At the end of the Clinical Experience - College of … FOLIO... · Web viewCompletion of TEAC 331 or 430 or 431 or 434 or 437 or 496 (3 hrs.) or approved course, and EDPS 250 or 251

Nebraska Department of Education Rule 24 ReportBUSINESS, MARKETING & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

(Content Area)Educator Preparation Content Program Review

Name of institution University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Date Submitted 3.1.17

Contact Person Thomas Wandzilak

Phone/Fax 402-472-8626

Email [email protected]

Folio type: X Regular Mini Advanced Program

Program(s) Covered by this Folio Press tab in last column to add rows

Endorsement(s) Type Grade Level Program Level

List EndorsementsField 7-12 Baccalaureate

Post-BaccalaureateBusiness, Marketing and Information Technology, Grades 6-12

Is the endorsement offered at more than one site? Yes X NoIf yes, list additional sites where endorsement is offered:

Institution Accreditation Status: X National X StateIs this a Nationally Accredited Program? X Yes No

If Yes, list Accrediting Organization: CAEP Attach National Letter to Cover Sheet

Report to the Nebraska Department of EducationUniversity of Nebraska—Lincoln

Folio Initial Level—June 2017

INTRODUCTION AND WELCOMEThe purpose of this section is to provide general background information on the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and the College of Education and Human Sciences. In addition, information is provided on the teacher education program, admission and retention standards the field experiences in which student participate, and information on the key assessments used in Section 2 concerning data that have been collected in support of our programs.

Here is a list of websites that can provide some additional information on the university, the college, and our teacher education program:

http://www.unl.edu/This is the University of Nebraska-Lincoln website.

https://bulletin.unl.edu/undergraduate/This is the link for the undergraduate bulletin.

https://bulletin.unl.edu/undergraduate/college/Education+%26+Human+SciencesThis is the link for the College of Education and Human Sciences section in the Undergraduate Bulletin.

http://www.unl.edu/gradstudies/bulletinThis is the link for the Graduate Bulletin.

http://cehs.unl.edu/The is the link for the website for the College of Education and Human Sciences

http://cehs.unl.edu/ssc/undergraduate-advising/

http://cehs.unl.edu/ssc/undergraduate-advising/

http://cehs.unl.edu/

http://www.unl.edu/gradstudies/bulletin

https://bulletin.unl.edu/undergraduate/college/Education+%26+Human+Sciences

https://bulletin.unl.edu/undergraduate/

http://www.unl.edu/

This is the link for our program sheets for all of the programs offered through the College of Education and Human Sciences. Program sheets will also be available for multiple years.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact Tom Wandzilak, Certification Officer, College of Education and Human Sciences at:

402-472-8626 or [email protected]

SECTION 1: CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION NARRATIVE

SECTION 1A: ENDORSEMENT PROGRAM/CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION

The link to the Rule 20 Folio is:http://cehs.unl.edu/cehs/nde/Rule20.pdf

Mission Statement ion StatementThe University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL), chartered by the Legislature in 1869, is the part of the University of Nebraska system that serves as both the land-grant and the comprehensive public University for the State of Nebraska.

Through its three primary missions of teaching, research, and service, UNL is the state's primary intellectual center providing leadership throughout the state through quality education and the generation of new knowledge. UNL's graduates and its faculty and staff are major contributors to the economic and cultural development of the state. UNL attracts a high percentage of the most

http://cehs.unl.edu/cehs/nde/Rule20.pdf

academically talented Nebraskans, and the graduates of the University form a significant portion of the business, cultural, and professional resources of the State. The quality of primary, secondary, and other post-secondary educational programs in the state depends in part on the resources of UNL for curricular development, teacher training, professional advancement, and enrichment activities involving the University's faculty, museums, galleries, libraries, and other facilities. UNL provides for the people of the state unique opportunities to fulfill their highest ambitions and aspirations, thereby helping the state retain its most talented youth, attract talented young people from elsewhere, and address the educational needs of the nontraditional learner.

The University of Nebraska-Lincoln has been recognized by the Legislature as the primary research and doctoral degree granting institution in the state for fields outside the health professions. Through its service and outreach efforts the University extends its educational responsibilities directly to the people of Nebraska on a state-wide basis.

The College of Education and Human SciencesThe College of Education and Human Sciences (CEHS) was founded on August 18, 2004, by Teachers College and The College of Human Resources and Family Sciences with each founding college contributing extensive history and tradition. The College of Education and Human Sciences offers excellent educational advancement to both undergraduate and graduate students, serving approximately 2,800 undergraduates and 1,000 graduate students each year.

Education courses first became a part of the University curriculum in 1895 with the organization of a Department of Education designed to prepare students for teaching careers. On Valentine’s Day, 1908, the Board of Regents established a Teachers College. Since that time, the College has been highly respected for its programs preparing teachers, administrators, and specialists for the education of children, youth, and adults. The quality of these programs is reflected in outstanding educational leadership in communities across the state and in the nation in teaching, administration, communication disorders, special education, and educational psychology.

Teacher Education Programs

Teacher education programs are found in five departments in CEHS as well as in two other colleges on campus. The College of Fine and Performing Arts (CFPA) oversees Music Education, whereas Agriculture Education, Horticulture Education, and Industrial Technology are located in the College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. Even though these programs are housed outside of CEHS, they must comply with state rules and regulations tied to teacher education. The majority of the teacher education programs are located in the Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education (TLTE). There are currently 40 endorsement areas offered at the undergraduate and graduate levels through the University. Options exist for students to complete initial teacher certification and teaching endorsements at the undergraduate and graduate levels. All programs leading to an initial teaching certificate will also require the completion of an undergraduate or graduate degree. Individuals interested in adding one or more teaching endorsements may do so without pursuing a degree.

1B. STANDARDS OF ADMISSION, RETENTION, TRANSITION, AND COMPLETION

Admission to the University of Nebraska-LincolnAdmission to the University is based on a student’s demonstrated academic preparation for University-level work (see Appendix—Table 1). Admission standards to the University are established by the University of Nebraska Board of Regents and apply to all new, first time degree-seeking students. This includes freshman as well as transfer students. The admission standards apply to general admission to the University as well as admission to the College of Education and Human Sciences.

Admission to the Teacher Education Program (TEP)Admission to the College of Education and Human Sciences does not guarantee admission to a teacher education program. Admission to the advanced phases of teacher education is selective and, in some endorsements, highly competitive. Selection to a TEP is based upon the following criteria:

1. Completion of at least 30 credit hours (Elementary Education) or 42 credit hours (Secondary Education) with a minimum 2.5 GPA.

2. Completion of TEAC 331 or 430 or 431 or 434 or 437 or 496 (3 hrs.) or approved course, and EDPS 250 or 251 with a 2.5 cumulative average in the two classes, no grade lower than a C.

3. Documentation of proficiency in reading, writing, and mathematics through successful completion of a basic skills examination that meets the Nebraska Department of Education competency requirement.

4. Completion of one course in communication studies selected from COMM 109, 205, 209, 210, or 341, or an approved substitute.

5. Faculty recommendations.6. Demonstration of attaining particular learning outcomes in the program.7. Completion of a personal and professional fitness self-disclosure form.

Admission to Student TeachingAll students who are candidates for an appropriately endorsed Nebraska Teacher’s certificate are required to student teach. Students who plan to student teach in the fall semester must complete the student teaching application form and submit it by the preceding March 1 to the Director of Field Experiences in 104 Henzlik Hall; students planning to student teach in the spring semester must apply by the preceding October 1. The basic program for student teaching provides for a full-day experience on a semester basis. Students enrolled in an elementary education dual major will complete requirements for student teaching in both majors. Admission to student teaching requires the following:

1. Matriculation in a teacher education program in the College of Education and Human Sciences, the Graduate College, or dual matriculation in the College of Education and Human Sciences and another college.

2. Admission to a teacher education program.3. Senior standing (89 hours or more) with a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.75.4. Application for and completion of a senior check.5. Minimum average of 2.5 in each endorsement area (in the case of Middle Grades Endorsement, a

2.5 in each academic area) with no grade below C.

6. A minimum grade point average of 2.5 in pre-professional and professional education courses with no grade below a C in pre-professional education courses and no grade below a C+ in professional education courses.

7. Completion of a criminal history check that will be conducted by an independent party (lab fee required).

Retention1. Must maintain a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.75.2. Must maintain a minimum average of 2.5 in each endorsement area (in the case of Middle Grades

Endorsement, a 2.5 in each academic area) with no grade below C.3. Must maintain a minimum grade point average of 2.5 in pre-professional and professional

education courses with no grade below a C in pre-professional education courses and no grade below a C+ in professional education courses.

4. Must meet student teaching application deadlines.5. Must meet criminal history requirements at all times.

Transition PointsA summary of the transition points can be found in the Appendix in Table 2.

Requirements to Complete the Teacher Education Program1. Successful completion of student teaching.2. Successful completion of all remaining courses as identified in the senior check with grades

meeting the minimum requirements as identified in the “Admission to Student Teaching” section as described above.

3. Satisfy any additional requirements as described under teacher education in the undergraduate bulletin.

4. Address all financial obligations tied to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.5. Apply for the degree.

The Student Advising Sheet for the program(s) associated with this Folio can be found at:http://cehs.unl.edu/ssc/undergraduate-advising

1C. FIELD EXPERIENCES

The link to the Rule 20 Folio is:http://cehs.unl.edu/cehs/nde/Rule20.pdf

Field experience “courses” can be divided into the following areas:Early Childhood, Inclusive, Elementary Education, Elementary Education/Mild Moderate Disabilities, and Secondary Education. Practicum experiences at the 200 level are initial experiences in the schools for our students. They can be placed in a classroom with a teacher at the appropriate grade level for their respective content area. Secondary students are placed individually in middle grades or secondary classrooms, whereas elementary students are placed in pairs in elementary classrooms. In all instances university students have opportunities to work with K-12 learners individually or in small groups. In some instances, they may be given full-class opportunities to work with learners. Students completing 397 level practica have expanded responsibilities where they will have greater classroom responsibilities that will include the teaching of multiple lessons as a requirement for the experience as well as teacher assistant roles during each day. The 497 experience is student teaching where the university student takes on more and more responsibilities that would be equivalent to those taken on by the classroom teacher. These responsibilities include, but are not limited to, the preparation of lesson plans and materials for teaching and assessment, the teaching of classes, grading formative and summative materials, working with students after class, attending staff/faculty meetings, and speaking with parents where necessary, all under the guidance of a cooperating teacher. Please see Table 3 in the Appendices for a summary of the Field Experience hour requirements associated with each practicum course and the related endorsements.

1D. PROGRAM COMPLETERS

Table 4—Program Completers

http://cehs.unl.edu/cehs/nde/Rule20.pdf

http://cehs.unl.edu/ssc/undergraduate-advising

Program Completers and Level – Content AreaAcademic Year Number of Endorsement Program Completers

Bac Post BacAlternate

Route Masters

Ed. Specialis

t PhD

2014 to 20 15 6 2

2015 to 20 16 5 2

SECTION 2: ENDORSEMENT PROGRAM KEY ASSESSMENTS AND RELATED DATA

ARTIFACT 1Table 5

Summary Table of Endorsement Program Key AssessmentsREGULAR FOLIOS

Name of Assessmentused for the following areas:

Type or Form of Assessment

Brief Description of Assessment, including indicated information obtained from Assessment

When Assessment is Administered

Specific Items

1Content-Praxis II or GPA

Cumulative GPASummative

Numerical computation of grades based onquality points earned divided by credithours completed

Ongoing—throughout one’s college career. Cumulative GPA is what is reported.

Specific to content area

Praxis II Comparison to a Standard

For elementary students, this test has been

Just before or during clinical practicum (student


used todocument one being highly qualified (minimumscore of 159) for No Child Left Behind.For secondary students, we piloted results for the2014-2015 academic year. Results will be used as a requirement fro teacher certification at all levelsstarting September 1, 2015.

teaching)

CEHS Student Teaching Instrument

Summative This instrument consists of 14 items that is completedby the student teacher supervisor and cooperatingteacher on the basis of one being proficient, basic orunsatisfactory on each item.

At the end of the Clinical Experience

Item 1

Administrator Survey

Summative This is a 21-item instrument that is completed by

In March/April at the end of the candidate’s first

Standards 4.1, 4.2, 4.3

school administrators at the end of a candidate’sfirst year of teaching. It is now administered bythe Nebraska Department of Education.

year of teaching

Candidate Teacher Survey

Summative This is a 23-item instrument that is completed byprogram completers at the end of the first year ofteaching. It is administered by the College ofEducation and Human Sciences at UN-L.

In March/April at the end of the candidate’s first year of teaching

Items 1 & 2

2 Content - Knowledge

Cumulative GPA Summative Numerical computation of grades based onquality points earned divided by credithours completed

Ongoing—throughout one’s college career. Cumulative GPA is what is reported.


Praxis II Comparison to a Standard

For elementary students, this test has been used todocument one being highly qualified

Just before or during clinical practicum (student teaching)


(minimumscore of 159) for No Child Left Behind.For secondary students, we piloted results for the2014-2015 academic year. Results will be used as a requirement for teacher certification at all levelsstarting September 1, 2015.


Summative This instrument consists of 14 items that is completedby the student teacher supervisor and cooperatingteacher on the basis of one being proficient, basic, orunsatisfactory on each item.


Item 1


Summative This is a 21-item instrument that is completed byschool administrators at the end of a candidate’s


Standards 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2

first year of teaching. It is now administered bythe Nebraska Department of Education.


Summative This is a 23-item instrument that is completed byprogram completers at the end of the first year ofteaching. It is administered by the College ofEducation and Human Sciences at UNL.


Item 14

3 Learner/Learning Environments




Items 2 & 3


Summative This is a 21-item instrument that is completed byschool

In March/April at the end of the candidate’s first

Standards 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3,

administrators at the end of a candidate’sfirst year of teaching. It is now administered bythe Nebraska Department of Education.

year of teaching 3.1, 3.2, 3.3


Summative This is a 23-item instrument that is completed byprogram completers at the end of the first year ofteaching. It is administered by the College ofEducation and Human Sciences at UNL.


Items 3 & 4

4 Instructional Practices - Knowledge




Items 2, 3, & 6

Administrator Summative This is a 21-item In March/April at Standards

Survey instrument that is completed byschool administrators at the end of a candidate’sfirst year of teaching. It is now administered bythe Nebraska Department of Education.

the end of the candidate’s first year of teaching

7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3




Items 7, 8, 9, 16, 17 & 20

5 Instructional Practices - Effectiveness


Summative This instrument consists of 14 items that is completedby the student teacher supervisor and cooperatingteacher on the basis of one being proficient, basic or


Items 2, 3, & 5

unsatisfactory on each item.


Summative This is a 21-item instrument that is completed byschool administrators at the end of a candidate’sfirst year of teaching. It is now administered bythe Nebraska Department of Education.


Standards 6.1, 6.2




Item 10

6 Professional Responsibility


Summative This instrument consists of 14 items that is completedby the student teacher supervisor and cooperating


Items 12 & 14

teacher on the basis of one being proficient, basic orunsatisfactory on each item.


Summative This is a 21-item instrument that is completed byschool administrators at the end of a candidate’sfirst year of teaching. It is now administered bythe Nebraska Department of Education.


Standards 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 10.1, 10.2




Items 12 & 15

7 Overall Proficiency


Summative This is a 21-item instrument that is completed by school administrators at


Standard 11.1

the end of a candidate’s first year of teaching. It is now administered by the Nebraska Department of Education.


Summative This is a 23-item instrument that is completed by program completers at the end of the first year of teaching. It is administered by the College of Education and Human Sciences at UNL.


Item 23

8 Optional Assessment

REQUIRED RULE 24 FOLIO APPENDICES

Table 1UNL Admission Requirements

English 4 units of EnglishAll units must include intensive reading and writing experience

Mathematics 4 units of mathematicsMust include Algebra I, II. Geometry and one additional unit that builds on a knowledge of algebra or geometry.

Natural Science

3 units of natural sciencesIncluding at least 2 units selected from biology, chemistry, physics, and earth sciences. One of the units must include laboratory instruction.

Social Studies

3 units of social studiesAt least one unit of American and/or world history and one additional unit of history, American government and/or geography

Foreign Language

2 units of foreign languageMust include 2 units of the same foreign language. Students who are unable to take two years of foreign language in high school may still qualify for admission. Such students will be required to take two semesters of foreign language at the University of Nebraska. These students are required to complete 16 units of academic courses for admission.

Class Rank or ACT/SAT

For assured admission you must also graduate in the upper half of your class, or have an ACT composite score of 20 or higher, or an SAT combined score of 950. All freshman applicants under the age of 23 are required to submit an official ACT or SAT score.

Transfer For assured admission, in addition to completion of core course requirements, you must also show a C average (2.0 on a 4.0 scale) for your cumulative grade point average and a C average on your most recent term of college enrollment

Table 2Major Transition Points

Acceptance into University(Prior to Freshman year)

Acceptance into Teacher Education program(Sophomore year)

Acceptance into Student Teaching(Semester before Student Teaching)

Program Completion/Graduation(After Student Teaching)

-- Completion of specific number of high school units.-- Appropriate ACT /SAT score

--Credit hour minimum--Minimum grades in specific courses-- PPST-- Faculty recommendations

-- Admission to TEP-- Credit Hour /overall 2.75 GPA minimum-- 2.5 GPA in content areacourses, no grade below a C--2.5 GPA in Prof. ed – specific grade

-- 120 + credit hours-- successful completion of Student Teaching-- Maintain GPA minimum requirements-- Completion of

-- Completion of Prof. & Personal Fitness Form-- Criminal History check

requirements for methods courses-- Criminal History check

a senior check--Met all financial obligations-- Apply for degree

Table 3Summary Table of Practicum and Clinical Experiences

Course

Cr

Days/Wk

Hrs/Day

Weeks

Total Hrs

ELED

Sec. Ed.

ELED/SPED

ECE Unif

ELED/ECE

TEAC 297A

1 2 3 14 84 84 84 84 84

297B 2 2 7 14 140 140 140 140EDPS 297

1 2 1 14 25

397A 3 2 7 14 196 196 196 196497A 1

25 8 16 640 640 640 640

297 1 2 1 10 20 20397 3 5 2 12 120 12

0397D 3 2 8 15 240 240497 1 5 8 16 640 64

2 0497A 6 5 8 40 400 400SPED 397

3 3 4 12 144 120

SPED 496Y

1 2 4 14 56 56

497M 9 5 8 10 400 400CYAF 270L

2 1 4 14 52 52 52

271L 1 1 3 12 36 36 36374L 1 1 3 15 45 45 45497A 9 5 4 16 320 320 320Total -- ----- -------

---------- ------- 106

0780

1340 1473

1513

Instruments Used in Key Assessments:

In order to view the instruments used for the different surveys the provided data for this report, go to the “Instruments” folder at the State Approval website and select each of the following:

Student Teaching Final Evaluation used in Fall 2014–Spring 2015—All Program Completers

Student Teaching Final Evaluation used in Fall 2015–Spring 2016—All Program Completers

NDE First-Year Administrator Survey

First-Year Teacher Survey

SECTION 2: KEY ASSESSMENTS AND FINDINGS — Artifact 2

1. Content KnowledgeBelow are the measures used specifically for addressing the content knowledge for teacher candidates at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln.

Table 1AGrade Point Average in the Content Area and Cumulative GPA

Year Endorsement

Subject Area/Content GPA

Cumulative GPA Total Students

2014-2015

Secondary Education

3.49 3.56 95

Elementary Education

3.43 3.57 125

Special Education

3.82 3.68 59

Early Childhood

3.81 3.70 25

Content area

2015-2016

Secondary Education 3.54250 3.55747 108Elementary Education 3.36632 3.56379 153Special Education 3.80480 3.64881 72Early Childhood Education

3.74777 3.5820340

Content area

Table 1BGrade Point Average in the Content Area and Cumulative GPA

Year Code Subject Area/Content GPA

Cumulative GPA

Total Students

Notes

2014- BECE 3.21 2.79 1 Business & Cooperative Education

2015BMIT 3.35 3.32 6 Business, Marketing & Information Technology

Educ.CYEC 3.85 3.74 18 Inclusive Early Childhood EducationCYFC 3.37 3.24 4 Family & Consumer Science Education 6-12ECED 3.57 3.65 6 Elementary Education & Early Childhood

EducationELED 3.43 3.52 83 Elementary Education K-6EMATH

3.25 3.61 13 Mathematics 7-12

ENGL 3.79 3.78 15 EnglishESPAN 3.67 3.58 9 SpanishLART 3.63 3.67 4 Language ArtsNTSC 3.50 3.64 12 Science (Field endorsement)PHSC 3.67 3.78 1 PhysicsSPEN ( 3.44 3.54 1 English and Speech ( old program)SPM7 3.29 3.68 37 Elementary & Special Education K-6SPM8 3.65 3.47 4 Special Education 7-12SSCI 3.40 3.49 27 Social Science Education 7-12

2015-16AEDU 3.45000 3.43140 10 Agriculture EducationBMIT 3.2635 3.2625 6 Business, Marketing & Information Technology

Educ.CYEC 3.77413 3.62275 24 Inclusive Early Childhood EducationCYFC 3.64486 3.60000 7 Family & Consumer Science, 6-12ECED 3.58122 9 Elementary Education & Early Childhood

EducationELAT 3.80000 3.68300 1 English/language ArtsELED 3.36632 3.54869 103 Elementary Education

ENGL 3.66375 3.65475 12 EnglishERSS 3.13100 3.09600 1 Earth and space ScienceMATH 3.25427 3.48267 15 MathMUED 3.57743 3.54290 21 Music EducationNTSC 3.13850 3.40900 4 Science (formerly natural science)(old endorsement)SCIE 3.38650 3.52800 2 Science (new science endorsement)SENG 4.00000 3.99000 1 Secondary English????SPAN 3.77157 3.61343 7 SpanishSPM7 3.63335 37 Elementary and Special Education, K-6SPM8 3.87173 3.75764 11 Special Education, 7-12SSCI 3.56767 3.59950 12 Social Science

Table 2APraxis II—September 2014—August 2015

Pass Rate Based on Nebraska Cut Score

Praxis II – September 2014 – August 2015Pass Rate Based on Nebraska Cut Score

Endrsmnt

Test #

Cut Score

UN-L N

UN-L # Passing

UN-L # Failing

UN-L %age Pass

UN-L Mean

State N

State %age Pass

StateMean

National N

National %age

National Mean

Curr Sup.

None

Principal

5411 145 1 1 0 100 123

93.5 163.85

2778

83.59 164.95

Supt 6021 152 1 1 0 100 163 26 96.15 167.23

637 96.39 168.15

Unified 5024 160 17 16 1 94.2 174.47

101

77.23 168.15

1917

78.87 167.57

Agric Ed

5701 147 19 18 1 94.74 166.53

20 95 166.65

436 95.64 167.52

BMIT 5101 154 8 8 0 100 174.25

36 100 174.64

1848

89.72 170.45

ELED 5017 153 151 142 9 94.04 170.66

803

90.78 167.94

4491

91.27 168.74

FACS 5122 153 12 7 5 58.33 158.42

17 58.82 160.00

630 77.46 160.21

ITE NoneMath 5161 146 30 26 4 86.67 163.8

7101

77.23 158.12

8090

65.7 153.20

Music 5114 152 20 20 0 100 173.9 61 88.52 164.2 117 85.48 164.5

0 8 8 0Science 5435 148 12 12 0 100 176.2

553 94.34 173.0

03091

81.11 163.75

Biology 5235 148 3 3 0 100 160.67

21 80.95 159.62

3910

83.43 162.16

Chemistry

5245 140 1 1 0 100 176.00

7 100 161.57

1582

84.39 159.79

Earth & Space Sc

5571 147 2 2 0 100 162.00

3 67 157 816 84.44 164.48

Physics 5265 131 1 1 0 100 169 6 83.33 147.50

951 80.34 150.34

LA & Sec. English

5039 168 22 18 4 81.82 175.86

109

76.15 173.33

2831

75.27 173.28

Soc. Sci. 5081 154 27 23 4 85.19 168 88 77.27 165.02

6037

79.41 165.57

SPED 5354 151 42 42 0 100 175.40

239

98.33 172.08

5825

95.91 171.85

SPED HH

5272 160 10 10 0 100 173.9 11 100 173.45

125 70.40 163.72

ECSE 5691 159 1 1 0 100 191 1 100 191 761 91.33 173.71

SPED V I

5282 163 1 1 0 100 167 1 100 167 169 73.96 167.24

SLPA 5331 162 13 11 2 84.62 173 35 91.43 174.51

8384

92.20 176.41

French 5174 162 1 1 0 100 168 5 80 175.2 482 69.92 169.5

0 9German 5183 163 1 1 0 100 183 2 100 182 122 70.49 170.5

0Latin 5601 155 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 84.62 175.3

0Russian NoneSpanish 5195 156 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 178School Counslr

5421 156 0 0 0 0 0 31 96.76 169.97

3196

90.18 168.57

School Psychlgst

5402 147 7 7 0 100 175.29

23 100 170.83

2633

97.27 169.02

TOTAL 403 373 30 92.56%

Table 2BPraxis II—September 2015—August 2016

Pass Rate Based on Nebraska Cut ScoreEndrsmnt

Test #

Cut Score

UN-L N

UN-L # Passing

UN-L # Failing

UN-L %age Pass

UN-L Mean

State N

State %age Pass

StateMean

National N

National %age

National Mean

Curr Sup.

None

Principal 5411 145 21 20 1 95.24 171.33

286

98.25 166.33

3070

94.40 164.17

Supt 6021 152 3 3 0 100.00 171.67

27 100 169.59

658 94.68 168.32

Unified 5024 160 27 26 1 96.30 173.93

110

84.55 167.56

2450

79.63 167.25

Agric Ed 5701 147 5 5 0 100.00 170.00

7 100.00 167.29

398 96.98 168.69

BMIT 5101 154 6 5 1 83.33 172.33

35 97.14 174.31

1821

88.69 169.89

ELED 5017 153 197 190 7 96.45 171.98

849

94.35 168.85

4996

92.77 169.15

FACS 5122 153 20 19 1 95.00 165.65

31 96.77 164.48

1049

80.46 160.84

ITE None

Math 5161 146 25 22 3 88.00 166.32

102

86.27 159.63

7961

66.66 153.77

Music 5114 152 27 26 1 96.30 175.41

92 92.39 167.29

1191

85.14 164.58

Science 5435 148 15 15 0 100.00 175.87

53 98.11 175.34

2848

81.85 164.12

Biology 5235 148 13 12 1 92.31 165.23

31 93.55 164.65

3556

85.18 163.10

Chemistry

5245 140 3 2 1 66.67 159.67

6 83.33 165.33

1545

84.53 158.76

Earth & Space Sc

5571 147 3 2 1 66.67 156 4 75.00 156.00

721 84.60 164.47

Physics 5265 131 2 2 0 100.00 167 9 100.00 165.11

844 81.52 150.77

LA & Sec. English

5039 168 24 23 1 95.83 177.58

130

89.23 176.12

2943

76.79 173.51

Soc. Sci. 5081 154 18 18 0 100.00 170.06

90 90.00 169.38

5599

80.62 165.76

SPED 5354 151 52 52 0 100.00 176.49

316

99.68 173.80

5977

96.29 171.97

SPED HH

5272 160 2 2 0 100.00 176.00

7 100.00 170.14

136 88.97 168.82

ECSE 5691 159 7 7 0 100.00 184.29

8 100.00 182.85

816 93.01 173.88

SPED VI 5282 163 4 3 1 75.00 168.75

4 75.00 168.75

142 71.13 166.97

SLPA 5331 162 4 3 1 75.00 173.25

9 77.78 167.89

9013

93.38 176.21

French 5174 162 1 0 1 0 159.00

4 50.00 168.00

407 67.57 168.57

German 5183 163 2 2 0 100.00 197.5 3 100.00 186.33

116 66.38 171.88

Latin 5601 155 - - - - - 2 100.00 174.5 52 84.62 176.02

Russian None

Spanish 5195 156 9 6 3 66.67 161.89

36 72.22 166 1842

73.13 167.22

School Counselor

5421 156 2 2 0 100.00 177.00

66 96.97 171.39

3327

89.93 168.90

School Psychlgst

5402 147 11 11 0 100.00 178.00

38 100.00 170.66

2586

97.56 169.36

TOTAL 503 478 25 95.03%

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Subject Matter Knowledge for the 2014-2015 Academic Year for Teaching in General (Item 1).

Table 3AItem 1: Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching in General

2014-2015Subject Area Scoring

Year

# Item Endorsement Unsatisfactory

Basic Proficient Grand Total

2014- 2015

1 Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching in general. Demonstrates capacity to make content knowledge accessible to students.

Business, Marketing & Information Technology (BMIT)

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 7 100.00%

7

Early Childhood

0 0.0% 4 8.2% 45 91.8% 49


0 0% 0 0% 121

100% 121

Secondary Education

0 0% 9 7.5% 111

92.5% 120

Special Education

0 0% 5 10.2%

44 89.8% 49

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2015-2016 Academic Year on Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching (Item 3—Table 3B)—LIVETEXT version.

Table 3BItem 3: Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching in General

2015-2016

Subject Area ScoringYear

# Item Endorsement Unacceptable

Emergent

Sufficient Advanced Grand Total

2015- 2016

3 Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching.

Subject matter Knowledge for Teaching. Make content knowledge accessible for students

Business, Marketing, & Info Tech

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 40.00% 3 60.00% 5

Early Childhood Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 13

38.24% 21 13.00% 34


0 0.00% 3 1.63% 71

38.59% 110

59.78% 184

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 4 4.60% 48

55.17% 35 40.23% 87

Special Education

0 0.00% 2 2.35% 29

34.12% 54 63.53% 85

Responses From First Year Administrator Survey: Preparation of Candidate to Teach Content Area.

Table 4Standards 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3—Content Knowledge

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand

Information Total

4.1 --Theteacher understands thecentral concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures

2014-2015Business, Marketing, Info Tech

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 4

Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0.00% 2 3.23% 22 35.48% 38 61.29% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 4

of the discipline(s) s/he teaches.

Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 3 5.08% 17 28.81% 39 66.10% 59Special Education 1 5.88% 1 5.88% 6 35.29% 9 52.94% 17 Total 1 0.67% 7 4.70% 48 32.21% 93 62.42% 149

2015-2016 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent TotalCoop Ed Div Occ, Business, Marketing, Info Tech

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 100.00% 3

Coop Ed Div Occ, Business, Marketing, Info Tech, Business, Marketing, Info Tech

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 0.00% 1

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 2 0.00% 2 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.89% 0.00% 27 50.94% 25 47.17% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 1 1.45% 25 36.23% 43 62.32% 69

Special Education 0.00% 2 10.00% 10 50.00% 8 40.00% 20 Total 1 0.68% 3 2.04% 65 44.22% 78 53.06% 147

4.2 Theteacher

2014-2015 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent TotalBusiness, 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 4

creates learningexperiences that make these aspects of thediscipline accessible and meaningful for studentsto assure mastery of content.

Marketing, Info Tech

Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0.00% 4 6.45% 24 38.71% 34 54.84% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 3 5.08% 24 40.68% 32 54.24% 59Special Education 0.00% 3 17.65% 4 23.53% 10 58.82% 17 Total 0.00% 11 7.38% 55 36.91% 83 55.70% 149


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 100.00% 3


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 0.00% 1

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 2 0.00% 2 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.89% 3 5.66% 25 47.17% 24 45.28% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1

Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 3 4.35% 25 36.23% 41 59.42% 69

Special Education 0.00% 1 5.00% 10 50.00% 9 45.00% 20Total

4.3 Theteacher integrates NebraskaContent Standards and/or professional standardswithin instruction.

2014-2015 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent TotalBusiness, Marketing, Info Tech

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 4

Early Childhood

0.00% 7 11.29% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 7

Elementary 0.00% 0.00% 19 30.65% 36 58.06% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 6.25% 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 1 14.29% 24 40.68% 32 54.24% 59

Special Education

1 6.25% 12 8.11% 6 37.50% 8 50.00% 16

Total 1 0.68% 1 14.29% 52 35.14% 83 56.08% 148


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 100.00% 3

Coop Ed Div Occ, Business, Marketing, Info

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1

Tech, Business, Marketing, Info Tech

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.00% 3 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.92% 0.00% 20 38.46% 31 59.62% 52Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 2 2.90% 20 28.99% 47 68.12% 69


Responses From First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Preparation to Teach Content Knowledge (Item 1) and Prepared to Teach Content Area (Item 2).

Table 5Item 1: Prepared to Teach Content Area

Year # Item Endorsement

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree Strongly Agree

Grand Total

2014 - 2015

1 I am well prepared to teach in my content area.

BMIT 0 0.00% 0

0.00% 0 0.00% 1 50.0

0% 1 50.00% 2


0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 9 75.0%

2 16.7%

12


0 0% 3 6.1%

3 6.1% 30

61.2%

13

26.5%

49

Secondary Education

0 0% 1 2.0%

1 2.0% 33

67.3%

14

28.6%

49

Special Education

0 0% 2 9.5%

2 9.5% 11

52.4%

6 28.6%

21

2015 - 2016

1 I am well prepared to teach in my content area.

BUSE 0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00% 1 50.00%

1 50.00%

2


0 0.00%

0 0.00%

1 12.50% 2 25.00%

5 62.50%

8


0 0.00%

1 2.00%

2 4.00% 30

60.00%

17 34.00%

50

Secondary Education

0 0.00%

1 1.61%

4 6.45% 44

70.97%

13 20.97%

62

Special Education

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00% 15

68.18%

7 31.82%

22

Table 6

Item 2: Prepared to Teach Content Area


Strongly Disagree

Disagree



Grand

Total2014 - 2015

2 I am confident in my level of subject matter knowledge.

BMIT 0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00% 1 50.00%

1 50.00% 2


0 0% 0 0% 3 25.0% 7 58.3% 2 16.7% 12

. Elementary Education

0 0% 3 6.1% 4 8.2% 26

53.1% 16

32.7% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 0 0% 2 4.1% 27

55.1% 20

40.8% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 3 14.3% 11

52.4% 7 33.3% 21

2015-2016

2 I am confident in my subject matter knowledge.

BUSE 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 4 50.00%

3 37.50% 8


0 0.00% 1 2.00% 3 6.00% 26 52.00%

20 40.00% 50

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 6 9.68% 31 50.00%

25 40.32% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 4.55% 14 63.64%

7 31.82% 22

Narrative:BMIT students subject and cumulative GPA scores are average as compared to the overall secondary education, and scores exceed minimal requirements for certification—both in endorsement area and cumulative GPA at point of admission and program exit. Praxis II results show that BMIT students scored above the state cut score of 154, are consistent with the state mean score, and surpass the national mean score. Only one student failed the Praxis II exam. Summative evaluations of teacher candidates, administrator surveys, and first-year candidate surveys show that teacher candidates are prepared to teach the content, create meaningful and accessible learning experiences, and integrate state and professional standards within instruction. In summary, reporting data for the academic years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 shows that BMIT students have average or above average performance and competencies in content knowledge.

2. Content Area See Tables 1-6 from Content Area #1 above (first 8 tables in that section)

Table 7Responses from First Year Administrator Survey: Application of Content

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total

5.1 The teacher candidate understands how to connect concepts across disciplines


0 0.00% 1 25.00% 1 25.00% 2 50.00% 4

Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 3 42.86% 3 42.86% 7Elementary 1 1.61% 6 9.68% 27 43.55% 28 45.16% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 3 75.00% 0.00% 1 25.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 2 2.90% 20 28.99% 47 68.12% 69



0 0.00% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 66.67% 3


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00%

0 0.00% 1

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 3 0.00% 1 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.92% 3 5.77% 30 57.69% 18 34.62% 52

Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

1 1.45% 9 13.04% 26 37.68% 33 47.83% 69


5.2 The teacher candidate uses differing perspectives to engage students in critical thinking, creativity, and collaborative problem solving related to authentic local and global issues


0 0.00% 1 25.00% 1 25.00% 2 50.00% 4

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 5 71.43% 2 28.57% 7Elementary 1 1.61% 7 11.29% 24 38.71% 30 48.39% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 7 11.67% 21 35.00% 32 53.33% 60Special Education 0.00% 4 23.53% 5 29.41% 8 47.06% 17 Total 1 0.67% 18 12.00% 57 38.00% 74 49.33% 150


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 33.33% 2 66.67% 3

Coop Ed Div Occ, Business,

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00%

0 0.00% 1

Marketing, Info Tech, Business, Marketing, Info Tech

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 2 0.00% 2 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.89% 4 7.55% 28 52.83% 20 37.74% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 9 13.04% 24 34.78% 36 52.17% 69


Responses From First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Teaching Subject Matter Materials in Ways Meaningful to Learners (Item 14).

Table 8Item 14: Prepared to Teach Content Area

Year # Item Endorsemen

tStrongly Disagree

Disagree



Grand

Total2014 - 2015

14

I teach subject matter in ways that are meaningful to learners.

BMIT 0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 100.00%

2


0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 7 58.3% 4 33.3% 12


0 0% 0 0% 3 6.1% 27

55.1% 18

36.7% 48

Secondary Education

0 0% 2 4.1% 5 10.2% 29

59.2% 13

26.5% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 2 9.5% 10

47.6% 9 42.9% 21

2015-2016

14

I teach subject matter in ways that are meaningful to learners.

BUSE 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 0 0.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 50.00% 4 50.00% 8


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 6 12.00% 26

52.00% 18 36.00% 50

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 7 11.48% 40

65.57% 14 22.95% 61

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 9.09% 13

59.09% 7 31.82% 22

Narrative:Data from the first-year administrator survey (responses were “frequent” or “consistent” with one “occasional”) and first-year teacher candidate survey (responses were “agreed” or “strongly agreed”) indicate that BMIT teacher candidates can apply the content by connecting concepts across disciplines; engaging students in critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving; and teach their subject matter in ways that are meaningful for learners. In summary, reporting data for the academic years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 indicate that BMIT students have average or above average performance and competencies in pedagogical content.

3. Learner/Learning Environments

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for the 2014-2015 Academic Year (Item 2—Table 9A).

Table 9AItem 2: Subject Planning for Learning


Year # Item Endorsement Unsatisfactory


2014- 2015

2 Demonstrates capacity to create useable lesson and unit plans that are based upon knowledge of the discipline, students, and curricular goals

BMIT 0 0.00% 3 42.86% 4 57.14% 7


1 2.1% 6 12.5% 41 85.4% 48


0 0% 5 4.0% 120

96.0% 54

Secondary Education

0 0% 21 17.5% 99 82.5% 120

Special Education

1 2.0% 7 14.0% 42 84.0% 50

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2015-2016 Academic Year on Planning for Learning (Item 4—Table 9B)— LIVETEXT version.

Table 9BItem 4: Planning for Learning


Year


Emergent


201 4 Planning for Business, 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 20.00% 4 80.00% 5

5- 2016

learning:Creates usable lessons and unit plans based on knowledge of the discipline, students, and curricular goals

Marketing, & Info Tech


0 0.00% 1 2.94% 8 23.53% 25 73.53% 34


0 0.00% 2 1.08% 53

28.65% 130 70.27% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 2 2.27% 47

53.41% 39 44.32% 88

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 24

27.91% 62 72.09% 86

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on Instructional Enactment (Item 3—Table 10A).

Table 10AItem 3: Instructional Enactment



Unsatisfactory


2014- 2015

3 Demonstrates Capacity to implement, modify, and adapt plans that are responsive to students and curricular goals

BMIT 0 0.00% 1 14.29% 6 85.71% 7


0 0% 5 10.2% 44 89.8% 49


0 0% 8 6.4% 117

93.6% 125

Secondary Education

1 0.8% 12 10.0% 107

89.2% 120

Special Education

1 2.0% 5 10.0% 44 88.0% 50

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2015-2016 Academic Year on Responsive Teaching (Item 5—Table 10B). LIVETEXT version.

Table 10BItem 5: Responsive Teaching


Year


Emergent


2015- 2016

5 Responsive Teaching:Skillfully implements lessons that are flexible and intentional to meet individual student needs


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 40.00% 3 60.00% 5


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 9 26.47% 25 73.53% 34


0 0.00% 2 1.08% 58

31.35% 125 67.57% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 6 6.90% 38

43.68% 43 49.43% 87

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 1.16% 24

27.91% 61 70.93% 86

Responses From First Year Administrator Survey: Items Related to Student Development, Learning Differences, and Learning Environments: Student Development (Standards 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3); Learning Differences (Standards 2.1 and 2.2); Learning Environments (Standards 3.1 and 3.2).

Table 11Standards 1.1, 1.2 ,and 1.3: Student Development

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total

1.1 The teacher understands how students

2014-2015Business, Marketing, Info Tech 0

0.00% 0 0.00% 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 4

grow and develop.

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 3 42.86% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0.00% 3 4.84% 26 41.94% 33 53.23% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 2 3.33% 26 43.33% 32 53.33% 60Special Education 0.00% 2 11.76% 3 17.65% 12 70.59% 17 Total 0.00% 7 4.67% 60 40.00% 83 55.33% 150


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 66.67% 1 33.33% 3


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 0.00% 1


0.00% 2 2.90% 32 46.38% 35 50.72% 69

Special Education 0.00% 1 5.00% 7 35.00% 12 60.00% 20

Total 1 0.68% 7 4.76% 62 42.18% 77 52.38% 147

1.2 The teacher recognizes that patterns of learning and development vary individually within and across the cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and physical areas.

2014-2015 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent TotalBusiness, Marketing, Info Tech 0

0.00% 0 0.00% 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 4



0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 33.33% 2 66.67% 3


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1


1 1.45% 3 4.35% 31 44.93% 34 49.28% 69


1.3 The teacher implements developmentally appropriate and challenging learning experiences.


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 75.00% 1 25.00% 4

Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0.00% 4 6.45% 21 33.87% 37 59.68% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 5 8.47% 22 37.29% 32 54.24% 59Special Education 1 5.88% 2 11.76% 6 35.29% 8 47.06% 17 Total 1 0.67% 12 8.05% 53 35.57% 83 55.70% 149

2015-2016 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent TotalCoop Ed Div Occ, Business, Marketing, Info

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 100.00% 3

TechCoop Ed Div Occ, Business, Marketing, Info Tech, Business, Marketing, Info Tech

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 0.00% 1


0.00% 5 7.25% 25 36.23% 39 56.52% 69


Table 12Standards 2.1 and 2.2: Learning Differences

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total2.1 The teacher understand

2014-2015Business, Marketing, Info

0 0.00% 1 25.00% 1 25.00% 2 50.00% 4

s individual differences and diverse cultures and communities

Tech

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 4 57.14% 42.86% 7Elementary 0.00% 4 6.45% 27 43.55% 4 50.00% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 2 50.00% 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 6 10.17% 18 30.51% 6 59.32% 59Special Education 0.00% 0.00% 6 35.29% 64.71% 17 Total 0.00% 10 6.71% 57 38.26% 10 55.03% 149


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 100.00% 3


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 0.00% 1

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 2 0.00% 2 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.89% 5 9.43% 14 26.42% 33 62.26% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject 0.00% 7 10.14% 25 36.23% 37 53.62% 69

Area) EndorsementsSpecial Education 0.00% 1 5.00% 7 35.00% 12 60.00% 20 Total 1 0.68% 13 8.84% 49 33.33% 84 57.14% 147

2.2 The teacher ensures inclusive learning environments that enable each student to meet high demands


0 0.00% 1 25.00% 2 50.00% 1 25.00% 4

Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 1 14.29% 5 71.43% 7Elementary 0.00% 3 4.84% 23 37.10% 36 58.06% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 0.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 3 5.08% 24 40.68% 32 54.24% 59Special Education 1 5.88% 2 11.76% 4 23.53% 10 58.82% 17 Total 1 0.67% 10 6.71% 52 34.90% 86 57.72% 149


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 100.00% 3

Coop Ed Div Occ, Business, Marketing, Info Tech, Business,

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 0.00% 1



0.00% 5 7.25% 26 37.68% 38 55.07% 69


Table 13Standards 3.1 and 3.2: Learning Environments

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total3.1 The teacher works with others to create environments that support individual and


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 4

Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 1 14.29% 5 71.43% 7Elementary 0.00% 2 3.28% 21 34.43% 38 62.30% 61Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 1 25.00% 2 50.00% 4Content 0.00% 5 8.62% 15 25.86% 38 65.52% 58

collaborative learning.

(Subject Area) EndorsementsSpecial Education 0.00% 2 11.76% 3 17.65% 12 70.59% 17 Total 0.00% 11 7.48% 41 27.89% 95 64.63% 147


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 33.33% 2 66.67% 3


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1


0.00% 6 8.82% 21 30.88% 41 60.29% 68


3.2 The teacher creates

2014-2015 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent TotalBusiness, Marketing, Info

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 4

environments that encourage positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation.

Tech

Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 1 1.61% 2 3.23% 20 32.26% 39 62.90% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 3 5.17% 16 27.59% 39 67.24% 58Special Education 0.00% 1 5.88% 5 29.41% 11 64.71% 17 Total 1 0.68% 7 4.73% 45 30.41% 95 64.19% 148


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 100.00% 3


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.00% 3 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.89% 6 11.32% 14 26.42% 32 60.38% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject 0.00% 8 11.76% 19 27.94% 41 60.29% 68

Area) EndorsementsSpecial Education 0.00% 2 10.00% 4 20.00% 14 70.00% 20 Total 1 0.68% 16 10.96% 39 26.71% 90 61.64% 146

3.3 The teacher manages student behavior to promote a positive learning environment.


0 0.00% 1 25.00% 1 25.00% 2 50.00% 4

Early Childhood 0 0.00% 1 14.29% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0 0.00% 3 4.84% 22 35.48% 37 59.68% 62Middle Grades 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0 0.00% 7 12.07% 23 39.66% 28 48.28% 58Special Education 0 0.00% 2 11.76% 5 29.41% 10 58.82% 17Total 0 0.00% 13 8.78% 54 36.49% 81 54.73% 148


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 33.33% 2 66.67% 3

Coop Ed Div Occ, Business, Marketing, Info Tech, Business,

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 0.00% 1


Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 0.00% 4Elementary 2 3.77% 8 15.09% 20 37.74% 23 43.40% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 13 19.12% 25 36.76% 30 44.12% 68


Responses From First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Student Learning: Understands How Learners Learn (Item 3), and Adapts to Developmental Strategies of Learners (Item 4).

Table 14Item 3: Understands How Learners Learn


Strongly Disagree

Disagree



Grand Total

2014 - 2015

3 I positively impact the learning and development of all students.

BMIT

00.00%

00.00%

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

2100.00%

2


0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 7 58.3% 5 41.7% 12


0 0% 1 2.0% 0 0% 22

44.9% 26

53.1% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 0 0% 3 6.1% 26

53.1% 19

38.8% 48

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 10

47.6% 11

52.4% 21

2015-2016

3 I positively impact the learning and development of all students.

BUSE 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

0 0.00% 1 50.00% 1 50.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00%

0 0.00% 2 25.00% 6 75.00% 8


0 0.00% 0 0.00%

5 10.00% 21 42.00% 24 48.00% 50

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00%

10 16.13% 33 53.23% 19 30.65% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00%

1 4.55% 11 50.00% 10 45.45% 22

Table 15Item 4: Adapts to Developmental Strategies of Learners

Year # Item Endorsement Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree nor


Grand Total

Disagree2014 - 2015

4 I adapt to different developmental stages of learners.

BMIT

00.00% 0

0.00%

0

0.00%

00.00%

2100.00%

2


0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 8 66.7%

3 25.0%

12


0 0% 0 0% 4 8.2% 22

44.9%

23

46.9%

49

Secondary Education

0 0% 0 0% 9 18.4% 29

59.2%

11

22.4%

49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 2 9.5% 10

47.6%

9 42.9%

21

201 4 I adapt to BUSE 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00% 2 100.0 0 0.00 2

5-2016

different developmental stages of learners

% % 0% %


0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00% 3 37.50%

5 62.50%

8


0 0.00%

0 0.00%

8 16.00% 20

40.00%

22 44.00%

50

Secondary Education

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

17

27.87% 31

50.82%

13 21.31%

61

Special Education

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

1 4.55% 10

45.45%

11 50.00%

22

Narrative:Summative evaluation data indicate that BMIT students are well-prepared to create unit and lesson plans and implement, modify, and adapt plans (rating responses from proficient/advanced to basic/sufficient). Data gleaned from the first-year administrator survey (responses were “frequent” or “consistent” with

one “occasional”) indicate that BMIT teacher candidates have a good command of student development, learning differences, and learning environments. First-year teacher candidate survey (responses were “agreed” or “strongly agreed”) indicate that BMIT teacher candidates feel confident in impacting the learning and development of all students. In summary, reporting data for the academic years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 shows that BMIT students have average or above average performance and competencies in learner/learning environments.

4. Instructional Practices–Candidate Knowledge and SkillsResponse From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on Planning for Learning, Instructional Enactment (Item 2—Table 16A)

Table 16AItem 2: Subject Planning for Learning




2014- 2015


BMIT 0 0.00% 3 42.86% 4 57.14% 7


1 2.1% 6 12.5% 41 85.4% 48


0 0% 5 4.0% 120

96.0% 125

Secondary Education

0 0% 21 17.5% 99 82.5% 120

Special Education

1 2.0% 7 14.0% 42 84.0% 50

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for 2015-2016 Academic Year on Planning for Learning (Item 4—Table 16B)—LIVETEXT version.



Year


Emergent


2015-

4 Planning for learning:

Business, Marketing, & Info

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 20.00% 4 80.00% 5

2016

Creates usable lessons and unit plans based on knowledge of the discipline, students, and curricular goals

Tech


0 0.00% 1 2.94% 8 23.53% 25 73.53% 34


0 0.00% 2 1.08% 53

28.65% 130 70.27% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 2 2.27% 47

53.41% 39 44.32% 88

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 24

27.91% 62 72.09% 86

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on the Learning Environment (Item 3)





2014- 2015


BMIT 0 0.00% 1 14.29% 6 85.71% 7


0 0% 5 10.2% 44 89.8% 49


0 0% 8 6.4% 117

93.6% 125

Secondary Education

1 0.8% 12 10.0% 107

89.2% 120

Special Education

1 2.0% 5 10.0% 44 88.0% 50

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for the 2015-2016 Academic Year on Responsive Teaching (Item 5—Table 17B)—LIVETEXT version.



Year


Emergent


2015- 2016

5 Responsive Teaching:

Skillfully implements lessons that are flexible and intentional to meet individual student needs


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 40.00% 3 60.00% 5


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 9 26.47% 25 73.53% 34


0 0.00% 2 1.08% 58

31.35% 125 67.57% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 6 6.90% 38

43.68% 43 49.43% 87

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 1.16% 24

27.91% 61 70.93% 86

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on the Learning Environment (Item 6—Table 18A).

Table 18AItem 6: Learning Environment




2014- 2015

6 Learning Environment. Demonstrates capacity to create classroom communities that invite students’ engagement and learning, encourages positive social interaction and self-motivation.

BMIT 0 0.00% 1 14.29% 6 85.71% 7


0 0% 1 2.0% 48 98.0% 49


0 0% 9 7.2% 116

92.8% 125

Secondary Education

0 0.0% 12 10.0% 108

90.0% 120

Special Education

0 0% 5 10.0% 45 90.0% 50

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for the 2015-2016 Academic Year on Learning Culture (Item 10—Table 18B)—LIVETEXT version.

Table 18B—Item 10: Learning Culture2015-2016

Subject Area ScoringYear


Emergent


2015- 2016

10

Learning Culture:Creates classroom communities that invite student engagement and learning and encourage positive social interactions.


0 0.00% 0 0.00%

0 0.00% 4 100.00%

4


0 0.00% 1 2.94%

11

32.35% 22 64.71% 34


0 0.00% 1 0.55%

51

28.18% 129 71.27% 181

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00%

39

45.35% 47 54.65% 86

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 1.20%

19

22.89% 63 75.90% 83

Responses From First Year Administrator Survey: Items Related to Planning for Instruction (Standards 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3) and Instructional Strategies (Standards 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3)

Table 19Standards 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3: Planning for Instruction

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total7.1 The teacher plans instruction that supports every student in meeting rigorous learning goals.


0 0.00% 1 25.00% 0 0.00% 3 75.00% 4

Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0.00% 5 8.06% 24 38.71% 33 53.23% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 4 6.78% 22 37.29% 33 55.93% 59Special Education 1 5.88% 4 23.53% 6 35.29% 6 35.29% 17 Total 1 0.67% 14 9.40% 55 36.91% 79 53.02% 149


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 100.00% 3

Coop Ed Div Occ, Business, Marketing, Info Tech, Business, Marketing, Info

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1

Tech


0.00% 5 7.25% 33 47.83% 31 44.93% 69


7.2 The teacher candidate draws upon knowledge of content areas, curriculum, cross-disciplinary skills, technology, and pedagogy.


0 0.00% 1 25.00% 1 25.00% 2 50.00% 4

Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 3 42.86% 3 42.86% 7Elementary 0.00% 5 8.06% 23 37.10% 34 54.84% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 1 25.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 4 6.78% 23 38.98% 32 54.24% 59Special Education 1 5.88% 3 17.65% 4 23.53% 9 52.94% 17 Total 1 0.67% 14 9.40% 54 36.24% 80 53.69% 149

2015-2016 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent TotalCoop Ed Div Occ, Business,

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 100.00% 3

Marketing, Info TechCoop Ed Div Occ, Business, Marketing, Info Tech, Business, Marketing, Info Tech

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 0.00% 1


0.00% 6 8.70% 29 42.03% 34 49.28%


7.3 The teacher draws upon knowledge of students and the community context.


0 0.00% 1 25.00% 0 0.00% 3 75.00% 4

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 4 57.14% 3 42.86% 7Elementary 0.00% 4 6.45% 23 37.10% 35 56.45% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 1 25.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

1 1.69% 4 6.78% 24 40.68% 30 50.85% 59

Special Education 1 5.88% 4 23.53% 3 17.65% 9 52.94% 17 Total 2 1.34% 13 8.72% 55 36.91% 79 53.02% 149


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 33.33% 2 66.67% 3


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 0.00% 1


0.00% 8 11.59% 26 37.68% 35 50.72% 69


Table 20Standard 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3: Instructional Strategies

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total8.1 The teacher understands a variety of instructional strategies.


0.00% 1 25.00% 0 0.00% 3 75.00% 4

Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0.00% 7 11.29% 18 29.03% 37 59.68% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 6 10.00% 19 31.67% 35 58.33% 60Special Education 1 5.88% 2 11.76% 5 29.41% 9 52.94% 17 Total

1 0.67%16 10.67% 45 30.00% 88 58.67% 150


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 100.00% 3

Coop Ed Div Occ, 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 0.00% 1

Business, Marketing, Info Tech, Business, Marketing, Info Tech


0.00% 5 7.35% 27 39.71% 36 52.94% 68


8.2 The teacher uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage students to develop deep understanding of content areas and their connection


0.00% 1 25.00% 1 25.00% 2 50.00% 4

Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0.00% 7 11.29% 24 38.71% 31 50.00% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 0.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 7 11.67% 23 38.33% 30 50.00% 60Special Education 1 5.88% 2 11.76% 5 29.41% 9 52.94% 17 Total 1 0.67% 1 12.00% 54 36.00% 77 51.33% 150

and to build skills to apply knowledge in meaningful ways.

8


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 100.00% 3


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 0.00% 1


0.00% 8 11.76% 25 36.76% 35 51.47% 68

Special Education 0.00% 1 5.00% 9 45.00% 10 50.00% 20 Total 1 0.69% 1

28.28% 58 40.00% 74 51.03% 145

8.3 The teacher utilizes available technology for


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 4

Early 0.00% 0.00% 5 71.43% 2 28.57% 7

instruction and assessment.

ChildhoodElementary 0.00% 4 6.45% 23 37.10% 35 56.45% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 3 75.00% 1 25.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 1 1.67% 4 6.67% 17 28.33% 38 63.33% 60Special Education 0.00% 4 23.53% 6 35.29% 7 41.18% 17 Total

1 0.67%12 8.00% 54 36.00% 83 55.33% 150


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 100.00% 3


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1


0.00% 8 11.94% 24 35.82% 35 52.24% 67

Special Education 0.00% 2 10.00% 9 45.00% 9 45.00% 20

Total 1 0.69% 14

9.72% 54 37.50% 75 52.08% 144

Responses From First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Creating Effective instructional Plans (Item 7), Working Effectively as Part of an Instructional Planning Team (Item 8), Classroom Management (Item 9), Instruction Requires Problem Solving or Critical Thinking Skills (Item 16), Instruction is Adapted to the Needs of Learners With Special Needs (Item 17), and Use of Multiple Methods to Teach (Item 20).

Table 21Item 7: Create Effective Instructional Plans


Strongly Disagree

Disagree



Grand Total

2014 - 2015

7 I create effective instructional plans.

BMIT

00.00%

0 0.00%

00.00%

00.00%

2 100.00%

2


0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 8 66.7% 4 33.3% 12


0 0% 0 0% 3 6.1% 26

53.1% 20

40.8% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 1 2.1% 4 8.3% 27

56.3% 16

33.3% 48

Special Education

0 0% 1 4.8% 1 4.8% 13

61.9% 6 28.6% 21

2015-2016

7 I create effective new lesson plans

BUSE 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 1 50.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 3 37.50% 4 50.00% 8


0 0.00% 1 2.00% 7 14.00% 28

56.00% 14 28.00% 50

Secondary Education

1 1.61% 2 3.23% 6 9.68% 37

59.68% 16 25.81% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 2 9.09% 3 13.64% 12

54.55% 5 22.73% 22

Table 22Item 8: Work Effectively as a Part of an Instructional Team


Strongly Disagree

Disagree



Grand

Total2014 - 2015

8 I work effectively as part of an instructional planning team.

BMIT

00.00%

00.00%

0

0.00%

150.00%

150.00%

2


0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 4 33.3% 7 58.3% 12


0 0% 2 4.1% 3 6.1% 20

40.8% 24

49.0% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 1 2.0% 10

20.4% 23

46.9% 15

30.6% 49

Special Education

0 0% 1 4.8% 1 4.8% 9 42.9% 10

47.6% 21

2015-2016

8 I work effectively as part of an instructional team

BUSE 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 1 50.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 2 25.00% 5 62.50% 8


0 0.00% 3 6.00% 2 4.00% 23 46.00% 22 44.00% 50

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 1 1.61% 9 14.52% 27 43.55% 25 40.32% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 4.55% 4 18.18% 9 40.91% 8 36.36% 22

Table 23Item 9: Manages Classroom Management


Strongly Disagre

e

Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree


Grand

Total2014 - 2015

9 I apply effective methods to manage the classroom environment.

BMIT

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 50.00

% 1 50.00% 2


0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 6 50.0% 5 41.7% 12


0 0% 1 2.0% 4 8.2% 21

42.9% 23

46.9% 49

Secondary Education

1 2.0% 3 6.1% 11

22.4% 20

40.8% 14

28.6% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 1 4.8% 7 33.3% 13

61.9% 21

2015-2016

9 I apply effective methods to manage the classroom environment

BUSE 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 50.00%

1 50.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 3 37.50%

4 50.00% 8


1 2.00% 1 2.00% 8 16.00% 21 42.00%

19 38.00% 50

Secondary Education

1 1.61% 8 12.90%

15 24.19% 28 45.16%

10 16.13% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 4.55% 3 13.64% 8 36.36%

10 45.45% 22

Table 24Item 16: Instruction Requires Student Problem Solving and/or Critical Thinking Skills


Strongly Disagree

Disagree



Grand

Total2014 -

16

My instruction requires

BMIT

00.00% 0 0.00

% 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 1 50.00

% 2

2015 student problem solving and/or critical thinking skills.


0 0% 0 0% 2 16.7% 6 50.0% 4 33.3% 12


0 0% 0 0% 6 12.2% 27

55.1% 16

32.7% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 3 6.1% 8 16.3% 23

46.9% 15

30.6% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 4 19.0% 11

52.4% 6 28.6% 21

2015-

16

My instruction requires

BUSE 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 50.00%

1 50.00% 2

2016 student problem solving and/or critical thinking skills


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 62.50%

3 37.50% 8


0 0.00% 1 2.00% 5 10.00% 30 60.00%

14 28.00% 50

Secondary Education

1 1.61% 1 1.61% 8 12.90% 31 50.00%

21 33.87% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 9.09% 14 63.64%

6 27.27% 22

Table 25

Item 17: Adapt Instruction to Meet Needs of Learners With Special Needs


Strongly Disagree

Disagree



Grand

Total2014 - 2015

17

I adapt my instruction to the needs of learners with special needs.

BMIT

0

0.00% 0 0.00

% 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 1 50.00

% 2


0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 6 50.0% 5 41.7% 12


0 0% 1 2.0% 6 12.2% 22

44.9% 20

40.8% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 2 4.1% 3 6.1% 26

53.1% 18

36.7% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 8 38.1% 13

61.9% 21

2015-2016

17

I adapt my instruction to the needs of learners with special needs.

BUSE 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 1 50.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 3 37.50% 4 50.00% 8


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 8 16.00% 23 46.00% 19 38.00% 50

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 1 1.61% 9 14.52% 39 62.90% 13 20.97% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 4.55% 1 4.55% 9 40.91% 11 50.00% 22

Table 26Item 20: Use Multiple Methods to Teach


Disagree



Grand Total

2014 - 2015

20

I use multiple methods to teach.

BMIT

0 0.00% 00.00%

150.00%

00.00%

1 50.00%

2


0 0% 0 0% 3 25.0% 2 16.7% 7 58.3% 12


0 0% 0 0% 6 12.2% 21

42.9% 22

44.9% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 0 0% 2 4.1% 27

55.1% 2 40.8% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 4 19.0% 11

52.4% 6 28.6% 21

2015-2016

20

I use multiple methods to teach

BUSE 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 1 50.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 37.50% 5 62.50% 8


0 0.00% 1 2.00% 4 8.00% 25 50.00% 20 40.00% 50

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 1 1.61% 4 6.45% 36 58.06% 21 33.87% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 4.55% 1 4.55% 9 40.91% 11 50.00% 22

Narrative:

Responses from the summative evaluations indicate that BMIT students are well-prepared to create unit and lesson plans and adapt as needed to meet individual student needs (rating responses from proficient/advanced to basic/sufficient). This data pattern continues with summative evaluations that BMIT teacher candidates can create a learning environment that invites student engagement and encourages positive social interaction and self-motivation. Data gleaned from the first-year administrator’s survey data (responses are primarily frequent or consistent except for one occasional rating) indicate BMIT teacher candidates can plan for effective instruction supporting student knowledge and use a variety of instructional strategies and technologies. From the first-year candidate surveys, responders “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that they were prepared to create effective instructional lesson plans using various strategies aimed at problem-solving and critical thinking while maintaining a classroom environment. In summary, reporting data for the academic years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 shows that BMIT students have average or above average performance and competencies to plan for learning and instruction, implementing lesson plans that are flexible for responsive teaching, creating an inviting learning environment and useable lesson and unit plans, implementing and adapting lesson plans that are responsive, and creating a positive learning environment.

5. Instructional Practices—Assessment That Demonstrates Effects or Impact on P-12 Student learning

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on Planning for Learning (Item 2—Table 27A).

Table 27AItem 5: Planning for Learning




2014- 2015


BMIT 0 0.00% 3 42.86% 4 57.14% 7


1 2.1% 6 12.5% 41 85.4% 48


0 0% 5 4.0% 120

96.0% 54

Secondary Education

0 0% 21 17.5% 99 82.5% 120

Special Education

1 2.0% 7 14.0% 42 84.0% 50

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for 2015-2016 Academic Year on Planning for Learning (Item 4—Table 27B). LIVETEXT version.



Year


Emergent


2015- 2016

4 Planning for learning:Creates usable lessons and unit plans based on knowledge of the discipline, students, and curricular goals


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 20.00% 4 80.00% 5


0 0.00% 1 2.94% 8 23.53% 25 73.53% 34


0 0.00% 2 1.08% 53

28.65% 130 70.27% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 2 2.27% 47

53.41% 39 44.32% 88

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 24

27.91% 62 72.09% 86

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on Instructional Enactment (Item 3—Table 28A).





2014- 2015


BMIT 0 0.00% 1 14.29% 6 85.71% 7


0 0% 5 10.2% 44 89.8% 49


0 0% 8 6.4% 117

93.6% 125

Secondary Education

1 0.8% 12 10.0% 107

89.2% 120

Special Education

1 2.0% 5 10.0% 44 88.0% 50

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for 2015-2016 Academic Year on Responsive Teaching (Item 5—Table 28B)—LIVETEXT version.



Year


Emergent


2015- 2016

5 Responsive Teaching:

Skillfully implements lessons that are flexible and intentional to meet individual student needs


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 40.00% 3 60.00% 5


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 9 26.47% 25 73.53% 34


0 0.00% 2 1.08% 58

31.35% 125 67.57% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 6 6.90% 38

43.68% 43 49.43% 87

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 1.16% 24

27.91% 61 70.93% 86

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on Classroom Interaction with Students (Item 5— Table 29A).

Table 29AItem 5: Classroom Interaction With Students




2014- 2015

5 Demonstrates a capacity to interact with learners in supportive and constructive ways.

BMIT 0 0.00% 1 14.29% 6 85.71% 7


0 0% 1 2.0% 48 98.0% 49


0 0% 2 1.6% 123

98.4% 125

Secondary Education

0 0% 8 6.7% 112

93.3% 120

Special Education

0 0% 1 2.0% 49 98.0% 50

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for the 2015-2016 Academic Year on Relationships With Students (Item 7—Table 29B)—LIVETEXT version.

Table 29BItem 7: Relationships With Students


Year


Emergent


2015- 2016

7 Relationships with Students:Develops and Maintains rapport with individual and groups of students


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 100.00%

5


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 11.76% 30 88.24% 34


0 0.00% 1 0.54% 27

14.59% 157 84.86% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 4 4.55% 25

28.41% 59 67.05% 88

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 1.16% 8 9.30% 77 89.53% 86

Responses From First Year Administrator Survey on Assessment (Items 6.1 and 6.2)

Table 30Standards 6.1 and 6.2: Assessment

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total6.1 The teacher understands multiple methods of assessment


0 0.00% 1 25.00% 1 25.00% 2 50.00% 4

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 4 57.14% 3 42.86% 7Elementary 0.00% 5 8.06% 26 41.94% 31 50.00% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 0.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 1 1.67% 8 13.33% 24 40.00% 27 45.00% 60Special Education 1 5.88% 2 11.76% 5 29.41% 9 52.94% 17 Total 2 1.33% 16 10.67% 59 39.33% 73 48.67% 150


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 33.33% 2 66.67% 3


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 0.00% 1


0.00% 7 10.29% 29 42.65% 32 47.06% 68


6.2 The teacher uses multiple methods of assessment to engage


0 0.00% 1 25.00% 2 50.00% 1 25.00% 4

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 4 57.14% 3 42.86% 7Elementary 0.00% 4 6.45% 27 43.55% 31 50.00% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 1 25.00% 2 50.00% 4

students in their own growth, to monitor student progress, and to guide the teacher candidate’s and student’s decision making.

Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 1 1.67% 8 13.33% 30 50.00% 21 35.00% 60Special Education 1 5.88% 3 17.65% 5 29.41% 8 47.06% 17 Total 2 1.33% 16 10.67% 67 44.67% 65 43.33% 150


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 100.00% 3


0 0.00% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1


0.00% 8 11.76% 24 35.29% 36 52.94% 68


Responses From First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Assessment: Create Effective Assessments to Measure Learning (Item 10).

Table 31 Standard 10: Creates Effective Assessments to Measure Learning


Strongly Disagree

Disagree



Grand

Total2014 - 2015

10

I create effective assessments to measure learning.

BMIT

00.00%

00.00%

0

0.00%

150.00%

150.00%

2


1 8.3% 2 16.7%

2 16.7% 5 41.7% 2 16.7% 12


0 0% 3 6.1% 4 8.2% 33

67.3% 9 18.4% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 1 2.0% 8 16.3% 33

67.3% 7 14.3% 49

Special Education

0 0% 4 19.0%

2 9.5% 11

52.4% 4 19.0% 21

2015-2016

10

I create effective assessments to measure learning

BUSE 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

0 0.00% 1 50.00% 1 50.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00%

0 0.00% 4 50.00% 4 50.00% 8


0 0.00% 2 4.08%

5 10.20% 29

59.18% 13 26.53% 49

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 2 3.23%

10 16.13% 37

59.68% 13 20.97% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00%

2 9.09% 15

68.18% 5 22.73% 22

Narrative:Teacher candidate summative evaluation indicates that BMIT students are well-prepared to create unit and lesson plans, adapt as needed to meet individual student needs, utilize multiple methods to engage, and build and maintain rapport with learners (rating responses from proficient/advanced to basic/sufficient). The first-year administrator survey (ratings from frequent to consistent with one occasional) and first-year candidate survey (agreed or strongly agreed) also indicated that teacher candidates could create and use multiple methods of assessment to measure learning. In summary, reporting data for the academic years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 show that BMIT students have average or above average performance and competencies for instructional practices, responsive teaching, classroom interaction, and assessment.

6. Professional ResponsibilityResponse From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on Collaborative Relationships (Item 12—Table 32A).

Table 32AItem 12: Collaborative Relationships and Professional Conduct




2014- 2015

12

Collaborative Relations and Professional Conduct. Demonstrates a capacity to work with other practitioners to improve teaching for the benefit of students’ learning.

BMIT 0 0.00% 1 14.29% 6 85.71% 7


0 0% 2 4.1% 47 95.9% 49


0 0% 8 6.4% 117

93.6% 125

Secondary Education

0 0% 13 10.8% 107

89.2% 120

Special Education

0 0% 5 10.0% 45 90.0% 50

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for 2015-2016 Academic Year on Collaborative Relations and Professional Conduct (Item 13–Table 32B). LIVETEXT version.

Table 32BItem 13: Collaborative Relations and Professional Conduct


Year


Emergent


2015- 2016

13

Collaborative Relations and Professional Conduct:


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 100.00%

0 0.00% 5

Uses effective communication and consultation techniques with other professionals and families for the benefit of student learning


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 13

38.24% 21 61.76% 34


0 0.00% 1 0.54% 66

35.68% 118 63.78% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 2 2.30% 56

64.37% 29 33.33% 87

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 1.16% 28

32.56% 57 66.28% 86

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation Relationships for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on Reflection and Professional Growth (Item 14—Table 33A).

Table 33AItem 14: Reflection and Professional Growth




2014- 2015

14

Reflection and Professional Growth. Demonstrates capacity to continually evaluate how choices and actions affect students and others in the learning

BMIT 0 0.00% 2 28.57% 5 71.43% 7

community and actively seeks opportunities to grow professionally.


0 0% 3 6.1% 46 93.9% 49


0 0% 9 7.2% 116

92.8% 125

Secondary Education

0 0% 9 7.5% 111

92.5% 120

Special Education

0 0% 5 10.0% 45 90.0% 50

Response From College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2015-2016 Academic Year—Reflective Practices and Professional Growth (Item 14—Table 33B)—LIVETEXT version.

Table 33BItem 14: Reflective Practices and Professional Growth


Year


Emergent


2015- 2016

14

Reflective Practices and Professional Growth:Continually evaluates how choices and actions affects students and others in the learning community, makes necessary adjustments and actively seeks opportunities to grow


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 40.00% 3 60.00% 5

professionally


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 16

47.06% 18 52.94% 34


1 0.54% 1 0.54% 66

35.68% 117 63.24% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 5 6.25% 47

58.75% 28 35.00% 80

Special Education

1 1.16% 0 0.00% 31

36.05% 54 62.79% 86

Responses From First Year Administrator Survey: Items Related to Professional Learning and Ethical Practice (Standards 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, and 9.4) and Leadership and Collaboration (Standards 10.1 and 10.2)

Table 34Standards 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, and 9.4: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total9.1 The teacher engages in ongoing professional learning.


0.00% 1 25.00% 0 0.00% 3 75.00% 4

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 3 42.86% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0.00% 9 14.52% 12 19.35% 41 66.13% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 0.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 2 3.33% 18 30.00% 40 66.67% 60Special Education 1 5.88% 2 11.76% 3 17.65% 11 64.71% 17 Total

1 0.67%14 9.33% 36 24.00% 99 66.00% 150

2015-2016 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Total

Coop Ed Div Occ, Business, Marketing, Info Tech

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 33.33% 2 66.67% 3


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1


0.00% 2 2.90% 25 36.23% 42 60.87% 69

Special Education 0.00% 4 20.00% 4 20.00% 12 60.00% 20 Total 1 0.68% 1

06.80% 44 29.93% 92 62.59% 147

9.2 The teacher models ethical professional practice.


0.00% 0 0.00% 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 4

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 2 28.57% 5 71.43% 7Elementary 0.00% 4 6.45% 10 16.13% 48 77.42% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 4

Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 2 3.33% 14 23.33% 44 73.33% 60Special Education 0.00% 1 5.88% 4 23.53% 12 70.59% 17 Total

0.00% 7 4.67% 31 20.67%112 74.67% 150


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 100.00% 3


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.89% 0.00% 14 26.42% 38 71.70% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Special Education 0.00% 1 5.00% 5 25.00% 14 70.00% 20Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 1 1.45% 8 11.59% 60 86.96% 69

Total 1 0.68% 2 1.36% 28 19.05% 116

78.91% 147

9.3 The teacher uses evidence to continually evaluate his/her practice, particularly the effects of his/her choices and actions on others (students, families, other professionals, and the community), and adapts practice to meet the needs of each student.


0.00% 0 0.00% 3 75.00% 1 25.00% 4

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 3 42.86% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 1 1.61% 0.00% 28 45.16% 33 53.23% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 1 25.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 1 1.67% 26 43.33% 33 55.00% 60Special Education 0.00% 3 17.65% 4 23.53% 10 58.82% 17 Total 1 0.67% 5 3.33% 62 41.33% 82 54.67% 150


0 0.00% 1 0.00% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 3


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.00% 3 0.00% 4

Elementary 1 1.89% 3 5.66% 19 35.85% 30 56.60% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 4 5.80% 27 39.13% 38 55.07% 69


9.4 The teacher models professional dispositions for teaching.


0.00% 1 25.00% 0 0.00% 3 75.00% 4

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 2 28.57% 5 71.43% 7Elementary 1 1.61% 2 3.23% 15 24.19% 44 70.97% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 4 6.78% 15 25.42% 40 67.80% 59Special Education 0.00% 2 11.76% 4 23.53% 11 64.71% 17 Total

1 0.67% 8 5.37% 38 25.50%102 68.46% 149


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 33.33% 2 66.67% 3


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.89% 2 3.77% 18 33.96% 32 60.38% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 1 1.45% 14 20.29% 54 78.26% 69

Special Education 0.00% 1 5.00% 7 35.00% 12 60.00% 20 Total 1 0.68% 4 2.72% 40 27.21% 10

269.39% 147

Table 35Standards 10.1 and 10.2: Leadership and Collaboration

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand

Information Total

10.1 The teacher seeks opportunities to take

Business, Marketing, Info Tech

0 0.00% 1 25.00% 0 0.00% 3 75.00% 4

Early 0.00% 0.00% 3 42.86% 4 57.14% 7

responsibility for student learning

ChildhoodElementary 0.00% 5 8.06% 19 30.65% 38 61.29% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 33.33% 0.00% 2 66.67% 3Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 4 6.78% 17 28.81% 38 64.41% 59Special Education 0.00% 3 17.65% 5 29.41% 9 52.94% 17 Total 0.00% 13 8.78% 44 29.73% 91 61.49% 148


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 100.00% 3


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1


0.00% 1 1.45% 25 36.23% 43 62.32% 69


10.2 The teacher seeks opportunities, including appropriate technology, to collaborate with students, families, colleagues, and other school professionals, and community members to ensure student growth


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 4

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 4 57.14% 3 42.86% 7Elementary 0.00% 3 4.92% 25 40.98% 33 54.10% 61Middle Grades 0.00% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 3Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 1 1.72% 2 3.45% 23 39.66% 32 55.17% 58Special Education 0.00% 3 17.65% 5 29.41% 9 52.94% 17 Total 1 0.68% 9 6.16% 58 39.73% 78 53.42% 146


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 100.00% 3


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1


0.00% 4 5.80% 22 31.88% 43 62.32% 69


Responses From First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Professional Responsibility: Works Effectively With Parents (Item 12) and Takes Advantage of Opportunities to Grow Professionally (Item 15).

Table 36Item 12: Works Effectively with Parents


Disagree



Grand Total

2014 - 2015

12

I work effectively with parents

BMIT0

0.00%0 0.00

%0

0.00%1 50.00

%1 50.00

%2


0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 8 66.7% 3 25.0% 12


0 0% 0 0% 2 4.1% 24

49.0% 23

46.9% 49

Secondary Education

1 2.0% 3 6.1% 9 18.4% 15

30.6% 21

42.6% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 11

52.4% 10

47.6% 21

2015-2016

12

I work effectively with parents

BUSE 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 1 50.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 50.00% 4 50.00% 8


0 0.00% 2 4.00% 6 12.00% 30 60.00% 12 24.00% 50

Secondary Education

1 1.64% 2 3.28% 15 24.59% 33 54.10% 10 16.39% 61

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 9.09% 15 68.18% 5 22.73% 22

Table 37Item 15: Takes Advantage of Opportunities to Grow Professionally


Strongly Disagree

Disagree



Grand

Total2014 - 2015

15

I take advantage of opportunities to grow professionally.

BMIT

00.00% 0

0.00%

0

0.00%

150.00%

150.00%

2


0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 5 41.7% 6 50.0% 12


0 0% 0 0% 2 4.1% 21

42.9% 26

53.1% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 0 0% 2 4.1% 21

42.9% 26

53.1% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 2 9.5% 8 38.1% 11

52.4% 21

2015-2016

15

I take advantage of opportunities to grow professionally

BUSE 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 1 50.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 3 37.50% 4 50.00% 8


0 0.00% 1 2.00% 1 2.00% 30 60.00% 18 36.00% 50

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 7 11.29% 32 51.61% 23 37.10% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 4.55% 14 63.64% 7 31.82% 22

Narrative:Results from the summative evaluation (ratings from proficient/advanced to basic/sufficient) of BMIT education teacher candidates, administrator survey (ratings frequent or consistent with a one/occasional rating), and first-year teacher surveys (ratings agree or strongly agree) indicated that they can successfully work with other practitioners, other professionals, and families for the benefit of student learning. Data also show that candidates model professional dispositions for teaching, seek opportunities to integrate technology to collaborate with other stakeholders, and engage in opportunities for professional learning. Additionally, candidates demonstrated ability to work effectively with parents. In summary, reporting data for the academic years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 shows that BMIT students have average or above average performance and competencies for collaborative relations and professional conduct.

7. Overall Proficiency

Response to Administrative Survey: Items on Impact of Student Learning and Development (Standard 11.1)

Table 38 Standard 11.1: Impact of Student Learning and Development

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information

Total11.1 The teacher positively impacts the learning and development for all students


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 4



0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 100.00% 3


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1


0.00% 2 2.90% 19 27.54% 48 69.57% 69


Responses From First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Overall Proficiency: I Am an Excellent Teacher (Item 23).

Table 39Item 23: I Am an Excellent Teacher


Disagree



Grand Total

2014 - 2015

23

I am an excellent teacher.

BMIT0

0.00%0 0.00

%0

0.00%1

50.00%1 50.00

%2


0 0% 0 0% 2 16.7% 8 66.7% 2 16.7% 12


1 2.0% 2 4.1% 11 22.4% 27

55.1% 8 16.3% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 3 6.1% 9 18.4% 28

57.1% 9 18.4% 49

Special Education

0 0% 2 9.5% 5 23.8% 11

52.4% 3 14.3% 21

2015-2016

23

I am an excellent teacher

BUSE 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 0 0.00% 2


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 2 25.00% 5 62.50% 8


0 0.00% 3 6.00% 7 14.00% 29 58.00% 11 22.00% 50

Secondary Education

1 1.61% 4 6.45% 19 30.65% 35 56.45% 3 4.84% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 2 9.09% 4 18.18% 9 40.91% 7 31.82% 22

Narrative:Data from the first-year administrator survey and first year candidate survey indicate that BMIT teacher candidates can positively impact the learning and development of their students and that they are excellent teachers. In summary, reporting data for the academic years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 show that BMIT students have average or above average performance and competencies for impact of student learning and development.

SECTION 3: USE OF RELATED DATA AND INFORMATION FOR CONTINUOUS PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT OF ENDORSEMENT PROGRAM — Artifact 3

Students selecting the BMIT field endorsement will be qualified to teach business, marketing, information technology, and career education/work-based learning courses in grades 6-12 and are eligible for the Cooperative Education/Diversified Occupations supplemental endorsement. Candidates seeking a BMIT field endorsement are held to the same admission, progress, and completion standards as other UNL secondary education students.

The UNL business teacher education program may have low enrollment numbers, but the program provides candidates with the experience and preparation to teach in a secondary environment. This is evident in the following documentation summaries:

1. Content KnowledgeBMIT students subject and cumulative GPA scores are average as compared to the overall secondary education scores and scores exceed minimal requirements for certification. BMIT Praxis II results are above the state cut score of 154, are consistent with the state mean score, and surpass the national mean score. Only one student failed the Praxis II. Summative evaluations of teacher candidates, administrator surveys, and first-year candidate surveys show that teacher candidates are prepared to teach the content, create meaningful and accessible learning experiences, and integrate state and professional standards within instruction.

2. Content AreaData from the first-year administrator survey and first-year teacher candidate survey indicate that BMIT teachers apply the content by connecting concepts across disciplines, engaging students in critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving, and teach their subject matter in ways that are meaningful for learners.

3. Learner/Learning Environments

Data from the summative evaluations indicate that BMIT students are well-prepared to create unit and lesson plans and implement, modify, and adapt plans. Data gleaned from the first-year administrator survey indicate that BMIT teacher candidates have a good command of student development, learning differences, and learning environments. First-year BMIT teachers feel confident in impacting the learning and development of all students.

4. Instructional Practices—Candidate Knowledge and SkillsBMIT teacher candidates’ summative evaluations, first-year administrator, and first-year candidate survey data indicate that BMIT students use a variety of instructional strategies to develop usable lesson plans while creating an inviting learning environment.

5. Instructional Practices—Assessment That Demonstrates Effects or Impact on P-12 Student LearningResults from the teacher candidate summative evaluation indicates that BMIT students are well-prepared to create unit and lesson plans, adapt as needed to meet individual student needs, utilize multiple methods to engage, and build and maintain rapport with learners. The first-year administrator survey and first-year candidate survey also indicated that teacher candidates could create and use multiple methods of assessment to measure learning.

6. Professional ResponsibilityResults from the summative evaluation BMIT education teacher candidates, administrator survey, and first-year teacher surveys indicated that they can successfully work with other practitioners, other professionals, and families for the benefit of student learning. Data also show that candidates model professional dispositions for teaching, seek opportunities to integrate technology to collaborate with other stakeholders, and engage in opportunities for professional learning. Additionally, candidates demonstrated ability to work effectively with parents.

7. Overall Proficiency

Data from the first-year administrator survey and first year candidate survey indicate that BMIT teacher candidates can positively impact the learning and development of their students and that they are excellent teachers.

Program Strengths and Areas for ImprovementBMIT students are well prepared and demonstrate the desired content knowledge, skills, and dispositions as documented in the summative assessments, first-year administrator and teacher surveys, Praxis II content testing, and analysis of GPA. Areas of strength include instructional planning and strategies, technology integration, assessment practices, building relationships with students, and working with all learners.

The BMIT program instructor is a former high school and award winning teacher that brings a plethora of knowledge and experience. The instructor has visited secondary and middle schools, participated and presented at state, regional, and national conventions, and has consulted other professionals to assure the BMIT program continues its reputation to produce quality candidates.

Program changes since the last Program Review have been made primarily in revisions and updates within courses, and two overall curriculum course offering changes.

Improvements within course content include application software (Adobe, Microsoft Office 2016, HTML 5) in information technology courses; greater emphasis on Praxis II exam preparation in TEAC 452J, Curriculum Planning, and updates related to work-based learning (WBL) in TEAC 425/Coordinating Techniques. UNL secondary education students are evaluated with a common rubric and submit key assessments into LiveText, a web-based e-portfolio assessment system. LiveText has become an effective data-gathering tool for evaluating candidate performance and competencies.

UNL BMIT teacher candidates earn the Cooperative Education/Diversified Occupations supplemental endorsement by taking six coursework hours and documentation of work experience hours. Previously, the six hours of coursework consisted of SPED 434, Introduction to Special Needs, and TEAC 425, Coordination Techniques in Occupational Training Program. The SPED 434 instructor retired, and the

University decided not to continue that course. Now, students take TEAC 451K, Teaching Principles, which provides a more in-depth foundation and principles of career and technical and education as well as college and career readiness, along with the TEAC 425. To meet the special education requirements, BMIT teacher candidates now take SPED 402. This is the same course that is required by all secondary education majors. The two decisions regarding BMIT Program of Study were approved by the Teaching, Learning, and Teacher Education Curriculum Committee.

Since the last Program Review, enrollment in the BMIT program has decreased. There is no concrete explanation of why there are low enrollments but this could be a result of negative representation of teaching. The instructor will continue to actively recruit and is working closely with the Teaching, Learning, and Teacher Education and College of Business Administration academic advisors to promote the program.

Even though the data from the summative assessments and first-year administrator surveys were mainly positive, there is room for improvement. The instruction will continue to develop and enhance the content and delivery of the courses leading to certification. Innovating teaching strategies, technologies, and leading-edge research will continue to be incorporated in the business education coursework.

Documents

At the end of the Clinical Experience - College of … FOLIO... · Web viewCompletion of TEAC 331 or 430 or 431 or 434 or 437 or 496 (3 hrs.) or approved course, and EDPS 250 or 251