Florida A&M University · Value critical thinking and self-directed learning as habits of mind. F: 4 I: 1,4 CF: 4.4 (K) Acquire performance assessment techniques and strategies that

1

PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION UNIT

ASSESSMENT HANDBOOK

College of Education

FLORIDA A&M UNIVERSITY

2

Table of Contents

Introduction 3

Overview of Institution 3

Overview of College of Education 3

Overview of Professional Education Unit 4

Conceptual Framework 5

Conceptual Framework Themes 6

Theme Indicators 7

The PEU Assessment System 10

The FAMOUS Assessment System 10

Major Assessment System Components 12

PEU Assessment System Diagram 13

Decisions About Candidate Performance 14

Multiple Assessment Measures 14

TaskStream and the Electronic Folio 15

Program Evaluation 16

Validity and Reliability of Assessment Measures 16

Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation 18

Use of Data for Program Improvement 20

Appendix A 22

Appendix B 29

Appendix C 36

3

Overview of the Institution

Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University is a land-grant, comprehensive, historically Black

University, and is the third oldest institution in the State University System of Florida. Utilizing a strong liberal

arts program as its base, the University offers courses of study to educate students to meet the challenges of a

rapidly-changing world through a commitment to lifelong learning. FAMU offers a broad range of instruction,

research, and service programs at the undergraduate, professional, and graduate levels. Given that these

programs are developed to prepare graduates for professional success, FAMU holds membership in many major

national academic accrediting associations.

Overview of the College of Education

The College of Education can be considered the cornerstone college of Florida A&M University; it was

the first and only college, department or major within the university at its inception in 1887. The College of

Education (COE) currently retains its position of acclaim associated with superior accomplishment at this

university and within the nation. The COE remains among the top producers of African-American teachers in

the United States.

The primary mission of the college is the production of exemplary professionals to serve in educational

institutions who are informed, proactive, competent, and reflective practitioners. The College of Education

administers the pre-service and in-service professional education and graduate programs encompassed within

five (5) undergraduate and graduate degree granting departments: Elementary Education; Secondary Education

and Foundations; Health, Physical Education and Recreation; Workforce Education; and Educational

Leadership and Human Services. The College of Education in combination with the College of Arts and

Sciences, known as the Professional Education Unit (PEU), provides the relevant curriculum for elementary,

secondary, and graduate education programs supporting 19 undergraduate degrees and 18 graduate degrees.

The COE purposes are to: (1) assume leadership for the selection, guidance and professional preparation

of teacher educators and practitioners who will serve in elementary, secondary and post-secondary schools, and

other related agencies of Florida and the nation; and (2) provide a substantial foundation for advanced study as

students choose to extend their educational preparation and pursuits. These purposes will be met through a

4

foundation of general education, a planned sequence in professional education and rigorous graduate programs

providing excellent preparation for professional pursuits, graduate study and post-graduate work.

Overview of the Professional Education Unit

FAMU Professional Education Unit (PEU) is a collaborative union of the College of Arts and Science

(CAS) and the College of Education (COE) in producing school teachers, school administrators and educational

leaders in the State and the nation. The Dean of the COE serves as the Head of PEU. The PEU offers both

undergraduate and graduate degrees. At the initial level, it offers Bachelor of Science (B.S) in fourteen (14)

undergraduate programs. At the advanced level, it offers Master of Education (M. Ed), Master of Science

(M.S.), Specialist, and Doctor of Philosophy (Ph. D.) in seven (7) programs: five (5) that continue the

preparation of teachers and four (4) that prepare teachers for roles as other school personnel (see Graduate

School Catalog at www.famu.edu/acad/colleges/gds/greetings.htm).

The PEU’s fourteen (14) undergraduate programs are listed in the Table 1.

Table 1

Undergraduate Programs

Art Education

Biology Education

Business Education

Chemistry Education

Drama Education

English Education

Elementary Education

Math Education

Music Education

Pre-K Primary Education

Physical Education

Physics Education

Social Science Education

Technology Education

The PEU’s eleven (11) graduate programs are listed in the Table 2. Table 2

Graduate Programs

Continuing Preparation for Teachers

Adult Education (inactive)

Business Education

Elementary Education

English Education

Math Education

Social Science Education

Technology Education

Other School Personnel

Educational Leadership (master)

Educational Leadership (doctorate)

Counselor Education

School Psychology (Specialist)

http://www.famu.edu/acad/colleges/gds/greetings.htm

5

PEU Conceptual Framework

The Conceptual Framework in the Professional Education Unit (PEU) at Florida A&M University is an

integrated approach to providing educational experiences that result in exemplary professional educators. The

Conceptual Framework is comprised of six themes with the mission of developing high quality classroom

teachers, administrators and support personnel. The term “exemplary” refers to the kind of graduates the PEU

strives to produce. The figure below provides a diagram of the Exemplary Professional Conceptual Framework.

The integrated approach of the PEU’s Conceptual Framework is comprised of the component activities and six

cross-curricular themes aligned with the Florida Educator Accomplished Practices (FEAPs), the Interstate New

Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium Standards (INTASC). The PEU has identified indicators for each

of the Conceptual Framework themes as outlined in Table 3.

The Exemplary

Professional

Theme 2

Technology

Theme 1

Diversity

Theme 3

Values

Theme 4

Critical

Thinking

Theme 5

Professionalism

Theme 6

Urban/ Rural

Education

6

Table 3

DIVERSITY

• CF 1

• Through this focal area, the FAMU professional education candidate will:

CF:

1.1 (K)

Understand diverse backgrounds of individuals.

F: 5,6,7

I: 3

CF:

1.2 (S,D)

Acquire the skills & dispositions to understand & support diverse

student learning.

F: 5,7

I: 3,8

CF:

1.3 (S,D)

Accept and foster diversity.

F: 5,6

I: 3,8

CF:

1.4 (S)

Practice strategies such as: acceptance, tolerance, mediation &

resolution.

F: 5,6

I: 3

CF:

1.5 (K, S)

Establish a comfortable environment in which all students can learn.

F: 5, 7, 9,

10

I: 5

TECHNOLOGY

•CF 2

•Through this focal area, the FAMU professional education candidate will:

CF:

2.1 (S)

Use of available technology and software to support student learning.

F: 4,12

I: 6

CF:

2.2 (S)

Use technology to manage, evaluate and improve instruction.

F: 1,4,10

12

I: 6,7

CF:

2.3 (K)

Know fundamental concepts in technology.

F: 12

I: 1,6

CF:

2.4 (K)

Understand fundamental concepts in technology.

F: 2,12

I: 6

CF: 2.5 (S) Use fundamental concepts in technology. F: 12 I: 6

CF:

2.6 (S,D)

Facilitate access to technology for students.

F: 12

I: 6

CF:

2.7 (S)

Facilitate the use of technology by students.

F: 4,12

I: 6

VALUES

•CF3


CF:

3.1 (S)

Work with colleagues in a professional manner.

F: 6

I: 2,5

CF:

3.2 (S)

Interact with students, families and other stakeholders in a

manner that reflects ethical and moral standards.

F:11,6

I: 9,10

CF:

3.3 (S,D)

Show respect for varied (groups) talents and perspectives.

F: 5,6

I: 3

CF: 3.4(D) Be committed to individual excellence. F: 3,9 I: 5,9

CF:

3.5(D)

Recognize the importance of peer

Relationships in establishing a climate for learning.

F: 7,2

I: 5,10

CRITICAL THINKING

•CF4


CF:

4.1 (K)

Understand a variety of instructional/professional strategies to

encourage student development of critical thinking and

performance.

F:4,7

I: 4

CF:

4.2 (S)

Use a variety of instructional/professional strategies to

encourage students’ development of critical thinking and

performance.

F:2,7

I: 4

7

CF:

4.3 (D)

Value critical thinking and self-directed learning as habits of

mind.

F: 4

I: 1,4

CF:

4.4 (K)

Acquire performance assessment techniques and strategies

that measure higher order thinking skills of student.

F:1,4

I: 1,8

CF:

4.5 (S)

Demonstrate the use of higher order thinking skills.

F: 8

I: 4

PROFESSIONALISM

CF 5

Through this focal area, the FAMU professional education candidate will:

CF: 5.1 (K) Know the content. F: 8 I: 1

CF:

5.2 (S)

Use the appropriate pedagogy to provide all students with the

opportunity to learn.

F:7,9

I: 7

CF:

5.3 (D)

Demonstrate commitment to professional growth &

development.

F:3,7

I: 9

CF:

5.4 (K,S)

Use major concepts, principles, theories & research related to

the development of children and adults.

F: 7

I: 2

CF:

5.5 (S)

Construct learning opportunities that support student

development & acquisition of knowledge & motivation.

F: 7

I: 5

CF:

5.6 (S)

Display effective verbal & non-verbal communication

techniques to foster valuable interaction in the classroom.

F: 2

I: 6

CF:

5.7 (S,D)

Display appropriate code of conduct including dress, language,

and respective behavior.

F: 9

I:5,9

C.F:

5.8 (K,S)

Know and use student personnel services.

F:5,10,12

I: 2,10

URBAN/RURAL EDUCATION

•CF6


CF:

6.1 (S)

Be able to work in school settings with varied levels of human

and material resources.

F: 9,10,11

I: 10

CF:

6.2 (S,D)

Be able to work in school settings that focus on rural/urban

context with opportunities and challenges that these

environments provide.

F: 11

I: 3

CF:

6.3 (K)

Understand the conditions of both rural and urban students and

families.

F: 5, 11

I: 2,3

CF:

6.4 (S)

Communicate effectively with students’ parents and the

community.

F: 5,11

I: 6

The six themes of the Conceptual Framework (diversity, technology, values, critical thinking,

professionalism, and urban/rural education) are incorporated throughout the Unit. The themes have been well

defined and aligned with the state standards: Florida Educator Accomplished Practice (FEAP); the national

standards: Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC), which guide/set the quality

for the PEU. Through this process, the themes serve as the PEU’s institutional standards and the indicators of

candidate’s knowledge, skill, and dispositions are interwoven throughout them. Matrix 1 and Matrix 2 illustrate

how the themes and indicators are aligned with the FEAP standards (F), INTASC standards (I).

8

Matrix 1: Conceptual Framework Aligned with Florida Educator Accomplished Practice

CF: #

(K,D,S)

FEAP: # 1

Assessment

FEAP: # 2

Communic

ations

FEAP: # 3

Continuous

Improvement

FEAP: #4

Critical

Thinking

FEAP: #

5

Diversity

FEAP:

# 6

Ethics

FEAP: # 7

Human

Developme

nt

&

Learning

FEAP: # 8

Knowledge

of

Subject

Matter

FEAP: # 9

Learning

Environme

nts

FEAP: #

10

Planning

FEAP: # 11

Role of the

Teacher

FEAP: #

12

Technolog

y

CF: 1.1 (K) X X X

CF: 1.2

(S,D) X X

CF: 1.3

(S,D) X X

CF: 1.4 (S) X X

CF: 1.5

(K,S) X X X X

CF: 2.1 (S) X X X

CF: 2.2 (S) X X X

CF: 2.3 (K) X

CF: 2.4 (K) X X

CF: 2.5 (S) X

CF: 2.6

(S,D) X

CF: 2.7 (S) X X

CF: 3.1 (S) X

CF:3.2 (S) X X

CF: 3.3

(S,D) X X

CF: 3.4 (D) X X

CF: 3.5 (D) X X

CF: 4.1 (K) X X

CF: 4.2 (S) X X

CF: 4.3 (D) X

CF: 4.4 (K) X X

CF: 4.5 (S) X

CF: 5.1 (K) X

CF: 5.2 (S) X X

CF: 5.3 (D) X X

CF: 5.4

(K,S) X

CF: 5.5 (S) X

CF: 5.6 (S) X

CF: 5.7

(S,D) X

CF: 6.1 (S) X X X

CF: 6.2

(S,D) X

CF: 6.3 (K) X X

CF: 6.4 (S) X X

*K-Knowledge S-Skills D-Disposition

9

Matrix 2: Conceptual Framework Aligned with Interstate New Teacher Assessment Consortium

(INTASC)

CF: # (K,D,S)

I1: Content

Pedagogy

I2: Student

Development

I3: Diverse

Learners

I4: Inst.

Strategies

I5: Motivation

and Management

I6: Comm.

&

Technology

I7:

Planning

I8:

Assessment

I9:

Reflective

Practice

I10: School

& Comm.

Involvement

CF: 1.1 (K) X

CF: 1.2 (S,D) X X

CF: 1.3 (S,D) X X

CF: 1.4 (S) X

CF: 1.5 (K,S) X

CF: 2.1 (S)

CF: 2.2 (S) X

CF: 2.3 (K) X X X

CF: 2.4 (K) X

CF: 2.5 (S) X

CF: 2.6 (S,D) X

CF: 2.7 (S) X

CF: 3.1 (S) X X X

CF: 3.2 (S)

CF: 3.3 (S,D) X

CF: 3.4 (D) X X X

CF: 3.5 (D) X

CF: 4.1 (K) X X

CF: 4.2 (S) X X

CF: 4.3 (D) X X

CF: 4.4 (K) X

CF: 4.5 (S) X

CF: 5.1 (K) X

CF: 5.2 (S) X

CF: 5.3 (D)

CF: 5.4 (K,S) X

CF: 5.5 (S) X

CF: 5.6 (S) X

CF: 5.7 (S,D) X X

CF: 6.1 (S)

CF: 6.2 (S,D) X X

CF: 6.3 (K) X X X

CF: 6.4 (S)

*K-Knowledge S-Skills D-Disposition

10

The PEU Assessment System

The FAMU PEU Assessment System is based upon six transition points for the measurement of

candidates’ performance, program quality, and unit operations for the purpose of continuous improvement and

enhancements. Programs have been designed to allow candidate performance to be tracked at the six transition

points, such as (1) admission to the University, (2) admission to the program, (3) initiation, progression and

completion of course requirements, (4) Student Teaching/internship/practicum, (5) Gradate/Exit Survey and (6)

Employer Satisfaction Survey & Graduate Follow Up Survey/Induction at the initial level. At the advanced

level, the transition points are: (1) admission to Graduate School, (2) admission to program, (3) initiation,

progression and completion of course requirements, (4) advancement to candidacy, (5) graduation/exit, and (6)

post graduation/exit. Each transition point gives the Unit and programs an opportunity to collect and analyze

data on candidate performance and progression through the program. These data elements include grade point

average (GPA), electronic portfolio, field/clinical/practicum experiences evaluations, comprehensive

examinations, exit survey, employer satisfaction survey and follow up survey. Data collected at each transition

point provide a view of candidates’ acquisition of knowledge, skills, and dispositions and progression within the

program. As new data are acquired, aggregated and analyzed, they are shared throughout the Unit for

improvement. These same data are used within the University’s FAMOUS Model (see Diagram 2) to document

candidates’ performance, program effectiveness, and improvements made.

The FAMOUS Assessment System

The “FAMOUS” assessment planning and implementation model provides a uniform process for

planning assessment activities and documentation of results. The FAMOUS approach involves the following

six sequential and precise steps:

Step 1: Formulating statements of outcomes/objectives aligned to institutional mission/goals;

Step 2: Ascertain criteria for success;

Step 3: Measuring student/service performance using qualitative and quantitative methods;

Step 4: Observing and analyzing results for consequence between expected and actual outcomes;

11

Step 5: Using results to effect improvement of instructional programs and administrative and educational

support services; and

Step 6: Strengthening programs and services by continuously evaluating, planning, allocating resources and

implementing new approaches to ensure consequences between expected and actual outcomes.

The FAMOUS Assessment Model (Diagram 2), gives a pictorial view of the operational flow of the

FAMOUS assessment cycle.

Diagram 2: University-Wide FAMOUS Assessment Model

Formulate statements

of outcomes/objectives

aligned to

institutional mission/goals

Use result to effect

improvement of

programs

and services

Strengthen programs

and services by

continuously evaluating,

planning, allocating resources,

and implementing

new approaches

Ascertain

criteria

for success

Measure performance

using

Direct and

Indirect

methods

Observe and analyze

results for congruence

between expected

and actual results

F

aM

O

US

AM

F

O

US

Consistent with its institutional vision of education, the College of Education Assessment Committee

(COEAC) was set-up to oversee the assessment activities within the Professional Education Unit. The PEU’s

assessment system is aligned with the University’s FAMOUS Assessment Model. Conceptual Framework

Outcomes, which are aligned with institutional, state, and national standards, are adopted in the Assessment

Planning Form (APF). The University Assessment Office develops the APF which is comprised of three

12

sections: Section I: General Information; Section II: Institutional Mission/Goals and Connections; and Section

III: Expected Educational Outcomes. There are six steps in APF: Step 1: Excerpt(s) Citing Linkage to

University Mission Statement, Linkage to University Goal(s) Statement, Program Mission/Goals, and Program

Expected Outcomes; Step 2: Outcome; Step 3: Criteria for success and Methods of assessment; Step 4:

Summary of Results; Step 5: Use of Results, and Step 6: Strengthening the Program Action Plan. The APF is

used by all the programs within the PEU to tie with the Conceptual Framework Outcomes. It provides a uniform

process for planning assessment activities and documentation of assessment results and use of results for

improvement.

Major Assessment System Components

The Diagram 3 provides a functional overview of the major components of the PEU Assessment System and

Timelines. It outlines how multiple datasets related to candidates’ performance and unit operation and program

are tracked, measured, analyzed, and reported.

13

Diagram 3: Florida A&M University, Assessment System Diagram

Florida A&M University

Professional Education Unit

Assessment System Diagram

Annual Timeline Continuous Due Fall Sept. – Nov. Due December January –

April

Due May August

Input: Data in student application, University files,

program files and PEU files

Process:

Program collects, organizes, and stores data on candidate performance

Chairpersons review data summaries and analyze program summary reports by program coordinators

Dean writes a memo to chairs to launch data collection and analysis of each program with specific objectives

Output: Each DLAC produces a program status report

(PSR)

Key Data Elements are profiled

Summary data done by *DLAC and *PLAC

PSR is a common format for all programs in PEU

●The

department chair

takes action

●The Dean gets

report and takes

action

●Review department

assessment reports

Analyze reports and

budgets

●Make recommendations

to Dean for program

improvement

●The Dean takes action

● IPEP due

PEU

Assessment

Activities

Program

recommenda-

tions and

actions and

budget

Program Status Report (PSR)

Department Assessment Activities Review program report Analyze program report

Adjust program for better candidates’ performance

PEU UAC

Final Reporting and

Recommendation

Dean reviews final

reports and Takes

action

U. Assessment

Office reviews

reports and make

recommendations.

Six Transition Points Continuous

Tracking of Candidate

Data, Program

and Unit Operation

*DLAC=Department level Assessment Committee *PLAC=Program level Assessment Committee

14

Decisions About Candidate Performance

Across the PEU and at specific transition point intervals, candidate performance is determined as

satisfactory for continued progression through multiple assessments. The Unit’s Data Collection, Aggregation,

and Data Analysis and Use Flowchart provides a view of the multiple assessments used and the specific

intervals wherein candidate assessments are made. Each program in the PEU has multiple assessment measures

for candidates upon entry into the University, Admission into the Program, Initiation, Progression and

Completion of Course Requirements, Advance To Candidacy, Graduation/Exit and Post-Graduation/Exit. (See

Appendices for Initial and Advanced Level Flowcharts)

Faculty members in each program assess candidate pedagogical knowledge, skills, and dispositions

through course-based assessments, field/clinical/practicum experiences and internship evaluations. Data from

these assessments are used to make decisions about candidate performance, advancement to candidacy, and

completion of the program. As candidates progress through the program, they will demonstrate increasingly

higher levels of knowledge, skills, and dispositions as identified in the Unit’s conceptual framework and

program knowledge bases. Since training is a stepwise process that results in cumulative data, evaluation and

feedback become crucial to advancing in the higher levels of training. As feedback is given to candidates,

growth is expected in the candidate’s performance.

Multiple Assessment Measures

The Unit’s assessment system utilizes measures deemed appropriate as predictors of candidates’ ability

to meet and/or exceed the established criteria, as determined by national, state, institutional, and program

standards to graduate and to enter the ranks of the teaching profession and other professional educator

capacities. The assessments are designed based upon the understanding that there is a relationship between the

various assessment measures and candidates’ ability to demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions

associated with the measures in a real world context. The Unit’s assessment measures are applied from

Transition Point 1 through Transition Point 6. Candidates’ success on established measures, which indicate

meeting requirements at these transition points, also indicates progressive success at each point. The Unit’s

15

assessment measures (in Transition Point 1 through Transition Point 6) provide a longitudinal view of

candidates’ acquisition of competencies, which leads to the designation of “Exemplary Professional.” The

Unit assessments used as predictors of candidates’ success are grade point averages, approved electronic folios,

a common lesson plan rubric, graduate record examination scores, comprehensive examination results, state

professional licensure examinations, for example Florida Teacher Certificate Examination (FTCE) and Florida

Educational Leadership Examination (FELE), (taken prior to degree certification), theses and dissertations,

completer satisfaction survey, and employer satisfaction survey results.

TaskStream and Electronic Folio

The TaskStream website informs that its technology “empowers educators to document, organize, and

manage assessment processes; systematically address accreditation requirements; develop, assess and manage e-

portfolios; manage field placements, internships and other remote educational experiences; easily and reliably

administer surveys; use outcomes-based assessment data to demonstrate effectiveness and effect change; and,

ultimately, promote continuous improvement throughout their organizations.” Prior to Fall semester 2009, all

candidates in PEU programs were required to maintain a College Livetext account. Livetext permitted

candidates to maintain a portfolio of artifacts for all courses taken in the program. Each course artifact was

aligned with national, state, and professional standards, and constituted evidence for what a candidate knew and

was able to do. Commencing with the Fall semester 2009, the PEU transitioned to TaskStream, an educational

technology that permits candidate assessment on specified artifacts, which also delineates what candidates know

and are able to do. TaskStream is specifically designed for assessment, however, candidates can also create a

portfolio of artifacts for all courses taken in a program. The electronic folio in TaskStream allows candidates to

archive their work completed in Transition Point 3 and to demonstrate their learning achievements. Faculty

members are able to assess candidate learning according to specific course requirements (artifacts) and to

provide feedback for continuous improvement.

16

Program Evaluation

Program evaluation and performance assessment data are derived from multiple sources, such as

Graduate Follow-Up Surveys, Employer Satisfaction Surveys, State licensure examinations, comprehensive

examinations, and course evaluation forms. In addition, feedback from candidates that is found in course

evaluations provides information to be used to make changes. The Leadership Team meets periodically to

consider the state of education and to discuss the results from the evaluation. Trend data are also reviewed

during these meetings and decisions are made based upon information gleaned from data.

Accuracy and Consistency

The PEU continuously examines the validity of assessments to ensure consistency with the professional

standards in complexity, cognitive demands, and skill requirements. Assessments are reviewed periodically to

ensure that they accurately represent the competencies, professional dispositions and performances that are

included in the Conceptual Framework cross-curricular themes (diversity, values, professionalism, urban/rural,

technology, and critical thinking), as well as the national, state, and program standards. The expected outcomes

depicting the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions based on institution, state, and national standards

are developed and clearly articulated objectives and professional judgments, are used to determine if candidates

meet expected outcomes. Candidates’ attainment of content knowledge and demonstration of teaching and

professional effectiveness are assessed by faculty and third-party evaluations during field/clinical/practicum

experiences and internship. Assessments are formulated to measure objectives determined by the standards,

such as knowledge and comprehension, ability to apply or practice, professional dispositions or attitudes,

capacity to analyze or reflect, and effectiveness of classroom teaching performance and other skills as

determined by program discipline. Unit assessments are standardized using the Assessment Planning Form

according to scheduled administration.

Program curriculum and assessment maps are reviewed periodically to maintain the highest level of

compliance with national, state, and regional requirements. These maps are reviewed by the program faculty

and PEU Assessment Committee (PEUAC) in order to ensure that candidates at both the initial and advanced

levels are exposed to the required learning content in a logical and sequential manner. In compliance with the

17

Guidelines for Continued Program Approval established by the Florida Department of Education, these maps

are also reviewed by a team of subject area experts outside of the institution to determine if assignments and

assessments are aligned to the appropriate performance standards. Thus, PEU candidates are accurately

assessed on the appropriate subject matter that is consistent with actual instruction and related field experiences.

Reliability

The PEU assessment system incorporates the collection and analyses of data and the use of this

information for candidate, program, and unit evaluation. Taskstream has an inter-rater reliability system that

produces an average score from the multiple evaluators. Inter-rater reliability addresses the consistency of the

implementation of a rating system.

To ensure the validity and reliability of the portfolio data, the assessment committee conducts a

periodic view of Student Teaching Portfolio data. Faculty members are requested to evaluate multiple

portfolios in order to test the extent to which two or more individuals (coders or raters) agree. The inter-rater

reliability test consists of two additional evaluators for each student teacher. Each evaluator will be trained and

will use the same portfolio rubric evaluation tool (with a sliding 1-4 rating scale) as the primary evaluators.

The ratings of the three evaluators are analyzed to determine the intra-class coefficient. Assessment

instruments are considered to be sufficiently reliable if they have a coefficient higher than 0.75.

Fairness (Bias-Free)

The PEUAC will periodically review the key assessments to ensure that they are free of offensive

matter. The PEU staff strives to treat all students fairly and seeks to communicate high expectations for all

students regardless of their backgrounds. Periodic content analysis provides assurance that assignments and

assessments are non-discriminatory and promote high esteem and confidence in all candidates at both the initial

and advanced levels.

Additionally, the PEUAC conducts annual reviews of key assessments data to ensure that there are no

significant differences between candidate performance based on race, gender, program of study, or

physical/mental abilities. An appropriate sample of candidate performance results is analyzed using widely-

accepted statistical comparison-of-means or analysis of variance methodologies to identify any meaningful

18

differences between performances based on non-academic characteristics. If significant differences are found,

the PEUAC will inform the college dean, associated department chair, and program faculty. A corrective action

plan will be developed and submitted for review by the department chair and college dean.

Table 1 indicates the procedures that the PEU employs to test the validity and reliability of assessment

instruments used across the unit with respect to the Transition Points, to eliminate bias in performance

assessments, and to establish fairness, accuracy, and consistency of its assessment procedures.

Table 1: Validity and Reliability of Partial Assessment Instrument

Partial Assessment Instrument Validity and Reliability Procedures

Exit Survey Content Validity

Inter-consistency Reliability

Employer Satisfactory Survey Content Validity

Inter-consistency Reliability

Comprehensive Exam Analysis Content Validity

Inter-rater Reliability

Dissertation Committee Analysis Content Validity


E-folio Rubrics Construct Validity


Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation

Programs within the PEU report candidate data to the Office of Information Management and

Assessment (OIMA) according to the Unit Assessment System Timeline (see Diagram 4: Relationship Between

FAMOUS Assessment Approach and PEU Assessment System). The Program Status Report (PSR) which

contains all the data elements in the six transition points is submitted to the department chairs, CAS and COE

deans, OIMA and the Head of the Unit. Chairs review the PSR and make recommendations to the deans. The

deans receive the reports and take appropriate action based on the weighted data available. Subsequently, the

University Assessment Office reviews the final reports and provides feedback to the Head of PEU to make Unit

level improvements [see Appendix A: Data Collection, Aggregation, and Data Analysis and Use

(Undergraduate) and Appendix B: Data Collection, Aggregation, and Data Analysis and Use (Graduate)] .

19

Diagram 4: Relationship Between FAMOUS Assessment Approach and PEU Assessment System

Formulate statements

of outcomes/objectives

aligned to

institutional mission/goals

Use result to effect

improvement of

programs and services

Strengthen programs

and services by

continuously evaluating, planning, allocating resources,

and implementing

new approaches

Ascertain

criteria

for success

Measure performance

using

qualitative and

quantitative methods

Observe and analyze

results for congruence between expected

and actual results

F

aM

O

US

AM

F

O

US

The results generated from the internal (FAMU) and external (previous schools, ETS, school districts, State

Licensure Examination Agency, employers, etc.) data sources respective to the transition points in the

Assessment System provide PEU reliable information on how the candidates and program perform and unit

operates. When inconsistency and deficiency occur, they are addressed by the PEU. Improvement of operations

and programs is a continuous process within the unit. (See Table 5 below):

Due Date: October/February

For each program outcome

(objectives), criteria for success

are established and include

institutional, state, and national

standards in producing

“Exemplary Professionals”

resulting pass rates in courses,

graduation rates, employment

satisfaction survey. (*Row 2)

Due Date: October February

Methods of assessments include both

direct and indirect measures to

determine candidate and program

success. Data are collected across

transition points from external and

internal sources, which may include

course exams, E- portfolios,

comprehensive examination,

field/clinical/practicum evaluation,

internship evaluation, and candidate

exit surveys, employer satisfaction

survey and graduate follow-up

survey. (Row 3)

Due Date: December/May

Results are collected, analyzed, and

summarized. Summary of results

are reported on the assessment

planning form (*Row 4)

Due Date:

December/May

Programs utilize results

to improve courses, programs, and unit

operations. (*Row 5)

Due Date:

December/May

Each program develops

a continuous

improvement plan to

strengthen the program

and which implies

budgetary

requirements.

(*Row 6)

Due Date: October/February

Within PEU the Conceptual

Framework is used by

programs to formulate goals

and outcomes to be placed in

the Assessment Planning

Form. (*Row 1)

20

Table 5: Internal and External Data Elements by Transition Points

Data

source

Transition

Point 1

Transition

Point 2

Transition

Point 3

Transition Point 4 Transition

Point 5

Transition

Point 6

Internal GPA

E-

Portfolio

Semester GPA

Comp. Exam

Field/Clinical/Practicum

Experiences (by

Faculty)

Candidate

Exit

Survey

Graduate

Status

External GPA,

Previous

degree

GPA,

GRE,

Previous

degree

CLAST/GK

FTCE Field/Clinical/Practicum

Experiences (by

Supervising

personnel/directing

teacher

Graduate

Status

(Licensure

Exam)

Employer

Satisfaction

Survey

Graduate

Follow-up

Survey

The PEU’s Office of Information Management and Assessment was established in the fall 2004 to

facilitate systematic data collection, aggregation and analysis. Candidate and program data are reported to

OIMA by department/program according to the PEU Assessment System Timeline. The OIMA aggregates the

data and conducts data analysis that describes trends. Candidate and program trend data are then disseminated

to the programs/departments and the Office of the Deans for action to be taken in order to improve candidate

performance, program quality, and unit operations. Examples of trend data are: (a) graduate GPA’s, (b) number

of candidates experiencing probation status, (c) number of candidates passing comprehensive examination, (d)

number of candidates failing comprehensive examination, (e) number of candidates successfully completing

internship, (f) candidate profile; and (g) state licensure examination pass rate.

The PEU is required to compile an Institutional Program Evaluation Plan (IPEP) annually and to

submit it to the Florida Department of Education. This IPEP contains summarized data related to candidate

assessments and components of improvement activities, some of which are provided in the Program Status

Report (PSR).

Use of Data for Program Improvement

Data are collected on candidates at six transition points. These data inform program personnel about

candidates’ progress in meeting established program and course goals. These data are also reported to the Office

of Information management. Data assist program personnel to make decisions about programs and candidates.

21

Admission decisions are made based upon applicant gpa and previous degrees. Candidate continuation in a

program is based upon meeting program and course requirements. Grade point averages are monitored to ensure

that candidates are meeting the specific criteria of a GPA. This monitoring activity takes place on a semester

basis. Candidate success in a program is contingent upon satisfactory performance on course requirements.

Candidates are required to upload to TaskStream three specific course requirements. These requirements are

representative of the ability of a candidate to master specific knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Each course

artifact has a corresponding grading rubric, which is used to assess the degree to which a candidate has

successfully demonstrated competence and mastery of state and national standards. Candidate performance on

state licensure examinations are also a source of data used for program improvement. Completer survey data

and graduate follow up data are additional information sources which are used to improve programs.

The PEU regularly and systematically uses candidate performance data to evaluate courses, clinical

experiences and programs. The following charts show the process that the Unit regularly and systematically

uses candidate and graduate performance data to evaluate its courses, clinical experiences and programs.

22

APPENDIX A

PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION UNIT (PEU)

DATA COLLECTION, AGGREGATION and DATA ANALYSIS AND USE (INITIAL LEVEL)/UNDERGRADUATE

TRANSITION POINT 1- Admission to the University

COLLECTION AGGREGATION

DATA

ELEMENT KSD-CF

ASSESS. USED WHO WHEN

TO WHOM

INFO

FLOWS

WHAT ASSESS.

INSTRU WHO WHEN FLOW*

GPA & Test (ACT/SAT

scores,

HS academic

units/credits,

HS GPA)

3.4(D),

4.3(D),

4.5(S),

Adm. Report, Transfer

Student Report and

Application for University

admission

Center for

Teacher

Preparation

(CTP)

Each

Semester

Center for

Teacher

Preparation

Chair, OIMA

Student

Report

Analysis

according to

University

admission

policies

Center for

Teacher

Preparation

Each

Semester

Chairs,

OIMA

Previous

Diploma &

Course Work (HS diploma/

GED

Undergraduate

transfer credits)

4.5(S), 5.6(S) Adm. Report, Transfer

Student Report and

Application for admission

Center for

Teacher

Preparation

(CTP)

Each

Semester

Center for

Teacher

Preparation

Chair, OIMA

Student

Report

Analysis

according to

University

admission

policies

Center for

Teacher

Preparation

Each

Semester

Chairs,

OIMA

DATA ANALYSIS AND USE

DATA ELEMENT ASSESSMENT WHO RECOMMENDATIONS DECISIONS/ CHANGES

MADE WHEN

GPA & Test Pre-Teacher Candidate

Report

CTP

University Admission

Office

Accept if GPA ≥ 2.0

Pre-content area code.

If GPA < 2.0 and/or < 16 Eng. ACT, 17

Reading, 18 Math /440 SAT (Verbal and

Quantitative) scores indicate a

recommendation for Cprep courses.

Letter of Advisement.

Adhere to University Admission

policies.

Recruitment Strategies

Enrichment/remediation strategies

Each

Semester

Previous Diploma & Course Work Pre-Teacher Candidate

Report

CTP

University Admission

Office

Determine (if necessary) the additional

courses to take to meet program

admission requirements.

Adhere to University Admission

policies.

Each

Semester

* goes to Program Status Report

23

DATA COLLECTION, AGGREGATION and DATA ANALYSIS AND USE (INITIAL LEVEL) UNDERGRADUATE

TRANSITION POINT 2 - Admission to Program


DATA

ELEMENT KSD-CF

ASSESS. USED WHO WHEN TO WHOM

INFO FLOWS WHAT

ASSESS.

INSTRU WHO WHEN

FLO

W

GPA (General

Education only)

3.4(D),

4.3(D), 4.5(S),

1.1(K), 2.3(K)

3.3(SD),

3.5(D), 5.6(S)

Application for

Admission to a

Profession Education

Program

Admissions

Committee

(CTP)

Each Semester Chair

OIMA

PEU

Admission

Status Report

Analysis in

accordance

with

admission

policies

Center for

Teacher

Preparation

Each

Semester

Chairs,

OIMA

GK/CLAST

(FDOE score

report)

3.4(D),

4.3(D),

4.4(K), 5.6(S)

Application for

Admission to a


Program

Admissions

Committee

(CTP)

Each Semester Chair

OIMA

PEU

Admission

Status Report

Analysis in

accordance

with State

Standards and

admission

policies

Center for

Teacher

Preparation

Each

Semester

Chairs,

OIMA

Previous

Degree(s) or

General Educ.

Course Work

1.1(K), 1.4(S),

2.3(K),

2.4(K), 3.2(S),

3.4(D),

3.5(D),

4.3(D),

4.5(D),

5.1(K), 5.6(S)

Application for

Admission to a


Program

Admissions

Committee

(CTP)

Each Semester Chair

OIMA

PEU

Admission

Status Report

Analysis in

accordance

with

admission

policies

Center for

Teacher

Preparation

Each

Semester

Chairs,

OIMA

Interview (oral

and written

communication)

4.3(D), 4.4(K)

4.5(D),

5.1(K), 5.6(S),

6.4(S)

Rubrics Admissions

Committee

(CTP)

Each Semester Chair

OIMA

PEU

Admission

Status Report

Analysis in

accordance

with

Admission

Policies

Center for

Teacher

Preparation

Each

Semester

Chairs,

OIMA

(continues on next page)

24


TRANSITION POINT 2 - Admission to Program (Cont.)


DATA ELEMENT ASSESSMENT WHO RECOMMENDATIONS CHANGES MADE WHEN GPA PEU Admission Status

Report

Admissions

Committee

(CTP)

Accept if general education student

GPA ≥ 2.5 (undergrad)

If general education GPA less than 2.5

recommend to apply for course

forgiveness policy when applicable

and/or take additional courses to

increase GPA and reapply

Alternative admission:

10% Rule

Adhere to Program

Admission policies

Each

Semester

GK/CLAST PEU Admission Status

Report

Admissions

Committee

(CTP)

Retake or apply for 10% Rule Adhere to Program

Admission policies.

Each

Semester

Previous Degrees or General Educ.

Course Work

PEU Admission Status

Report

Admissions

Committee

(CTP)

Accept in program, if student takes

additional courses (when necessary) to

meet program requirement

Adhere to Program

Admission policies

Each

Semester

Interview Rubrics Admissions

Committee

(CTP)

Accept in program if student meets

State standards

Adhere to Program

Admission policies

Each

Semester

25


TRANSITION POINT 3 – Initiation, Progression and Completion of Course Requirements


DATA

ELEMENT KSD-CF


TO WHOM

INFO

FLOWS

WHAT ASSESS.

INSTRU WHO WHEN FLOW

GPA

(cumulative)

ALL

Pre-application for

Student

Teaching/Internship

CTP Each

Semester

Chair,

OIMA

PreInduction

Progress

Report

GPA Analysis

according to

Policies

CTP Each

Semester

Dean, OIMA

Chairs/Coordin

ator, PEU

Asses

Course Work ALL Transcript Advisement

Report (TAR)) and

Course Guide

Course Rubrics (CR)

Faculty/

Advisors

Each

Semester

Coordinator

Chair

TAR and

Course

Guide

TAR Analysis

According to

program

requirement;

CR

Program

Coordinator

Chairs

Each

Semester

Dean, OIMA

Chairs/Coordin

ator

FTCE (all three

sub-tests)

4.1(K), 4.2 (S),

4.3(D), 4.4(K),

4.5(S), 5.4(S),

5.1(K)

Pre-application for

Student

Teaching/Internship

CTP

Each semester Chair

OIMA

PreInduction

Progress

Report

FTCE Report CTP Each

semester

Chair, Dean

Portfolio ALL Program Assessment

Planning Form (PAPF)

Program

Coordinator

Chair

Each semester OIMA

UOA

Dean

PAPF Summary

of Results

Program

Coordinator

Chairs

Each

semester

OIMA

UOA

Dean

Faculty


DATA ELEMENT ASSESSMENT WHO RECOMMENDATIONS CHANGES MADE WHEN GPA Pre-application

(Transcript)

Chair/Program

Coordinator

If GPA less than 2.5 undergrad candidate will

be on probation. Write Professional

Development Plan (PDP)

Maintain or revise PDP Each semester

Course Work Requirements TAR and Course Guide

Course Rubrics

Chair/Coordinator

OIMA, UOA

Address all course requirement deficiencies in

TAR and Course Guide

Maintain updated TAR

analysis and Course Guide

Each

Semester

FTCE (all three sub-tests; GK, Professional,

& SAE)

Pre-application (Score

Reports)

Chair/Coordinator

OIMA, UOA

Maintain or revise course content and

instruction

Maintain or revise PDP Each semester

Portfolio Program Assessment

Planning Form (PAPF)

Chair, Faculty,

OIMA, UOA

Maintain or revise program assessment plan Changes made based on

summary of results

Each semester

26


TRANSITION POINT 4 – Advancement to Student Teaching


DATA

ELEMENT KSD-CF


TO WHOM

INFO

FLOWS

WHAT ASSESS.


Professional

Education Courses

3.4(D),

3.4(D), 4.5 (S)

Student Teaching

Application

Chair/Coord.,

Advisors

Each Semester Dean,

OIMA

Student

Teaching

Status

Form

GPA Analysis

according to

Policies

OST Each

semester

Dean, Chair,

Coordinators

Portfolio (12

Accomplished

Practices)

K-1.1, 1.4,

2.3, 2.4, 4.4,

5.1, 6.3.

S- 2.1, 2.2,

2.5, 2.7, 4.2,

4.5, 5.2, 5.4,

5.6, 6.4.

D-1.2, 1.3,

3.4, 4.3, 5.3

Student Teaching

Application w/Pre-

student teaching

Portfolio Rubric

(adequate or

unacceptable)

Program

faculty &

chair

Each semester Chair, CTP,

OIMA

Student

Teaching

Status

Form

Rubrics OST Each

semester

Chair, Dean


DATA ELEMENT ASSESSMENT WHO RECOMMENDATIONS CHANGES MADE WHEN

Professional Education

Courses

Student Teaching Application Chair,

Coordinator

Academic Advisement/ Counseling Review curriculum, revise course

content, and develop remediation

strategies.

Each semester

Portfolio (12 Accomplished

Practices-FEPS)

Student Teaching Application Chair,

Coordinator

Academic remediation /

Counseling

Develop Professional Development Plan

(PDP)

Each semester

27


TRANSITION POINT 5: Graduation/Exit


DATA

ELEMENT KSD-CF


TO WHOM

INFO

FLOWS

WHAT ASSESS.


Candidates’ Exit All Candidate Exit Survey

Instrument

Chair /

Coordinator

Each Semester Chair, Dean,

OIMA

Survey

Responses

Analysis

according to the

graduate

satisfaction

OIMA Each

semester

Chair,

Coord

Dean

Graduate Status All Graduates Status

Checklist

Chair/

Coordinator

Each Semester Chair, Dean

Univ.

Registrar,

OIMA

Graduation

Certification

Report

Program

requirements

(GPA, course

work, ST., etc)

OIMA Each

semester

Chair,

Coord,

Dean


DATA ELEMENT ASSESSMENT WHO RECOMMENDATIONS CHANGES MADE WHEN Candidates’ Exit Survey Candidate Exit Survey

Instrument

Chair, Adm.

Services, Office of

Student Teaching

Graduate suggestions Review curriculum and revise course

content, develop remediation strategies

Each semester

Graduate Status Graduates Status

Checklist

Chair/ Coordinator Graduate or Denied

Notice of Graduation Deficiency

Implementation of program and university

policy

Each semester

28

DATA COLLECTION, AGGREGATION, and DATA ANALYSIS AND USE (INITIAL LEVEL) UNDERGRADUATE

TRANSITION POINT 6: Post-Graduation/ Exit


DATA

ELEMENT KSD-CF


TO

WHOM

INFO

FLOWS

WHAT ASSESS.


Employers’

Satisfaction

All Employers’

Satisfaction Survey

Student

Services

Each Semester Chair, Dean,

OIMA

Survey

Responses

Analysis

according to

the employer

satisfaction

OIMA Each

semester

Chair,

Coord,

Dean

Graduates Follow-

Up Survey

All Graduate Follow-up

Survey

Student

Services

Periodically

(2yrs)

Chair, Dean,

OIMA

Survey

Responses

Analysis

according to

the graduate

success.

OIMA Periodically

(2yrs)

Chair,

Coord,

Dean


DATA ELEMENT ASSESSMENT WHO RECOMMENDATIONS CHANGES MADE WHEN Employers’ Satisfaction Survey Instrument Dean, Chair,

Coordinator, OIMA

Continue and/or improve program

curriculum

Review curriculum and revise course content,

develop remediation strategies

Each semester

Graduate

Follow-up Survey

Survey Instrument Dean, Chair,

Coordinator,

OIMA,

Continue and/or improve program

curriculum

Review curriculum and revise course content,

develop remediation strategies

Periodically

(2yrs)

29

APPENDIX B PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION UNIT (PEU)

DATA COLLECTION, AGGREGATION and DATA ANALYSES AND USE ADVANCED LEVEL

TRANSITION POINT 1- Admission to Graduate School


DATA

ELEMENT

KSD-

CF ASSESS. USED WHO WHEN

TO WHOM

INFO

FLOWS

WHAT ASSESS.

INSTRU WHO WHEN

FLOW

*

GPA 3.4(D),

4.3(D),

4.5(S),

Applicants to the Graduate

School Report

Department

chairs

Each

Semester

Graduate

School

Candidate

Report

Analysis

according to

program

admission

policies

Department

Chairs

Each

Semester

Chairs,

OIMA

Previous Degree or

degrees if applying

to doctoral

program

4.5(S),

5.6(S)

Applicants to the College

of Education Report.

University. Admission

Report.

Freshmen/ First Time in

College and Transfer

Student Report

Department

chairs

Each

Semester

Graduate

School

Candidate

Reports.

Analysis

according to

program

admission

policies

Department

Chairs

Each

Semester

Chairs,

OIMA

DATA ANALYSES AND USE

DATA ELEMENT ASSESSMENT WHO RECOMMENDATIONS DECISIONS/ CHANGES

MADE WHEN

GPA Candidate Report Dean, Dept. Chair/

Coordinator, Graduate

Dean,

OIMA, UOA

Accept if GPA ≥3.0

If GPA < 3.0 must have GRE Score

1000

Adhere to Graduate School

Admission policies.

Recruitment Strategies

Enrichment/remediation strategies

Each

Semester

Previous Degrees Candidate Report Dean, Dept. Chair/

Coordinator, Graduate

Dean,

OIMA, UOA

Determine (if necessary) the

additional courses to take to meet

program admission requirements.


Admission policies.

Each

Semester

* goes to Program Status Report

30


TRANSITION POINT 2 - Admission to Program


DATA

ELEMENT KSD-CF ASSESS. USED WHO WHEN

TO WHOM

INFO FLOWS WHAT

ASSESS.


GPA 3.4(D),

4.3(D),

4.5(S),

1.1(K),

2.3(K)

3.3(SD),

3.5(D),

5.6(S)

Candidate Data

Form,

Graduate Admission

Status Report

Chair/Coor. Each Semester Dean,

Chair/

Coor.

Graduate Dean,

OIMA

Transcript

Candidate

Application

Analysis in

accordance

with

admission

policies

Chairs/

Coor.

Each

Semester

Chairs,

Dean,

Graduate

Dean,

OIMA

GRE 3.4(D),

4.3(D),

4.4(K),

5.6(S)

Candidate Data

Form Graduate

Admission Status

Report


Chair/

Coor.

Graduate Dean,

OIMA

Transcript

Candidate

Application

Analysis in

accordance

with

admission

policies

Chairs/

Coor.

Each

Semester

Chairs,

Dean,

Graduate

Dean,

OIMA

Previous

Degrees

1.1(K),

1,4(S),

2.3(K),

2.4(K),

3.2(S),

3.4(D),

3.5(D),

4.3(D),

4.5(D),

5.1(K),

5.6(S)

Candidate Data

Form


Chair/

Coor.

Graduate Dean,

OIMA

Transcript

Candidate

Application

Analysis in

accordance

with

admission

policies

Chairs/

Coor.

Each

Semester

Chairs,

Dean,

Graduate

Dean,

OIMA

GK/Professional

Knowledge

4.3(D),

4.4(K)

4.5(D),

5.1(K),

5.6(S),

6.4(S)

Candidate Data

Form


Chair/

Coor.

Graduate Dean,

OIMA

FDOE

Score

Report

Analysis in

accordance

with State

Standards

Chairs/

Coor.

Each

Semester

Chairs,

Dean,

Graduate

Dean,

OIMA

(continues on next page)

31


TRANSITION POINT 2 - Admission to Program (Cont.)



GPA Candidate Data Form,

Graduate Admission

Status Report

Dean, Dept.

Chair/

Coordinator,

Graduate

Dean,

OIMA, UOA

Accept if grad GPA ≥3.0

If GPA less than 3.0, must have

GRE Score 1000

Adhere to University

Admission policies

Each

Semester

GRE Candidate Data Form,

Graduate Admission

Status Report

Dean, Dept.

Chair/

Coordinator,

Graduate

Dean,

OIMA, UOA

Accept if GRE ≥ 1000 Adhere to University

Admission policies

Each

Semester

Previous Degrees Candidate Data Form Dean, Dept.

Chair/

Coordinator,

Graduate

Dean,

OIMA, UOA

Determine (if necessary) the

additional courses to take to meet

program admission requirements.


Admission policies

Each

Semester

GK/Professional Knowledge FDOE Score Report Dean, Dept.

Chair/

Coordinator,

Graduate

Dean,

OIMA, UOA

Accept in program if student meets

State standards


Admission policies

Each

Semester

32


TRANSITION POINT 3 – Initiation, Progression and Completion of Course Requirements


DATA


TO WHOM

INFO FLOWS WHAT

ASSESS.


GPA ALL

Transcripts

Grade Reports

Grad Dean

Chair/Coordi

nator

Advisors

Each Semester Dean,

OIMA

Report

with

GPA

GPA

Analysis

according

to Policies

Chair/

Coord.

OIMA

Each

Semester

Dean,

OIMA

Chairs/Co

ordinator,

PEU Asses

Portfolio

(Taskstream

Electronic or

Hardcopy)

e.g. Professional

Presentations,

Project,.

Reflections,

Course Artifacts,

etc

K-1.1, 1.4, 2..3,

2.4, 4.4, 5.1,

6.3.

S- 2.1, 2..2,

2..5, 2.7, 4.2,

4.5, 5.2, 5.4,

5.6, 6.4.

D-1..2, 1..3,

3.4, 4.3, 5.3.

Rubrics

Syllabi

Course requirements

Program

faculty &

chair

Each semester Chair, CTP,

OIMA

Artifact

vector

Rubrics OIMA,

faculty

Each

semester

Chair,

Dean



GPA Candidate Data Form

Graduate Status

Report

Dean,

Chair/Coordinator,

Graduate Dean,

OIMA, UOA

If GPA less than 3.0 grad candidate

will be placed on probation.


polices.

Each semester

Portfolio (Taskstream Electronic or

Hardcopy)

e.g. Professional Presentations,

Project, Reflections, Course

Artifacts, etc

Various Course Work

Rubrics

Dean,

Chair/Coordinator,

Graduate Dean,

OIMA, UOA

Maintain or revise program

curriculum


polices

Each semester

33


TRANSITION POINT 4 – Advancement to Candidacy


DATA


TO WHOM

INFO FLOWS WHAT

ASSESS.


GPA (Semester) 3.4(D),

3.4(D), 4.5

(S)

Transcripts/

Advisement Status

Report

Grad Dean

Chair/Coord.

Advisors

Each

Semester

Dean,

OIMA

Report with

GPA

GPA

Analysis

according to

Policies

OIMA Each

semester

Dean, Chair,

Coordinators

Comp. Exam 4.1(K), 4.2

(S), 4.3(D),

4.4(K),

4.5(S),

5.4(S),

5.1(K)

Comprehensive

Exam Rubric

Chair,

Coordinator

Each

semester

Chair Pass fail

report

Comp Exam

Rubric and

Committee

Vote

Chair Each

semester

Chair, dean,

grad. dean

Field/ Clinical

Practicum Exp.

Administrative

Internship

1.5(K,S),2.5(

S),3.1(S),3.2

(S),5.4(K,S),

5.5(S),5.6(S

0,5.7(S,D)

Field Experience

Evaluation Form,

University

Supervisor

Evaluation Form

and Directing

Teacher

Evaluation Forms,

Licensure Exam

University

and School

supervisors

Each

semester

Chair,

Coordinator,

Internship

evaluation

report

Summary

Internship

evaluation

report

Office of

Student

Teaching

Each

semester

Chair



GPA (Semester) Transcript Chair,

Coordinator

Academic Advisement/

Counseling

Review curriculum and/or revise

course content, develop remediation

strategies

Each semester

Comp. Exam Rubric to evaluate the exam Chair,

Coordinator


Counseling


course content and exam, develop

remediation strategies

Each semester

Field/ Clinical

Practicum Exp.

Administrative

Internship

University professor &

supervisor professor

Evaluation Form

University

Supervisor,

Chair,

Coordinator


Counseling



strategies

Each semester

34


TRANSITION POINT 5: Graduation/Exit


DATA


TO

WHOM

INFO

FLOWS

WHAT ASSESS.


Candidate

Exit Survey

Program

Completer’s

Survey

All Survey Results Chair /

Coordinator

Each Semester Chair,

Dean,

OIMA

Survey

Responses

Analysis

according to

the graduate

satisfaction

OIMA Each

semester

Chair, Coord,

Dean

Graduation

Status

All Graduation Certific.

Report,

Transcript/Advisement

Status Report

Chair/

Coordinator

Each Semester Chair,

Dean

Univ.

Registrar,

OIMA

Graduation

Certification

Report

Program

requirements

(GPA, course

work, comp.

exam, &

GRE)

OIMA Each

semester

Chair, Coord,

Dean

Thesis

Dissertation

Rubric Advisor,

Thesis/Dissertation

Committee Member

Academic

Advisement/

Counseling

Review

curriculum and

revise course

content,

develop

remediation

strategies.

Each

semester

Dissertation Rubric Advisor,

Dissertation

Committee

Member

Academic

Advisement/

Counseling

Review

curriculum and

revise course

content,

develop

remediation

strategies.



Candidate Exit Survey Survey Result

Chair,

Coordinator,

OIMA

Graduate suggestions Review curriculum and/or revise

course content, develop remediate

strategies

Each semester

Graduation Status Graduation criteria Chair, Dean,

Coordinator,

Registrar

Graduation or Denied

Notice of Graduation Deficiency

Hire PEU Certification Specialist

Implantation of program and

university policy

Each semester

Thesis

Dissertation

Rubric Advisor,

Thesis/Dissertati

on Committee

Member

Academic Advisement/ Counseling Review curriculum and/or revise


strategies

Each semester

35

DATA COLLECTION, AGGRAGATION, and DATA ANALYSES AND USE ADVANCED LEVEL

TRANSITION POINT 6: Post-Graduation/ Exit


DATA


TO

WHOM

INFO

FLOWS

WHAT ASSESS.


Employers’

Satisfaction

Survey

All Survey Instrument Department Each Semester Chair,

Dean,

OIMA

Survey

Responses

Analysis

according to

the

employer

satisfaction

OIMA Each

semester

Chair,

Coord,

Dean

Graduate

Follow-up

Survey

All Survey Instrument Department Periodically

(2yrs)

Chair,

Dean,

OIMA

Survey

Responses

Analysis

according

to the

graduate

success.

OIMA Periodically

(2yrs)

Chair,

Coord,

Dean



Employers’

Satisfaction Survey

Survey Response

Result

Dean, Chair,

Coordinator,

OIMA

Continue or Improve program

curriculum

Review curriculum and/or revise course


Each semester

Graduate

Follow-up Survey

Survey Response

Result

Dean, Chair,

Coordinator,

OIMA,

Continue or Improve program

curriculum

Review curriculum and/or revise course


Periodically

(2yrs)

36

APPENDIX C

College of Education Assessment Committee

Dr. Warren Hope, Chair

Dr. Ghazwan Lutfi

Dr. Yolanda Bogan

Dr. Steve Chandler

Dr. Nancy Fontaine

Dr. Tony Manson

Dr. Mary Newell

Dr. Dawn Holley-Dennis

Dr. Ada P. Burnette

Mr. Wei Gu

Dr. Gloria Poole

Dr. Endya Stewart

Documents

Florida A&M University · Value critical thinking and self-directed learning as habits of mind. F: 4 I: 1,4 CF: 4.4 (K) Acquire performance assessment techniques and strategies that