1.1.3. InTASC Standards of the EPP. of...1.1.3. InTASC Standards of the EPP. West Texas A&M University 4 Evidence and Analysis of InTASC Standards and Implications for Continuous Improvement

1.1.3. InTASC Standards of the EPP.

West Texas A&M University 1

Evidence and Analysis of InTASC Standards and Implications for Continuous Improvement: An analysis of multiple data sources determined the EPP’s focus and rigorous progression of the 10 InTASC Standards in admission, development, and completion of representative courses for all candidates across all programs throughout the unit. The 10 InTASC Standards are aligned with the shared vision and conceptual framework of PEOs, Ethical and Professional Dispositions [1.1.1k], and national, professional, state, and local standards [See 1.1.1.]. During the candidate completion level of the EPP, in addition to the focus in clinical teaching upon all Learners and their Learning (InTASC Standards 1, 2, and 3), the in-depth experience of clinical teaching also highlights and focuses upon InTASC Standard 4: Content Knowledge that includes pedagogical knowledge; Standard 5: Application of Content for the success of all P-12 students; Standard 6: Assessment of and for learning; Standard 7: Planning for Instruction that motivates and inspires all students in the classroom; Standard 8: Instructional Strategies including the seamless use of technology; Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice that are also assessed with the Candidate Evaluation Instrument (CEI); and Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration that allows our candidates as clinical teachers opportunities to learn models of excellence through collaboration with other colleagues, administrators, students, parents, and the community. Throughout the culminating experience of clinical teaching, our candidates apply what they have learned in their preparation throughout the progression of the program to impact the Learner and the Learning, to promote Content and Pedagogical Knowledge, to enrich Instructional Practice, and to grow in Professional Responsibility. Table 1 shows the Professional Development Appraisal System (PDAS) instrument that is used by both the cooperating teacher and university field supervisor during field and clinical experiences to assess all candidates. (Table 1 Continued).



Table 1: University Supervisor Observation of the Candidate-Student/Clinical Teacher or Intern.* University Supervisor Observation of the Candidate--Student/Clinical Teacher or Intern Name:_________________________________________ Last, First (please print) Subject/Lesson: _________________________________________ Grade Level: ___________________________________________________ Date: ________________Start Time: ________________________ End Time: ___________________Total Time: ________________________ (at least 45 minutes/visit required) Coding: P=Proficient A=Advance Competent B=Beginning Competent D=Developing Domain I: Active, Successful Student Participation in the Learning Process _____ Students are actively engaged in learning. _____ Students are successful in learning. _____ Student behaviors indicate learning is at a high cognitive level; e.g., critical thinking, creative thinking, problem solving. _____ Students are connecting learning to work and life applications, both within the discipline and with other disciplines. Domain II: Learner-centered Instruction _____ Instructional content is learner-centered; e.g., related to the interests and varied characteristics of students. _____ The candidate exhibits a working knowledge of subject matter or content. _____ Instructional strategies include motivational techniques to successfully and actively engage successfully and actively engage students in the learning process. _____ Instructional strategies include motivational techniques to successfully and actively engage students in the learning process. _____ Instructional strategies are aligned with the objectives, activities, student characteristics,

Domain IV: Management of Student Discipline, Instructional Strategies, Time, and Materials _____ The candidate effectively implements discipline-management procedures. _____ The candidate interacts with students in an equitable manner, including the fair application of rules. _____ The candidate specifies expectations for desired behavior. _____ The candidate models respectful behavior. _____ The candidate intervenes and re-directs off-task, inappropriate, or disruptive behavior as needed. _____ The candidate reinforces desired behaviors when appropriate. _____ The candidate effectively and efficiently manages time and materials. Domain V: Learner-centered Communication _____ The candidate uses appropriate and accurate written communication with students. _____ The candidate uses appropriate and accurate verbal and non-verbal communication with students. _____ The candidate encourages and supports students who are reluctant or having difficulty. _____ The candidate’s interactions are supportive, courteous, and respectful with students, mentor or cooperating teacher, and university supervisor. _________________________________________________________ Comments (provide suggestions for any area scored “below proficient” or “developing”) _______________________________________________________________



* See also 1.1.11f. PDAS Appraisal Form.

prior learning, and work and life applications, both within the discipline and with other disciplines. _____ The candidate maintains appropriate racing and sequencing of instruction. _____ The candidate uses appropriate questioning and inquiry techniques to challenge students. _____ The candidate emphasizes the value and importance of the activity and/or content. _____ The candidate makes appropriate and effective use of available technology as part of the instructional process. Domain III: Evaluation and Feedback on Student Progress _____ Assessment and feedback are aligned with goals and objectives and instructional strategies. _____ Assessment strategies are appropriate to the varied characteristics of students. _____ Student learning is reinforced. _____ Students receive specific constructive feedback. _____ The candidate provides opportunities for re- learning and re-evaluation of material.

_______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________

Met with candidate’s mentor or supervising teacher.

Met with candidate’s campus administrator: left copy of documentation.

______________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Candidate’s Signature University Supervisor’s Signature White-WTAMU; Yellow-Candidate; Pink-Principal; Blue-Supervisor



Evidence and Analysis of InTASC Standards and Implications for Continuous Improvement (continued): Table 2 presents the EPP’s alignment of the 10 InTASC Standards with the Professional Development Appraisal System (PDAS) instrument that is used by both the cooperating teacher and university field supervisor to assess all candidates during field and clinical experiences. Table 1 also includes PDAS evidence for each of the five PDAS domains for the culminating assessments of candidates during the candidate completion level of the EPP. The number of candidates that were assessed with the PDAS instrument by university field supervisors is included for the Fall 2014, Spring 2015, and Fall 2015 semesters. The combined total of the top two categories of PDAS assessments of “Exceeds” and “Proficient (Target)” for candidate performance are included on Table 1 [See also 1.1.11.]. (Table 2 Continued).



Table 2. 10 InTASC Standards and Professional Development Appraisal System (PDAS) Alignment of the EPP. PDAS Domain(s) Alignment with InTASC Standards PDAS Fall 2014 Sp 2015 Fall 2015 Number of Candidates PDAS

Criteria InTASC Standards Assessments N=58

N=140

N=58

Domain I: Active, Successful Student Participation in the Learning Process

1, 2, 3, 4 The Learner and Learning Standard 1: Learner Development Standard 2: Learning Differences Standard 3: Learning Environments

Domain I: The Learner and Learning Proficient (Target) or Exceeds

328 564 225

Domain II: Learner-centered Instruction

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Content Standard 4: Content Knowledge Standard 5: Application of Knowledge

Domain II: Content Proficient (Target) or Exceeds

293 1243 507

3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Instructional Practice Standard 6: Assessment Standard 7: Planning for Instruction Standard 8: Instructional Strategies

Domain II: Instructional Practice

Proficient (Target) or Exceeds

293 1243 507

Domain III: Evaluation and Feedback on Student Progress

1, 2 Instructional Practice Standard 6: Assessment

Domain III: Instructional Practice Proficient (Target) or Exceeds

309 705 277

3, 4, 5 The Learner and Learning Standard 1: Learner Development Standard 2: Learning Differences Standard 3: Learning Environments

Domain III. The Learner and Learning Proficient (Target) or Exceeds

309 705 277



Table 2. 10 InTASC Standards and Professional Development Appraisal System (PDAS) Alignment of the EPP (continued). PDAS Domain(s) Aligned with InTASC Standards PDAS Fall 2014 Sp 2015 Fall 2015 Number of Candidates PDAS

Criteria InTASC Standards Assessments N=58 N=140 N=58

Domain IV: Management of Student Discipline, Instructional Strategies, Time, and Materials

1, 4, 7 Professional Responsibility Domain IV: Professional Responsibility 9 Standard 9: Professional Learning and

Ethical Practice Proficient (Target) or Exceeds

182 977 396

Domain IV: Management of Student Discipline, Instructional Strategies, Time, and Materials

2, 3, 5, 6 Standard 2: Learning Differences Standard 3: Learning Environment

Domain IV: The Learner and Learning Proficient (Target) or Exceeds

182 977 396

6, 7 Instructional Practice Proficient (Target) or Exceeds

182 977 396

6 Standard 7: Planning for Instruction Proficient (Target) or Exceeds

182 977 396

Domain V: Learner-centered Communication

1, 2 Content Standard 4: Content Knowledge Standard 5: Application of Content

Domain V: Content

Proficient (Target) or Exceeds

228 562 227

3 The Learner and Learning Standard 3: Learning Environments

PDAS Domain V: The Learner and Learning Proficient (Target) or Exceeds

228 562 227



Table 2. 10 InTASC Standards and Professional Development Appraisal System (PDAS) Alignment of the EPP (continued). PDAS Domain(s) Alignment with InTASC Standards PDAS Fall 2014 Sp 2015 Fall 2015 Domain V: Learner-centered Communication

PDAS Criteria

InTASC Standards Assessments N=58 N=140 N=58

4 Professional Responsibility Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration

PDAS Domain V: Professional Responsibility Proficient (Target) or Exceeds

228 562 227

The implications of these data are evidence of the continued focus upon standards-based and evidence-based instruction and candidate performance through the alignment of the 10 InTASC Standards with the PDAS culminating assessment of all candidates during clinical teaching. In the five domains of PDAS, the combined totals of both “Exceeds” and “Proficient (Target)” of candidate performance ranges from 182 in Domain IV to 1243 in Domain II. The majority of candidates met or exceeded target as evidenced by the PDAS summative assessment. Evidence and Analysis of InTASC Standards and Implications for Continuous Improvement (continued): For admission, a purposive representative sample of syllabi from EDPD 3340 Education Foundations and EPSY 3341 Educational Psychology [1.1.3c.], degree plan checklists [1.1.3b.], and Curriculum Delivery Maps [1.1.3d] from the fall semesters of 2013, 2014, and 2015 were reviewed, analyzed, and evaluated using the Syllabi Analysis I Rubric [1.1.3e.], designed in light of the CAEP Assessment Rubric [1.1.2a.]. All syllabi reviewed showed the preparation of candidates for the 10 InTASC Standards in the InTASC categories of The Learner and Learning; specifically in Standard 1: Learner Development; Standard 2: Learning Differences; and Standard 3: Learning Environments. In these two Admission courses, our candidates understand how learners learn, grow, and develop in cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and physical areas and also learn how to develop appropriate and challenging learning experiences for all their students (InTASC Standard 1). Candidates understand the differences among individual learners, diverse cultures, and communities in order to ensure inclusive learning environments for all learners in their classrooms to meet ever-increasing high expectations and challenging high standards (InTASC Standard 2). To encourage positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation, our candidates learn to work collaboratively with others to create learning environments that support individual and collaborative learning (InTASC Standard 3).



These courses also equip our candidates in the four Domains and 13 Competencies for Texas Educators of Texas Standards for quality teaching and learning. As an assessment of their learning outcomes, in EPSY 3341 Educational Psychology, candidates must pass a released practice TExES PPR Exam as the final exam with a score of 80% or higher. Neither the faculty nor the candidates have access to this released practice TExES PPR Exam prior to or after the scheduled final exam. For additional reliability and validity, the exam is administered each semester and the grades are reported by Educational Services from the University. Once candidates pass this exam with an 80% or higher, they are then encouraged to take the TExES State Certification PPR Exam. Candidates must pass both the state Pedagogy and Professional Responsibilities (PPR) TExES State Certification Exam and their TExES Content Exam before they are accepted to student teach. If candidates require additional tutoring and/or remediation before taking the practice test or the state exam, several options including tutoring with faculty, working with an Intervention Specialist, in Math, Science, and Writing Labs, and additional online resources are made available to our candidates. During development, a purposive sample of representative syllabi, degree checklists, and Curriculum Delivery Maps were also reviewed, analyzed, and evaluated using the Syllabi Analysis I Rubric [1.1.3e.]. The representative sample included the forty courses from 2013 to 2015 identified in Table 1 from all programs throughout the progression of the EPP. The only exceptions are EDSE 4321 Teaching in Agriscience and EDSE 4328 Teaching School Music where candidates receive their Methods preparation in other colleges of the university. Both the College of Agriculture and Natural Sciences and the WTAMU School of Music are accredited by the Texas Education Agency. Additionally, the WTAMU School of Music is fully accredited by the National Association of Schools of Music. During Methods courses, candidates are required to complete 40 hours of observations and to write Reflections about specific areas they have observed [1.1.3g]. All 10 InTASC Standards are the central focus of candidates’ development, especially Standard 4: Content Knowledge, Standard 5: Application of Content; Standard 6: Assessment; Standard 7: Planning for Instruction; and Standard 8: Instructional Strategies. Candidates learn and understand the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of their disciplines and how to create learning experiences for meaningful access for all P-12 students. By learning how to connect these concepts to diverse perspectives and how to engage all learners in critical thinking, creativity, and collaborative problem solving related to authentic local and global issues, candidates use a variety of instructional strategies and multiple methods of assessment in their application of the content they have learned to impact student learning and academic achievement. Through 40 hours of observations, candidates also observe and reflect upon these aspects of quality teaching and learning in the authentic environment of the classroom. Table 3a. shows the number, range, mean, and grades of enrolled candidates for the PPR Pre-Practice Test and the PPR Post-Practice Test in two sections of EDPD 3340 for Fall 2015. Table 3b. presents the grades of enrolled candidates for the PPR Practice Test as a



Final Exam for EPSY 3341. These representative data demonstrate the quality of candidates entering at the admission level of the EPP. Table 3a. Grades for PPR Practice Pre- and Post-Tests (EDPD 3340.01 and EDPD 3340.03: Representative Sample Fall 2015). EDPD 3340.01 Candidates N= 30

PPR Pre-Practice Test

PPR Post-Practice Test

Range / Mean EDPD 3340.03 Candidates N=22



Range / Mean

1 60.00 61.53 R= 29.23-100 1 47.69 75.38 R= 30.76-98.46

2 41.53 67.69 M= 79.1 2 33.84 49.23 M= 74.806

3 41.53 75.38 3 55.38 81.53

4 50.76 69.23 4 56.92 80.00

5 67.69 90.76 5 33.84 63.07

6 53.84 75.38 6 61.53 70.76

7 52.30 93.84 7 53.84 80.00

8 56.92 89.23 8 52.30 98.46

9 50.76 100 9 58.46 72.30

10 52.30 100 10 56.92 72.30

11 36.92 100 11 30.76 92.00

12 47.69 95.38 12 38.46 80.00

13 52.30 75.38 13 40.00 81.53

14 50.76 92.30 14 61.53 89.23

15 49.23 69.23 15 44.61 64.61

16 52.30 78.84 16 30.76 64.61

Passing 65.00% 70.00% Passing 65.00% 70.00%



Table 3a. Grades for PPR Practice Pre- and Post-Tests (EDPD 3340.01 and EDPD 3340.03: Representative Candidate Sample Fall 2015). EDPD 3340.01 Candidates

N= 30



Range / Mean EDPD 3340.03 Candidates

N=22



Range / Mean

17 61.53 73.84 R= 29.23-100 17 47.69 67.69 R= 30.76-98.46

18 49.23 76.92 M= 79.1 18 35.38 63.07 M=74.806

19 53.84 75.38 19 56.92 66.15

20 52.30 73.84 20 49.23 78.46 21 53.84 41.53 21 35.38 70.76 22 53.84 75.38 22 53.84 84.61 23 60.00 81.53 24 52.30 62.00 25 49.23 73.84 26 72.30 89.23 27 46.15 76.90 28 49.23 73.84 29 29.73 78.46 30 52.30 86.15

Passing 65.00% 70.00% Passing 65.00% 70.00% Mean 51.755 79.100 Mean 47.058 74.806

Table 3b. shows the scores of candidates from three sections of Educational Psychology, EPSY 3341 in Fall 2015 on the Practice PPR Exam. These scores are used as the final exam in the course. For reliability and validity, the PPR Practice Tests are administered by the Office of Educational Services. Candidates have opportunities for remediation if they are unsuccessful in passing the PPR exam. (Table 3b. Continued).



Table 3b. Scores for PPR Practice Test in EPSY 3341, Fall 2015 (Three sections). EPSY 3341.01

Candidates N= 27

Final Score(s)

Range EPSY 3341.02 Candidates

N=40

Final Score(s)


N=30

Final Score(s)

Range

1 74 60-82 1 53 51-83 1 70 60-87 2 60 2 72 2 64 3 74 3 73 3 76 4 82 4 66 4 76 5 67 5 73 5 61 6 79 6 76 6 73 7 70 7 56 7 69 8 73 8 80 8 73 9 67 9 67 9 72

10 72 10 74 10 62 11 73 11 73 11 73 12 72 12 64 12 66 13 66 13 80 13 70 14 74 14 51 14 83 15 73 15 70 15 87 16 60 16 70 16 83 17 66 17 52 17 78 18 76 18 83 18 71 19 74 19 69 19 62 20 76 20 72 20 62 21 67 21 59 21 80



Table 3b. Scores for PPR Practice Test in EPSY 3341, Fall 2015 (Three sections). EPSY 3341.01

Candidates N= 27

Final Score(s)


N=40

Final Score(s)


N=30

Final Score(s)

Range

22 67 60-82 22 56 51-83 22 67 60-87 23 82 23 62 23 64 24 70 24 62 24 69 25 67 25 80 25 76 26 77 26 60 26 60 27 67 27 81 27 60

28 72 28 80 29 69 29 69 30 66 30 81 31 76 32 76 33 54 34 74 35 76 36 64 37 73 38 69 39 74 40 60 Passing 70% Passing 70% Passing 70% Mean 71.296 Mean 68.425 Mean 71.233



In Table 4, representative program course syllabi from 2013 to 2015 were reviewed, analyzed, and evaluated in the progression of admission, development, and completion for candidates in the EPP. The findings of the analysis indicate that the 10 InTASC Standards within the InTASC categories of the Learner and Learning, Content Knowledge, Instructional Practice, and Professional Responsibility are the heightened focus of rigorous instruction and ever-increasing high- quality teaching and learning for all candidates across all programs. (Table 4 Continued).



Table 4. Program Progression and InTASC Standards of the EPP 2013-2015. EPP Admission

InTASC Standards 1-10 Development

InTASC Standards 1-10 Completion

InTASC Standards 1-10 Academic Year

2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015

All Candidates/ All Programs

EDPD 3340 Educational Foundations

40 Hours of Observations Are Required During Methods Courses Prior to Clinical Teaching

Student/Clinical Teaching or ACP Internship

EPSY 3341 Educational Psychology

EPP

Admission InTASC Standards 1-10

Development InTASC Standards 1-10

Completion InTASC Standards 1-10

Academic Year

2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015

Early Childhood-Grade 6

EDPD 3340 Educational Foundations 40 Hours of Observations Required During Methods Courses


EPSY 3341 Educational Psychology EDEC 2383 Early Childhood Education EDEC 4342 Student Teaching-Early Childhood

EDEC 3384 Curriculum and the Young Child

EDEC 4095 Problems in Early Childhood Education

EDEC 4385 Program for Early Childhood Education

EPSY 3341 Educational Psychology EDEL 4095 Problems in Elementary Education

EDEL 4340 Student Teaching-Elementary

EDEL 4370 Language Arts Methods EDEL 4341 Student Teaching-Elementary

EDEL 4371 Mathematics Methods EDEL 4344 Student Teaching-English as a Second Language/Bilingual



Table 4. Program Progression and InTASC Standards of the EPP 2013-2015. EPP Admission

InTASC Standards 1-10 Development

InTASC Standards 1-10 Completion

InTASC Standards 1-10 Academic Year

2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015

Early Childhood- Grade 6

EDEL 4372 Elementary/Middle School Language Arts and Social Studies


Elementary Education

EDEL 4373 Elementary/Middle School Mathematics and Science

EDEC 4342 Student Teaching-Early Childhood

EDEL 4374 English Language Arts/Social Sciences Methods

EDEL 4381 Science Methods

Generic Special Education EC-12



EPSY 3341 Educational Psychology EDSP 4095 Problems in Special Education EDSP 4343 Student Teaching- Generic Special Education

EDSP 4351 Exceptionality in Children

EDSP 4352 Teaching Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities

EDSP 4354 Learning and Behavior Disorders

EDSP 4355 Individual Assessment Techniques

EDSP 4357 Educational Procedures for Adolescents

EDSP 4358 Theories of Multiple Disabilities

EDSP 4359 Behavior Management of Exceptional Children

EDSP 4369 Special Education Methods



Table 4. Program Progression and InTASC Standards of the EPP 2013-2015.

EPP Admission InTASC Standards 1-10



Academic Year

2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015

Professional Development


EDPD 4340 Classroom Management and Discipline

EDPD 4341 Classroom Management in Agriscience

EDPD 4363 Bilingual Teaching Methods

EDPD 4378 Language Development

EDPD 4388 English as a Second Language

Reading EDPD 3340 Educational Foundations Teaching Methods

EPSY 3341 Educational Psychology 40 Hours of Observations Required During Methods Courses

EDRD 3301 Teaching Reading Through Children’s Literature

EDRD 3302 Reading Skills in the Elementary School

EDRD 3304 (First Offered in Fall 2015) Structured Literacy

EDRD 4095 Problems in Reading Education

EDRD 4302 Evaluation of Reading Performance

EDRD 4304 Reading Skills in the Content



In Table 5, the Grade Distributions for Clinical Teaching for the fall and spring semesters of 2012-2015 from the Office of Institutional Research were reviewed and evaluated at completion. The grand total of completers in all programs ranged from 310 candidates in 2015 to 365 in 2012 with 1361 total candidates passing clinical teaching out of 1377 for a grand total passing rate of 99.0% from 2012 to 2015. This trend data is evidence of the EPP’s successful preparation of 99.0% of all candidates in all programs over the last four years. Key for Table 5: Grades for Clinical Teaching: F = Fail I = Incomplete S = Satisfactory/Pass X = Withdrawn

Table 3. Program Progression and InTASC Standards of the EPP 2013-2015.

Admission InTASC Standards 1-10



2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015

Field

EDRD 4306 Teaching Reading in the Middle School

EDRD 4386 Secondary Reading in the Content Area



EPSY 3341 Educational Psychology EDSE 4095 Problems in Secondary Education

EDSE 4340 Student Teaching-Secondary

EDSE 4320 Teaching in Secondary Schools I

EDSE 4341 Student Teaching-Secondary

EDSE 4321 Teaching in Agriscience

EDSE 4328 Teaching of School Music

EDSE 4330 Teaching in Secondary Schools II



Table 5. Candidates in Clinical Teaching at Completion 2012-2015. (F = Fail I = Incomplete S = Satisfactory/Pass X = Withdrawn ) Academic Semester Spring 2012 Fall 2012 Grade F I S X Total F I S X Total EDEC 4342 Early Childhood

35 35 36 36

EDEL 4340 Elementary

50 50 1 39 40


8 8 7 7

EDEL 4344 English as Second Language/ Bilingual

40 40 41 41

EDSE 4341 Secondary

53 1 54 1 38 1 40

EDSP 4343 Generic Special Education

9 9 5 5

Total 196 Total 169 Grand Total for FY 2012 365

Academic Semester Spring 2013 Fall 2013 Grade F I S X Total F I S X Total EDEC 4342 Early Childhood

40 40 26 26

EDEL 4340 Elementary 1 60 61 35 35 EDEL 4341 Elementary

1 15 16 12 12

EDEL 4344 English as Second Language/Bilingual

48 48 26 26



Table 5. Candidates in Clinical Teaching at Completion 2012-2015 (continued). (F = Fail I = Incomplete S = Satisfactory/Pass X = Withdrawn). Academic Semester Spring 2013 Fall 2013 Grade F I S X Total F I S X Total EDSE 4341 Secondary

59 59 37 37


3 3 1 1

Total 227 Total 137 Grand Total for FY 2013 364

Academic Semester Spring 2014 Fall 2014 Grade F I S X Total F I S X Total EDEC 4342 Early Childhood

50 50 25 25


54 54 23 23


12 12 4 4


55 55 27 27

EDSE 4341 Secondary

53 53 30 30


5 5 0 0

Grand Total for FY 2014 338



Source: Office of Institutional Research

Grades for Clinical Teaching: F = Fail I = Incomplete S = Satisfactory/Pass X = Withdrawn

Table 5. Candidates in Clinical Teaching at Completion 2012-2015 (continued). (F = Fail I = Incomplete S = Satisfactory/Pass X = Withdrawn). Academic Semester Spring 2015 Fall 2015 Grade F I S X Total F I S X Total EDEC 4342 Early Childhood

2 62 64 20 20


1 44 2 47 23 34


1 6 7 4 4


2 67 69 21 21

EDSE 4341 Secondary

47 2 49 0 0


6 6 0 0

Total 242 Total 68 Grand Total for FY 2015

310



The implications from the in-depth analysis of the data collection indicated that candidates in the EPP from admission, during development, to completion have a central focus of the 10 InTASC Standards in the preparation of our candidates throughout the progression of the EPP. The grade distribution for clinical teaching shows that all candidates passed clinical teaching in Fall 2014, in Spring 2015, out of all candidates, 2 did not pass clinical teaching, and in Fall 2015, all candidates passed clinical teaching. Multiple Evidence Sources:

• 1.1.3a. Academic Catalog Course Offerings 2015-2016. [See www.wtamu.edu/academics/catalog.aspx]. • 1.1.3b. Degree Plan Checklists. [See www.wtamu.edu/advising/degree-checklists.aspx]. • 1.1.3c. Course Syllabi. [See www.syllabus.wtamu.edu/syllabi/?d=9&s=49]. • 1.1.3d. Curriculum Delivery Maps. • 1.1.3e. Syllabi Analysis I Rubric. • 1.1.3f. Grade Distribution of Clinical Teaching (2012-2015), Office of Institutional Research. • [See 1.1.1b. InTASC Standards]. • [See also 1.1.11. Candidate Field and Clinical Experience Assessments Fall 2014, Spring 2015, and Fall 2015].

Documents

1.1.3. InTASC Standards of the EPP. of...1.1.3. InTASC Standards of the EPP. West Texas A&M University 4 Evidence and Analysis of InTASC Standards and Implications for Continuous Improvement