Assessment of Student Learning in the Education Major ...em>Edit... · student teaching evaluation materials, including reflective journals and plan books ... The student self-reflects

1

Assessment of Student Learning in the Education Major

Annual Report

Submitted June 2017

Learning Goals in the Education Major driven by our Unit’s Conceptual Framework:

Develop professional educators who:

1. engage in active learning

2. create communities of learning

3. facilitate learning for others

4. collaborate with others

Assessment methods:

1. Illinois test of academic proficiency (TAP), which now can be replaced by a composite score of 22 on the ACT Plus Writing;

subject area contentexam for which one is becoming licensed;Assessment of the Professional Teacher; edTPA, the national

exam comprising 2 ten minute video clips with written reflection.

2. grade point averages cumulative, as well as disaggregated for content major, and professional education coursework

3. Embedded Signature Assessments

4. Various program assessments 1-6 (PAs)

5. evaluation and assessment of professional dispositions (revised to include ISBE Code of Ethics; now in Academic Alert

system)

6. internship evaluation materials, including reflective journals

7. student teaching evaluation materials, including reflective journals and plan books

8. Feedback forms from cooperating teachers, university supervisors and teacher candidates

2

NOTE: The assessment methods are administered on a continual basis to each student. The following explains how each assessment

method was administered, data compiled, and analyzed during the current year. Results of the analysis are discussed in the section

titled ‘Trends and Improvements’.

1. ICTS (Illinois Certification Testing System) is a standardized set of tests that each student takes throughout their preparation

program.

a. Administration: The first test, Test of Academic Proficiency, is taken during the Freshmen year. Each of the four

subareas of the test must be passed (240 points) in order to be admitted to the School of Education. Starting in July of

2012, the ISBE began accepting the ACT Plus Writing exam if the score was 22 or higher. We now recommend that

students take the ACT Plus Writing instead of the TAP. In fact, at this point, there are very, very few people still taking

the TAP.

b. The second test, Content Area Exam, is taken at the end of the Junior year. The test must be passed in order to be

admitted to Student teaching.

c. The third assessment is the edTPA (education Teacher Performance Assessment). This performance assessment is

completed individually by each student and uploaded to a site for review. Pearson is the outside scorer. The Illinois

State Board of Education requires a score of 35 for a student to pass. Meeting this score is consequential for licensure

in the state of Illinois. The test must be passed in order to be certified in the state of Illinois. The assessment includes

student narrative on the context for learning, planning, instruction, and assessment as well as lesson plans, assessment

measures, and video clips of the candidate providing instruction.

d. Data from the tests is compiled in Banner by the Licensure Officer. Each student has a School of Education record set.

The test results are recorded in to Banner to create the student record as the student moves toward certification.

e. The results of the test scores are analyzed after each administration as well as yearly by the individual School of

Education programs. Scores are analyzed after each administration to see if the student will progress forward. The

scores are analyzed yearly by the programs to address any changes needed in course curriculum.

2. Grade Point Averages are collected for each student every semester. This is a compilation of grades that they receive in

completed coursework.

a. Administration of the gpa runs through the Banner system and is compiled by the registrar’s office at the end of each

semester.

3

b. The student record is set up so that the gpa data is aggregated cumulatively and then disaggregated by content program

and professional education courses.

c. We analyze the gpa data in three ways. We look at the cumulative gpa (2.7 minimum) to make certain that the student

is progressing satisfactorily for overall completion of the licensure program. We look at the gpa in the students’ content

area to see if they are making satisfactory progress in their content knowledge. If they are not maintaining a high

enough gpa in their content (2.7), they may not be mastering their desired content knowledge field of teaching. We also

analyze the professional education gpa. If the student is doing well in their content area classes but are not performing

satisfactorily in the education courses, then the student may not have the dispositions to become a teacher.

3. Embedded Signature Assessments are summative and authentic professional education assessments occurring in professional

education courses from Education 120 up through Education 488.

a. Administration of the ESAs occur by the professor, throughout the sequence of professional education courses. Each

assessment is given as an assignment in the course. The nature of the assignment correlates with the Illinois

Professional Teaching Standards in order to measure the extent of the student’s knowledge, skills, and understanding of

the IPTS as well as scaffolds the knowledge and skills needed to complete the edTPA.

b. When the ESA is complete, it is put in to the LiveText data base management system by the student. The ESA is

graded by the professor using a rubric that is in LiveText. The assessment is also evaluated by the student using a self-

reflection process within LiveText. The student self-reflects on their demonstration of the four learning goals of the

School of Education. Once the professor submits the graded rubric in Livetext, the data for that particular ESA is

compiled in the School of Education LiveText database. The LiveText data base holds every graded rubric for every

ESA on every teacher education candidate.

c. Analysis of the ESA data is ongoing. We analyze individual student data to see if they are making satisfactory progress

toward licensure. Each group of faculty that teach and administer an ESA in the professional education courses meet

during the summer to revise the assignments and the grading rubric according to the changing objectives and course

goals. We have revised a number of ESAs in the past year because of our aligning of curriculum and instruction to the

IPTS and the new exam edTPA. This alignment necessitated a revision of assessments as well.

4

4. Program Assessments 1-6 are summative and authentic content area assessments occurring in the major content area courses.

a. Administration of the program assessments occurs by the professor, throughout the sequence of major content courses.

Each assessment is given as an assignment in the course. The nature of the assignment correlates with the National

Specialized Professional Association (SPA) Standards in order to measure the extent of the student’s knowledge, skills,

and understanding of the National SPA standards.

b. When the Program Assessment is complete, it is put in to the LiveText data base management system by the student.

The PA is graded by the professor using a rubric that is in LiveText. The assessment is also evaluated by the student

using a self-reflection process within LiveText. The student self-reflects on their demonstration of the four learning

goals of the School of Education. Once the professor submits the graded rubric in Livetext, the data for that particular

PA is compiled in the School of Education LiveText database. The LiveText data base holds every graded rubric for

every PA on every teacher education candidate.

c. Analysis of the PA data is ongoing. We analyze individual student data to see if they are making satisfactory progress

toward final certification. Each group of faculty that teach and administer a PA in the major content courses meet

during the summer to revise the assignments and the grading rubric according to the changing objectives and course

goals.

5. Evaluation of Professional Dispositions: the evaluation includes the development and demonstration of professional,

interpersonal and affective dispositions. This assessment was designed by the School of Education to measure professional

qualities required of teachers that are separate from content knowledge and skills. They are aligned to the State of Illinois Code

of Ethics.

a. Administration of the Disposition Assessment occurs throughout the program. The dispositions are now a part of the

official internship evaluation form, which every classroom teacher uses for every internship and for student teaching

evaluation. Students are instructed in the dispositions and how to self-evaluate during the ED 170 internship process.

During the administration of the disposition assessment, along with the rest of the internship evaluation process,

students engage in a self-evaluation of their dispositions using the assessment form and dialoguing with faculty and

field placement classroom teachers. This serves as a formative evaluation of dispositions throughout the program.

Faculty also give written feedback on the assessment form. If there are disposition deficiencies displayed by any

education student in any education or major content area course or at any time during a field placement experience, the

professor completes an electronic Academic Alert through MUOnline, clicking the ‘other’ button and writing an

5

explanation of the disposition deficiency. The Director of the School of Education receives all academic alerts given to

all education students.

b. Data can now be efficiently and formally collected. The Disposition Essay is a formally collected, documented and

analyzed part of the Disposition assessment system. The Disposition Essay has now been moved to ED 488 and is a

reflective and self-evaluative piece that allows the teacher candidate to explore their own dispositions and the areas

they may identify for growth as they transition in to their professional lives. Now that the dispositions are a formal part

of the internship evaluation form, they are administered online to the classroom teacher in the field. The classroom

teacher, together with the professor or university supervisor, completes the internship evaluation form, which includes

the disposition criteria. The form is submitted in to Livetext where the data can be collated and a report can be run for

viewing and analysis.

c. Analysis of the disposition assessment occurs within our Unit Assessment System. Dispositions are reviewed and

evaluated during the Application to the School of Education process. Any deficiency forms that may be submitted for a

student are filed in the students’ paper file in the School of Education office. If two deficiency forms are filed on the

same person, then the Director of the School of Education meets with the candidate to formulate a remediation plan.

Now that we can collect disposition measures from each of the internship evaluation forms, we can access the data

electronically and view the results. We have integrated the assessment of dispositions more thoroughly into the field

experiences, pre-student teaching internships and student teaching. We are asking cooperating teachers to evaluate

dispositions within the context of what is expected in the various internships. The disposition deficiency forms and

system has changed slightly. Professors submit an academic deficiency through MU-Online, the Director of the School

of Education now receives all academic deficiencies on every Education major. The changes we have made are a result

of NCATE(now CAEP) consultation and national trends.

6. Student Teaching Evaluation is the rubric that is used by the University supervisor, the Cooperating teacher and the student

teacher. This evaluation measures a candidate’s effectiveness in the classroom, their knowledge, skills, and dispositions, as

well as demonstration of all IPTS and National SPA standards. The student teaching evaluation form has been revised to align

to the IPTS.

a. The Student teaching evaluation is administered once at midterm and once at the end of the student teaching semester.

The University supervisor, cooperating teacher and student teacher each complete an evaluation form independently.

There is a conference at midterm and at final discussing the contents of the evaluation forms. The final narrative report

is compiled collaboratively between the University supervisor and the Cooperating teacher and is shared with the

6

student teacher. We have now put all of these evaluation forms online. The form is distributed as a website link in an e-

mail. The Cooperating Teacher and the University Supervisor evaluate the Student teacher using an evaluation form;

submit it online and the results go in to the Livetext database. A report of results can now be run for examination and

analysis.

b. Data collection consists of the student teacher evaluation forms being collected electronically in to the Livetext

database. The grade is entered in to the student’s Banner record set. The results are now more easily tabulated and

analyzed. Beginning in August, 2015, we will implement the new Livetext Field Experience Module (FEM) which will

allow all field internship data to be directly collected in to Livetext and downloaded in to Banner. We received training

in August, 2013, but personnel was unavailable to implement the system.

c. Analysis of the student teaching data is ongoing. We revised the evaluation tool and added addendums to the evaluation

form for each content area, to better measure national content standards. As a Unit, we have analyzed the data from the

student teaching evaluation forms to determine what areas of student teaching our candidates are doing well on and

what areas they are struggling with. We analyze this data in our yearly department retreat as well as with our

Community Advisory Committee.

2014-2015: Data Trends, Improvement Plans, and Plans for Changes and Revisions

ESA: Child Case Study

A case study, according to Robert Stake (2000) “is not a methodological choice but a choice of what is to be studied.” In ED 200, ED

201, and ED 232, Millikin University asks students to conduct a case study of a child. Because the topic of these courses is

child/human development, your case study will involve observing and finding answers to questions about the development of your

“participant” -- the child you select as your “focus child.” Your case study will articulate what you have found out about the child and

his or her life -- his or her overall development, history, experiences, and the meaning he or she makes of them. A thoughtfully

constructed case study will not only help you to notice and accurately describe the child’s physical, social, emotional, cognitive, moral

and aesthetic development; it will also help you become sensitive to the interactions of all aspects of development and experiences in

the child’s life. Your report should demonstrate awareness of what makes any given aspect of the child’s development “typical” or

“atypical.”

7

The knowledge gained through experiences you have while conducting the case study can, however, be generalized. That is, what you

learn about doing research -- being an observer, conducting informal interviews with adults and children, collecting written data about

programs and communities -- can be applied not only to future school projects, but also to your future work with children and families.

Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzen & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 435-454).

Thousand Oaks, CA:

ESA: Effective Teaching Cycle

This ESA is embedded in junior level courses for all Education majors in ED336 (ECE), ED312 (ELED), ED321 (secondary and K-

12), and ME341 (Music Education). This ESA presents the opportunity to begin taking what they understand about contextual

information and applying it --Planning, Instruction, and Assessment (PIA) -- with one short video clip.

Much of the language is pulled from the edTPA handbook. The learning segment (topic) follows from start to finish – planning,

instruction, and assessment. As a group, we must determine how we will introduce the academic language determined by the edTPA.

Candidates turn in their context commentary, their lesson plan, any instructional and assessment materials they use, one video clip,

and their instruction commentary. To assess student learning, candidates will choose three students from the class and submit their

work samples, any criteria or rubrics the candidates use, and their commentary for the assessment. The term “learning segment” is

used throughout the edTPA; we might call it a topic. From the planning, through the instruction and the assessment, is considered the

learning segment.

By this course, each candidate will have possession of the edTPA handbook for their major. That will be a reference guide for the

instructors and the candidates as they prepare for the edTPA. We must discuss “academic language” and how we introduce and

develop it in each specific program (functions, forms and fluency) according to Pearson and Stanford. The functions are the tasks.

The forms are the words within the methods (compare, contrast, analyze, etc.). Fluency is the ability to use the functions and forms in

the correct context in their language/writing. It includes the academic language of the disciplines, as well as the educational academic

language.

This ESA includes understanding context, planning and instructing a lesson, using the video commentary, writing commentary based

on what they see in their instruction. The edTPA consists of the 10-15 minute clip and what candidates say about it in their

instructional commentary. The edTPA may require a second clip that highlights their ability to use academic language in the

classroom, as well as their commentary on that clip. The maximum number of minutes allowed is 15 minutes per video and no more

than two videos.

8

The lesson plan template is approved by the SOE but adjusted for specific courses. We have added accommodation and differentiation

to the template. Each prompt has a specific number of pages that are allowed; no more pages will be accepted by Pearson. Fifteen

rubrics exist for the edTPA: five for planning, five for instruction, and five for assessment. Each one focuses on one subject. If we

were to take the five planning rubrics from each of the three areas, we could condense them into one page for a total of three rubrics.

Candidates are not allowed to submit planning and commentary to our professors for editing. They could do that in the pre-student

teaching semester, in ED 420, but not during the student teaching semester in ED488. The courses ED 420currently take the

candidates to the point of lesson planning for the TWS, but they will now traverse the entire process of the edTPA in those two

classes. ED 420 will continue to evolve as we build the edTPA into our program.

Clinical Internship Evaluation Tool

The final student teaching evaluation reflects students’ skills and knowledge in preparation for their work as professional early

childhood educators. It is the summative assessment that is completed at the end of student teaching in the final semester of their

program of study. This assessment is the same tool that is used to assess students in all four clinical experiences (freshman through

senior year).

Ongoing CTEP work for the 2016-2017 Academic Year:

1. Embedded Signature Assessments ‘Philosophy of Teaching and Learning’, ‘Classroom Management and Guidance/Discipline

Plan’, and ‘Introduction to Special Education’ are due for revision.

2. edTPA focus is on the Illinois increased passing score.

3. Determine remediation plans for students needing remediation prior to the start date for the edTPA for licensure.

Assessment in the Major for Elementary Education and Early Childhood

9

Preliminary trends that can be identified as a result of viewing data from selected assessments:

1. ESA: Child Case Study

Not Proficient

(1 pt) Marginal (2 pts) Proficient (3 pts) Commendable (4 pts)

Contexts of Development

and Learning (1.000, 8%)

IL-PTS-2012.1.A IL-PTS-

2012.1.E IL-PTS-2012.2.E

IL-PTS-2012.3.G IL-PTS-

2012.4.B IL-PTS-2012.7.M

IL-PTS-2012.7.P IL-PTS-

2012.8.A IL-PTS-2012.8.J

Candidate does

not use thick

description and

child’s life world

is not adequately

presented.

Candidate uses thick

description

sometimes, and 2-3

aspects of child’s life

world are not

adequately presented.

Candidate makes

good use of thick

description based on

collected data to

describe all aspects

of child’s life world.

Candidate makes exceptionally

good use of thick description

based on collected data to create a

thorough picture of the child’s life

world, including community,

school/program, and family.

10

Not Proficient


Views on Development and

Learning (1.000, 8%)


2012.2.B IL-PTS-2012.2.H

IL-PTS-2012.3.C IL-PTS-

2012.6.C IL-PTS-2012.7.A

IL-PTS-2012.7.B IL-PTS-

2012.7.D IL-PTS-2012.7.F

IL-PTS-2012.7.M IL-PTS-

2012.9.A

Candidate’s

expressed ideas

about

participants’

development &

learning lack

insight and/or are

erroneous and/or

are inadequately

presented.

Candidate’s

expressed ideas

about participant’s

development &

learning show some

insight, are partially

supported by data

collected, and are not

presented

thoroughly.

Candidate’s

expressed ideas

about participant’s

development and

learning show good

insight, are

reasonable in light

of the data collected,

and are for the most

part presented

thoroughly.

Candidate’s expressed ideas about

child’s development and learning

show exceptional insight, are

highly plausible in light of the

data, collected, and are presented

with exceptional thoroughness.

11

Not Proficient


Theories of Child

Development (1.000, 8%)


2012.2.B IL-PTS-2012.2.J

IL-PTS-2012.6.C

Candidate omits

more than one

theory of

development

and/or

misunderstands

two or more

theories and/or

makes very

superficial

connections to

the case.

Candidate omits a

theory of

development and/or

makes some

superficial

connections to

theories and/or seems

to misunderstand

elements of one

theory.

Candidate applies 4

theories

development to

discussion of

participant’s

development and

appears to have at

least an elementary

understanding of

each theory and its

connection to the

case.

Candidate very effectively applies

at least 4 theories of development

to discussion of participant’s

development, as outlined in

instructions, showing exceptional

grasp of the theories and their

connection to the case.

12

Not Proficient


Application (1.000, 8%)


2012.1.B IL-PTS-2012.2.A


2012.3.A IL-PTS-2012.4.D

Candidate’s

report contains 4

or more

unfounded or

unsupported

assumptions or

assertions about

focus child’s life

world,

experience, and

development.

Speculation about

future trajectory

is missing,

superficial, or not

congruent with

observations.

Candidate’s report

contains 2-3

unfounded or

unsupported

assumptions or

assertions about

focus child’s

development,

strengths, challenges,

and life world.

Speculation about

future trajectory is

superficial and/or

only partially

grounded in

observation

Candidate’s report

includes detailed

support for almost

all assumptions and

assertions about

focus child’s

development,

strengths,

challenges, and life

world. Speculation

about future

trajectory is

grounded in

observation and

theory.

Candidate’s report includes

exceptionally detailed support for

all assumptions and assertions

about focus child’s development

(e.g., typicality/atypicality),

strengths, challenges, life world.

Speculation about future trajectory

is exceptionally well-grounded in

observation and theory.

13

Not Proficient


Data Collection and Analysis

(1.000, 8%)

IL-PTS-2012.2.F IL-PTS-

2012.3.F IL-PTS-2012.3.G


2012.7.B IL-PTS-2012.7.D


2012.7.M IL-PTS-2012.7.P

Candidate has not

used or does not

appear to

understand

methods of child

observation,

informal

evaluation,

interviewing

AND has 4+

problems or

errors in coding

and reporting

data.

Candidate shows

some knowledge of

child observation,

informal evaluation,

and interviewing (2-3

errors or problems

noted) AND has 2-3

problems in coding

and/or reporting of

data.

Candidate shows

good knowledge of

1) child observation,

2) informal

evaluation, 3)

interviewing to

obtain data for the

case study AND that

candidate has

applied knowledge

of ways to code and

report data.

Candidate has done an exceptional

job of applying knowledge of 1)

child observation, 2) informal

evaluation, 3) interviewing to

obtain data for the case study

AND that candidate applies

exceptional knowledge of ways to

code and report data.

14

Not Proficient


Awareness of Children's

Cognitive Processes (1.000,

8%)

IL-PTS-2012.1.E IL-PTS-

2012.1.H IL-PTS-2012.2.G


2012.3.H IL-PTS-2012.3.P

IL-PTS-2012.4.I IL-PTS-

2012.5.A IL-PTS-2012.5.F


2012.7.M

Candidate has not

completed 4

teaching/learning

situations with

child, and/or does

not adequately

describe

interactions with

child, and/or does

not situate

findings within

discussion of

overall

development.

Candidate has

completed 4

teaching/learning

situations but has not

interacted effectively

during the situations

with child/ and/or

does not adequately

situate findings

within discussion of

overall development.

Candidate has

interacted in a

respectful manner

with child in 4-6

teaching/learning

situations, explains

those interactions

competently, and

situates findings in

context of overall

development.

Candidate has interacted with

participant in exemplary manner

during 6 teaching/learning

situations; describes AND

explains interactions with child

during the situations exceptionally

well, AND situates findings

within discussion of child’s

overall development.

15

Not Proficient


Professional, Family, &

Personal Perspectives (1.000,

8%)

IL-PTS-2012.3.P IL-PTS-

2012.8.B IL-PTS-2012.8.D

IL-PTS-2012.8.J IL-PTS-

2012.8.P IL-PTS-2012.8.Q

Candidate omits

perspectives of

one or more

individual OR

gives overall

superficial

treatment to

perspectives on

the child’s

development and

learning.

Candidate gives

superficial treatment

to one perspective on

development and

learning and/or lacks

objectivity.

Candidate includes

all perspectives

(candidate’s,

teacher/caregiver’s,

parent/guardian’s,

child’s) on the

child’s development

and learning; the

portrait of the child

is relatively

thorough and

objective for the

most part.

Candidate does an exceptional job

of incorporating a full range of

perspectives (candidate’s,

teacher/caregiver’s,

parent/guardian’s, child’s) on the

child’s development and learning,

creating a well-rounded, objective

portrait for the reader.

16

Not Proficient


Application of

Age/Developmental Level

(1.000, 8%)

IL-PTS-2012.1.H IL-PTS-

2012.2.D IL-PTS-2012.2.E

IL-PTS-2012.3.H IL-PTS-

2012.3.P IL-PTS-2012.8.J

Candidate’s data

collection

methods were not

appropriate to the

participants’

age/development

al level. Child is

not fully

portrayed as an

individual

developing in all

domains.

Some of candidate’s

data collection

methods were

appropriate. Child’s

development is

described in general

terms; s/he does not

emerge as an

individual in all

domains of

development.

Candidate has 1)

observed focus child

in appropriate

settings, including

teaching/learning

situations, 2) asked

questions to gain

information, 3)

adequately

portrayed child as

an individual

developing in all

domains.

Candidate has done an exceptional

job of 1) observing focus child in

appropriate settings, including

teaching/learning situations, 2)

asking insightful questions to gain

information, 3) thoroughly

portraying child as an individual

developing in all domains.

Professional Reflection

(1.000, 8%)

IL-PTS-2012.9.K

Candidate does

not address

assigned

reflection

questions OR

most/all

responses are

superficial.

Candidate does not

adequately address

all reflection

questions assigned

for this component of

the case study and/or

2-3 responses are

superficial.

Candidate addresses

all reflection

questions assigned

for this component

of the case study,

but 1-2 are not

answered

thoroughly.

Candidate thoroughly addresses

all reflection questions assigned

for this component of the case

study.

17

Not Proficient


Reflection on Standards &

Themes (1.000, 8%) Reflections are

incomplete and

superficial,

overall.

Candidate’s

reflections address at

least 2 to 3

organizing themes, 1

or no Key Elements

of the NAEYC

Standards for Early

Childhood Teacher

Preparation Programs

and 1 or no Illinois

Professional

Teaching Standards

and/or reflections are

not adequately

connected to case

study experience.

Candidate’s

reflections address

at least 3 to 4

organizing themes,

1 or 2 Key Elements

of the NAEYC

Standards for Early

Childhood Teacher

Preparation

Programs and 1 to 2

Illinois Professional

Teaching Standards

and/or 1 to 2

reflections are

superficial or not

adequately

connected to

examples from case

study experience.

Candidate’s reflections address

the 4 organizing themes, 2 Key

Elements of the NAEYC

Standards for Early Childhood

Teacher Preparation Programs and

2 Illinois Professional Teaching

Standards; Candidate uses specific

well-chosen examples from case

study experience to effectively

illustrate main points.

18

Not Proficient


Professional Level of

Communication (1.000, 8%)


2012.9.I IL-PTS-2012.9.J IL-

PTS-2012.9.T

Candidate’s

writing contains

numerous errors

in syntax,

grammar, word

usage,

punctuation and

spelling which

makes it appear

unprofessional.

Candidate’s writing

contains several

errors in syntax,

grammar, word

usage, punctuation

and spelling which

interfere with

meaning.

Candidate’s writing

contains some errors

in syntax, grammar,

word usage,

punctuation and

spelling.

Candidate’s writing reflects

highest standards for professional

communication and has few to no

errors in syntax, grammar, word

usage, punctuation and spelling.

Format (1.000, 8%) Paper does not

follow most

formatting

instructions (4 or

more errors).

Paper follows some

formatting

instructions (2-3

errors).

Paper follows most

formatting

instructions (1

error).

Paper follows all formatting

instructions described on the

assignment sheet

Students complete the Child Case Study during fall semester of their sophomore year. The Child Case Study is part of the course

ED232-Early Childhood Development and ED200 Human Development for K-6. As students complete the case study, they apply

theory and aspects of development to their observations of a specific child. The goal is for students to understand how developmental

theory informs a child’s development and the influences of development from Bronfrenbrenner’s Ecological Model. The areas they

address in the case study are the major domains of development (physical & health, cognitive, language, social & relationships,

emotional, moral, and aesthetic). Important work in the Case Study is the analysis of the context for learning. Students determine

factors that impact learning for the child and use these factors in the analysis and application of learning theory and development.

The Child Case Study assessment data can be reviewed in the table below. Candidate scores/results including the number of

candidates who took the assessment, the range, and mean of the scores and pass rate are provided.

19

Rubric: Child Case Study - Secondary/K12

Failed

Course

(0 pts)

Changed

Major

(0 pts)

Withdrew

(0 pts)

Not

Proficient

(1 pts)

Marginal

(2 pts)

Proficient

(3 pts)

Commendable

(4 pts) Mean Mode Stdev

Context of Development and

Learning 0 1 7 0 4 1 25 2.921 4.000 1.628


Learning 0 1 7 0 8 12 10 2.421 3.000 1.426

Theories of Child Development 0 1 7 12 6 5 7 1.763 1.000 1.404

Synthesis 0 1 7 1 6 15 8 2.368 3.000 1.403

Applications of Prior

(Professional) Knowledge in

Teaching Diverse Students

0 1 7 1 3 12 14 2.605 4.000 1.514

Awareness of Children's Cognitive

Processes 0 1 7 0 1 7 22 2.921 4.000 1.579

Professional, Family, and Personal

Perspectives 0 1 7 0 3 14 13 2.632 3.000 1.477

Application of Age /

Developmental Level 0 1 7 0 1 6 23 2.947 4.000 1.589

Professional Reflection 0 1 7 0 2 9 19 2.816 4.000 1.554

Reflection on Standards & Themes 0 1 7 10 2 5 13 2.132 4.000 1.609


Communication 0 1 7 1 1 15 13 2.632 3.000 1.494

Format 0 1 7 0 0 9 21 2.921 4.000 1.562

Context of Development and Learning

IL-PTS-2012-7.M, IL-PTS-2012-7.P, IL-PTS-2012-8.A, IL-

PTS-2012-8.D 1 (2%)

7 (18%) 4 (10%) 1 (2%)

25 (65%)

Views on Development and Learning

IL-PTS-2012-1.C, IL-PTS-2012-2.E, IL-PTS-2012-2.G, IL-

PTS-2012-3.C, IL-PTS-2012-6.C, IL-PTS-2012-7.M 1 (2%)

7 (18%) 8 (21%) 12 (31%) 10 (26%)

20

Theories of Child Development

IL-PTS-2012-2.A, IL-PTS-2012-2.B, IL-PTS-2012-2.J 1 (2%) 7 (18%) 12 (31%) 6 (15%) 5 (13%) 7 (18%)

Synthesis

IL-PTS-2012-3.H 1 (2%) 7 (18%)

1 (2%) 6 (15%) 15 (39%) 8 (21%)

Applications of Prior (Professional)

Knowledge in Teaching Diverse

Students

IL-PTS-2012-1.B, IL-PTS-2012-1.H, IL-PTS-2012-1.I, IL-PTS-

2012-1.L, IL-PTS-2012-3.G, IL-PTS-2012-3.H, IL-PTS-2012-

3.J, IL-PTS-2012-3.K, IL-PTS-2012-3.M, IL-PTS-2012-4.D, IL-

PTS-2012-4.M, IL-PTS-2012-5.P, IL-PTS-2012-7.B, IL-PTS-

2012-7.E, IL-PTS-2012-7.G, IL-PTS-2012-7.J, IL-PTS-2012-

7.M, IL-PTS-2012-7.P

1 (2%) 7 (18%)

1 (2%) 3 (7%) 12 (31%) 14 (36%)


Processes

IL-PTS-2012-1.H, IL-PTS-2012-2.C, IL-PTS-2012-3.H, IL-

PTS-2012-4.I, IL-PTS-2012-5.A, IL-PTS-2012-5.F, IL-PTS-2012-5.G, IL-PTS-2012-5.H, IL-PTS-2012-5.J, IL-PTS-2012-

5.K, IL-PTS-2012-5.L, IL-PTS-2012-7.M

1 (2%) 7 (18%)

1 (2%) 7 (18%) 22 (57%)

Professional, Family, and Personal

Perspectives

IL-PTS-2012-8.P, IL-PTS-2012-8.Q 1 (2%)

7 (18%) 3 (7%)

14 (36%) 13 (34%)

Application of Age / Developmental

Level

IL-PTS-2012-1.H, IL-PTS-2012-3.H 1 (2%)

7 (18%) 1 (2%)

6 (15%) 23 (60%)


IL-PTS-2012-9.I, IL-PTS-2012-9.K 1 (2%) 7 (18%)

2 (5%) 9 (23%) 19 (50%)

Reflection on Standards & Themes

IL-PTS-2012-9.K 1 (2%) 7 (18%) 10 (26%)

2 (5%) 5 (13%) 13 (34%)

Professional Level of Communication

IL-PTS-2012-6.E, IL-PTS-2012-9.I, IL-PTS-2012-9.J, IL-PTS-

2012-9.T 1 (2%)

7 (18%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%)

15 (39%) 13 (34%)

21

Format

IL-PTS-2012-2.D 1 (2%) 7 (18%) 9 (23%) 21 (55%)

Failed

Course Changed

Major Withdrew

Not

Proficient Marginal Proficient Commendable

Inter-Rater Summary

Page, Georgette Mean Stdev

Context of Development and Learning 2.921 2.921 0.000

Views on Development and Learning 2.421 2.421 0.000

Theories of Child Development 1.763 1.763 0.000

Synthesis 2.368 2.368 0.000

Applications of Prior (Professional) Knowledge in Teaching Diverse Students 2.605 2.605 0.000

Awareness of Children's Cognitive Processes 2.921 2.921 0.000

Professional, Family, and Personal Perspectives 2.632 2.632 0.000

Application of Age / Developmental Level 2.947 2.947 0.000

Professional Reflection 2.816 2.816 0.000

Reflection on Standards & Themes 2.132 2.132 0.000

Professional Level of Communication 2.632 2.632 0.000

Format 2.921 2.921 0.000

Rubric: Official ECE Assessment

Failed

Course

(0 pts)

Changed

Major

(0 pts)

Withdrew

(0 pts)

Not

Proficient

(1 pts)

Marginal

(2 pts)

Proficient

(3 pts)

Commendable


22

Contexts of Development and

Learning 0 0 1 0 0 3 11 3.533 4.000 1.024


Learning 0 0 1 0 0 4 10 3.467 4.000 1.024

Theories of Child Development 0 0 1 1 2 3 8 3.067 4.000 1.236

Application 0 0 1 0 1 4 9 3.333 4.000 1.075

Data Collection and Analysis 0 0 1 0 2 2 10 3.333 4.000 1.135

Awareness of Children's

Cognitive Processes 0 0 1 0 0 5 9 3.400 4.000 1.020

Professional, Family, &

Personal Perspectives 0 0 1 0 0 5 9 3.400 4.000 1.020

Application of

Age/Developmental Level 0 0 1 0 0 3 11 3.533 4.000 1.024

Professional Reflection 0 0 1 0 0 4 10 3.467 4.000 1.024

Reflection on Standards &

Themes 0 0 1 1 1 3 9 3.200 4.000 1.222


Communication 0 0 1 3 0 8 3 2.600 3.000 1.200

Format 0 0 1 0 1 0 13 3.600 4.000 1.083

Contexts of Development and Learning

IL-PTS-2012-1.A, IL-PTS-2012-1.E, IL-PTS-2012-2.E, IL-PTS-

2012-3.G, IL-PTS-2012-4.B, IL-PTS-2012-7.M, IL-PTS-2012-

7.P, IL-PTS-2012-8.A, IL-PTS-2012-8.J

1 (6%) 3 (20%) 11 (73%)

Views on Development and Learning

IL-PTS-2012-2.A, IL-PTS-2012-2.B, IL-PTS-2012-2.H, IL-

PTS-2012-3.C, IL-PTS-2012-6.C, IL-PTS-2012-7.A, IL-PTS-

2012-7.B, IL-PTS-2012-7.D, IL-PTS-2012-7.F, IL-PTS-2012-

7.M, IL-PTS-2012-9.A

1 (6%) 4 (26%) 10 (66%)

Theories of Child Development

IL-PTS-2012-2.A, IL-PTS-2012-2.B, IL-PTS-2012-2.J, IL-PTS-

2012-6.C 1 (6%) 1 (6%)

2 (13%) 3 (20%) 8 (53%)

Application

IL-PTS-2012-1.A, IL-PTS-2012-1.B, IL-PTS-2012-2.A, IL-PTS-

2012-2.C, IL-PTS-2012-3.A, IL-PTS-2012-4.D 1 (6%) 1 (6%)

4 (26%) 9 (60%)

23

Data Collection and Analysis

IL-PTS-2012-2.F, IL-PTS-2012-3.F, IL-PTS-2012-3.G, IL-

PTS-2012-7.A, IL-PTS-2012-7.B, IL-PTS-2012-7.D, IL-PTS-

2012-7.F, IL-PTS-2012-7.M, IL-PTS-2012-7.P

1 (6%) 2 (13%) 2 (13%) 10 (66%)


Processes

IL-PTS-2012-1.E, IL-PTS-2012-1.H, IL-PTS-2012-2.G, IL-

PTS-2012-3.C, IL-PTS-2012-3.H, IL-PTS-2012-3.P, IL-PTS-

2012-4.I, IL-PTS-2012-5.A, IL-PTS-2012-5.F, IL-PTS-2012-6.F, IL-PTS-2012-7.M

1 (6%) 5 (33%) 9 (60%)

Professional, Family, & Personal

Perspectives

IL-PTS-2012-3.P, IL-PTS-2012-8.B, IL-PTS-2012-8.D, IL-

PTS-2012-8.J, IL-PTS-2012-8.P, IL-PTS-2012-8.Q

1 (6%) 5 (33%) 9 (60%)

Application of Age/Developmental

Level

IL-PTS-2012-1.H, IL-PTS-2012-2.D, IL-PTS-2012-2.E, IL-

PTS-2012-3.H, IL-PTS-2012-3.P, IL-PTS-2012-8.J

1 (6%) 3 (20%) 11 (73%)


IL-PTS-2012-9.K 1 (6%) 4 (26%) 10 (66%)

Reflection on Standards & Themes

1 (6%) 1 (6%) 1 (6%) 3 (20%) 9 (60%)

Professional Level of Communication

IL-PTS-2012-6.F, IL-PTS-2012-9.I, IL-PTS-2012-9.J, IL-PTS-

2012-9.T 1 (6%)

3 (20%) 8 (53%) 3 (20%)

Format

1 (6%) 1 (6%) 13 (86%)

Failed

Course Changed

Major Withdrew

Not

Proficient Marginal Proficient Commendable

24

Inter-Rater Summary

Page, Georgette Mean Stdev

Contexts of Development and Learning 3.533 3.533 0.000

Views on Development and Learning 3.467 3.467 0.000

Theories of Child Development 3.067 3.067 0.000

Application 3.333 3.333 0.000

Data Collection and Analysis 3.333 3.333 0.000

Awareness of Children's Cognitive Processes 3.400 3.400 0.000

Professional, Family, & Personal Perspectives 3.400 3.400 0.000

Application of Age/Developmental Level 3.533 3.533 0.000

Professional Reflection 3.467 3.467 0.000

Reflection on Standards & Themes 3.200 3.200 0.000

Professional Level of Communication 2.600 2.600 0.000

Format 3.600 3.600 0.000

The data show that one particular area was a challenge for students in this academic year. Professional Level of Communication has a

sudden dip in average score. Students complete this case study as sophomores and this course is completed by all education majors.

The case study is a long document (typically 30 pages). Many students score low in this area of the rubric due to their lack of editing

and writing skills. Writing skills continue to be an area of concern for a number of students.

25

Effective Teaching Cycle

ESA: Effective Teaching Cycle, Rubric

Context for Learning Rubric

Failed

Course

(0 pt)

Changed

Major

(0 pt)

Withdrew

(0 pt)

Not Proficient

(1 pt)

Marginal

(2 pts)

Evolving/Proficient

(3 pts)

Commendable

(4 pts)

Description of

Placement

(1.000, 25%)

IL-PTS-

2012.8.A IL-

PTS-2012.8.J

Incomplete; Insufficient

Did not address

all four topics Addressed all four

topics with general

information

Addressed all four

topics with

sufficient

information

26

Failed

Course

(0 pt)

Changed

Major

(0 pt)

Withdrew

(0 pt) Not Proficient

(1 pt) Marginal

(2 pts) Evolving/Proficient

(3 pts) Commendable

(4 pts)

Special Features

of School/

Classroom

(1.000, 25%)

IL-PTS-

2012.8.M IL-

PTS-2012.9.A


Attempt to list

or describe the

special features

of the

classroom and

distinct teacher

expectations

shows a level

of non-

understanding

Listed only general

features of classroom

that affects teacher

decisions

Listed special and

specific features

of classroom that

affects teacher

decisions (ex:

themed magnet,

charter, co-

teaching, PBL)

27

Failed

Course

(0 pt)

Changed

Major

(0 pt)

Withdrew


(1 pt) Marginal


(3 pts) Commendable

(4 pts)

Instructional

Resources

(1.000, 25%)

IL-PTS-

2012.8.M IL-

PTS-2012.9.A


Attempt to list

or describe

instructional

resources and

time in class is

not clear nor

inclusive

Listed some

resources used in the

classroom for

instruction of this

subject or general

daily instruction and

showed

understanding of

time avaialable for

instruction

Identified

resources used for

instruction in the

classroom

including textbook

or instructional

program publisher

information as

well as other

instructional

resources and was

clear on time

available for

instruction of this

topic/subject

28

Failed

Course

(0 pt)

Changed

Major

(0 pt)

Withdrew


(1 pt) Marginal


(3 pts) Commendable

(4 pts)

Demographic

Information

(1.000, 25%)

IL-PTS-

2012.8.A IL-

PTS-2012.8.J


Did not address

all four topics Addressed all four

topics with general

information

Addressed all four

topics with

sufficient

information

29

Planning Rubric

Failed

Course

(0 pt)

Changed

Major

(0 pt)

Withdrew


(1 pt) Marginal


(3 pts) Commendable

(4 pts)

Lesson Plan

Completion

(1.000, 16%)

Lesson plan

lacking much

needed

information

Some elements

of the lesson

plans are

incomplete;

lack of

academic or

content specific

language

All elements of the

lesson plan for each

lesson are complete;

use of academic and

content specific

language is

attempted; passable

level of varied

instructional

strategies and

differentiation

included

All elements of

the lesson plan for

each lesson are

complete;

academic and

content-specific

language used;

exceptional effort

to plan varied and

differentiated

teaching strategies

described

30

Failed

Course

(0 pt)

Changed

Major

(0 pt)

Withdrew


(1 pt) Marginal


(3 pts) Commendable

(4 pts)

Description of

Learning

Segment's

Purpose and

Standards

(1.000, 16%)

Fails to link

objectives to

standards OR

to justify the

purpose of the

lesson(s)

Connection

between

learning

objectives,

Common

Core/ILS, and

planned

instructional

decisions is

weak or thinly

portrayed

Describes connection

between learning

objectives and

Common Core/ILS

standards; explains

how the planned

instructional

strategies support the

objectives and

standards

Solid connection

to Common

Core/ILS

standards;

describes

connection

between chosen

standards and

written objectives

and the planned

instructional

strategies; webs a

clear connection

between these

elements of

planning

31

Failed

Course

(0 pt)

Changed

Major

(0 pt)

Withdrew


(1 pt) Marginal


(3 pts) Commendable

(4 pts)

Understanding

of Students'

Prior

Knowledge and

Experiences

(1.000, 16%)

Candidate’s

justification of

learning tasks

either is

missing OR

represents a deficit view of

children and

their

backgrounds.

Candidate

justifies

learning tasks with

limited

attention to

students’/childr

en’s prior

learning OR

personal,

cultural,

community assets.

Candidate justifies

why planned learning

tasks are

developmentally

appropriate using examples of

children’s/student’s prior learning OR examples of Personal, cultural, community assets

Candidate justifies

why planned

learning

experiences are developmentally

appropriate for the

age and lesson

topic using examples of

children’s/student’

s prior learning AND examples of Personal, cultural, community assets

32

Failed

Course

(0 pt)

Changed

Major

(0 pt)

Withdrew


(1 pt) Marginal


(3 pts) Commendable

(4 pts)

Use of

Theory/Researc

h to support

Instructional

Decisions

(1.000, 16%)

Candidate

does not make

any qualified

connection to

research

and/or theory

Candidate

makes

superficial connections to

research and/or

developmental theory.

Candidate makes connections to

research and/or developmental theory.

Candidate’s

justification for

planned teaching

is supported by

principles from research and/or developmental

theory.

33

Academic

Language

Function and

Use (1.000,

16%)

Language

demands

identified by

the candidate

are not

consistent with

the selected

language

function task;

OR language

supports are

missing or are

not aligned

with the

language

demand(s) for

the learning

task.

Candidate

identifies

vocabulary as

the major

language

demand

associated with

the language

function;

Attention to

additional

demands is

superficial;

Language

supports

primarily

address

definitions of

vocabulary

Candidate identifies

new vocabulary and

additional language

demand(s) associated

with the language

function; Plans

include general

support for use of

vocabulary as well as

additional language

demand(s)

Candidate

identifies new

vocabulary and

additional

language

demand(s)

associated with

the language

function; Plans

include targeted

support for use of

vocabulary as well

as additional

language

demand(s);

possibly, the

candidate

designed supports

to meet the needs

of

students/children

with different

levels of language

learning

34

Failed

Course

(0 pt)

Changed

Major

(0 pt)

Withdrew


(1 pt) Marginal


(3 pts) Commendable

(4 pts)

Planning for

Assessment

(1.000, 16%)

Assessments

are not aligned

with the

central focus

of the lesson

and/or the

standards for

the lesson(s)

Planned

assessments

provide limited

evidence to

monitor

students’

progress toward

understanding

the

skills/learning

objectives

Planned assessments

provide evidence to

monitor

children’s/students’

progress toward

mastering the

skills/learning

objectives

Planned

assessments

provide multiple

forms of evidence

to monitor

children’s/students

’ progress toward

mastering the

skills/learning

objectives

35

Instruction Rubric

Failed

Course

(0 pt)

Changed

Major

(0 pt)

Withdrew

(0 pt)

Not Proficient

(1 pt)

Marginal

(2 pts)

Evolving/Proficient

(3 pts)

Commendable

(4 pts)

Video

Permission

Obtained for All

Children/Adults

in Video (1.000,

20%)

Video

permission

slips were not

accounted for;

OR students

who did not

have returned

permission

slips are in the

video

NA NA Video permission

slips obtained for

all students

participating in the

video; any

students who were

not permitted in

video are

absolutely not in

the video and their

names are not said

aloud

36

Failed

Course

(0 pt)

Changed

Major

(0 pt)

Withdrew


(1 pt) Marginal


(3 pts) Commendable

(4 pts)

Video Clip

Length and

Clarity (1.000,

20%)

Video length

exceed

maximum time

allowed and is

thereby

disqualified

from

assessment;

OR audio is

not present;

OR video is

unviewable

Video length

does not exceed

maximum time

allowed; viewer

must strain to

see and/or hear

the details of

the instruction

presented in the

video clip;

some

manipulation of

the video

camera and

audio settings

needed to be

made

Video length does

not exceed maximum

time allowed; Video

and audio must be

watched and listened

to carefully to see

and hear the

instruction happening

in the classroom

Video length does

not exceed

maximum time

allowed; Video

viewing is sharp

and audio is clear;

video clip frames

the instruction

happening in the

classroom

37

Instruction

Commentary:

Student

Engagement

(1.000, 20%)

Students/Child

ren are

observed in

learning tasks

that are

developmental

ly

inappropriate;

little or no

evidence that

the candidate

can link

human

development

with new

learning

Students/Childr

en are

participating in

learning tasks

that focus on

skills but lack

development of

the lesson

objectives;

vague support

of active

learning;

candidate

makes vague or

superficial links

between human

development

and new

learning

Children/Students are

engaged in learning

tasks that address

understandings of

lesson topic

concepts, procedures;

some support of

active learning is

present; candidate

links prior academic

learning to new

learning

Children/Students

are engaged in

learning

experiences and

tasks that promote

and develop the

understandings of

the lesson

objectives;

multiple

modalities that

support the active

nature of learning

are used;

Candidate links

children’s

development,

prior academic

learning, and

personal, cultural,

or community

assets to new

learning

38

Failed

Course

(0 pt)

Changed

Major

(0 pt)

Withdrew


(1 pt) Marginal


(3 pts) Commendable

(4 pts)

Instruction

Commentary:

Strategies to

Deepen Student

Understanding

(1.000, 20%)

Candidate

does most of

the talking and

the students

provide few

responses;

commentary

can only

address this

direct teaching

style of

instruction

Through video

clip and

commentary,

candidate

primarily asks

surface-level

questions and

evaluates

student

responses as

correct or

incorrect.

Through the video

and the commentary,

candidate elicits and

then builds on

students’ responses

to develop

understanding of

lesson concepts and

promote their

understanding and

active development

of key lesson

objectives

Through the video

and the

commentary,

candidate

demonstrates

facilitation of

interactions

among

students/children

so they can

evaluate their own

abilities to

actively develop

language,

reasoning, and

procedures related

to the topic

concepts and

lesson objectives

39

Instruction

Commentary:

Support for

Differentiated

Learning (1.000,

20%)

Candidate

suggests

changes

unrelated to

evidence of

student

learning.

Candidates

proposed

changes are

focused

primarily on

improving

directions for

learning tasks

or

task/behavior

management

Candidate

demonstrates

moderate support for

more than one

special learning

need; proposes

changes that address

students’ collective

learning needs

related to the central

focus; candidate

makes superficial

connections to

research and/or

theory to support

improvements to

instruction and

student learning.

Candidate

demonstrates in

video and

describes in

commentary the

learning support

for multiple types

of learners;

proposes changes

that address

individual and

collective learning

needs related to

the central focus;

candidate makes

connections to

research and/or

theory to support

improvements to

instruction to

improve student

learning

Total Points 60 Points

40

Assessment Rubric

Failed

Course

(0 pt)

Changed

Major

(0 pt)

Withdrew

(0 pt)

Not Proficient

(1 pt)

Marginal

(2 pts)

Evolving/Proficient

(3 pts)

Commendable

(4 pts)

Rubric or

Evaluative

Criteria (1.000,

16%)

Not provided

OR not

aligned to the

standards and

learning

objectives of

the planned

lesson(s)

Rubric or

evaluative

criteria is brief

and lacks

description for

full

understanding

of the

assessment

measurement

Rubric or description

of evaluative criteria

measures the

learning objectives

and aligns to the

standards chosen for

the planned lesson(s)

Rubric or

description of

evaluative criteria

clearly connects to

the learning

objectives and

standards chosen

for the planned

lesson(s);

informative source

of information for

child/student and

parent

understanding of

the evaluation

criteria

41

Graphic

Organizer and

Narrative of

Whole Class

Assessment

Summary

(1.000, 16%)

Graphic

organizer is

not clear or

complete;

narrative is not

provided

Graphic

organizer in the

form of table or

chart provided

OR a narrative

that describes

the whole class

assessment

results, but not

both

Table or chart

provided of whole

class assessment

results; analysis of

this graphic

organizer focuses on

what students did

right AND wrong

and is supported with

evidence from the

work samples

Table or chart

provided of whole

class assessment

results; analysis of

this graphic

organizer includes

a narrative

identifying some

quantitative and

qualitative

learning patterns

within and across

learners; sites

specific examples

from the work

samples to

demonstrate

patterns of student

learning

42

Failed

Course

(0 pt)

Changed

Major

(0 pt)

Withdrew


(1 pt) Marginal


(3 pts) Commendable

(4 pts)

Student Work

Samples (1.000,

16%)

Did not submit

3 student work

samples

3 student work

samples chosen

do not represent

varied learning

patterns or

allow the

candidate to

analyze

appropriately

Provided 3 student

work samples; one of

which is from a

student with specific

documented learning

needs

Provided 3 student

work samples that

represent patterns

of learning with

one sample from a

student with

specific

documented

learning needs

43

Failed

Course

(0 pt)

Changed

Major

(0 pt)

Withdrew


(1 pt) Marginal


(3 pts) Commendable

(4 pts)

Feedback to

Student Work

Samples and

Ideas for

Guiding Student

Learning and

Improvement

(1.000, 16%)

Feedback is

unrelated to

the learning

objectives OR

is inconsistent

with the

analysis of the

student’s

learning

Feedback

addresses only

errors OR

strengths

generally

related to the

learning

objectives

Feedback primarily

focuses on either

errors OR strengths

related to specific

learning objectives,

with some attention

to the other

Candidate

describes how s/he

will guide focus

students to use

feedback to

evaluate their own

strengths and

needs

44

Failed

Course

(0 pt)

Changed

Major

(0 pt)

Withdrew


(1 pt) Marginal


(3 pts) Commendable

(4 pts)

Ideas for

Guiding Student

Learning and

Improvement

(1.000, 16%)

Opportunities

for applying

feedback are

not described;

OR candidate

provides

limited or no

feedback to

inform

children’s

learning

Candidate

provides a

vague

explanation for

how focus

children will

use feedback to

support

subsequent

learning

Candidate describes

how focus children

will be able to apply

feedback on their

strengths and needs

to support and

increase

understandings and

related skills

Candidate

describes how s/he

will support focus

students to apply

feedback on their

strengths and

needs to support

and increase

understandings

and related skills

45

Failed

Course

(0 pt)

Changed

Major

(0 pt)

Withdrew


(1 pt) Marginal


(3 pts) Commendable

(4 pts)

Identified

Language

Function Use

and Specific

Language Use

of Concept

(1.000, 16%)

Candidate

identifies

language use

that is

superficially

related or

unrelated to

the language

demands

(function,9

vocabulary,

and additional

demands). OR

Candidate

does not

address

students’

repeated

misuse of

vocabulary.

Candidate

provides

evidence that

students/childre

n are

introduced or

use vocabulary

associated with

the language

function.

Candidate explains

and provides

evidence of

students’/childrens’

use of the language

function as well as

vocabulary OR

additional language

demands associated

with the learning

experience

Candidate

explains and

provides evidence

of students’ use of

the language

function,

vocabulary, and

additional

language

demand(s) in ways

that develop

content

understandings

associated with

the learning

experience.

46

Failed

Course

(0 pt)

Changed

Major

(0 pt)

Withdrew


(1 pt) Marginal


(3 pts) Commendable

(4 pts)

Planning Next

Steps in

Instruction

Next steps do

not follow

from the

analysis; OR

next steps are

not relevant to

the standards

and learning

objectives

assessed; OR

next steps are

not described

in sufficient

detail to

understand

them.

Next steps

focus on

repeating

instruction,

pacing, or

classroom

management

issues; little

attention to the

substance of

learning

Next steps propose

general support that

improves children’s

learning; next steps

are loosely connected

with research and/or

theory

Next steps provide

both general

support for the

group as well as

targeted support to

individuals or

groups to improve

their learning;

next steps are

connected with

research and/or

thoery

47

ESA document and Submission

Failed

Course

(0 pt)

Change

d Major

(0 pt)

Withdrew


(1 pt) Marginal


(3 pts) Commendable

(4 pts)

Use of

Academic

Language in

writing (1.000,

33%)

Does not use

academic

language in

general or

content-

specific ways

in written form

Developing the

ability to use

general and/or

content-related

academic

language in

written form

Exhibits proper

written language and

academic

vocabulary; content-

specific language not

yet developed

Fluently exhibits

proper written

language and

vocabulary used

for academic

purposes and for

content-specific

purposes

48

Failed

Course

(0 pt)

Change

d Major

(0 pt)

Withdrew


(1 pt) Marginal


(3 pts) Commendable

(4 pts)

Writing

conventions

(grammar,

spelling, format,

etc) (1.000,

33%)

Many

significant

errors; Not

college level

writing;

Multiple

significant

errors that

distracts the

reader’s

understanding

of the

document;

many minor

errors; Writing

Center

appointment

and rewrite

required

Significant error(s)

that distracts the

reader’s

understanding of the

document; some

minor errors

No significant

errors and few

minor errors

49

Failed

Course

(0 pt)

Change

d Major

(0 pt)

Withdrew


(1 pt) Marginal


(3 pts) Commendable

(4 pts)

ESA

Completion

(1.000, 33%)

Not all

required

materials for

this ESA are

complete;

upload to

LiveText was

late or did not

happen

Some required

materials not

clearly labeled

or placed in

proper order;

uploaded to

LiveText

All required

materials submitted;

uploaded to LiveText

as requested and by

due date

All required

materials

submitted and

organized

professionally and

clearly; uploaded

to LiveText as

requested and by

due date

Standards

IL-PTS-2012.1.C

K: TCT understands how teaching and student learning are influenced by development (physical, social and emotional,

cognitive, linguistic), past experiences, talents, prior knowledge, economic circumstances and diversity within the community;

IL-PTS-2012.6.E

K: TCT knows and models standard conventions of written and oral communications;

IL-PTS-2012.8.A

K: TCT understands schools as organizations within the larger community context;

IL-PTS-2012.8.B

K: TCT understands the collaborative process and the skills necessary to initiate and carry out that process;

IL-PTS-2012.8.J

P: TCT works with all school personnel (e.g., support staff, teachers, paraprofessionals) to develop learning climates for the

school that encourage unity, support a sense of shared purpose, show trust in one another, and value individuals;

IL-PTS-2012.8.L

50

P: TCT initiates collaboration with others to create opportunities that enhance student learning;

IL-PTS-2012.8.M

P: TCT uses digital tools and resources to promote collaborative interactions;

IL-PTS-2012.9.A

K: TCT evaluates best practices and research-based materials against benchmarks within the disciplines;

IL-PTS-2012.9.I

P: TCT models professional behavior that reflects honesty, integrity, personal responsibility, confidentiality, altruism and

respect;

c. Provide a data table of candidate scores/results including the number of candidates who took the assessment, the range

and mean of the scores and the pass rate. Do not include individual candidate names as the data must summative.

Rubric: Official Effective Teaching Cycle

Failed

Course

(0 pts)

Changed

Major

(0 pts)

Withdrew

(0 pts)

Not

Proficient

(1 pts)

Marginal

(2 pts)

Evolving/Proficient

(3 pts)

Commendable


Rubric or Evaluative

Criteria 0 1 3 6 6 6 39 3.148 4.000 1.304

Graphic Organizer and

Narrative of Whole Class

Assessment Summary

0 1 3 3 10 10 34 3.098 4.000 1.224

Student Work Samples 0 1 3 4 1 6 46 3.410 4.000 1.206

Feedback to Student Work

Samples and Ideas for

Guiding Student Learning

and Improvement

0 1 3 0 5 13 39 3.361 4.000 1.087

Ideas for Guiding Student

Learning and Improvement 0 1 3 0 6 15 36 3.295 4.000 1.092

51

Identified Language

Function Use and Specific

Language Use of Concept

0 1 3 3 13 10 31 3.000 4.000 1.228

Planning Next Steps in

Instruction 0 1 3 1 5 21 30 3.180 4.000 1.094

Rubric or Evaluative Criteria

1 (1%) 3 (4%) 6 (9%) 6 (9%) 6 (9%) 39 (63%)

Graphic Organizer and Narrative of

Whole Class Assessment Summary 1 (1%) 3 (4%) 3 (4%) 10 (16%) 10 (16%) 34 (55%)

Student Work Samples

1 (1%) 3 (4%) 4 (6%) 1 (1%) 6 (9%) 46 (75%)

Feedback to Student Work Samples and

Ideas for Guiding Student Learning and

Improvement 1 (1%) 3 (4%) 5 (8%)

13 (21%) 39 (63%)

Ideas for Guiding Student Learning and

Improvement 1 (1%) 3 (4%) 6 (9%) 15 (24%) 36 (59%)

Identified Language Function Use and

Specific Language Use of Concept 1 (1%) 3 (4%) 3 (4%) 13 (21%) 10 (16%) 31 (50%)

Planning Next Steps in Instruction

1 (1%) 3 (4%) 1 (1%) 5 (8%) 21 (34%) 30 (49%)

Failed

Course Changed

Major Withdrew

Not

Proficient Marginal Evolving/Proficient Commendable

52

Inter-Rater Summary

Love,

Denice

Miller,

Melissa

Mullgardt,

Brian

Parrish,

Kathy Mean Stdev

Rubric or Evaluative Criteria 3.435 3.529 2.550 2.000 2.879 0.733

Graphic Organizer and Narrative of Whole Class Assessment

Summary 3.087 3.588 2.700 3.000 3.094 0.369

Student Work Samples 3.391 3.588 3.300 3.000 3.320 0.245

Feedback to Student Work Samples and Ideas for Guiding

Student Learning and Improvement 3.478 3.647 3.000 3.000 3.281 0.332

Ideas for Guiding Student Learning and Improvement 3.348 3.647 2.950 3.000 3.236 0.326

Identified Language Function Use and Specific Language Use of

Concept 2.739 3.647 2.750 3.000 3.034 0.426

Planning Next Steps in Instruction 2.913 3.647 3.050 4.000 3.403 0.510

53

Rubric: Context for Learning Rubric

Failed

Course

(0 pts)

Changed

Major

(0 pts)

Withdrew

(0 pts)

Not

Proficient

(1 pts)

Marginal

(2 pts)

Evolving/Proficient

(3 pts)

Commendable


Description of

Placement 0 1 3 0 0 8 49 3.607 4.000 1.013

Special Features of

School/Classroom 0 1 3 0 0 3 54 3.689 4.000 1.001

Instructional Resources 0 1 3 0 0 6 51 3.639 4.000 1.009

Demographic

Information 0 1 3 0 0 4 52 3.667 4.000 1.011

Description of Placement

IL-PTS-2012-8.A, IL-PTS-2012-8.J 1 (1%) 3 (4%) 8 (13%) 49 (80%)

Special Features of School/Classroom

IL-PTS-2012-8.M, IL-PTS-2012-9.A 1 (1%) 3 (4%) 3 (4%) 54 (88%)

Instructional Resources

IL-PTS-2012-8.M, IL-PTS-2012-9.A 1 (1%) 3 (4%) 6 (9%) 51 (83%)

Demographic Information

IL-PTS-2012-8.A, IL-PTS-2012-8.J 1 (1%) 3 (5%) 4 (6%) 52 (86%)

Failed

Course Changed

Major Withdrew

Not


54

Inter-Rater Summary

Love, Denice Miller, Melissa Mullgardt, Brian Parrish, Kathy Mean Stdev

Description of Placement 3.435 3.588 3.800 4.000 3.706 0.247

Special Features of School/Classroom 3.565 3.706 3.800 4.000 3.768 0.182

Instructional Resources 3.522 3.647 3.750 4.000 3.730 0.203

Demographic Information 3.609 3.588 3.789 4.000 3.747 0.192

Rubric: ESA document and Submission

Failed

Course

(0 pts)

Changed

Major

(0 pts)

Withdrew

(0 pts)

Not

Proficient

(1 pts)

Marginal

(2 pts)

Evolving/Proficient

(3 pts)

Commendable


Use of Academic

Language in writing 0 1 3 0 0 13 44 3.525 4.000 1.018

Writing conventions

(grammar, spelling,

format, etc)

0 1 3 0 1 3 53 3.656 4.000 1.022

ESA Completion 0 1 3 2 0 2 53 3.607 4.000 1.106

Use of Academic Language in writing

1 (1%) 3 (4%) 13 (21%) 44 (72%)

Writing conventions (grammar,

spelling, format, etc) 1 (1%) 3 (4%) 1 (1%) 3 (4%) 53 (86%)

ESA Completion

1 (1%) 3 (4%) 2 (3%) 2 (3%) 53 (86%)

55

Failed

Course Changed

Major Withdrew

Not


Export to CSV

Inter-Rater Summary

Love, Denice Miller, Melissa Mullgardt, Brian Parrish, Kathy Mean Stdev

Use of Academic Language in writing 3.565 3.235 3.700 4.000 3.625 0.317

Writing conventions (grammar, spelling, format, etc) 3.522 3.647 3.800 4.000 3.742 0.206

ESA Completion 3.609 3.706 3.500 4.000 3.704 0.215

Rubric: Instruction Rubric

Failed

Course

(0 pts)

Changed

Major

(0 pts)

Withdrew

(0 pts)

Not

Proficient

(1 pts)

Marginal

(2 pts)

Evolving/Proficient

(3 pts)

Commendable


Video Permission

Obtained for All

Children/Adults in Video

0 1 3 9 0 2 44 3.237 4.000 1.382

Video Clip Length and

Clarity 0 1 3 5 1 7 44 3.344 4.000 1.240

Instruction Commentary:

Student Engagement 0 1 3 1 3 14 39 3.361 4.000 1.102


Strategies to Deepen

Student Understanding

0 1 3 1 2 20 34 3.295 4.000 1.076

56


Support for Differentiated

Learning

0 1 3 1 13 13 30 3.049 4.000 1.165

Total Points 0 1 3 0 0 1 22 3.370 4.000 1.418

Video Permission Obtained for All

Children/Adults in Video 1 (1%) 3 (5%) 9 (15%) 2 (3%) 44 (74%)

Video Clip Length and Clarity

1 (1%) 3 (4%) 5 (8%) 1 (1%) 7 (11%) 44 (72%)

Instruction Commentary: Student

Engagement 1 (1%) 3 (4%) 1 (1%) 3 (4%) 14 (22%) 39 (63%)

Instruction Commentary: Strategies to

Deepen Student Understanding 1 (1%) 3 (4%) 1 (1%) 2 (3%) 20 (32%) 34 (55%)

Instruction Commentary: Support for

Differentiated Learning 1 (1%) 3 (4%) 1 (1%) 13 (21%) 13 (21%) 30 (49%)

Total Points

1 (3%) 3 (11%) 1 (3%) 22 (81%)

Failed

Course Changed

Major Withdrew

Not


57

Inter-Rater Summary

Love,

Denice

Miller,

Melissa

Mullgardt,

Brian

Parrish,

Kathy Mean Stdev

Video Permission Obtained for All Children/Adults in

Video 3.652 3.647 2.278 4.000 3.394 0.762

Video Clip Length and Clarity 3.174 3.588 3.300 4.000 3.516 0.367

Instruction Commentary: Student Engagement 3.522 3.647 2.950 3.000 3.280 0.356

Instruction Commentary: Strategies to Deepen Student

Understanding 3.391 3.647 2.900 3.000 3.235 0.347

Instruction Commentary: Support for Differentiated

Learning 2.913 3.588 2.800 2.000 2.825 0.651

Total Points 3.273 3.667 0.000 2.313 2.013

Rubric: Planning Rubric

Failed

Course

(0 pts)

Changed

Major

(0 pts)

Withdrew

(0 pts)

Not

Proficient

(1 pts)

Marginal

(2 pts)

Evolving/Proficient

(3 pts)

Commendable


Lesson Plan Completion 0 1 3 0 2 4 51 3.607 4.000 1.045

Description of Learning

Segment's Purpose and

Standards

0 1 3 5 1 5 46 3.377 4.000 1.244

Understanding of

Students' Prior

Knowledge and

Experiences

0 1 3 0 1 5 51 3.623 4.000 1.027

58

Use of Theory/Research

to support Instructional

Decisions

0 1 3 16 2 3 36 2.836 4.000 1.495

Academic Language

Function and Use 0 1 3 2 3 23 29 3.164 4.000 1.104

Planning for Assessment 0 1 3 2 4 10 41 3.344 4.000 1.158

Lesson Plan Completion

1 (1%) 3 (4%) 2 (3%) 4 (6%) 51 (83%)

Description of Learning Segment's

Purpose and Standards 1 (1%) 3 (4%) 5 (8%) 1 (1%) 5 (8%) 46 (75%)

Understanding of Students' Prior

Knowledge and Experiences 1 (1%) 3 (4%) 1 (1%) 5 (8%) 51 (83%)

Use of Theory/Research to support

Instructional Decisions 1 (1%) 3 (4%) 16 (26%)

2 (3%) 3 (4%) 36 (59%)

Academic Language Function and Use

1 (1%) 3 (4%) 2 (3%) 3 (4%) 23 (37%) 29 (47%)

Planning for Assessment

1 (1%) 3 (4%) 2 (3%) 4 (6%) 10 (16%) 41 (67%)

Failed

Course Changed

Major Withdrew

Not


Inter-Rater Summary

59

Love,

Denice

Miller,

Melissa

Mullgardt,

Brian

Parrish,

Kathy Mean Stdev

Lesson Plan Completion 3.435 3.647 3.750 4.000 3.708 0.235

Description of Learning Segment's Purpose and

Standards 3.565 3.647 2.900 4.000 3.528 0.459

Understanding of Students' Prior Knowledge and

Experiences 3.609 3.647 3.600 4.000 3.714 0.192

Use of Theory/Research to support Instructional

Decisions 3.304 3.647 1.600 3.000 2.888 0.898

Academic Language Function and Use 2.826 3.647 3.150 3.000 3.156 0.353

Planning for Assessment 3.565 3.647 2.800 4.000 3.503 0.505

The data collected from the completion and submission of this Embedded Signature Assessment shows disparity in some areas of

scoring. The discrepancy is worth investigation and the professors of the courses that include this ESA will meet this August n our

DARE (Data Analysis and Review Event) meeting to peruse the assessment results and discuss the categories with great variety in

scoring. These differing scores are in areas that may be a result of the major study program, the instruction, or other factors. This will

be explored in the next data retreat meeting.

60

Clinical Internship Evaluation Tool

Semester Please check – TRADITIONAL STUDENT_______ PACE STUDENT_______

TEACHING INTERNSHIP VERIFICATION AND EVALUATION

MILLIKIN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

INSTRUCTIONS: Since our program requires documentation of hours and evaluation of our student’s performance as a teaching intern, it is

extremely important that we receive this completed and signed form from you as soon as the student completes his/her experience. Please

complete both sides of the form, and sign and date it at the bottom of the second page. Please return the form to the student. If you have

questions, call Karen Mercer at 217-420-6689.

Please complete every line of this section- Mandatory

Millikin Student: Student ID #: ______________________________

Coop. Teacher/Dev. Therapist: Grade/Subject/Age Level: ___________________

School/Program: District: _______

Classroom Percentage of Minority Population: Classroom Percentage with IFSP/IEP:_________

Percentage of English Language Learners:_________________________

Date From To Time Spent Date From To Time Spent

61

TOTAL HOURS____________

P = Proficient performance in this area for the intern’s level of experience;

E = Evolving toward proficient teaching, performance of this skill is satisfactory;

M = Marginal performance of this skill, but with effort and commitment, the intern can improve;

NP = Not Proficient in demonstrating progress on this skill, significant improvement is needed;

NA = Not Applicable, not able to observe the intern in this situation. (We know that students do not have an opportunity to do all of these things in a single

internship. Use NA whenever you do not feel the student had an opportunity to perform as described.

Dispositional Development: IPTS 9ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST NP M E P Responsibility to Students: The intern...

Contributes to learning environment through respect and equal opportunity for all students

Maintains and models professional relationship with students at all times

Meets expectations for promptness and attendance; meets obligations and deadlines

Provides curriculum based on high expectations for each student that addresses individual differences

Demonstrates thought and care in delivering instructional strategies in the classroom

Encourages/Develops in each student attributes necessary to be a contributing member of society

62

Responsibility to Self: The intern…

Assumes responsibility and accountability for his/her performance

Strives to demonstrate proficiency and currency in knowledge and practice

Develops and implements personal and professional goals

Meets challenges in a positive manner

Is open and honest with colleagues and superiors

Demonstrates a high level of professional judgment

Addresses personal issues in a professional manner

Responsibility to Colleagues and the Profession: The intern…

Collaborates with colleagues in the local school and district to meet local and state educational standards

Accepts and uses constructive criticism

Contributes to a respectful, professional, and supportive school climate characterized by professional integrity

Demonstrates awareness of institutional social conventions and expectations

Demonstrates ethical and honest behavior

Responsibility to Parents, Families, and Communities: The intern…

Demonstrates an understanding of and respects the values, opinions, and traditions of a diverse community

63

Demonstrates sensitivity to individual differences

Encourages and advocates for fair and equal educational opportunities for each student

Develops and maintains professional relationships with parents, families, and communities

Complies with state and federal codes, laws, and regulations

64

Indicators of Excellence in Teaching and Learning NA NP M E P The intern became actively engaged in learning. The intern:

Used standards, known student needs, goals, and/or recorded student data to plan engaging short and/or long

term instruction. IPTS 1HJ 2K 3DGIJL 4DMN 5F 6AI 8LMN

Identified and used a various instructional strategies, materials, or class activities that support creative thinking,

problem-solving, and/or children’s various kinds of learning.

IPTS 1HJ 2ACEP 3BQ 4EK 5ACKLS 6AI 8N 9K

Helped students to make connections between texts, subject areas, world, prior knowledge/experiences, and if

necessary adjusted instruction or plans based on student responses.

IPTS 1I 2N 3DL 5DG 6O

Showed understanding of the subject matter that was being taught; asked for more information or clarification

when it was needed. IPTS 2ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQ 3A 6A 8LK

Incorporated and modeled appropriate technology and digital tools/resources within instruction and assessments

to maximize student learning IPTS 2LO 3EN 5CO 6JO 7O 8M 9MST

The intern recognizes the need to build a community of learners. The intern:

Respected individual differences, showed empathy & concern for the learners.

IPTS 1ABCDEGHJKL 2EP 3C 4EL 5HM 8JQS

Developed an understanding that family, language and values influence student learning.

IPTS 1ACEL 2EHN 3CK 4K 5EHL 8DJPQ 9Q

Used learner data to guide cooperative and productive group learning, include project learning, and/or employ co-

teaching strategies. IPTS 3F 4BCN 5Q 8GN

Modeled effective communications to accurately convey ideas and information and to answer child inquiry. IPTS 3L

4J 6EN 8ABS 9L

Modified the learning environment and implemented behavior management strategies to accommodate diverse

student needs, monitor student behaviors, and/or support positive behavior.

IPTS 3M 4AFHIOQ 8EFHJKL

Communicated positive expectations and provided constructive feedback to students.

IPTS 1H 3A 4J 6EN 8JLS

Within the time provided, established rapport with students/children that promoted and encouraged positive

classroom interaction. IPTS 1AKL 3K 4M 8JLS 9Q

The intern facilitates learning. The intern:

65

The intern’s strengths are:

______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________

The intern’s areas for improvement are:

___________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________ _______________________

Signature of Clinical Instructor Date

Carried out instructional plans, followed directions, and introduced new learning activities.

IPTS 2G 3L 6J 8ABSO

Understands the reading process, writing process, language development and oral communication; and integrated

these components effectively when designing and selecting instruction and assessments to increase content

learning IPTS 6BCDFGLMPS

Monitored learner progress and adjusted strategies in response to learner behavior and needs.

IPTS 1H 2P 3L 4GQ 5JLP 6AJK 7ACEFGIJK 8ABSO

Became aware of language differences in children, modeled appropriate language use, and adapted instruction

and tasks to support different children’s needs. IPTS 1AJ 2H 3AC 6AEHI 7QR 8ABCJO

Conducted developmentally appropriate assessments to monitor and record student performance and assess

student progress. IPTS 7BDMO

Appropriately analyzed and interpreted assessment data to relay to families and other professionals, and to

students to establish self-made learner goals. IPTS 7DLP

The intern collaborates effectively. The intern:

Worked with teacher and other colleagues to achieve student success, including participation in individualized

plans for English language learners or students with special needs.

IPTS 1K 3FP 5Q 6R 7NP 8BCHI 9N

Was professionally accountable, punctual, on task, handled materials with care, respected co-workers, used

conflict resolution skills, had positive expectations. IPTS 3FP 8ABJR

Followed school/agency policy and codes of professional conduct; recognized the importance of privacy,

confidentiality, and appropriate behavior with children.

IPTS 3HO 7H 8AJ 9BRT

Summary Rating: Please rate this intern’s overall performance.

66

Our data show that the majority of students reach proficiency by the end of their student teaching

in most of the areas being evaluated. The data also show that a few students are still evolving in

the areas of classroom discipline and in being able to adjust the curriculum in teaching situations

when children do not understand. We expect that novice teachers would have a few indicators

that are evolving as these young teachers are involved in a rigorous clinical experience.

Documents

Assessment of Student Learning in the Education Major ...em>Edit... · student teaching evaluation materials, including reflective journals and plan books ... The student self-reflects