each page approximately equivalent to one text page of single-spaced, 12-point type. Each

attachment required in Sections I and IV of the report should be kept to a maximum of five text pages.

Although attachments longer than five pages will be accepted electronically, staff will require institutions

to revise reports submitted with lengthy attachments.

Except for the required attachments, institutional responses can be entered directly onto the form.

Specific directions are included at the beginning of each section.

114

SECTION I—CONTEXT

Complete the following contextual information:

A program of study that outlines the courses and experiences required for all candidates to

complete the program. The program of study must include course titles and hours of credit per course.

(This information may be provided as an attachment from the college catalog or as a student

advisement sheet-- maximum of five text pages.) NEW PROGRAMS MUST SUBMIT SYLLABI

IN THE DOCUMENT WAREHOUSE AND IN A FOLDER ON THE CD.

1. Chart with the number of candidates and completers. (Title-Chart with Candidate Information) 1

(response limited to 6 pages, not including charts)

1. Program of Study:

Provide the following contextual information:

Description of the relationship of the program to the unit’s conceptual framework.

The English language arts 6-12 program at Benedictine College has a strong relationship to the unit’s

conceptual framework build upon the commitment to prepare teachers to become Builders of

Community. The program calls for future English teachers to perceive their roles in education as

developing cooperative classroom communities, an enriched atmosphere within the school community,

and ultimately assuming responsibility for and becoming vital to the expression and appreciation of the

local, national, and global community. Grounded in a Benedictine, liberal arts tradition, the English

education program advocates that the goals and means of the educative process are complementary and

ultimately seek the pursuit of human dignity and social responsibility.

The English education program has been developed to mesh seamlessly with the Teacher Education

Program Conceptual Framework’s goals and performance-based outcomes for future secondary teachers

as they become builders of community by developing knowledge, skills and dispositions as well as

mastery of the four KSDE English language arts 6-12 standards as well as the six Teacher Education

Program outcomes which are designed to education future teachers to:

1. Use practices which nurture the whole child/adolescent whithin the learning community;

2. Use their understanding of communication and human behavior to create a classroom

community that fosters positive social interaction, collaboration and active inquiry.

3. Respect and promote diversity while creating instructional opportunities that meet the needs of

students from diverse cultural backgrounds and those with exceptionalities.

4. Build partnerships with students, colleagues, families and community groups to enhance

communication and learning.

5. Plan and assess instruction based upon knowledge of subject matter, students, the community

and curriculum goals.

6. Reflectively build community while continually evaluating the effects of their actions on others

and to actively seek out opportunities to grow professionally.

An integrated course of study that includes particularly selected courses, a professional education core, a

methods core, and a research and field experience core. These courses are all designed to assure that

English education majors develop the knowledge, skills, dispositions, and critical understanding

necessary for action and reflection.

1 KSDE uses the Title II definition for program completers. Program completers are persons who have met all the

requirements of a state-approved teacher preparation program. Program completers include all those who are documented as having met such requirements. Documentation may take the form of a degree, institutional certificate, program credential, transcript, or other written proof of having met the program’s requirements.

115

Indication of the program’s unique set of program assessments and their relationship of the

program’s assessments to the unit’s assessment system.2

A comprehensive assessment system is in place that provides for the assessment of English language

arts, teacher candidates as they progress through education courses and associated assessments as well as

the four benchmarks of the teacher education program. These include:

1. Admission to the teacher education program

2. Admission to student teaching

3. Completion of student teaching

4. Program completion

The English language arts 6-12 program implements the same comprehensive assessment system as do

all other programs. Field experience evaluations all contain a smaller subset of the 44 indicator items

present on the student teacher evaluation.

During the professional student teaching semester, English education candidates’ progress is assessed by

trained Cooperating Teachers and Clinical Supervisors, as well as Benedictine Education Faculty

members. All utilize the same Student Teacher Evaluation Scale containing 44 indicators measuring

knowledge, skills, dispositions and the six teacher education program outcomes. Each individual

indicator is calculated as a mean score for each of the nine major teacher candidate effectiveness areas.

Each semester these data are used to evaluate the program and make any necessary changes to assure

ongoing program improvement and the preparation of English educators as Builders of Community.

A number of individual items from the Student Teacher Evaluation Scale are aligned with the four

KSDE English standards. The ratings for English candidates on these items are presented in the data

tables for Assessment #3.

During the Spring of 2009, we realized the need to have assessments more closely aligned to the Kansas

standards. We responded to this need by developing an assessment specific to the KSDE English

language arts standards. The BC Evaluation of Student Teacher Performance on KSDE English

Language Arts 6-12 Standards is wholly based on the standards. Because most of the English standards

have multiple elements, each standard on this scale has two to four items. During 2009, this assessment

was completed only by the cooperating teacher at the end of the term. In 2010 we modified this

procedure.

The evaluation is now completed with about a month to go in the student teaching term by a) the

cooperating teacher, and b) one of the co-chairs of the Education Department who has evaluated the

student teacher at the placement school, following a special meeting with the student teacher. These two

scores are averaged to produce the ratings reported for Assessment #7.

With respect to Assessments 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7, candidates must demonstrate they have met ALL elements

of each standard by scoring in the “Basic,” “Acceptable,” or “Target” ranges on the various instruments

used for meeting KSDE standards. Remediation and/ or resubmission are required if the candidate has a

score in the “Unacceptable” range for any part of the product. It is not possible for the candidate to have

an “Unacceptable” score on any part of the assessment for a standard and still pass that standard. On

Assessment 5 (Course Grades), “Below Average” (lower than C-) grades are unacceptable and must be

made up prior to student teaching. So as not to produce artifically inflated scores, “Unacceptable”

scores are retained in any tables although the candidates are required to remediate and correct any

deficiencies.

With respect to Assessment 6 (ETS Major Field Test for Literature in English) “Below Average” scores

2 This response should clarify how the key assessments used in the program are derived from or informed by the assessment system that the unit will address under NCATE/KSDE Standard 2.

116

are accepted, but all candidates must produce an overall passing score on this assessment to receive their

degree in English.

117

Description of the criteria for admission, retention, and exit from the program, including

required GPAs and minimum grade requirements for the content courses accepted by the

program..

Progress through the Teacher Education Program is determined by whether or not candidates meet

standards adopted by the Committee on Teacher Education at four benchmark points. These points are

as follows:

1. Admission into the Teacher Education Program;

2. Admission to Student Teaching;

3. Completion of Student Teaching;

4. Completion of the Teacher Education Program

At benchmark points 1, 2, and 4, candidates must complete and submit a professional protfolio.

Professional portfolios are evaluated by a team of trained evaluators including members of the education

faculty and teachers and administrators in our Partnership Schools.

1. Admission to Teacher Education

Student must be formally accepted into the Teacher Education Program, which is required for

enrollment in education courses higher than Ed 226. This application process is typically intiated in the

sophomore year and includes the following for consideration:

Submission of a Professional Portfolio containing the following components:

a) Complete the “Application to the Teacher Education Program” form.

b) Satisfactory recommendations from three faculty members outside the Education Department

indicating a belief that the applicant possesses the knowledge, skills and dispositions to do well

as a member of the teaching profession. Transfer students may request two recommendations

from faculty members at the institution from which they have transferred.

c) An official Benedictine College transcript showing that the applicant has a minimum GPA of at

least 2.75. Grades of “D” are not accepted for any required English content courses or education

courses.

d) Demonstration of a minimum composite ACT score of 23 or satisfactory performance on the

Pre-Professional skills Test (PPST) with a minimum total score of 519. (It should be noted,

however, that minimum acceptable subtest scores of 169 in Reading, 170 in Mathematics and

168 in Writing must be achieved, yet only making the minimum subtest scores will not achieve

the required total of 519.)

e) Evaluation of pre-student teaching experiences by cooperating teachers from education courses

completed prior to application to the Teacher Education Program.

f) Candidate Builder of Community essay on their progress in meeting the six Teacher Education

Program Outcomes.

g) Additional required artifacts as noted in the Guide to Creating a Professional Portfolio.

h) Evaluation sheet from the interview with the two-person subcommittee from the Committee on

Teacher Education.

Final approval for admission to the Teacher Education Program is determined by the Committee on

Teacher Education. Completion of the above requireements does not in and of itself necessarily qualify

candidates for admission to the Teacher Education Program. Students are admitted to the Teacher

Education Program on ly if the above requirements are met; and if, in the judgment of a majority of the

members o fthe Committee on Teacher Education, the students has the knowledge, skills and

dispositions necessary to be successful as a teacher.

2. Admission to Student Teaching

The Committee on Teacher Education formally considers all student teacher applicants, based on the

following:

Submission of an updated Professional Portfolio containing the following items additional to those

submitted upon entrance into the Teacher Education Program:

a) Additional required artifacts taken from education courses as specified in the professional

118

portfolio description.

b) Additional field experience evaluation sheets from pre-student teaching cooperating teachers.

c) An updated official Benedictine College transcript showing that the applicant continues to have

a minimum GPA of at least 2.75. Grades of “D” are not accepted for any required education

courses or English content courses.

d) Documentation of health standards required by K.S.A. 72-5213 Certification of Health for

School Personnel.

3. Completion of Student Teaching

Teacher education candidates must make progress through and successfully complete at least 12 weeks

of student teaching. This is measured via the Student Teaching Evaluation Scale, submitted by both

Cooperating Teachers and Clinical Supervisors. These are submitted four separate times, at

approximately three week intervals. The final student teaching evaluation scores are tabulated and

evaluated for ongoing program assessment.

4. Program Completion

Teacher education candidates submit a final Professional Portfolio at the end of student teaching. The

Committee on Teacher Education formally considers all program completers based on the following:

Submission of an updated Professional Portfolio containing the required items additional to those

submitted upon acceptance to student teaching:

a) All required criteria sections from the Benedictine Performance Assessment.

b) The final student teaching evaluations.

Description of the field and clinical experiences required for the program, including the number

of hours for early field experiences and the number of hours/weeks for student teaching or

internships.

The Benedictine English language arts 6-2 program includes 1) general education courses; 2) English

content courses, acquiring content knowledge; 3) Professional education core courses; 4) Methodology

core courses; and a 5) Field experience core. Work with children, youth, and their families in schools

and the community is a part of other courses not designated in the field experiences. However, the

minimum program requirements for field experiences prior to student teaching for English education

majors are:

English education majors:

ED 201 Introduction to Education Field Experience 20 hours

ED313 School as Community Research and Field Experience 50 hours

ED 258 Secondary Education Practicum 50 hours

ED 332 Teaching Reading in the Content Areas 20 hours

EN 457 English Teaching Methods 20 hours

TOTAL 160 hours

Internship experiences build in their intensity from ED 201 through Student Teaching. Initially students

observe classrooms and schools as they explore the nature of schooling. They extend this insight as they

compare and contrast educational invironments and conduct in-depth interviews with educators,

students, parents, and community members. Then they work with small groups of students and try out

lessons in alternative learning environments. This leads them to preparing, delivering, and assessing

integrated curriculum units, which they critique in terms of secondary students’ learning performance

and teacher effectiveness. At this stage they also mentor secondary students over the course of a

semester, investigating their unique needs and experiences, and assessing their progress. As English

education candidates move into their student teaching, they are experienced with using and applying

relevant information and skills to create a learning community for at least 12 weeks.

119

Student teaching for English education majors lasts a minimum of 12 weeks for a total of at least 480

hours.

At the completion of the Teacher Education Program, English education candidates have completed at

least 640 hours of hands-on teaching experiences with children from sixth through 12th grade.

120

2. Chart with Candidate Information:

Directions: Provide three years of data on candidates enrolled in the program and completing the

program, beginning with the most recent academic year for which numbers have been tabulated. Please

report the data separately for the levels/tracks (e.g., baccalaureate, post-baccalaureate, master’s,

doctorate) being addressed in this report.

Program (initial):

Academic Year # of Candidates Enrolled in

the Program3

# of Program

Completers4

2008-2009 13 5

2009-2010 9 4

2010-2011 9 3

Program (Post-baccalaureate – Added Endorsement):

Academic

Year

# of Candidates

Enrolled in the

Program

# of Program

Completers

Master’s/Ed.

Specialist/Doctoral

20 -20

20 -20

20 -20

3 An enrolled candidate is officially admitted to the program. 4KSDE uses the Title II definition for program completers. Program completers are persons who have met all the

requirements of a state-approved teacher preparation program. Program completers include all those who are documented as having met such requirements. Documentation may take the form of a degree, institutional certificate, program credential, transcript, or other written proof of having met the program’s requirements.

121

SECTION II— ASSESSMENTS AND RELATED DATA

In this section, list the multiple assessments that are being submitted as evidence for meeting the Kansas standards for this content area. All

programs must provide a minimum of six assessments, maximum of eight assessments; assessments #1-6 are required for all programs. For each

assessment, indicate the type or form of the assessment and when it is required/administered in the program.

Name of Assessment5

Type or

Form of Assessment6

When the Assessment Is Required/

Administered7

1 [Licensure assessment, or other content-based assessment] 8

* (Required)

a. Praxis II-content test data and sub-score data if

utilized

b. PLT

Standardized

Required post graduation for teacher

licensure

2 [Assessment of candidate ability to plan instruction]

* (Required)

EN 457 English Language Arts Methods Portfolio

Checklist and Rubric Course completion during the junior

or senior year.

3 [Assessment of clinical experience]9 * (Required)

Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scale

Comprehensive Observation

Rubric

End of student teaching

4 [Assessment of candidate effect on student learning]

* (Required)


Checklist and Rubric During student teaching

5 [Content-based assessment (Required)] Examples of

assessments include comprehensive examinations, projects,

comprehensive portfolio tasks and score/s aligned to

standards OR course grades-based assessments10

related to

content knowledge.

English Course Grades

Course Grades Course Completion

5 Identify assessment by title used in the program; refer to Section IV for further information on appropriate assessment to include. 6 Identify the type of assessment (e.g., essay, case study, project, comprehensive exam, reflection, portfolio). 7 Indicate the point in the program when the assessment is administered (e.g., admission to the program, admission to student teaching/internship, required courses [specify course title and number], or completion of the program). 8 Assessment #1a Praxis II sub-score data may be used as an assessment for meeting content standards. A data table for Praxis II content test and a data table for sub-score data must be submitted but a rubric is not required 9 Clinical experience includes practica, student teaching and internships.

10 Course grades-based assessments can only be used for Assessment 5.

122

Name of Assessment5

Type or

Form of Assessment6

When the Assessment Is Required/

Administered7

6 [Content-based assessment (Required)] Examples of

assessments include comprehensive standard examinations,

case studies involving many content standards, projects,

comprehensive portfolio tasks and score/s related to

content knowledge.

English Comprehensive Exam: ETS Major Field Test for

Literature in English

Standardized Assessment Senior Year BC

7 [Additional assessment that addresses Kansas content

standards (Optional) ] Final Evaluation of Student Teacher Performance on KSDE

English Language Arts 6-12 Standards

Comprehensive Evaluation

Rubric

During Student Teaching Semester

8 [Additional assessment that addresses Kansas content

standards (Optional) ]

*Required Assessments

11

Course grades-based assessments can only be used for Assessment 5.

123

SECTION III—STANDARDS ASSESSMENT CHART

For each Kansas standard on the chart below, identify the assessment(s) in Section II that address each standard. One assessment may apply to

multiple Kansas standards. In Section IV you will describe these assessments in greater detail and summarize and analyze candidate results to

document that a majority of your candidates are meeting Kansas standards. To save space, the knowledge and performance indicators of the

Kansas standards are not identified here, but are available on the website — www.ksde.org . The full set of standards provides more specific

information about what should be assessed. Please include information on assessments used for PreK if this is an all-level program.

KANSAS STANDARD

APPLICABLE ASSESSMENTS

FROM SECTION II

1. The teacher of English language arts demonstrates knowledge of a variety of texts, both print and nonprint,

and of how learners create and discover meaning in a text.

#1a #2 #3 #4

#5 #6 #7 #8

2. The teacher of English language arts demonstrates knowledge of the history, structure, and development of

the English language and how people use language to influence the thinking and actions of others.

#1a #2 #3 #4

#5 #6 #7 #8

3. The teacher of English language arts demonstrates the ability to communicate effectively and responsibly

for a variety of audiences and for different purposes.

#1a #2 #3 #4

#5 #6 #7 #8

4. The teacher of English language arts demonstrates knowledge of current methods for teaching processes of

reading, writing, speaking, listening, thinking, and viewing and their interconnections.

#1a #2 #3 #4

#5 #6 #7 #8

http://www.ksde.org/

124

SECTION IV—EVIDENCE FOR MEETING STANDARDS

DIRECTIONS: Information on the multiple assessments listed in Section II and the data findings must be reported in this section. The

assessments must be those that all candidates in the program are required to complete and should be used by the program to determine candidate

proficiencies as expected in the program standards.

For each assessment, the evidence for meeting standards should include the following information:

A brief description of the assessment, project, portfolio and its use in the program. Explain specificity of the assessment to the standard/s. An

assessment may assess several standards at the same time;

The alignment of the assessment with the specific KSDE standards addressed by the assessment, as they are identified in Section III;

A brief summary of the data findings;

An interpretation of how that data provides evidence for meeting standards.

The response to each assessment is limited to the equivalent of two text pages.

For each assessment listed, you will need to attach the following:

Scoring guides, criteria or rubric (specific to content of standard/s) used to score candidate responses on the assessment;

A table (include # of candidates) with the aggregated results of the assessment providing, where possible, data for at least the most recent

three years. Data should be organized according to the categories used in the scoring guide/criteria. Provide the percentage of candidates

achieving at each category.

For each assessment #1a (sub-score data) and assessment #5(course grades-based assessments), you will include the following information:

Praxis II sub-score data tables must be clearly labeled to indicate alignment with the standard it is assessing. Section IV narrative must

clearly show alignment of sub-score data to the standard or elements of the standard.

Course grades-based assessments have a brief description in the matrix. A more detailed and specific discussion of the alignment of

activities, exams, and projects in the course to the standard should be included in the narrative description of assessment 5. The course

grades-based assessments data tables will be included in the narrative of assessment 5. Each course grades-based assessments is

numbered and lettered as 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E and 5F. Use the same number and letter in the narrative and the data table. If the course

grades-based assessments are used as evidence for meeting two standards, the course key assessments’ data (exams, projects, portfolio

tasks) must be disaggregated in a data table for each of the two standards. This is necessary to provide evidence of meeting each standard.

One course MAY NOT MEET more than two standards.

In the two columns for attachments, click in the box for each attachment to be included with the report. Each attachment should be no longer than

five pages. The two attachments related to each assessment must be included for the program report to be complete. The report will not be

reviewed until it is complete.

125

#1 (Required) CONTENT KNOWLEDGE: Data from licensure tests for content knowledge. Provide assessment information as outlined in

the directions for Section IV. PRAXIS II Content and PLT. (PRAXIS II data should be sub-score data that are aligned to specific

standard/s.)

DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSESSMENT: ETS Praxis II English Language, Literature, and Composition: Content Area Knowledge (0041)

The English Language, Literature, and Composition: Content Knowledge test (0041) is designed to assess whether an examinee has the broad base

of knowledge and competencies necessary to be licensed as a beginning teacher of English in a secondary school. The test covers literature and

reading, the English language, and composition and rhetoric.

ETS provides both an overall score for this test, and also more detailed information on sub-skill performance. Total raw points and performance

ranges on sub-skills vary slightly across testing dates.

ALIGNMENT TO THE STANDARDS:

The sub-skill performance information provided by ETS in the Designated Institution Score Report is aligned to three of the four of the standards.

ETS Sub-skill English, Language Arts Standard(s) Alignment

The Literature and Understanding Text subtest is aligned with Standard 1. This subtest is aligned with the element of Standard 1 that states,

“…demonstrates knowledge of a variety of texts…” and “…of how learners create and discover meaning in a text.”

The Language and Linguistics subtest is aligned with Standard 2. This subtest is aligned with the element of Standard 2 that states,

“…demonstrates knowledge of the history, structure and development of the English language…”.

The Composition and Rhetoric subtest is aligned with the element of Standard 3 that states, “…demonstrates the ability to communicate

effectively…and for a variety of audiences and different purposes.”

DATA:

Eleven candidates completed the Praxis II during the three year reporting period. Subscore data was available for the of the eleven candidates. On

the subtest aligned with Standard 1, 60% of the candidates teted at the average level while the remaining 40% achieved above average scores. On

the subtest aligned with Standard 3, 70% of candidates tested at the average level while the other 30% achieved above average scores. No

candidate tested in the below average range on any of the three subtests.

EVIDENCE:

The performance of Benedictine College English Language Arts candidates on their content area test and subtests supports the conclusion that they

have adequately mastered content for KSDE standards 1, 2, and 3.

126

Attachments

Assessment #1

Scoring Guides/Criteria/ Rubric Data Table11

1a—Praxis II Content

1b—PLT

NA

NA

Click the box if attached.

11

Licensure test data must reflect the percentage of candidates who have passed the state licensure test for each year since the last accreditation visit. The most

recent year of data must include the range of total scores and sub-scores on the licensure test. Data must be presented for all program completers, even if there were fewer than 10 test takers in a given year. Sub-score data tables will report the N, the % of candidates’ performance and the average performance range

provided in the Praxis report.

127

#2 (Required) PEDAGOGICAL AND PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS: Assessment that demonstrates candidates can

effectively plan classroom-based instruction. Examples of assessments include the evaluation of candidates’ abilities to develop lesson or unit

plans, individualized educational plans, needs assessments, or intervention plans. Provide assessment information as outlined in the directions for

Section IV.

EN 457 English Language Arts Methods Portfolio

DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSESSMENT:

The EN 457 English Language Arts Methods Portfolio Evaluation Rubric assesses candidate performance for the semester on both academic

assignments and in applying their knowledge of the English language arts to the secondary school setting. The rubric for the portfolio is divided

into four categories: 1) Reflection journals, 2) Lesson Plans, 3) Field Experience Evaluation and 4) Assessment.


The rubric descriptions show the close alignment of the course portfolio with the four standards.

Standard Language From English/Language Arts Standards How Aligned with Assessment

1 “…demonstrates knowledge of a variety of texts, both print and nonprint, and of how learners create and discover meaning in a text.”

The rubric description for “Acceptable” on Reflection Journals states, “Reflections demonstrate an acceptable knowledge of a variety of texts,

both print and nonprint, and of how learners create and discover meaning in a text.”

2 “…demonstrates knowledge of the history, structure, and development of the English language and how people use language to influence the

thinking and actions of others.”

The rubric description for “Acceptable” on Reflection Journals states, “Journals demonstrate an acceptable knowledge of the history, structure

and development of the English language and how people use language to influence the thinking and actions of others.”

3 “…demonstrates the ability to communicate effectively and responsibly for a variety of audiences and for different purposes.”

The rubric description for “Acceptable” on Lesson Plans states, “Lesson Plans demonstrate acceptable ability to communicate effectively for a

variety of different audiences and purposes.”

4 “…demonstrates knowledge of current methods for teaching processes of reading, writing, speaking, listening, thinking, and viewing and their

interconnections.”

The rubric description for “Acceptable” on the field experience evaluation portion of the portfolio rubric states, “The field experience

evaluation of the candidate demonstrates an acceptable knowledge of current methods for teaching processes of reading, writing, speaking,

listening, thinking, and viewing and their interconnections.”

128

DATA:

This course is only offered on an as needed basis. During the three year reporting period, it was offered once during the Fall 2010 term. Six

candidates completed the course. Candidates’ performance on the various sections of the portfolio was acceptable with the majority of them

receiving “Distinguished” ratings for the reflection section, the journal section, the lesson plans section and the field experience section.

EVIDENCE:

The performance of Benedictine College English Language Arts candidates on the EN 457 Portfolio Evaluation supports the conclusion that

candidates are meeting the requirements of KSDE Standards 1-4.

Attachments

Assessment #2

Scoring Guides/Criteria/

Rubric

Data Table

[Assessment of candidate ability to

plan instruction] * (Required)

EN 457 Portfolio Evaluation



129

#3 (Required) PEDAGOGICAL AND PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS: Assessment that demonstrates candidates'

knowledge and skills are applied effectively in practice. The assessment instrument used in student teaching should be submitted. Provide

assessment information as outlined in the directions for Section IV.

DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSESSMENT: Benedictine Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scale

The Benedictine College Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scale is completed by both the cooperating teacher and the clinical supervisor at the

end of student teaching. It consists of 44 items using a 4-point Likert scale. The scale is organized into sections for “Knowledge,” “Skills,”

“Dispositions,” and each of the six teacher education program outcomes. Candidate scores on 5 of the 44 items have been selected as well-aligned

to the English language arts 6-12 standards.


On the student teaching evaluation scale, Knowledge Indicator A, “Demonstrates knowledge of the subject area” aligns with both Standard 1

(“…demonstrates knowledge of a variety of texts etc…”) and Standard 2 (“…demonstrates knowledge of the history, structure, and development,

etc…)

Skills Indicator B, “Successfully engages all students in activities and discussion,” aligns with Standard 3 (“…demonstrates the ability to

communicate effectively and responsibly for a variety of audiences and for different purposes).

Skills Indicator D, “Demonstrates knowledge of strategies for teaching the subject,” aligns with Standard 4 (“…demonstrates knowledge of

current methods for teaching processes of reading etc…)

Outcome #2 Indicator D, “Demonstrates clear and appropriate communication with students,” aligns with Standard 3 (“…demonstrates the ability

to communicate effectively and responsibly etc…”)

Outcome #5 Indicator A, “Effectively plans lessons, addressing student needs and curriculum goals,” aligns with Standard 4 (“…demonstrates

knowledge of current methods for teaching processes of reading etc…).

DATA:

On Knowledge Indicator A (“Demonstrates knowledge of the subject area”) an item aligned with Standards 1 & 2, 45% of candidates during the

three year reporting period were rated “Proficient,” while the remaining 55% were rated “Distinguished.”

On Skills Indicator B (“Successfully engages all students in activities and discussion”), an tiem aligned with Standard 3, 73% of candidates were

rated as “Proficient” with the remaining 27% earning “Distinguished” ratings.

On Skills Indicator D (“Demonstrates knowledge of strategies for teaching the subject”), an item aligned with Standard 4, 36% of candidates were

130

rated “Proficient” with the remaining 64% earning “Distinguished ratings.

On Outcome 2 Indicator D (“Demonstrates clear and appropriate communication with students”), an item aligned with Standard 3, 45% of

candidates were rated as “Proficient” with the remaining 55% earning “Distinguished” ratings.

On Outcome 5 Indicator A (“Effectively plans lessons, addressing student needs and curriculum goals”) an item aligned with Standard 4, one

student (9%) received the “Basic” rating. The remaining students were evaluated as either “Proficient” (18%) or “Distinguished” (73%).

EVIDENCE:

Data regarding the performance of candidates on the Final Student Teaching Evaluation provides strong evidence that 6-12 English/Language Arts

standards are being met. Five individual items from this scale were identified as being strongly aligned with elements of the standards. The

eleven candidates received a total of 55 ratings (5 x 11 = 55). 54 of these ratings (98%) were either “Distinguished” or “Proficient,” with only 1

rating in the “Basic” range.

Attachments

Assessment #3


Rubric

Data Table

[Assessment of clinical experience]12

* (Required)

Student Teaching Evaluation Scale



12

Clinical experience includes practica, student teaching and internships.

131

#4 (Required) EFFECTS ON STUDENT LEARNING:13 Assessment that demonstrates candidate effects on student learning. Examples of

assessments include those based on student work samples, portfolio tasks, case studies, follow-up studies, and employer surveys. Provide

assessment information as outlined in the directions for Section IV.



The Benedictine Performance Assessment (BPA) is a form of teacher work sample. Student teachers are required to teach a multiple week

instructional sequience in a given subject area. Student teachers analyze the context of their classroom considering both cognitive and societal

characteristics of their students and delineating ways in which they can meet their diverse needs (Criterion 1). They develop goals and objectives

based on Kansas content standards (Criterion 2). They create an assessment plan including (but not limited to) measures of student performance

before and after the instructional sequence. Finally, they analyze and reflect on their instructional design, educational context, and the degree of

learning demonstrated by their students (Criteria 3, 6, & 7).

Student teachers must address several questions when constructing a response for each criterion of the Benedictine Performance Assessment.

Their responses on each criterion are evaluated using rubric items and checklist items. The BPA was originally based on Emporia State

University’s Teacher Work Sample in that it requires all candidates to calculate learning gain scores. When the learning gain requirement was

removed from the Kansas Performance Assessment, Benedictine College elected to continue calculation of such scores. Table 1 in Criterion 6

requires candidates to calculate such scores for their knowledge objectives, their skill objectives, their reasoning objectives, as well as an overall

learning gain score. Criterion 7 requires candidates to reflect on their most successful and least successful objectives as these relate to student

learning.


BPA Criterion 2 is aligned with the element of Standard 3 which states “…demonstrates the ability to communicate effectively and responsibly for

a variety of audiences and for different purposes.” The development of concise objectives required in Criterion 2 and communication of these

objectives to both students and BPA scorers require effective communication to 2 audiences (students and scorers).

BPA Criterion 2 is also aligned with the element of Standard 3 which speaks to communication “…for a variety of audiences…”. In Criterion 3,

candidates are required to articulate adaptions that they make for students in their classroom with disabilities and other special needs.

BPA Criterion 3 is also aligned with the elements in Standard 4 which speak to “…knowledge of current methods for teaching processes of

reading, writing, speaking, listening, viewing and their interconnections. In fulfilling the rubric requirements in Criterion 3, candidates are

evaluated on their use of current methods. Particularly the fourth standard in this licensure area pertains to the ability of candidates to

“…demonstrate knowledge of current methods for teaching processes…”. Criterion 3 is aligned with these standards because it assesses

13 Effects on student learning include the creation of environments that support student learning.

132

candidates’ success in using a variety of teaching techniques and making instructional adaptations so as to meet the needs of all students.

Criterion 6 of the BPA focuses on assessment of student performance. The student teacher is required to conduct pre-tests, teach a multi-week

unit, conduct post-tests, calculate learning gain scores for every student in a particular class, and analyze performance using various types of

formative and summative assessment. These required activities align with the element of Standard 4 which states, “…demonstrates knowledge of

current methods for teaching, etc…”

Criterion 7 of the BPA requires students to reflect on their greatest successes and areas for improvement in teaching the unit and to create

professional development plans based on insights realized in teaching the unit. This criterion also aligns with Standard 4.

DATA:

Criterion 2 of the BPA is aligned with Standard 3. On this criterion, ten of the candidates received ratings of “Disginguished,” with the remaining

student receiving a rating of “Proficient.”

Criterion 3 of the BPA is also aligned with Standard 3. On this criterion, all eleven candidates received ratings of “Distinguished.”

Criterion 6 of the BPA is aligned with Standard 6. On this criterion, all eleven candidates received ratings of “Distinguished.

Criterions 7 of the BPA is aligned with Standard 4. On this criterion, six (55%) of the candidates received “Basic” scores while the remainder

(45%) received “Distinguished” scores.

EVIDENCE:

One concern emerging here is the relatively high proportion of students who received “Basic” ratings on Criterion 7. During the Spring of 2011,

we analyzed BPA’s from the preceding two years to determine where students were going astray on Criterion 7. One of the requirements of this

criterion is that candidates need to create professional goals for themselves based on the insights they received while teaching the BPA unit.

Candidates were successfully creating professional goals, however, they were failing to relate these goals to insights received while teaching their

units. Because of this, they failed to receive points for this portion of Criterion 7. During the 2011 year, when BPA instructions/orientation was

given, we emphasized the importance of relating their goals to past unit experiences. None of the 3 candidates in 2011 received deductions in this

area.

With the exception of candidate performance on Criterion 7, the evidence presented in the scores of candidates on Criterion 1, 2, 3, & 6 strongly

suggests that candidates are successfully meeting all requirements poised by KSDE Standards Three and Four.

133

Attachments

Assessment #4


Rubric

Data Table

[Assessment of candidate effect on

student learning] * (Required)




134

5 (Required) CONTENT KNOWLEDGE: Assessment of content knowledge. Examples of assessments include comprehensive examinations,

projects, comprehensive portfolio tasks and score/s aligned to standards OR the option of submitting course grades-based assessment related to

content knowledge evaluation. Provide assessment information as outlined in the directions for Section IV. If submitting course grades-based

assessment, the detailed description for Assessment #5 must clearly delineate the alignment of the course description and assessments to the

standard that is assessed during the course in order to assure that the course grade reflects candidate knowledge of the standard. Describe course

key activities, projects, assessments that show specificity to the standard. If course grades are used, include the program or unit definition of

grades in the narrative or as an attachment to assessment 5. If the course grades-based assessments are used as evidence for meeting two

standards, the course key assessments’ data (exams, projects, portfolio tasks) must be disaggregated in a data table for each of the two standards.

This is necessary to provide evidence of meeting each standard. This narrative must state the proficiency level or grade acceptable by the

program. COURSE GRADES-BASED ASSESSMENTS ARE LIMITED TO SIX COURSES.

DATA:

A total of 49 course grades are shown in the data tables for Assessment 5 (this figure will have to be updated after Fall 2011 grades are in). Of

those 40 grades, 3 (6%) fall in the average range (using the Benedictine College Catalog descriptors). The remaining 94% of grades, fall in the

“better than average” or “superior” ranges.

EVIDENCE OF MEETING THE STANDARDS:

A review of assessment date indicates that in all courses (EN 201, 302, 357, 403, and 457) all candidates achieved grades in the better than average

or superior range. Because these scores are strongly aligned with standards 1, 2, and 4, this suggests that all candidates are meeting standard

criteria and the average or distinguished level.

135

If submitting comprehensive examinations, projects, comprehensive portfolio tasks and scores/s aligned to standards, the

program must use the table below and submit the Scoring Guides/Evaluation Criteria/Rubric and a Data Table. DO NOT

USE THIS TABLE FOR COURSE GRADES-BASED ASSESSMENTS!!!

Attachments

Assessment #5


Rubric

Data Table

[Content based assessment that

addresses Kansas content

standards] * Required

Examples of assessments include

comprehensive examinations,

projects, comprehensive portfolio

tasks and score/s aligned to

standards.

Course Grades



IF COURSE GRADES-BASED ASSESSMENTS are submitted, the following matrix MUST be used in addition to the

narrative detailed description of the assessments the program provides in the above #5 Content Knowledge description!

Alignment Matrix and Course Description for Course Grades-Based Assessment

Assessments 5.A-

F for SIX courses

Course Name &

Number

Program Standard

Addressed by Course

Assessment

Brief Description of how the Course addresses and assesses the standard from an

AUTHENTIC source—such as a syllabus or a course catalog. Cite the most current

source. The description should provide evidence of the alignment of the course to the

standard indicated on the chart in Section III. Cite your source in each description below.

EXAMPLE:

Calculus I

Math 172

Standard 6 Calculus of algebraic functions of one variable: limits differentiation, implicit differentiation,

definite and indefinite integrals. Mean value theorem, maxima and minima, area, and volume.

Vectors, polar coordinates, parametric equations, and vector valued functions and use of

technology. Applications to other fields.

Source: Blank University Undergraduate Catalog

5.A.

EN 201 World

Literature 1

Standard 1 “Primarily an explanation of literary masterpieces of Western Civilization from Homer to

Shakespeare.”

Source: Benedictine College Catalog

136

Alignment Matrix and Course Description for Course Grades-Based Assessment

Assessments 5.A-

F for SIX courses

Course Name &

Number

Program Standard

Addressed by Course

Assessment

Brief Description of how the Course addresses and assesses the standard from an

AUTHENTIC source—such as a syllabus or a course catalog. Cite the most current

source. The description should provide evidence of the alignment of the course to the

standard indicated on the chart in Section III. Cite your source in each description below.

5.B.

EN 302

Shakespeare

Standard 2 “Shakespeare as a poet and dramatist…Attention is given to the historical and literary

background or setting; some consideration also of secondary works of major Shakespearean

critics and scholars.”


5.C.

EN 375 Young

Adult Literature in

Language Arts

Standard 4 “Addresses issues in teaching young adult literature, multicultural literature and other issues in

teaching high school English such as grammar and dealing with censure.”


5.D.

EN 205/ 403

American Lit to

the Civil War (the

English Dept.

changed the

number of this

course in Fall

2010).

Standard 1 A study of American Literature from Colonial times to the Civil War with attention given to

national movements, growth of literary genres, and the works of the chief writers.”


5.E.

EN 431

Linguistics

Standard 2 “A beginning course in the scientific study of language. Studies the background of modern

linguistics as well as contemporary descriptions of English. Useful also for foreign language and

education majors.”


5.F.

EN 457 Methods

of Teaching

Language Arts

Standard 4 “Designed to prepare students to teach language arts at the secondary level. Focus is on teaching

literature and grammar and is extended to include methods of teaching speech communication,

theatre arts and journalism. In addition, the students identify suitable teaching materials and

prepare tests for units in literature, composition, speech, and journalism.


137

#6 (Required) CONTENT KNOWLEDGE: Assessment of content knowledge. Examples of assessments include comprehensive standard

examinations, case studies involving many content standards, projects, comprehensive portfolio tasks and score/s aligned to standards and related

to content knowledge. Provide assessment information as outlined in the directions for Section IV.


The ETS Major Field Test for Literature in English (Form Code K-3ZMFC) serves as the comprehensive examination for all degree seeking

English majors at Benedictine College. It consists of 150 multiple-choice questions on poetry, pose, and drama. The test covers British and

American works of all periods. In addition to an overall score on the exam, sub-test scores are provided for the following categories: S1)

Literature 1900 and Earlier, S2) Literature 1901 and Later, S3) Literary Analysis, and S4) Literary History and Identification.


The ETS Major Field Test for Literature in English aligns well with the first two English Language Arts 6-12 standards.

The overall score for performance on this assessment as well as subtest 1 (Literature 1900 and Earlier), Subtest 2 (Literature 1901 and Later) and

Subtest 4 (Literary History and Identification align with Standard 1 (“…demonstrates knowledge of a variety of texts, both print and nonprint, and

of how learners create and discover meaning in a text.”)”

Subtest 3 (Literary Analysis) aligns with Standard 2 (“…demonstrates knowledge of the history, structure, and development of the English

language and how people use language to influence the thinking and actions of others.”)

DATA:

Candidates completing this test within the three year reporting period produced scores falling predominantly into the “Average” and “Above

Average” ranges. Only one of ten candidates had an overall score that was below average. On the four subtests, similar results were achieved

with candidates generally average to above average.

EVIDENCE OF MEETING THE STANDARDS:

These results support the conclusion that English Language Arts candidates at Benedictine College are meeting KSDE standards One and Two.

138

Attachments

Assessment #6


Rubric

Data Table

[Content based assessment that addresses

Kansas content standards] * Required

Examples of assessments include

comprehensive standard examinations,

case studies involving many content

standards, projects, comprehensive

portfolio tasks and score/s aligned to

standards, and related to content

knowledge. The ETS Major Field Test for Literature in

English



139

7 (Optional) Additional assessment that addresses Kansas content standards. Examples of assessments include evaluations of field

experiences, case studies, portfolio tasks, licensure tests not reported in #1, and follow-up studies. Provide assessment information as outlined in

the directions for Section IV.


The BC Evaluation of Student Teacher Performance on KSDE English Language Arts 6-12 Standards.

The BC Final Evalution of Student Teacher Performance on KSDE English Language Arts 6-12 Standards is a scale developed specifically to

assess performance on KSDE standards and elements of standards. There were two phases in the implementation of this instrument. During the

2009 calendar year, this instrument was completed solely by the cooperating teacher for student teaching. Effective during the 2010 calendar year,

we required that this scale be completed by both the cooperating teacher and a co-chair of the Education Department who has evaluated the student

teacher at the placement school. The co-chair of the department has a substantive discussion with each English student teacher regarding his/her

performance on the scale. The scores of the cooperating teacher and the department chair are averaged to produce the ratings reported here.

Successful completion of this assessment is required; the handbook/ syllabus for student teaching states, “You must receive a passing grade on this

evaluation as well as the final student teaching evaluation scale to successfully pass student teaching.”


This assessment is totally aligned to the standards. Items correspond directly to the standard as a whole, and each element of the standard.

Because each English standard has several elements, each standard is assessed with two to four items on the scale.

DATA:

Overall performance for the 13 items on this instrument has been highly satisfactory. On each item, a majority of candidates have received

“Distinguished” or “Proficient” scores. On eleven of the thirteen items, 80-100% of candidates were rated as “Distinguished” or “Proficient.”

By assessing each standard or element of the standard separately, specific strengths and areas for improvement have been identified. The two

lowest scores were on the items, “Demonstrates knowledge of the structure of the English language,” and “Demonstrates knowledge of current

method for teaching processes of speaking.” The highest scores have been on the items, “Demonstrates the ability to communicate effectively and

responsibly,” and “Demonstrates the ability to communicate with a variety of audiences.”

EVIDENCE:

Data collected by this instrument supports the conclusion that candidates are mastering the four English language arts standards and the many

specific elements with the standards. The instrument has also helped to identify future growth areas. These are discussed in Section V of the

report.

140

Attachments

Assessment #7


Rubric

Data Table

[Additional assessment that addresses

Kansas content standards ] * Optional Final Evaluation of Student Teacher

Performance on KSDE English Language

Arts 6-12



#8 (Optional) Additional assessment that addresses Kansas content standards. Examples of assessments include evaluations of field

experiences, case studies, portfolio tasks, licensure tests not reported in #1, and follow-up studies. Provide assessment information as outlined in

the directions for Section IV.

Attachments

Assessment #8


Rubric

Data Table

[Additional assessment that addresses

Kansas content standards ] * Optional



141

SECTION V—USE OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS TO IMPROVE

CANDIDATE AND PROGRAM PERFORMANCE Evidence must be presented in this section that assessment results have been analyzed and have been or will be used to improve candidate

performance and strengthen the program. This description should not link improvements to individual assessments, but rather, it should

summarize major findings from the evidence, the faculty’s interpretation of those findings, and changes made in (or planned for) the program as a

result. Describe the steps program faculty have taken to use information from assessments for improvement of both candidate performance and the

program.

The unit holds two data retreats/ extended meetings a year at which assessment results are analyzed and used to improve candidate performance

and strengthen the program. At the two meetings conducted during 2009, we concluded that the assessments then in use for analyzing candidate

performance were not closely enough aligned with the KSDE standards to allow us to determine if standards --- and all elements of each standard -

-- were being met. During 2009, we developed a new assessment specific to the English Language Arts Standards.

The BC Final Evaluation of Student Teacher Knowledge/ Performance on KSDE English Standards is wholly based on the standards. This

evaluation is completed at the end of the student teaching term by a) the cooperating teacher and b) one of the co-chairs of the Education

Department who has observed the student teacher in action. These two scores are averaged to produce the ratings reported for Assessment #7.

In addition to the data retreats conducted by the unit with its secondary education partners, a Co-Chair of the Education Department has met at

least once each semester for the last five years with the chair of the English Department to together specifically consider data collected pertaining

to the KSDE standards for English Language Arts 6-12.

Results of these and all other assessments provided in this report have been analyzed regularly (twice a year) since 2009. The results show that the

candidates enrolled in this program are overall effectively meeting the KSDE standards. A number of specific strengths and areas for

improvement have also been identified.

A number of substantive improvements have recently been implemented in the English program, however, these changes have been promted not

by the performance of the very few candidates reported on here, but rather on the overall performance of English majors.

Assessment 6 in this report is the ETS Major Field Test for Literature in English. Scores provided in the data for Assessment 6 show that,

particularly in 2008, candidates were not achieving at the same level as in other areas. This trend held not just for English Education majors, but

also for the greater number of students who were simply English majors. Two years ago, the English Department did an indepth analysis of

candidate performance ont eh Major Field Test for Literature in English (Assessment 6). Although overall performance of candidates was highly

satisfactory, the department determined that required coursework needed to be more closely aligned with what was being assessed. Two new

courses were created which are required of all majors. EN 203 Survey of British Literature to 1750 and EN 204 Survey of British Literature from

1750 to the Present. Existing American literature courses were modified, renumbered, and required of all majors: EN 205 American Literature to

the Civil War, and EN 206 American Literature from the Civil War to the Present. The department also added the requirement of existing course

142

EN 411 Literary Criticism for all students, although due to a proofreading error it is omitted from the list of courses for English education found

on page 163 of the Benedictine College Catalog.

An item in Assessment 7, “Demonstrates knowledge of the structure and of the English language,” was rated relatively lower (although still

acceptable overall) than most other items on the assessment. Followup conversations with candidates at the end of student teaching showed that

most felt they would benefit from a required course in grammar. Followup converations with cooperating teachers showed that they felt English

student teachers demonstrated good grammar but that for the purposes of teaching, would benefit from a grammar course. At the time this report

is being written an optional course in grammar is being piloted/ recommended for all English education majors. Following evaluation of the

course’s effectiveness, it will be required for all English majors becoming secondary teachers.

(No more than 3 pages)

143

KSDE English Language Arts 6-12 Program Report

Praxis II: Data from English Language Literature and Composition Exam (10041)

Assessment 1a Data

Table 1A

Praxis II Overall Scores Since Last Accreditation Visit

YEAR Total

Number

(N)

Not Passing Passing

2006 1 0 1

2007 1 0 1

2008 3 0 3

2009 5 0 5

2010 3 0 3

2011 3 0 3

TOTAL 16 0 16 (100%)

Table 1B

Literature and Understanding Text Subtest – Three-Year Reporting Period

(Aligned With KSDE Standard 1)

YEAR Total

Number

(N)

Below Average Average Above Average

2009 4* 0 2 2

2010 3 0 2 1

2011 3 0 2 1

TOTAL 10 0 6 (60%) 4 (40%)

*Subscore information was not received on one candidate taking the test 3/14/09. Hence subscore

totals for 2009 show only a total of four on Tables 1B, 1C, and 1D.

Table 1C

Language and Linguistics Subtest Score – Three-Year Reporting Period


YEAR Total

Number

(N)


2009 4 0 3 1

2010 3 0 2 1

2011 3 0 1 2

TOTAL 10 0 6 (60%) 4 (40%)

144

Table 1D

Composition and Rhetoric Subtest - Three-Year Reporting Period


YEAR Total

Number

(N)


2009 4 0 3 1

2010 3 0 2 1

2011 3 0 2 1

TOTAL 10 0 7 (70%) 3 (30%)


English PLT Scores

Assessment 1b Data

Overall Pass Rate Since Last Accreditation Visit

English Program Completers on PLT Secondary (6-12) 0524

YEAR Total

Number

(N)

Didn’t Pass Passed

2006 1 0 1

2007 1 0 1

2008 3 0 3

2009 5 0 5

2010 3 0 3

2011 3 0 3

TOTAL 16 0 16 (100%)

145


Assessment #2: EN457 English Language Arts Methods Portfolio

2009-2011

Overall Performance on EN 457 Portfolio: Total Score (100 possible) Term Total N Unsatisfactory

0 to 60

Acceptable

61 to 88

Distinguished

89 to 100

2009 0 0 0 0

2010 6 0 1 5

2011 0 0 0 0

Totals 0 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%)

EN 457 Portfolio: Reflections Section

Aligned With KSDE Standard 1 Term Total N Unacceptable

0 - 15

Acceptable

16 - 22

Distinguished

23 - 25

2009 0 0 0 0

2010 6 0 1 5

2011 0 0 0 0

Totals 0 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%)

EN 457 Portfolio: Journal Section


0 - 15

Acceptable

16 - 22

Distinguished

23 - 25

2009 0 0 0 0

2010 6 0 1 5

2011 0 0 0 0

Totals 0 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%)

EN 457 Portfolio: Lesson Plans Section


0 - 15

Acceptable

16 - 22

Distinguished

23 - 25

2009 0 0 0 0

2010 6 0 1 5

2011 0 0 0 0

Totals 0 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%)

EN 457 Portfolio: Field Experience Evaluation


0 - 15

Acceptable

16 - 22

Distinguished

23 - 25

2009 0 0 0 0

2010 0 0 2 4

2011 0 0 0 0

Totals 0 0 (0%) 2 (33%) 4 (67%)

146

KSDE English Language Arts Program Report Assessment 3 Data: Selected Items and Total Score

Benedictine College Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scale

2009-2011

Table 3 A: Rubric From Student Teaching Evaluation Scale

Unsatisfactory (1) Basic (2) Proficient (3) Distinguished (4) The student teacher does not appear

to understand the concepts underlying the indicator and/ or

does not apply the indicator at an

acceptable level.

The student teacher appears to

understand the concepts underlying the indicator and attempts to

implement it. Implementation is

intermittent and/ or not entirely successful.

The student teacher clearly

understands the concepts underlying the indicator and

implements it well.

Implementation is consistent and effective.

The student teacher has

demonstrated an exemplary ability to understand and apply

this indicator.

Scores reported below are the mean of the cooperating teacher and clinical supervisor’s scores on the

Final Student Teaching Evaluation Scale.

Table 3 B: Knowledge Indicator A: “Demonstrates Knowledge of the Subject Area”

Aligned With Standards 1 (“….knowledge of a variety of texts…) and 2

(…knowledge of the history, structure, and development…) Year Total N Unsatisfactory

(Mean = 1.00 –

1.99)

Basic

(Mean = 2.00 –

2.99)

Proficient

(Mean = 3.00 –

3.50)

Distinguished

(Mean = 3.51 –

4.00)

2009 5 3 2

2010 3 1 2

2011 3 1 2

Totals 11 5 (45%) 6 (55%)

Table 3 C: Skills Indicator B: “Successfully Engages

All Students in Activities and Discussion”

Aligned With Standard 3 (“…the ability to communicate effectively

and responsibly for a variety of audiences…”) Year Total N Unsatisfactory

(Mean = 1.00 –

1.99)

Basic

(Mean = 2.00 –

2.99)

Proficient

(Mean = 3.00 –

3.50)

Distinguished

(Mean = 3.51 –

4.00)

2009 5 4 1

2010 3 2 1

2011 3 2 1

Totals 11 8 (73%) 3 (27%)

147

Table 3 D: Skills Indicator D: “Demonstrates Knowledge of Strategies for Teaching the

Subject”

Aligned With Standard 4 (“…demonstrates knowledge of current methods for teaching

processes of reading, writing, speaking, listening, thinking…”) Year Total N Unsatisfactory

(Mean = 1.00 –

1.99)

Basic

(Mean = 2.00 –

2.99)

Proficient

(Mean = 3.00 –

3.50)

Distinguished

(Mean = 3.51 –

4.00)

2009 5 2 3

2010 3 1 2

2011 3 1 2

Totals 11 4 (36%) 7 (64%)

Table 3 E: Outcome #2 Indicator D: “Demonstrates Clear and Appropriate Communication

With Students”

Aligned With Standard 3 (“…the ability to communicate effectively

and responsibly for a variety of audiences…”) Year Total N Unsatisfactory

(Mean = 1.00 –

1.99)

Basic

(Mean = 2.00 –

2.99)

Proficient

(Mean = 3.00 –

3.50)

Distinguished

(Mean = 3.51 –

4.00)

2009 5 3 2

2010 3 1 2

2011 3 1 2

Totals 11 5 (45%) 6 (55%)

Table 3 F: Outcome #5 Indicator A: “Effectively Plans Lessons,

Addressing Student Needs and Curriculum Goals”

Aligned With Standard 4 (“…demonstrates knowledge of current methods for teaching

processes of reading, writing, speaking, listening, thinking…”) Year Total N Unsatisfactory

(Mean = 1.00 –

1.99)

Basic

(Mean = 2.00 –

2.99)

Proficient

(Mean = 3.00 –

3.50)

Distinguished

(Mean = 3.51 –

4.00)

2009 5 1 1 3

2010 3 3

2011 3 1 2

Totals 11 1 (9%) 2 (18%) 8 (73%)

148

KSDE English Language Arts Program Report

Assessment 4: Benedictine Performance Assessment Criteria 2, 3, 6 & 7

2009-2011

Table 4 A: Candidate BPA Scores Criterion 2*

Aligned With Standard 3

Year Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished

2009 1 4

2010 3

2011 3

Totals 1 (9%) 10 (91%)

* For the purposes of the BPA, 94-100% = Distinguished, 87-93% = Proficient, 80-86%

= Basic, and 0-85% = Unsatisfactory.

Table 4 B: Candidate BPA Scores Criterion 3


Year Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient

Distinguished

2009 5

2010 3

2011 3

Totals 11 (100%)

Table 4 C: Candidate BPA Scores Criterion 6


Year Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished

2009 5

2010 3

2011 3

Totals 11 (100%)

Table 2 D: Candidate BPA Scores Criterion 7


Year Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient

Distinguished

2009 4 1

2010 2 1

2011 3

Totals 6 (55%) 5 (45%)

149


Assessment 5: Content Based Assessment/ Course Grades

2009-2011

As stated in the Benedictine College Catalog, the following grades, grade points, and

descriptors are used in evaluating candidate performance:

GRADING POINTS

A 4.0 Superior C+ 2.3

A- 3.7 C 2.0 Average

B+ 3.3 C- 1.7

B 3.0 Better than Average D 1.0 Less Than Average

B- 2.7 F 0 Unacceptable

The tables below show candidate performance in courses aligned with KSDE Elementary

Education Standards.

Table 5 A: Candidate Performance in EN 201 World Lit 1

Aligned With KSDE Standard 1 Year Unacceptable Less Than

Average

Average Better Than

Average

Superior

0 – 0.9 pts.

Letter Grade

of F

1.0 – 1.6 pts

Letter

Grade of D

1.7 - 2.3 pt

Letter

Grade

from C- to

C+

2.4 – 3.3

pts.

Letter

Grade from

B- to B+

3.4 – 4.0 pts.

Letter Grade

from A- to A

2009 1

2010

2011 3 1

Totals 3 (60%) 2 (40%)

Table 5 B: Candidate Performance in EN 302 Shakespeare


Average

Average Better Than

Average

Superior

0 – 0.9 pts.

Letter Grade

of F

1.0 – 1.6 pts

Letter

Grade of D

1.7 - 2.3 pt

Letter

Grade

from C- to

C+

2.4 – 3.3

pts.

Letter

Grade from

B- to B+

3.4 – 4.0 pts.

Letter Grade

from A- to A

2009 2 1

2010 1 1 2

2011 2

Totals 1 (11%) 3 (33%) 5 (56%)

150

Table 5 C: Candidate Performance in EN 357 Young Adult Literature


Average

Average Better Than

Average

Superior

0 – 0.9 pts.

Letter Grade

of F

1.0 – 1.6 pts

Letter

Grade of D

1.7 - 2.3 pt

Letter

Grade

from C- to

C+

2.4 – 3.3

pts.

Letter

Grade from

B- to B+

3.4 – 4.0 pts.

Letter Grade

from A- to A

2009 3

2010 5

2011 0

Totals 8 (100%)

Table 5 D: Candidate Performance in EN 403/ 205* American Lit to the Civil War


Average

Average Better Than

Average

Superior

0 – 0.9 pts.

Letter Grade

of F

1.0 – 1.6 pts

Letter

Grade of D

1.7 - 2.3 pt

Letter

Grade

from C- to

C+

2.4 – 3.3

pts.

Letter

Grade from

B- to B+

3.4 – 4.0 pts.

Letter Grade

from A- to A

2009 4

2010 1 4

2011 3 1

Totals 4 (31%) 9 (69%)

*This course was renumbered during the 3-year reporting period.

Table 5 E: Candidate Performance in EN 431 Linguistics


Average

Average Better Than

Average

Superior

0 – 0.9 pts.

Letter Grade

of F

1.0 – 1.6 pts

Letter

Grade of D

1.7 - 2.3 pt

Letter

Grade

from C- to

C+

2.4 – 3.3

pts.

Letter

Grade from

B- to B+

3.4 – 4.0 pts.

Letter Grade

from A- to A

2009

2010 3

2011 2 3 1

Totals 2 (22%) 3 (33%) 4 (44%)

151

Table 5 F: Candidate Performance in EN 457 Methods of Teaching English Language

Arts


Average

Average Better Than

Average

Superior

0 – 0.9 pts.

Letter Grade

of F

1.0 – 1.6 pts

Letter

Grade of D

1.7 - 2.3 pt

Letter

Grade

from C- to

C+

2.4 – 3.3

pts.

Letter

Grade from

B- to B+

3.4 – 4.0 pts.

Letter Grade

from A- to A

2009

2010 5

2011

Totals 5 (100%)

152


Assessment 6: Candidate Performance on English Comprehensive Exam

ETS Major Field Test for Literature in English

2009-2011

The tables below show candidate performance on the ETS Major Field Test for Literature in

English. Table 6 A: Overall Candidate Performance on ETS Test

Aligned With KSDE Standards 1-2 Year Below Average Average Above Average

0 – 29th Percentile 30

th to 69

th Percentile 70

th to 99

th Percentile

2008* 1 2 1

2009 0 1 2

2010 0 0 3

2011** 0 0 0

Totals 1 (10%) 3 (30%) 6 (60%)

*Data from 2008 is included here to provide documentation for a programmatic improvement

discussed in Section V of this report.

**ETS has not yet returned scores for candidates who took this exam in November 2011.

Table 6 B: Candidate Performance on ETS Subtest 1

1900 and Earlier

Aligned With KSDE Standard 1 Year Below Average Average Above Average


th to 69

th Percentile 70

th to 99

th Percentile

2008* 1 2 1

2009 0 1 2

2010 0 0 3

2011** 0 0 0

Totals 1 (10%) 3 (30%) 6 (60%)




153

Table 6 C: Candidate Performance on ETS Subtest 2

1901 and Later



th to 69

th Percentile 70

th to 99

th Percentile

2008* 0 3 1

2009 0 3 0

2010 0 0 3

2011** 0 0 0

Totals 0 6 (60%) 4 (40%)




Table 6 D: Candidate Performance on ETS Subtest 3

Literary Analysis



th to 69

th Percentile 70

th to 99

th Percentile

2008* 0 3 1

2009 0 1 2

2010 0 0 3

2011** 0 0 0

Totals 0 4 (40%) 6 (60%)




154

Table 6 D: Candidate Performance on ETS Subtest 4

History and Identification



th to 69

th Percentile 70

th to 99

th Percentile

2008* 1 2 1

2009 0 0 3

2010 0 0 3

2011** 0 0 0

Totals 1 (10%) 2 (2%) 7 (70%)




155


Assessment 7: Evaluation of Student Teacher Performance on

KSDE English Language Arts 6-12

2009-2011

Rubric From Evaluation Scale

Unsatisfactory (1) Basic (2) Proficient (3) Distinguished (4) The student teacher does not appear to understand the

concepts underlying the KSDE

standard and/ or does not apply the standard at an acceptable

level.

The student teacher appears to understand the concepts

underlying the KSDE standard

and attempts to implement it. Implementation is intermittent

and/ or not entirely successful.

The student teacher clearly understands the concepts underlying

the KSDE standard and implements it

well. Implementation is consistent and effective.

The student teacher has demonstrated an exemplary

ability to understand and apply

this KSDE standard.

Scores on the tables which follow are the mean of the ratings of the cooperating teacher and one of

the Co-Chairs of the Education Department following a special meeting with the student teacher.

Table 7 A: Performance English Language Arts 6-12 Standard 1 Element 1

Item: “Demonstrates knowledge of a variety of texts both print and nonprint.” Year Total N Unsatisfactory

(Mean = 1.00 –

1.99)

Basic

(Mean = 2.00 –

2.99)

Proficient

(Mean = 3.00 –

3.50)

Distinguished

(Mean = 3.51 –

4.00)

2009 5 3 2

2010 3 2 1

2011 3 1 1 1

Totals 11 (0%) (9%) (55%) (36%)

Table 7 B: Performance English Language Arts 6-12 Standard 1 Element 2

Item: “Demonstrates knowledge of how learners create and discover meaning in a text.” Year Total N Unsatisfactory

(Mean = 1.00 –

1.99)

Basic

(Mean = 2.00 –

2.99)

Proficient

(Mean = 3.00 –

3.50)

Distinguished

(Mean = 3.51 –

4.00)

2009 5 1 3 1

2010 3 1 2

2011 3 1 1 1

Totals 11 (0%) (18%) (45%) (36%)

156

Table 7 C: Performance English Language Arts 6-12 Standard 2 Element 1

Item: “Demonstrates knowledge of the history of the English language.” Year Total N Unsatisfactory

(Mean = 1.00 –

1.99)

Basic

(Mean = 2.00 –

2.99)

Proficient

(Mean = 3.00 –

3.50)

Distinguished

(Mean = 3.51 –

4.00)

2009 5 3 2

2010 3 2 1

2011 3 1 1 1

Totals 11 (0%) (9%) (55%) (36%)

Table 7 D: Performance English Language Arts 6-12 Standard 2 Element 2

Item: “Demonstrates knowledge of the structure of the English language.” Year Total N Unsatisfactory

(Mean = 1.00 –

1.99)

Basic

(Mean = 2.00 –

2.99)

Proficient

(Mean = 3.00 –

3.50)

Distinguished

(Mean = 3.51 –

4.00)

2009 5 1 3 1

2010 3 1 1 1

2011 3 1 1 1

Totals 11 (0%) (27%) (45%) (27%)

Table 7 E: Performance English Language Arts 6-12 Standard 2 Element 3

Item: “Demonstrates knowledge of the development of the English language.” Year Total N Unsatisfactory

(Mean = 1.00 –

1.99)

Basic

(Mean = 2.00 –

2.99)

Proficient

(Mean = 3.00 –

3.50)

Distinguished

(Mean = 3.51 –

4.00)

2009 5 1 3 1

2010 3 1 1 1

2011 3 2 1

Totals 11 (0%) (18%) (55%) (27%)

Table 7 F: Performance English Language Arts 6-12 Standard 2 Element 4

Item: “Demonstrates knowledge of how people use language to influence the thinking and

actions of others.” Year Total N Unsatisfactory

(Mean = 1.00 –

1.99)

Basic

(Mean = 2.00 –

2.99)

Proficient

(Mean = 3.00 –

3.50)

Distinguished

(Mean = 3.51 –

4.00)

2009 5 4 1

2010 3 2 1

2011 3 2 1

Totals 11 (0%) (0%) (73%) (27%)

157

Table 7 G: Performance English Language Arts 6-12 Standard 3 Element 1

Item: “Demonstrates the ability to communicate effectively and responsibly.” Year Total N Unsatisfactory

(Mean = 1.00 –

1.99)

Basic

(Mean = 2.00 –

2.99)

Proficient

(Mean = 3.00 –

3.50)

Distinguished

(Mean = 3.51 –

4.00)

2009 5 1 4

2010 3 3

2011 3 1 2

Totals 11 (0%) (0%) (18%) (82%)

Table 7 H: Performance English Language Arts 6-12 Standard 3 Element 2

Item: “Demonstrates the ability to communicate with a variety of audiences.” Year Total N Unsatisfactory

(Mean = 1.00 –

1.99)

Basic

(Mean = 2.00 –

2.99)

Proficient

(Mean = 3.00 –

3.50)

Distinguished

(Mean = 3.51 –

4.00)

2009 5 4 1

2010 3 1 2

2011 3 2 1

Totals 11 (0%) (0%) (64%) (36%)

Table 7 I: Performance English Language Arts 6-12 Standard 3 Element 3

Item: “Demonstrates the ability to communicate for different purposes.” Year Total N Unsatisfactory

(Mean = 1.00 –

1.99)

Basic

(Mean = 2.00 –

2.99)

Proficient

(Mean = 3.00 –

3.50)

Distinguished

(Mean = 3.51 –

4.00)

2009 5 2 3

2010 3 3

2011 3 1 1 1

Totals 11 (0%) (9%) (27%) (64%)

Table 7 J: Performance English Language Arts 6-12 Standard 4 Element 1

Item: “Demonstrates knowledge of current methods for teaching processes of reading.” Year Total N Unsatisfactory

(Mean = 1.00 –

1.99)

Basic

(Mean = 2.00 –

2.99)

Proficient

(Mean = 3.00 –

3.50)

Distinguished

(Mean = 3.51 –

4.00)

2009 5 3 2

2010 3 1 2

2011 3 2 1

Totals 11 (0%) (0%) (55%) (45%)

158

Table 7 K: Performance English Language Arts 6-12 Standard 4 Element 2

Item: “Demonstrates knowledge of current methods for teaching processes of writing.” Year Total N Unsatisfactory

(Mean = 1.00 –

1.99)

Basic

(Mean = 2.00 –

2.99)

Proficient

(Mean = 3.00 –

3.50)

Distinguished

(Mean = 3.51 –

4.00)

2009 5 2 3

2010 3 2 1

2011 3 1 2

Totals 11 (0%) (9%) (55%) (36%)

Table 7 L: Performance English Language Arts 6-12 Standard 4 Element 3

Item: “Demonstrates knowledge of current methods for teaching processes of speaking.” Year Total N Unsatisfactory

(Mean = 1.00 –

1.99)

Basic

(Mean = 2.00 –

2.99)

Proficient

(Mean = 3.00 –

3.50)

Distinguished

(Mean = 3.51 –

4.00)

2009 5 1 3 1

2010 3 1 2

2011 3 1 2

Totals 11 (0%) (27%) (45%) (27%)

Table 7 M: Performance English Language Arts 6-12 Standard 4 Element 4

Item: “Demonstrates knowledge of current methods for teaching processes of listening, thinking

viewing and their interconnections.” Year Total N Unsatisfactory

(Mean = 1.00 –

1.99)

Basic

(Mean = 2.00 –

2.99)

Proficient

(Mean = 3.00 –

3.50)

Distinguished

(Mean = 3.51 –

4.00)

2009 5 3 2

2010 3 2 1

2011 3 2 1

Totals 11 (0%) (0%) (64%) (36%)

Date post:	20-Jan-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times