NCE Annual Program Assessment Information, Template and … secondary education - world...NCE Annual Program Assessment Information, Template and Rubric Purpose: The purpose of annual

2011-2012 NCE Program Assessment Report Template 4/12 1

2011-2012

NCE Annual Program Assessment Information, Template and Rubric

Purpose: The purpose of annual assessment reporting by programs is to demonstrate how we are monitoring candidate learning in order to demonstrate the extent to which candidates are achieving the goals that we have set for them. Program annual assessment reports provide information that allows faculty to make decisions about candidate learning needs and our own pedagogical effectiveness in order to be able to make appropriate changes. As per its constitutional charge, the NCE Assessment Council’s role in reviewing NCE program assessment reports is to provide feedback and support to programs on their assessment processes and to encourage continuous improvement in moving their candidates and programs forward. Directions: This document includes the 2011-12 Annual NCE program assessment template and rubric that NCE programs will use in completing this year’s report. NCE Program Assessment Report Template (2011-2012): Although the same overall format is used as in previous year’s reports, the language and directions of the template have been revised to provide more detail to better assist you in including comprehensive information and data related to your candidates and your program. It is recommended that you use the template as it is designed as the framework for writing your report. NCE 2011-2012 Rubric for Reviewing Program Assessment Reports: The rubric is used by NCE Assessment Council reviewers in reviewing annual assessment reports as the means for providing written feedback to programs. It is highly recommended that programs use the rubric while writing annual assessment reports as a guide for incorporating an appropriate amount and level of detail and completeness so that outside reviewers can fully understand the program and its assessment system. In addition to revisions to the language of this year’s rubric as a means to ensure a more direct alignment to the report template, there is one new additional category that provides feedback on the overall organization and writing of the report. You will find it as the last component of the rubric – Report Writing and Organization. Due Date: Program assessment reports must be completed and emailed as a .doc or (.docx) file to Daniel Sloyan ([email protected]) no later than June 30, 2012 to assist in our NCATE visit that is scheduled for early fall 2012. Need Further Assistance? If you have questions regarding the process, the template or accompanying rubric, please contact your department’s NCE Assessment Council representative or the co-chairs of the Council for assistance.


NCE Program Assessment Report Template (2011-2012)

Program ____World Languages____________________________________________________________________ Assessment Report Writers ______Dr. Jack Denny ____________________________________________________ Section I: Program Overview This section provides an overview into your programs’ candidates and completers. The data needed to complete this chart will be provided to your program’s identified contact person from the Office of Institutional Research by June 15, 2012.

2011-2012 (September 1, 2011 – December 31, 2012) Number of Students:

Undergraduate Graduate Alternative Programs (AUSL, TFA, etc.)

Online

Number of Students Admitted to the Program

---- 6 1 -----

Number of Students Enrolled in the Program

---- 57 6 -----

If deemed helpful, a brief overview of the program can be provided to assist reviewers in understanding the framework, philosophy and key elements of the program. Section II: Relationship of Assessments to Program Outcomes and Standards

Please complete the following two charts below. In the first chart, show the alignment of the program’s assessments to the NCE Conceptual Framework/Outcomes. In the second chart, show the alignment of the program’s assessments to the program outcomes and other professional standards. In addition, a narrative description of the alignment in these charts to supply further description can be provided. Alignment of Program Assessments to NCE Conceptual Framework/Outcomes

NCE Conceptual Framework/Outcomes

NCE Candidates:

Program Assessments

Envision, articulate and model democratic and progressive education

5, 6, 8, 9

Design powerful learning environments that integrate appropriate technologies

5, 6, 8, 9

Design powerful learning environments that utilize multiple meaningful assessments

5, 6, 8, 9

Design powerful learning environments that enable self-directed learning

5, 6, 8, 9

Work collaboratively in diverse communities and with diverse learners to achieve learning goals

5, 7, 9

Advocate for democratic values, equity, access and resources to assure educational success for all

5, 6, 7, 9

Cultivate curiosity and excitement for learning in themselves and others

5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Respect and learn from other peoples, cultures, and points of view 5, 7, 9


Demonstrate a caring attitude in recognizing the needs of others and acting to promote their growth

5, 7

Act with confidence and self-knowledge to assume professional leadership roles and responsibilities

5, 7

Use information from self and others to continuously improve 5, 7, 8, 9 Alignment of Program Assessments to Professional Standards and Program Outcomes

Program Outcomes

Professional Standards Program Assessments

Planning instruction from the platform of Second language acquisition

Language Acquisition Theories and Instructional Practice

5, 6, 8, 9

Integration of Standards into Curriculum

Integration of Standards into Curriculum 5, 6, 8, 9

Assessment of Students

Assessment of Student Competency in Languages and Culture

5, 6, 8, 9

Professional Dispositions

Professionalism 5, 7

Section III: Key Program Assessments Using the chart below, indicate the name, type, and administration point for each of the assessments that the program uses to assess candidate learning and evaluate program effectiveness. Refer to the specific requirements of the program’s SPA (if any) to ensure that the program is meeting these standards. For non-SPA programs, only one content knowledge assessment domain is necessary.

Assessment Domain Type or Form of Assessment

(Note if assessments are different for Undergraduate,

Graduate, Alternative Programs or Online)

When the Assessment Is Administered

Assessment of Content Knowledge I (i.e., Licensure assessment, or other content-based assessment) *Note: Non-SPA programs do not have state content tests)

ICTS – state licensure exam; content-area tests in specific languages to be taught. OPI – Advanced-Low minimum rating required for admission to program

Prior to admission Prior to admission

Assessment of Content Knowledge II Transcript Review Prior to admission

Assessment of Professional Knowledge (Pedagogical content knowledge)

APT Term 1, 2, or 3


Section IV: Assessment Tools and Data Analysis In this section, to provide a complete picture of each assessment and its findings, include information for the components listed below for each individual assessment. Note: If the program does not use an assessment for any of the required assessment domains in Section III (Content Knowledge, Professional/Pedagogical Knowledge, Field Experience, Impact on Student Learning, Dispositions, Diversity and Technology), in section V below you will be asked to provide [1]a description of how the program is working toward developing an assessment for that category or a rationalization for why it is not applicable to the program. Required components to include for each assessment tool: Program Assessments 1. A narrative description of the assessment including:

• why it was developed and what it assesses, • how and when it is implemented (i.e. where is it administered in the program, the course in which it is a part

of, etc.) • how and when it is evaluated, and • who evaluates the assessment.

2. A blank sample of the assessment. 3. A blank sample of the scoring guide/rubric that is used to assess the tool. Assessment Data 1. Annual data collected from the tool. 2. A narrative interpretation of what the data means to your program in terms of candidate learning and performance.

Assessment of Field Experiences

World Languages Competency Appraisal

Term 3

Assessment of Candidate Impact on Student Learning

SEC 590-592 Seminar Course Portfolio Assessment

Term 3

Assessment of Candidate Dispositions

Disposition Ratings (candidate and instructor)

Terms 1, 2, and 3

Assessment of Candidate Diversity Proficiencies

World Languages Unit Plan 510-524 Methods Course Portfolio Assessment World Languages Competency Appraisal

Term 2 Term 2 Term 3

Assessment of Candidate Technology Proficiencies

World Languages Unit Plan SEC 510-524 Methods Course Portfolio Assessment World Languages Competency Appraisal

Term 2 Term 2 Term 3


Assessment #1 ILLINOIS CERTIFICATION TESTING SYSTEM (ICTS)

1. Narrative description of this assessment. The Illinois Certification Testing System (ICTS) offers tests in Spanish, French, German, Italian, Hebrew, and Mandarin Chinese, which are administered by the Educational Testing Service. The content area tests for these languages are based on the Illinois professional teaching and content standards. With the exception of the Chinese exam, they consist of both multiple-choice questions (67% of the test score) and constructed response questions (33% of the test score). The Chinese exam is composed of constructed response items only. The content of the test is organized into the sub areas of listening, reading, language structures and language acquisition, cultural knowledge, written and oral expression and includes recorded content. Within each sub area, the questions are designed to reflect the examinee’s mastery of the skills, knowledge and understanding necessary to teach effectively in Illinois classrooms. The state reports all test scores using q range from 100 to 300 with a total test score of 240 or higher required for passing. The Master’s program requires candidates to pass these licensure examinations prior to admission to the core sequence of courses that lead to certification. Ensuring that MAT candidates have the level of content knowledge required to perform satisfactorily continues to be a challenge as these candidates have a limited time frame in which to complete training. Thus, the purpose of the test is to help programs recognize and select candidates who have sufficient competency in their content specific fields before entry into the MAT program. The ICTS examinations and scoring rubrics are not available in their entirety to the public or institutions; however, study guides with sample test questions are available for practice purposes on the ICTS website. The link to the website is http://www.ictsw.nesinc.com/ The table contained below details the alignment of the ICTS Foreign Language Tests to ACTFL Standard I: Language, Linguistics, and Comparisons; Standard 2: Cultures, Literatures, Cross-Disciplinary Concepts; and Standard 3 Language Acquisition Theories and Instructional Practices. For each language, listening comprehension items assess candidates’ language proficiency (1a), as well as their knowledge of linguistic elements of the target language system (1b). The reading comprehension section addresses the two aforementioned standards and assesses candidates’ capacity for identifying similarities and differences of English and the target language (1c). In addition, reading comprehension items test candidates’ cultural understanding (2a), with attention to literary and cultural texts (2b). The Language Structures and Acquisitions subtest assesses candidates’ understanding of linguistics (1b), awareness of similarities and differences of languages (1c) and an understanding of language acquisition as it pertains to classroom environment and strategies for learners’ active engagement in learning (3a). The cultural knowledge subtest assesses candidates’ awareness of similarities and differences of languages (1c), general cultural knowledge (2a), and understanding of literary and cultural texts.


2. Blank sample of this assessment. The test is not available for preview. 3. Scoring guide and rubric. Illinois Certification Testing System SCORE REPORT EXPLANATION Foreign Language Content-Area Tests (French, German, Hebrew, Italian, Latin, Russian, Spanish) Your score report provides information regarding the foreign language content-area test you took at the recent administration of the Illinois Certification Testing System (ICTS). The report includes information regarding your Pass/Did Not Pass status for that test, your performance for the test as a whole, and your performance on the major subareas of the test. Your scores are reported to you, to the Illinois State Board of Education, and to the institution(s) you indicated during the registration process. The tests each contain 100 multiple-choice test questions as well as 2 constructed-response assignments. Total Test Scores Scores for the foreign language content-area tests are reported on a scale from 100 to 300. A total test scaled score of 240 or above is required to pass these tests. Candidates with a total test score below 240 do not pass the test. Your scaled total score for the French, German, Hebrew, Italian, Latin, Russian, and Spanish content-area tests is based on your performance on the entire test, including the number of multiple-choice questions you answered correctly and the scores you received on the two constructed-response assignments. For all of the above tests, except Latin, the multiple-choice section represents 67 percent of your total test score and the constructed-response assignments combined represent 33 percent of your total test score. For the Latin test, the multiple-choice section represents 90 percent of your total test score and the constructed-response assignments combined represent 10 percent of your total test score. Subarea Scores The scores listed in the "Subarea" section are also reported on a scale from 100 to 300 and are intended to provide you with feedback on your performance in the major subareas of the foreign language content-area tests. This information is descriptive only and will help you assess your areas of strength and weakness. You do not have to "pass" each subarea or section of the test—there are no "passing" scores associated with individual subareas. Subareas with more objectives receive more coverage on the test and thus contribute more to your total test score. It is therefore not possible to average your performance across subareas to arrive at the total test score. Your total test score is not the average of your subarea scores.


Multiple-Choice Scores Your performance on the multiple-choice test section is based on the number of test questions answered correctly; you do not "lose" any points for wrong answers. Each multiple-choice test question counts the same toward the total score. Constructed-Response Scores Each of the responses to the two constructed-response assignments for the foreign language content-area tests is scored by at least two qualified educators. Scorers are unaware of the identity of the individuals whose responses they score. Scorers receive extensive orientation in standardized scoring procedures and take a qualifying assessment to ensure that they are ready to score. A score is assigned to each response based on a four-point scale that describes various levels of performance. Scorers judge the overall effectiveness of each response while focusing on a set of performance characteristics that have been defined by Illinois educators as important. An examinee's response should demonstrate adequacy across all of the performance characteristics. A high level of performance in only one or two of the performance characteristics will likely not result in a high score. Scorers are oriented to provide an overall judgment, not to indicate specific errors. Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliate(s). All rights reserved. Evaluation Systems, Pearson, P.O. Box 226, Amherst, MA 01004 Pearson and its logo are trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries of Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliate(s). Rv 7/08 If the number of examinees for a foreign language content-area test is large for a given test date, each response is read and scored independently by two scorers. If the two scores differ by more than one point, the response is scored by a third reader. The sum of the two scores is the examinee's total score on that response. If the number of examinees for a foreign language content-area test is small for a given test date, each scorer is given a copy of each examinee's response. The score for each assignment is reached through group discussion in reference to the performance characteristics and scoring scale. The group arrives at a consensus decision on the examinee's score for each response. See the Illinois Certification Testing System foreign language content-area test study guides for an explanation of the performance characteristics and for further information on how the responses are scored. Study guides are available on the ICTS Web site at www.icts.nesinc.com. Passing Scores The passing scores for the ICTS were established by the Illinois State Board of Education based on recommendations from panels of Illinois educators. Rescore of Your Test All answer documents for the multiple-choice test section are scored by computer and, as such, are virtually error free. However, if you think an error has been made on your multiple-choice test score(s), you may request a rescore of your multiple-choice answer document. The fee for rescoring a foreign language content-area test multiple-choice answer document is $35. Payment must be made by personal check, cashier's check, or money order only. A request for rescoring a foreign language content-area test multiple-choice answer document must be made in writing. The written request and appropriate payment made out to Evaluation Systems must be mailed and postmarked within three months of the score report date. All constructed-response assignments are scored according to standardized procedures. As part of the scoring process, each examinee's responses are scored by multiple scorers who are oriented to standardized scoring procedures and continuously monitored by experienced scoring facilitators. Scorer consensus is attained for the scores assigned to all examinee responses with the guidance and focus on the scoring procedures and scoring scale. All written and oral responses to the constructed-response assignments are scored by multiple scorers and are automatically rescored; therefore, no additional rescore service is available. If you have questions regarding PROGRAM POLICIES or WHICH TEST(S) you must take, contact your college advisor, certification officer, or a regional office of education or visit the Illinois State Board of Education Web site at www.isbe.net/teachers.htm. 4. Assessment Data and interpretation. A minimum score of 240 on the ICTS is required for admission to the certification program. NLU confirms with evidence of a passing score candidates’ appropriate proficiency in the content that each individual candidate will teach. Slight variations in scores are reflected across years and sub-test categories, but achievement demonstrated at the pass level of 240 assures that candidates have met minimal functional competencies as reflected in ACTFL standards 1, 2, and 3 (see response #2 above). The on-going analysis of teaching faculty of test scores allows for differentiation in projects that can strengthen areas of lower performance by individual candidates.

Small numbers of students and varying numbers from year to year make thematic analysis difficult


and may advise differentiation by instructors to provide individual student support in areas of needed growth in subject-area content and the practice of language skills. Scores for the 4th subtest – Cultural Knowledge – are slightly lower across languages and indicate the need for attention for assignments that support candidates’ continued development in this area. Assessment #2 ORAL PROFICIENCY INTERVIEW (OPI)

1. Narrative description of this assessment. Prior to admission, all teacher candidates are required to take the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages Oral Proficiency Interview (ACTFL OPI) prior to admission to the MAT program. The OPI is administered by Language Testing International (LTI), the exclusive licensee of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. LTI arranges ACTFL language proficiency assessments in 50+ languages for corporations, government agencies, academic institutions and individuals. The ACTFL OPI is a standardized procedure for the global assessment of functional speaking ability, and is a key component for National-Louis University’s MAT in Foreign Languages program because the program prepares foreign language teachers to conduct communicative classrooms, i.e. input-rich, immersion or near-immersion classes in the target languages at all levels of instruction. In order to conduct such classes, teachers must demonstrate working fluency in the target languages. Advanced-Low is the minimal level recommended by NCATE/ACTFL


for Spanish, French, German, Hebrew and Italian; Intermediate Low is considered acceptable at this time for Chinese and Arabic. National-Louis University applicants set up an appointment through the Office of the Dean at the Wheeling campus for a telephonic interview between a certified ACTFL tester and the applicant. The OPI determines how well a person speaks a language by comparing his or her performance of specific communication tasks with the criteria for each of ten proficiency levels described in the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines-Speaking (Revised 1999) – see Attachment … The ten proficiency levels, lowest to highest, are: Novice Low Intermediate Low Advanced Low Superior Novice Mid Intermediate Mid Advanced Mid Novice High Intermediate High Advanced High Since the ACTFL OPI is an assessment of functional speaking ability, independent of any specific curriculum, ACTFL considers it irrelevant when, where, why and under what conditions the candidate acquired his/her speaking ability in the language. The ACTFL OPI takes the form of a carefully structured conversation between a trained and certified interviewer and the applicant whose speaking proficiency is being assessed. The interview takes place under a monitor; a telephone and place is assigned on the NLU campus, and applicants are given an appointment time. Applicants have their i.d. checked by NLU staff, and then call in for their interview. The interview is interactive and continuously adapts to the speaking abilities of the individual being tested. The topics that are discussed during the interview are based on the interests and experiences of the test candidate. Through a series of personalized questions, the interviewer elicits from the test candidate examples of his or her ability to handle the communication tasks specified for each level of proficiency in order to establish a clear ‘floor’ and ‘ceiling’ of consistent functional ability. Often candidates are asked to take part in a role-play. This task provides the opportunity for linguistic functions not easily elicited through the conversational format.

2. Blank sample of this assessment. As a certified test, the OPI itself is unavailable for public review. The OPI exam addresses ACTFL Standard 1.a (Language Proficiency). ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines – Speaking details the differences between levels of speaking proficiency as assessed by ACTFL’s OPI and provides a summary table of language tasks reflective of each competency level: http://www.actfl.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3349

3. Brief analysis of data findings. Candidates demonstrate through the impartial ACTFL oral proficiency rating a level of language ability that correlates with the ability to guide and direct students in the second language classroom. All candidates who have been admitted to the program have met the minimum oral proficiency level of Advanced-Low – evidence of meeting ACTFL Standard 1a – Language Proficiency.


Assessment #3 TRANSCRIPT REVIEW

1. Narrative description of this assessment. Students are required to have 32 semester credit hours in content courses completed with a grade of C or higher at one or more institutions. All World Languages certification candidates must satisfy content background requirements that address the ACTFL and state content standards. There are many ways in which a candidate can satisfy a proficiency in the pre-determined areas of subject mastery; however, for the purposes of this report, NLU will focus on the transcript review process. When candidates are accepted into the MAT program for World Languages, a transcript analysis is performed on all of their undergraduate and graduate content coursework in language study. If candidates have successfully completed courses that satisfy a competency, they are given credit for fulfilling the required criteria. Successful completion is determined by examining the following categories: major, designated course, course title, grade-specific evidence of meeting criteria. Students’ university coursework and overall/major GPA serve as evidence that teachers understand and are able to articulate the knowledge and practices of world language learning. Students’ coursework and GPA serve as predictors of the quantity and quality of students’ content knowledge and point out any insufficiencies in their education, which must be satisfied prior to full acceptance into the program. Alignment to Standard I: Language, Linguistics, and Comparisons is supported by candidates’ coursework (8 semester hours) in beginning and intermediate foreign language basic skills. 6 semester hours in grammar, composition, literature, and culture support Standard 1: Language, Linguistics, and Comparison and Standard 2: Cultures, Literatures, Cross-Disciplinary Concepts. 9 additional semester hours in topics such as phonetics, phonology, culture, civilization, literature, business language, and applied language studies support the first three ACTFL Program Standards: 1 -- Language, Linguistics, and Comparisons; 2 -- Cultures, Literatures, Cross-Disciplinary Concepts; and 3 -- Language Acquisition Theories and Instructional Practices.

The following table describes the relationship of required-for-entry coursework to ACTFL teacher preparation program standards.


NLU Transcript Review ACTFL/NCATE Standards

16 Semester Hours Foreign Language Basic Skills

Beginning Languages I and II 1a, 1b, 1cIntermediate Languages I and II 1a, 1b, 1c

6 Semester Hours in the following areas:

FL Grammar and Composition 1a, 1b, 1cFL Introduction to Literature 2bFL Introduction to Culture 2a, 2b, 2c

10 Semester Hours in the following areas with at 9 semester hoursat the upper level

Phonetics and Phonology 1bCulture and Civilization 2a, 2b, 2cLiterature 2bBusiness Language 2a, 2b, 2cApplied Language Studies 3aUndergraduate SeminarSenior SeminarGrammar Review 1a, 1b, 1cStudy AbroadSpecial Topics

!"#$%&'()*+,&-,./0,12$'(32*+4,!"5*"6,$'7,891:/,;2&<2$=,>4$'7$27(

All candidates who are admitted to the MAT SEC program have passed the transcript review in terms of meeting course content and maintaining a GPA content average of 2.5 or above in their fields of licensure.

2. Blank sample of this assessment.


!

!

3. Scoring guide and rubric. The following sample grid is filled out for each candidate as a check for meeting the standards of


the assessment and identifying deficiencies that may exist.

4. Interpretation of how that data provides evidence for meeting standards. Students’ grade performance on previous coursework serves as a reflection of the quality and quantity of content knowledge and as a predictor of the capacity to produce high quality work in the graduate teaching program. Since students must pass this transcript to be granted full admission into the program, evidence that they have met expectations as reflected in ACTFL standards 1, 2, and 3 – as detailed in the response to #2 above -- is documented. Gaps in learning can be thus identified and remediated within the structure of courses in the certification sequence. Overall, candidates routinely surpass minimal expectations of coursework and bring to their cohorts rich experiences that they have gained during undergraduate study. An overview of newly admitted candidates into Secondary Education shows the following breakdown of previous academic grade performance. AUSL candidates. Traditional program entrants scored somewhat higher, and TFA candidates begin their studies at NLU with the highest marks in previous coursework.

Assessment #4 ASSESSMENT OF PROFESSIONAL TEACHING (APT)

1. Description of this assessment.

The APT test assesses candidates on professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills. Each APT test consists of 120 multiple-choice questions and 2 constructed-response assignments. Candidates for the World Languages program take Test 104, which aligns to certification for K-12 language teachers.


Each sub-area of the APT test correlate with one or more standards of ACTFL foreign language teacher preparation. The following chart describes the associations of the APT to ACTFL program standards.

!!!!!!!!!"#$%&'(&)!*+!),(!"--(--'(&)!*+!./*+(--$*&0#!1(02,$&%!3".14!)*!"5167!8)0&90/9-

APT Sub Area ACTFL Program Standards

I. Foundations, Characteristics, and Assessments 4, 6

II. Planning and Delivering Instruction 3, 4, 5

III. Managing the Learning Environment 3

IV. Collaboration, Communication, and Professionalism 2, 6

VS.. Language Arts 1, 6

VI. Educational Technology 3

Standard 1: Language, Linguistics, and Comparisons

Standard 2: Cultures, Literatures, Cross-Disciplinary Concepts

Standard 3: Language Acquisition Theories and Instructional Practices

Standard 4: Integration of Standards into Curriculum and Instruction

Standard 5: Assessment of Languages and Cultures

Standard 6: Professionalism

ACTFL Teacher Preparation Program Standards

2. Blank sample of this assessment. The test is unavailable for public review.

3. Scoring guide and rubric. During the 2010-2011 academic year, scored well above the minimum of 240 on the composite test and each of the sub-test areas. Distinctions from one subtest to the next are minimal, especially when viewed as a snapshot of a long history. Instructors and program coordinators may be encouraged to pursue direct program supports for candidates based on their individual assessment outcomes.

4. Data tables and narrative interpretation.


The surpassing of the minimum standard for the composite and each of the subtests lends credence to candidates’ capacity for successful participation in the MAT Secondary Education program. Performance in subtest areas is typically robust in all areas; performance in ‘constructed-response assignments’ is consistently lower than other areas, which gives rise to the possibility of aligning classroom activities to the thinking and application demands of this testing type. Student entry into the program gives evidence that candidates’ proficiency in Standards 1-6 is met at a level that exceeds minimal competency:

Standard 1: Language, Linguistics, and Comparisons Standard 2: Cultures, Literatures, Cross-Disciplinary Concepts Standard 3: Language Acquisition Theories and Instructional Practices Standard 4: Integration of Standards into Curriculum and Instruction Standard 5: Assessment of Languages and Cultures Standard 6: Professionalism

APT -- Academic Year 2011-2012 / World Languages Statistics COMPOS T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 N Valid 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mean 268.5806 270.0323 275.4839 274.5161 278.4194 268.3548 276.6774

COMPOS

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid 213.00 1 3.2 3.2 3.2

238.00 1 3.2 3.2 6.5 244.00 1 3.2 3.2 9.7 247.00 1 3.2 3.2 12.9 249.00 1 3.2 3.2 16.1 252.00 1 3.2 3.2 19.4 254.00 1 3.2 3.2 22.6 255.00 1 3.2 3.2 25.8 260.00 1 3.2 3.2 29.0 262.00 1 3.2 3.2 32.3 263.00 1 3.2 3.2 35.5 265.00 1 3.2 3.2 38.7 268.00 1 3.2 3.2 41.9 271.00 3 9.7 9.7 51.6 273.00 1 3.2 3.2 54.8 276.00 1 3.2 3.2 58.1 278.00 2 6.5 6.5 64.5 280.00 1 3.2 3.2 67.7 281.00 1 3.2 3.2 71.0


282.00 1 3.2 3.2 74.2 283.00 2 6.5 6.5 80.6 284.00 1 3.2 3.2 83.9 286.00 1 3.2 3.2 87.1 288.00 1 3.2 3.2 90.3 289.00 1 3.2 3.2 93.5 291.00 2 6.5 6.5 100.0 Total 31 100.0 100.0

Foundations, Characteristics, and Assessments (T1)


Percent Valid 209.00 1 3.2 3.2 3.2

219.00 1 3.2 3.2 6.5 228.00 1 3.2 3.2 9.7 238.00 1 3.2 3.2 12.9 246.00 2 6.5 6.5 19.4 254.00 3 9.7 9.7 29.0 262.00 1 3.2 3.2 32.3 269.00 4 12.9 12.9 45.2 277.00 4 12.9 12.9 58.1 285.00 5 16.1 16.1 74.2 292.00 6 19.4 19.4 93.5 300.00 2 6.5 6.5 100.0 Total 31 100.0 100.0

Planning and Delivering Instruction (T2)


Percent Valid 209.00 1 3.2 3.2 3.2

230.00 3 9.7 9.7 12.9 249.00 1 3.2 3.2 16.1 266.00 8 25.8 25.8 41.9 283.00 8 25.8 25.8 67.7 300.00 10 32.3 32.3 100.0 Total 31 100.0 100.0

Managing the Learning Environment (T3)


Percent Valid 209.00 1 3.2 3.2 3.2

230.00 1 3.2 3.2 6.5 249.00 4 12.9 12.9 19.4 266.00 8 25.8 25.8 45.2 283.00 9 29.0 29.0 74.2 300.00 8 25.8 25.8 100.0 Total 31 100.0 100.0


Collaboration, Communication, and Professionalism (T4)


Percent Valid 246.00 1 3.2 3.2 3.2

254.00 1 3.2 3.2 6.5 262.00 3 9.7 9.7 16.1 269.00 7 22.6 22.6 38.7 277.00 4 12.9 12.9 51.6 285.00 6 19.4 19.4 71.0 292.00 7 22.6 22.6 93.5 300.00 2 6.5 6.5 100.0 Total 31 100.0 100.0

Language Arts (T5)


Percent Valid 209.00 1 3.2 3.2 3.2

233.00 2 6.5 6.5 9.7 244.00 3 9.7 9.7 19.4 253.00 3 9.7 9.7 29.0 263.00 2 6.5 6.5 35.5 272.00 7 22.6 22.6 58.1 281.00 6 19.4 19.4 77.4 291.00 7 22.6 22.6 100.0 Total 31 100.0 100.0

Educational Technology (T6)


Percent Valid 219.00 1 3.2 3.2 3.2

228.00 1 3.2 3.2 6.5 262.00 4 12.9 12.9 19.4 269.00 6 19.4 19.4 38.7 277.00 6 19.4 19.4 58.1 285.00 2 6.5 6.5 64.5 292.00 8 25.8 25.8 90.3 300.00 3 9.7 9.7 100.0 Total 31 100.0 100.0



Assessment #5 WORLD LANGUAGES COMPETENCY APPRAISAL

1. Description of this assessment. By the third term of the certification sequence, candidates work for a minimum of ten weeks in a placement school assigned by the Office of School-College Relations. The student teaching experience is a significant and integral phase of the program and completes the State of Illinois Certification process. Its primary objective is to provide an opportunity for students to become actively involved in the teaching/learning process while working directly with an experienced teacher with three or more years of teaching experience. During the student teaching practicum, a university supervisor will visit and evaluate a candidate an average of four times using the Student Teaching Evaluation instrument. The supervisor works with the cooperating teacher to provide feedback and a final grade to the candidate. Prior to the student teaching experience, cooperating teachers and university supervisors attend an orientation workshop to provide instruction on how to guide candidates through the observation process and how evaluators are to use the evaluation forms to gather data and provide feedback. The instrument consists of three parts: (1) general background information – items that capture the candidate’s program profile and document the cooperating teacher and supervisor names; (2) generic teacher education outcomes – items based on the 7 student teaching principles as described and defined in Attachment IV.6.1; and (3) ACTFL content standards – six standards identified for the initial preparation of foreign language teachers. The evaluation instrument has an accompanying rubric for each set of competencies. This instrument, the rubrics, and the philosophical underpinnings are provided to teacher candidates when they enter the program, and they appear in the MAT Secondary Education Student Teaching Manual that candidates received during their 3rd term. Competencies are assessed using the following scoring guide: accomplished, proficient, developing, limited evidence, and not applicable.

2. Blank sample of this assessment. See Attachment IV.6.2

3. Scoring guide and rubric. See Attachment IV.6.2

4. Data tables and interpretations. The competency appraisal document was significantly altered after the initial submission of the NCATE document for program accreditation. Changes in that document allow the university to gather very specific judgments by our university supervisors of student teachers as their behaviors relate directly to ACTFL standards. The following table represents a Spring 2012 administration of the instrument.

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

Standard 1 Standard 2 Standard 3 Standard 5 Standard 6

2001-2012

World Languages Competency Appraisal-‐ Performance on Standards 1 as rated by University Supervisors and Cooperating Teachers


University supervisors and cooperating teachers give student teacher performance relatively strong ratings across 5 dimensions that are assessed with this evaluation instrument. Since the dimensions are closely related to the ACTFL standards, the likelihood of candidates possessing knowledge and skills necessary for successful performance is quite high. One area – Standard 2: Cultures, Literatures, Cross Disciplinary Concepts – has received in this second administration lower ratings from this sample of students. Faculty will want to review these ratings over time to determine trends and turn those recognitions into altered expectations for their own instruction and their candidates’ performance. Detailed analyses of data collected on each Standard are presented below: Standard 1 - Language, Linguistics, Comparisons Statistics Standard1 N Valid 13

Missing 0 Mean 2.8205

Standard1


Percent Valid 1.67 2 15.4 15.4 15.4

2.00 2 15.4 15.4 30.8 2.67 2 15.4 15.4 46.2 3.00 3 23.1 23.1 69.2 3.33 1 7.7 7.7 76.9 3.67 1 7.7 7.7 84.6 4.00 2 15.4 15.4 100.0 Total 13 100.0 100.0

Relatively small sample sizes give reason for caution with interpretations of these findings. A multi-year sampling with much larger numbers of participants will yield meaningful insights that will assist university planners in the area of program improvement. At the very least, the need for attention to Standard 2 for teacher candidates is a point for careful consideration.


Assessment #6 SEC 590-592 SEMINAR COURSE PORTFOLIO

ASSESSMENT Standard 2 - Cultures, Literatures, Cross-Disciplinary Concepts Statistics Standard2 N Valid 13


Standard2


Percent Valid .00 4 30.8 30.8 30.8

1.33 2 15.4 15.4 46.2 2.67 1 7.7 7.7 53.8 3.00 2 15.4 15.4 69.2 3.33 3 23.1 23.1 92.3 3.67 1 7.7 7.7 100.0 Total 13 100.0 100.0



Standard 3 -- Language Acquisition Theories and Instructional

Practices

Statistics Standard3 N Valid 13


Standard3


Percent Valid 1.38 1 7.7 7.7 7.7

1.63 1 7.7 7.7 15.4 1.75 2 15.4 15.4 30.8 2.25 1 7.7 7.7 38.5 2.50 1 7.7 7.7 46.2 2.75 1 7.7 7.7 53.8 2.88 3 23.1 23.1 76.9 3.50 1 7.7 7.7 84.6 3.88 2 15.4 15.4 100.0 Total 13 100.0 100.0


Standard 5 -- Assessment of Languages and Cultures Statistics Standard5 N Valid 12


Standard5


Percent Valid .60 1 7.7 8.3 8.3

.80 1 7.7 8.3 16.7 1.40 1 7.7 8.3 25.0 2.00 2 15.4 16.7 41.7 2.80 3 23.1 25.0 66.7 3.20 1 7.7 8.3 75.0 3.40 1 7.7 8.3 83.3 3.60 1 7.7 8.3 91.7 3.80 1 7.7 8.3 100.0 Total 12 92.3 100.0

Missing System 1 7.7 Total 13 100.0


Standard 6 -- Professionalism Statistics Standard6 N Valid 13


Standard6


Percent Valid .00 2 15.4 15.4 15.4

3.00 3 23.1 23.1 38.5 4.00 8 61.5 61.5 100.0 Total 13 100.0 100.0

All student teaching candidates are required to complete a Student Portfolio. The portfolio documents are designed to reflect candidates' growth through the sequence of the certification program. Instructors in SEC502 Methods and Materials for teaching at the Secondary Level, SEC510-524 Teaching "content area", and SEC590 Student Teaching Seminar assist candidates in creating and organizing the contents of the portfolio. Throughout the program, candidates will edit, share, and discuss their portfolio pieces. Candidates are required to maintain this portfolio electronically.

The purposes of students' creation of an electronic portfolio are many. The portfolio provides


instructors entry into the candidates' thinking about dispositions and practices; the portfolio conveys candidates' beliefs, attitudes, and values as a teacher; the portfolio provides a complex and comprehensive view of candidates' performance in a professional context; and the portfolio presents a purposeful and reflective collection of candidates' work across time.

The student portfolio contains three core sections: The first section, the Foreword, provides the reader with an autobiographical reflection on the candidates' paths toward becoming teachers, the candidates' educational philosophies, and a general table of contents. The second section, Learning/Teaching Experiences and Artifacts, is the heart of the collection. Candidates must include evidence and analysis of their planning, instruction, assessment, and evaluation. Candidates must also submit examples of ways in which they adapted lessons to meet the needs of individual students and visual representations and written discussion of how they addressed classroom management issues and organization. In addition, candidates are asked to address the area of professional growth and development by creating an annotated list of readings that have influenced their thinking about teaching and their own practice. Along with the reading list, candidates are required to submit a formal summary reflection about their student teaching experience, including such topics as: what they learned, what they did not learn that they wanted to, what was surprising, what was affirming, what was expected and how these contribute to professional goals. The last section allows candidates to choose their own artifacts that are particularly significant to their professional development. For instance, candidates may choose to include previous work experience, letters of recommendation or student teaching assessment forms in this section.


See Attachment IV.7.2

3. Scoring guide and rubric for this assessment. See Attachment IV.7.2

4. Data tables and interpretations. Attachments IV.7.3 and IV.7.4 display the findings of this small sample of world languages candidates. Although university supervisors rate candidates consistently as ‘competent’ or ‘outstanding’, the areas of use of technology and differentiation of instruction emerge as those that merit the attention of the faculty. Assessment #6 SEC 590-592 SEMINAR COURSE PORTFOLIO

ASSESSMENT

SEC 590-592 Seminar Course Portfolio Assessment/Spring 2012

All student teaching candidates are required to complete a Student Portfolio. The portfolio documents are designed to reflect candidates' growth through the sequence of the certification program. Instructors in SEC502 Methods and Materials for teaching at the Secondary Level, SEC510-524 Teaching "content area", and SEC590 Student Teaching Seminar assist candidates in


creating and organizing the contents of the portfolio. Throughout the program, candidates will edit, share, and discuss their portfolio pieces. Candidates are required to maintain this portfolio electronically.

The purposes of students' creation of an electronic portfolio are many. The portfolio provides instructors entry into the candidates' thinking about dispositions and practices; the portfolio conveys candidates' beliefs, attitudes, and values as a teacher; the portfolio provides a complex and comprehensive view of candidates' performance in a professional context; and the portfolio presents a purposeful and reflective collection of candidates' work across time.

The student portfolio contains three core sections: The first section, the Foreword, provides the reader with an autobiographical reflection on the candidates' paths toward becoming teachers, the candidates' educational philosophies, and a general table of contents. The second section, Learning/Teaching Experiences and Artifacts, is the heart of the collection. Candidates must include evidence and analysis of their planning, instruction, assessment, and evaluation. Candidates must also submit examples of ways in which they adapted lessons to meet the needs of individual students and visual representations and written discussion of how they addressed classroom management issues and organization. In addition, candidates are asked to address the area of professional growth and development by creating an annotated list of readings that have influenced their thinking about teaching and their own practice. Along with the reading list, candidates are required to submit a formal summary reflection about their student teaching experience, including such topics as: what they learned, what they did not learn that they wanted to, what was surprising, what was affirming, what was expected and how these contribute to professional goals. The last section allows candidates to choose their own artifacts that are particularly significant to their professional development. For instance, candidates may choose to include previous work experience, letters of recommendation or student teaching assessment forms in this section.



3. Scoring guide and rubric for this assessment. See Attachment IV.7.2

4. Data tables and interpretations.

Rubric: PART I: Teacher Candidate's Effects on Student Learning

Outstanding (4 pts)

Competent (3 pts)

Need Improvement

(2 pts) Unsatisfactory

(1 pts) No

Evidence (0 pts)

Mean Mode Stdev

Content Knowledge and Pedagogy (i.e., unit plan lessons and/or lesson plans taught, guidelines for assignments/projects, samples of activities, etc.)

0 3 0 0 0 3.00 3 0.00

Student Engagement and Inquiry (i.e., unit plan lessons and/or lesson

1 2 0 0 0 3.33 3 0.47


plans taught, guidelines for assignments/projects, samples of activities, etc.) Integration of Technology (i.e., unit plan lessons and/or lesson plans taught, guidelines for assignments/projects, samples of activities, samples of students’ work, etc.)

1 1 1 0 0 3.00 2 0.82

Meeting the needs of individual students: Methods of Differentiation (i.e., unit plan lessons and/or lesson plans taught, guidelines for assignments/projects, samples of activities, samples of students’ work, etc.)

0 3 0 0 0 3.00 3 0.00

Two Best Lessons (i.e., unit plan lessons and/or lesson plans taught, guidelines for assignments/projects, samples of activities, etc.)

0 3 0 0 0 3.00 3 0.00

Performance-Based Rubric (i.e., unit plan lessons and/or lesson plans taught, guidelines for assignments/projects, samples of activities, samples of students’ work, etc.)

1 2 0 0 0 3.33 3 0.47

Formative Assessment (i.e., quiz, performance-based rubric, etc.)

0 3 0 0 0 3.00 3 0.00

Summative Assessment (i.e., quiz, performance-based rubric, etc.)

0 2 1 0 0 2.67 3 0.47

Formative Assessment: Data/Results

0 3 0 0 0 3.00 3 0.00

Summative Assessment: Data/Results

0 2 1 0 0 2.67 3 0.47

Formative Assessment: Modifications

0 3 0 0 0 3.00 3 0.00

Summative Assessment: Modifications

0 2 1 0 0 2.67 3 0.47

Unit: Written Reflection 2 1 0 0 0 3.67 4 0.47

Content Knowledge and Pedagogy (i.e., unit plan lessons and/or lesson plans taught, guidelines for assignments/projects, samples of activities, etc.)

3 (100%)

Student Engagement and Inquiry (i.e., unit plan lessons and/or lesson plans taught, guidelines for assignments/projects, samples of activities, etc.)

1 (33%) 2 (66%)

Integration of Technology (i.e., unit plan lessons and/or lesson plans taught, guidelines for assignments/projects, samples of activities, samples of students’ work, etc.)

1 (33%) 1 (33%) 1 (33%)

Meeting the needs of individual students: Methods of Differentiation (i.e., unit plan lessons and/or lesson plans taught, guidelines for

3 (100%)


assignments/projects, samples of activities, samples of students’ work, etc.) Two Best Lessons (i.e., unit plan lessons and/or lesson plans taught, guidelines for assignments/projects, samples of activities, etc.)

3 (100%)

Performance-Based Rubric (i.e., unit plan lessons and/or lesson plans taught, guidelines for assignments/projects, samples of activities, samples of students’ work, etc.)

1 (33%) 2 (66%)

Formative Assessment (i.e., quiz, performance-based rubric, etc.)

3 (100%)

Summative Assessment (i.e., quiz, performance-based rubric, etc.)

2 (66%) 1 (33%)

Formative Assessment: Data/Results

3 (100%)

Summative Assessment: Data/Results

2 (66%) 1 (33%)

Formative Assessment: Modifications

3 (100%)

Summative Assessment: Modifications

2 (66%) 1 (33%)

Unit: Written Reflection 2 (66%) 1 (33%)

Outstanding Competent Need Improvement Unsatisfactory No Evidence

Rubric: PART II: Teacher Candidate's Growth and Development

Outstanding (4 pts)

Competent (3 pts)

Need Improvement

(2 pts) Unsatisfactory

(1 pts) No

Evidence (0 pts)

Mean Mode Stdev

Teaching Goals and Evidence 2 1 0 0 0 3.67 4 0.47 Teaching Experience: Written Reflection

2 1 0 0 0 3.67 4 0.47

Life-Long Learner: Staying Current in Field

0 3 0 0 0 3.00 3 0.00

Teaching Goals and Evidence 2 (66%) 1 (33%)

Teaching Experience: Written Reflection

2 (66%) 1 (33%)

Life-Long Learner: Staying Current in Field

3 (100%)

Outstanding Competent Need Improvement Unsatisfactory No Evidence

Assessment #7 DISPOSITIONS 1. Description of this assessment.



The faculty of Secondary Education acknowledges the important that teacher preparation candidates develop and maintain appropriate dispositions for their work. The seven dimensions that both the candidates and their instructors will assess during Term 1, Term 2, and Term 3 are the following: professional; creative; leader; courageous; enthusiastic; open-minded; and culturally responsive.



3. Scoring guide/rubric for this assessment.


4. Data table and interpretations. Secondary Education Department faculty conducted exit interviews during each term of the 2011-2012 academic year as a basis for learning about the process and anticipating issues of implementation. As the 2012-2013 year begins, the faculty will establish specific procedures for common assessments of dispositions and should be ready a year from now to report out findings for our annual NCE report. Assessment #8 WORLD LANGUAGES UNIT PLAN

1. Description of this assessment. The faculty of World Languages has redesigned the focal point of the methods course – the Unit of Instruction – to demonstrate greater alignment with ACTFL standards. In particular, attention is given in the unit overview to focus on a 5-C orientation to the lesson design. An attention to learning styles and differentiation for diverse learners is included as well. Support materials and assessments (formative and summative) that target three modes of communication are the centerpiece of the new design.

2. Blank sample of this assessment. See Attachment IV.9.1

3. Scoring guide/rubric for this assessment. See Attachment IV.9.1

4. Data tables and interpretations. Ratings from methods instructors are consistently high – candidates are reported to perform at the ‘competent’ and ‘outstanding’ level.


Assessment #9 SEC 510-524 METHODS COURSE PORTFOLIO

ASSESSMENT

1. Brief description of the assessment and its use in the program. Methods course instructors complete a portfolio assessment at the conclusion of Term 2 to give candidates specific feedback on a number of areas related to their professional development in the certification program. The rubric assesses candidates specifically on (1) development of a philosophy of education that reflects attention to issues of diversity, (2) growing academic knowledge and pedagogical skill, (3) candidates’ capacity to engage in professional relationships with colleagues, students, and their families, (4) professional and ethical behavior, (5) use of technology to support classroom learning, and (6) degree of commitment to reflective professional practice.



3. Scoring guide/rubric for this assessment. See Attachment IV.10.1

4. Data tables and interpretations. See Attachment IV.10.2


For the data-gathering periods, candidates received uniformly high summative ratings by their methods instructors. Further trend analysis will be helpful for the faculty to check the sensitivity and accuracy of their ratings. Section V: Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance

1. Describe the steps that program faculty have taken to use information from the key assessments for

improvement of both candidate performance and of the program. Provide information for each tool related to the domains from section III: (1) content knowledge, (2) professional/pedagogical knowledge, (3) field experiences, (4) candidate impact on student learning, (5) candidate dispositions, (6) candidate diversity proficiencies, and (7) candidate technology proficiencies. If the program does not have an assessment in place for any of the required domains, please provide a rationalization for why the component is not applicable to the program or how the program is working toward developing an assessment for that category.

2. Reflect on the previous year’s assessment and recommendations from the NCE Assessment Council review (2010-2011). How did/can the program use the feedback? Were changes to the program’s assessments/ assessment system implemented? What progress has been made? Feedback from the NCE Assessment Council for your program can be located on the I drive. Follow this pathway: Councils and Committees folder, Assessment Council folder, 2011-2012 folder, Program Assessment Reports 2010-11 folder, 2010-11 Assmt. Report Reviews folder.

3. Describe how the assessment data inform the program of candidate achievement related to the NCE Conceptual Framework/Outcomes.

4. Based on the program’s 2011-12 candidate and program data, describe recommendations or changes the program could/will make related to the program’s assessment system and curriculum.

Section V: Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program

Performance

1. The program faculty has reviewed at adjunct meetings the outcomes of assessments of world languages candidates. Our focus as a faculty is firmly trained on aligning our instructional and assessment practices to the standards and rubrics espoused by our SPA: the American Council on Teaching of Foreign Languages. We find that there is a lack of discrimination of our candidates’ ultimate performance, partially due to the mid-course instructional corrections enacted by faculty committed to the success of all learners. That said, we are eager for opportunities to ‘norm up’ on our views of assessments so that they may in fact become more discriminating over time.

2. We have used last year’s feedback to gain more clarity regarding the way we discuss our instruction and assessment and interpret the outcomes that we experience.

3. Returning to the NLU conceptual framework is an activity that strengthens our commitment to program of well-coordinated, triangulated objectives.


4. Rubrics for benchmark projects will be refined to achieve a compelling body of evidence that candidates have met our standards.

Department of Secondary Education Teacher Candidate Dispositions Rubric

Secondary Education Disposition Statement: The department of Secondary Education believes that in order to be a successful educator one must possess certain skills, abilities, and dispositions. Teacher candidate dispositions are assessed as part of this course. The assessment of these dispositions is embedded in the course requirements, assignments, and grading. The following dispositions will be monitored throughout the course/ program and may contribute to the final grade and or successful completion of the program. These dispositions include: dedicated, principled, creative, proactive, strategic, inquisitive, courageous, empathetic, enthusiastic, equitable, open minded, culturally responsive, and respectful. Please see attached disposition list and related behaviors for a description of the expected behaviors. Directions for Students: The assessment chart below should be used as a self assessment of teacher candidate dispositions. Beginning in the first term (term 1) each student should complete a self evaluation using the chart below. On the line provided write the term and year e.g. Fall 2010, Spring 2011, or Winter 2011. The teacher candidate will complete the self evaluation after each term thereafter including the student teaching term. Each teacher candidate will self rate using each disposition using: S-strength, D- Developing, NI-needs improvement, The teacher candidate will have the following instructors sign in the comments row. Term 1: 502/504 instructors, Term 2: SEC 510-524 instructor, Term 3: Seminar Instructor. Post the completed assessment into LiveText under additional artifacts and return a hardcopy to the student teaching seminar instructor. Directions for Instructors: Term 1 the 502/504 instructor will initial on the line in the comments box if there are no concerns with any of the dispositions and related behaviors below. If there are any concerns about the stated dispositions the instructor should initial and write comments in the comments box aligned with the disposition. Term 2 the methods instructor should sign off on the students completed self assessment. Term 3 the student teaching seminar instructor should sign off on the teacher candidate self assessment. Teacher candidates should complete the self assessment prior to the final week of class and the instructor shall return the self assessment with comments during the exit interview or during the last week of classes. The student teaching seminar instructor will collect the final assessment from all teacher candidates and mail them to Theresa Robinson-Thomas, Department of Secondary Education, Chicago Campus, Room 3072.

Disposition

Related Behaviors

Term 1

_______

Comments Term 2

_______

Comments Term 3

_______

Comments

DEDICATED Goes beyond minimum and completes work Meets deadlines Professional activities receive priority

PRINCIPLED Academically honest - self and others Adheres to moral principles Refuses to compromise standards Models appropriate behaviors

CREATIVE Takes risks Displays and respects individuality Demonstrates vision Uses original ideas

PROACTIVE Takes initiative Proposes solutions Is optimistic Exhibits knowledge of processes

STRATEGIC Plans well – long and short term Revises based upon reflection Approaches tasks pragmatically and logically Sets goals and predicts consequences

INQUISITIVE Questions Examines different perspectives and analyzes options Demonstrates curiosity Searches for multiple sources/resources for teaching

COURAGEOUS Challenges status quo Takes risks and accepts failures as opportunities to learn Takes a stand among peers Persists under duress or difficult circumstances

EMPATHETIC Listens Attuned to nonverbal behaviors Sensitive to other’s perspectives Supports students who don’t fit “norm”

ENTHUSIASTIC Enjoys/shares knowledge and experiences Positive verbal and nonverbal behaviors Energizes others Displays positive attitude during difficult times

EQUITABLE Sees all sides of a question Puts aside personal biases Attempts to meet individuals’ needs

OPEN-MINDED Accommodates controversy Acknowledges divergent perspectives Accepts and acts on constructive feedback Thinks first, talks or acts second Integrates differences Uses gender neutral language

RESPECTFUL Greets others politely and recognizes position Responds to others in

complementary manner Knows and uses names Uses appropriate language Present, punctual and prepared Attentive to others when they are speaking Acknowledges others’ responsibilities and demands on time Dresses appropriately

CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE

Displays a positive perspective towards cultural, ethnic and socioeconomic diversity. Believes all children can learn. Curricular content is inclusive and instructional practices draw upon students prior knowledge, community resources and familial customs.

World Language Competency Appraisal 2011 1 Directions: This evaluation is to be filled out by the teacher candidate's Cooperating Teacher(s) and University/TFA Supervisor (and/or CPS Mentor). After completing the evaluation, please click on "Submit Form" at the bottom of the page. On the following screen, click on "Create Printable Version." BEFORE you print the completed evaluation, please copy and e-mail the unique URL link of this page to the seminar instructor. (You can also use this unique URL link to access the evaluation at a later time.) Manual copies must be signed by all necessary parties with a signed copy provided to the teacher candidate as well as the seminar instructor. Please Note: This evaluation cannot be saved. Please allow enough time to complete this entire evaluation in one sitting. You can use the unique URL link to access the completed evaluation at a later time.

If you need assistance with the evaluation, please contact [email protected]

2 Please choose your position: Choose one... NLU Supervisor Cooperating Teacher CPS Mentor TFA Supervisor

3 Your Last Name

4 Your First Name

5 Today's Date

(MM/DD/YYYY) 6 Teaching Candidate's First Name

7 Teaching Candidate's Last Name

8 Teaching Candidate's Signature Teacher candidate will sign manual copy of the form.

9 Term of student teaching Choose one... Fall Winter Spring Full-Year

10 Year of student teaching Choose one... 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

11 Type of certification program Choose one... Traditional Alternative Route Certification (ARC) Teach For America (TFA) Chicago Teaching Fellows (CTF) Subsequent Certification Academy for Urban School Leadership (AUSL)

12 Content Area/Endorsement Choose One English-Language Arts Mathematics Social Science Science World Language

13 Content Area Designation Choose one... French Chinese-Mandarin Chinese-Cantonese Spanish German Latin Japanese Russian Other...

14 Is this evaluation a midterm, final, or graded observation? Choose one... Midterm Final Observation (graded)

15 RECOMMENDED GRADE Choose one... A+ A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D F

16 Based on the recommended grade provided in #15 and the scoring range below, what score BEST reflects the teacher candidate's performance? 100-97 = A+; 96-94 = A; 93-90 = A-; 89-87 = B+; 86-84 = B; 83-80 = B-; 79-77 = C+; 76-74 = C; 73-70 = C-; 69-60 = D; 50-0 = F

Example: 81

17 Total Number of conferences/meetings with the teacher candidate

(numbers only)

18 Name of student teaching school site

19 Area where is this school located

Choose one... Suburbs City of Chicago Other

20 Is this an elementary school (K-5), middle school (6-8), or high school (9-12)?

Choose one... Elementary School (K-5) Middle School (6-8) High School (9-12) Other...

21 What type of school is this? Choose one... Public Charter Private Parochial Other...

22 Grade You may check more than one box.

K-5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th

23 University Supervisor/Mentor's Name and Signature Supervisor/Mentor please print your name and then provide your signature on the manual copy of this form.

24 Cooperating Teacher's Name and Signature

Cooperating teacher(s) please print your name and then provide your signature on the manual copy of this form.

25 The following section includes questions regarding the teacher candidate's

technological, pedagogical, and dispositional practices. 26 Integration of Technology

Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component. Distinguished = Instructional technology is formidable to the

instructional purposes and engage students mentally. Students initiate the choice, adaptation, or creation of technology to enhance their learning.

Proficient = Instructional technology is suitable to the instructional purposes and engages students.

Basic = Instructional technology is only partially suitable to the instructional purposes, students are only partially engaged.

Unsatisfactory =Instructional technology is unsuitable to the instructional purposes or do not engage students.

Does Not Apply = Not applicable and/or lack basis for judgment at this time.

27 Strengths and/or Recommendations for Improvement: Please relate to question 25.

28 Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources - Resources for Students

Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component. Distinguished = Teacher candidate’s knowledge of resources for

students is extensive, including those available through the school or district, in the community and on the Internet.

Proficient = Teacher candidate displays awareness of resources for student available through the school or district through the school or district and some familiarity with resources external to the school and on the Internet.

Basic = Teacher candidate displays awareness of resources for students available through the school or district but no knowledge of resources available more broadly.

Unsatisfactory = Teacher candidate is unaware of resources for students available through the school or district.

Does Not Apply = Not applicable and/or lack of basis for judgment at this time.


30 Designing Coherent Instruction- Learning Activities

Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component. Distinguished = Learning activities are highly suitable to diverse learners

and support the instructional outcomes. They are all designed to engage students in high-level cognitive activity and are differentiated, as appropriate, for individual learners.

Proficient =All of the learning activities are suitable to students or to the instructional outcomes, and most represent significant cognitive challenge, with some differentiation for different groups of students.

Basic = Only some of the learning activities are suitable to students or to the instructional outcomes. Some represent a moderate cognitive challenge, but with no differentiation for different outcomes.

Unsatisfactory = Learning activities are not suitable to students or to instructional outcomes and are not designed to engage students in active intellectual activity


31 Strengths and/or Recommendations for Improvement:

Please relate to question 29.

32 Managing Classroom Procedures- Management of Instructional Groups

Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component. Distinguished = Instructional groups are well organized, and students

are productively engaged at all times, with students assuming responsibility for productivity.

Proficient = Group work is well-organized, and most students are productively engaged in learning while unsupervised by the teacher.

Basic = Students in only some groups are productively engaged in learning while unsupervised by the teacher.

Unsatisfactory = Students are not productively engaged in learning. Does Not Apply = Not applicable and/or lack of basis for judgment at

this time. 33 Strengths and/or Recommendations for Improvement:


34 Management of Transitions

Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component. Distinguished = Transitions from one activity to another are seamless

and pacing of instruction results in no loss of instructional time. Proficient = Transitions occur smoothly, with little loss of instructional

time. Basic = Only some transitions are efficient, results in some loss of

instructional time. Unsatisfactory = Transitions are chaotic, with much time lost between

activities or lesson segments. Does Not Apply = Not applicable and/or lack of basis for judgment at



36 Managing Classroom Procedures - Performance of Non-Instructional

Duties

Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component. Distinguished = Routines for performing non-instructional duties are well

established, with students assuming considerable responsibility for caring out classroom procedures.

Proficient = Routines for performing non-instructional duties are in place, resulting in minimal loss of instructional time.

Basic = Routines for performing non-instructional duties are only fairly efficient, resulting in some loss of instructional time.

Unsatisfactory = Considerable instructional time is lost in performing non-instructional duties.



38 Managing Student Behavior - Response to Student

Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component. Distinguished = Teacher candidate’s response to misbehavior is highly

effective and sensitive to students' needs. Proficient = Teacher candidate’s response to misbehavior is appropriate

and successful and respects the student's dignity, or student behavior is generally appropriate.

Basic = Teacher candidate’s attempts to respond to student misbehavior but with uneven results, or there are not major infractions of the rules.

Unsatisfactory = Teacher candidate does not respond to misbehavior, or the response is inconsistent, is overly repressive, or does not respect the student’s dignity.



40 Communicating with Students - Directions and Procedures

Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component. Distinguished = Teacher candidate’s directions and procedures are clear

to students and anticipate possible student misunderstanding. Proficient = Teacher candidate’s directions and procedures are clear to

students.

Basic = Teacher's candidate’s directions and procedures are clarified after initial student confusion.

Unsatisfactory = Teacher candidate’s directions and procedures are confusing to student.



42 Questioning and Discussion Techniques - Quality of Questions

Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component. Distinguished = Teacher candidate’s questions are of uniformly high

quality, with adequate time for students to respond. Students formulate many questions.

Proficient = Most of the teacher candidate’s questions are of high quality. Adequate time is provided for students to respond.

Basic = Teacher candidate’s questions are a combination of low and high quality, posed in rapid succession. Only some invite a thoughtful response.

Unsatisfactory = Teacher candidate’s questions are virtually all of poor quality, with low cognitive challenge and single correct responses, and they are asked in rapid succession.



44 Engaging Students in Learning - Activities and Assignments

Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component. Distinguished = All students are engaged in the activities, discussion,

and the exploration of the concepts/topics. Proficient = Most activities and assignments are appropriate to students,

and almost all students are engaged in exploring concepts/topics. Basic = Activities and assignments are appropriate to some students

and engage them mentally, but others are not engaged. Unsatisfactory = Actives and assignments are inappropriate for

students' age or background. Students are not mentally engaged in them. Does Not Apply = Not applicable and/or lack of basis for judgment at



46 Performance-Based Evaluation

Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component. Distinguished = Students are fully aware of the criteria and standards

by which their work and or activities will be evaluated. Proficient = Students are fully aware of the criteria and standards by

which their work and or activities will be evaluated. Basic = Students know some of the criteria and standards by which their

work and or activities will be evaluated. Unsatisfactory = Students are not aware of the criteria and standards by

which their work and or activities will be evaluated. Does Not Apply = Not applicable and/or lack of basis for judgment at



48 Designing Student Assessments - Congruence

Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component. Distinguished = Lesson includes an exemplary formative assessment or

activities that is fully aligned with and targets the instructional outcomes in both content and process.

Proficient = Lesson includes an adequate formative assessment or activities that is fully aligned with and targets the instructional outcomes in both content and process.

Basic = Some of the instructional outcomes are assessed using a formative assessment approach, but many are not.

Unsatisfactory = Assessment procedures are not congruent with instructional outcomes.



50 Listening and Addressing Constructive Feedback

Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component. Distinguished = Teacher candidate seeks out feedback from both

supervisor and cooperating teacher(s) and makes a concerted effort to implement the change.

Proficient = Teacher candidate welcomes feedback from both supervisor and cooperating teacher(s) when opportunities arise through professional collaboration.

Basic = Teacher candidate accepts with some reluctance, feedback on teaching performance from both supervisor and or cooperating teacher(s).

Unsatisfactory = Teacher candidate resists feedback on performance from either supervisor(s) or cooperating teacher/s.



52 Completing Assigned Tasks in a Timely Manner

Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component. Distinguished = Teacher candidate turns in all assignments and

completes all tasks in a timely manner. Proficient = Teacher candidates turn in all assignments and complete

most tasks in a timely manner. Basic = Teacher candidates turn in most assignments and complete

most tasks in a timely manner. Unsatisfactory = Teacher candidates request additional time for some

assignments and does not complete tasks in a timely manner. Does Not Apply = Not applicable and/or lack of basis for judgment at



54 Willing to Reflect On One’s Own Practice and Behavior

Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component. Distinguished = Teacher candidate’s reflection is highly accurate and

perceptive, citing specific examples that were not fully successful for some students and draws upon other ways to improve his/her own practices and behaviors.

Proficient = Teacher candidate’s reflection is accurate and objective, citing some examples that were not fully successful for some students and draws upon other ways to improve his/her own practices and behaviors.

Basic = Teacher candidate’s reflection is somewhat accurate and objective, without citing examples that were not fully successful for some students and draws upon other ways to improve his/her own practices and behaviors.

Unsatisfactory = Teacher candidate does not reflect on practice or the reflections are inaccurate or self-serving.



56 Exhibits a Clear Understanding of the Roles and Responsibilities of Being a

Teacher Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component.

Distinguished = Teacher candidate complies fully in understanding the roles and responsibilities of being a teacher.

Proficient = Teacher candidate understands the roles and responsibilities of being a teacher.

Basic = Teacher candidate complies somewhat in understanding the roles and responsibilities of being a teacher.

Unsatisfactory = Teacher candidate does not fully understand the roles and responsibilities of being a teacher.



58 This next section includes questions about the teacher candidate's specific

content area--World Language. 59 Use of target language

Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component. Distinguished = Teacher candidate models 3 modes of communication:

interpretive, interpersonal, presentational --seamlessly in the delivery of instruction.

Proficient = Teacher candidate models 3 modes of communication: interpretative, interpersonal, presentational -- in the delivery of instruction.

Basic = Teacher candidate uses some but not all three modes of communication: interpretative, interpersonal, and presentational -- in delivering instruction.

Unsatisfactory = Teacher candidate fails to demonstrate the ability to deliver instruction using the 3 modes of communication: interpretive, interpersonal, and presentational.


60 Description of language features Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component.

Distinguished = Teacher candidate describes the major features of the target language: grammar, phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics within the communicative instructional context.

Proficient = Teacher candidate describes the major features of the target language: grammar, phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics.

Basic = Teacher candidate displays a lack of ability to describe the major features of the target language grammar, phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics.

Unsatisfactory = Teacher candidate in unable to describe major features of the target language: grammar, phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics


61 Description of language function, structure, and meaning Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component.

Distinguished = Teacher candidate describes rules for word and sentence formation as well as their function, structure, and meaning in foreign language discourse. Candidate places explanations within a context most productive for individual learners.

Proficient = Teacher candidate describes rules for word and sentence formation as well as their function, structure, and meaning in foreign language discourse.

Basic = Teacher candidate demonstrates occasional difficulty in describing word and sentence formation as well as their function, structure and meaning in foreign language discourse.

Unsatisfactory = Teacher candidate lacks the ability to explain rules for

word and sentence formation and does not explain their function, structure or meaning in foreign language discourse satisfactorily in classroom instruction.


62 Organization of instruction for linguistic development of students Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component.

Distinguished = Teacher candidate organizes instruction, diagnoses students' linguistic difficulties, and assists them on understanding linguistic concepts, seamlessly within an authentic learning context.

Proficient = Teacher candidate organizes instruction, diagnoses students' linguistic difficulties, and assists them on understanding linguistic concepts.

Basic = Teacher candidate has difficulty diagnosing linguistic difficulties and guiding instruction based on that diagnosis.

Unsatisfactory = Teacher candidate lacks the ability to diagnose linguistic difficulties in students and guide their understanding of linguistic concepts.


63 Exposure to regional varieties of target language Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component.

Distinguished = Teacher candidate exposes students to the target language from a wide variety of regions where the language is spoken.

Proficient = Teacher candidate exposes students to the target language from a limited number of regions where the language is spoken.

Basic = Teacher candidate may possess knowledge of the target language as spoken in a variety of regions but fails to call attention to such differences in instructional delivery.

Unsatisfactory = Teacher candidate does not reflect through classroom instruction an awareness of the target language as spoken in a variety of regions.


64 Integration of the cultural framework - perspectives, practices, and products - into instruction Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component.

Distinguished = Teacher candidate embeds the framework of products, practices, & perspectives into curriculum, instruction, & assessment in a fully integrated fashion.

Proficient = Teacher candidate embeds the framework of products, practices, & perspectives into curriculum, instruction, & assessment.

Basic = Teacher candidate embeds practices, products, & perspectives into curriculum, instruction & assessment partially, sporadically and/or

unevenly. Unsatisfactory = Teacher candidate fails to embed practices, products, &

perspectives into curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Does Not Apply = Not applicable and/or lack of basis for judgment at

this time. 65 Use of literary and cultural texts in instruction to help students interpret

changes to culture over time Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component.

Distinguished = Teacher candidate selects and adapts literary & cultural texts to engage their students in heightening awareness of target cultures while advancing communicative skills.

Proficient = Teacher candidate uses literary and cultural texts to engage their students in raising awareness of target cultures while advancing communicative skills.

Basic = Teacher candidate uses prescribed literary and cultural texts with the goal of raising students' awareness of target culture while sustaining language skills.

Unsatisfactory = Teacher candidate does not use literary and cultural texts for the purpose of raising students' awareness of the target culture.


66 Integration of knowledge of other disciplines Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component.

Distinguished = Teacher candidate implements a content-based approach to language instruction that is based on the integration of language and subject-area content.

Proficient = Teacher candidate integrates concepts from other subject areas such as math, science, social studies, art, and music.

Basic = Teacher candidate integrates discrete pieces of information from other subject areas, usually as they appear in prepared instructional materials.

Unsatisfactory = Teacher candidate fails to incorporate concepts from other subject areas into language instruction.


67 Target language input Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component.

Distinguished = Teacher candidate structures classes to maximize the use of the target language at all levels of instruction. Spontaneous interaction with students in the target language is key as candidate guides students' development of a variety of learning strategies.

Proficient = Teacher candidate uses the target language to the maximum extent in class at all levels of instruction. Candidate designates times for spontaneous interaction with students and uses a variety of

strategies to help students develop proficiency. Basic = Teacher candidate uses the target language for specific parts of

classroom lessons at all levels of instruction but avoids spontaneous interaction with students in the target language. Candidate uses some strategies to help students understand oral and written input.

Unsatisfactory = Teacher candidate does not use the target language to deliver classroom instruction, mostly avoids spontaneous interaction with students and does not provide strategies to help students increase proficiency levels.


68 Negotiation of meaning Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component.

Distinguished = Teacher candidate negotiates meaning as an integral part of classroom instruction and hold students accountable for such negotiation with each other.

Proficient = Teacher candidate negotiates meaning with students when spontaneous interaction occurs. Students negotiate meaning with each other in directed class activities.

Basic = Teacher candidate does not provide students the regular opportunity to negotiate meaning with the teacher nor with fellow classmates.

Unsatisfactory = Teacher candidate scripts classroom instruction as a series of exercises that do not provide an opportunity for the negotiation of meaning.


69 Meaningful classroom interaction Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component.

Distinguished = Teacher candidate facilitates meaningful classroom interaction, engaging students in communication with interesting activities that are personalized to individuals as they meet curricular goals.

Proficient = Teacher candidate facilitates activities, the majority of which are standards-based, that have meaningful contexts that reflect curricular themes and students' interests.

Basic = Teacher candidate uses communicative activities as the basis for engaging students in meaningful classroom interaction -- which occur in meaningful contexts and in meaningful instructional materials.

Unsatisfactory = Teacher candidate fails to use communicative activities to enhance meaningful classroom interaction.


70 Dispositions for creating supportive classroom environment Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component.

Distinguished = Teacher candidate engages students in monitoring their own progress and in asking for assistance from the teacher.

Proficient = Teacher candidate provides feed-back to students that focuses on meaning as well as linguistic accuracy, viewing errors as a normal part of the language acquisition process.

Basic = Teacher candidate offers primarily evaluative feedback that focuses on the accuracy of language production.

Unsatisfactory = Teacher candidate provides inadequate feedback to students that neither guides nor supports students progress in raising proficiency.


71 Adapting instruction to address students' language levels, background, & learning styles Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component.

Distinguished = Teacher candidate consistently uses information about students' language levels, language backgrounds and learning styles to implement meaningful instructional activities.

Proficient = Teacher candidate determines factors of language level, language background, and learning styles to facilitate a variety of instructional models and techniques to address individual differences.

Basic = Teacher candidate demonstrates an awareness of the wide ranges regarding students' language levels, language backgrounds, and learning styles by implementing a limited variety of learning strategies.

Unsatisfactory = Teacher candidate does not reflect an awareness of the variety of language levels, language backgrounds, and learning styles and implements a non-differentiated set of activities for students


72 Adapting instruction to meet the special needs of students Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component.

Distinguished = Teacher candidate uses a wide variety of methods and materials to deliver instruction that addresses differences in cognitive, physical, linguistic, social and emotional needs.

Proficient = Teacher candidate uses a considerable variety of instructional models and strategies to address special needs for individual learners.

Basic = Teacher candidate may recognize special needs of individual learners but provides only nominal accommodations to make learning accessible to all students.

Unsatisfactory = Teacher candidate fails to use differentiated strategies for addressing needs of individual learners


73 Grouping of students for instructional activities Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component.

Distinguished = Teacher candidate provides regular opportunities for students to work collaboratively in pairs and small groups, teaching students how to assume roles and monitor group and individual progress.

Proficient = Teacher candidate facilitates activities in which students work collaboratively is pairs & small groups. Candidate defines and models the task and puts into place structural features (work roles, time limits) to enhance productivity.

Basic = Teacher candidate facilitates activities in which students work collaboratively is pairs & small groups.

Unsatisfactory = Teacher candidate conducts classroom activities primarily in the large-group format with little or no collaborate work opportunities for pairs and small groups.


74 Use of questions & tasks Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component.

Distinguished = Teacher candidate uses questions and task-based activities to elicit thinking and the corresponding production of language from students.

Proficient = Teacher candidate uses questioning strategies and task- based activities as outlined in instructional materials.

Basic = Teacher candidate uses short-answer questioning as the primary strategy for eliciting language from students.

Unsatisfactory = Teacher candidate does not require students to provide answers to question during classroom instruction.


75 Evaluation, selection, & creation of standards-based materials Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component.

Distinguished = Teacher candidate uses a wealth of self-created and/ or self-selected resources, including visuals, regalia, authentic printed and oral materials and resources obtained through technology) to teach a standards-based curriculum.

Proficient = Teacher candidate uses a variety of resources (including visuals, regalia, authentic printed and oral materials and resources obtained with technology) to teach a standards-based curriculum.

Basic = Teacher candidate bases the selection and design of materials on short-term instructional objectives more than on standards and/or curricular goals.

Unsatisfactory = Teacher candidate fails to evaluate, select, and create instructional materials on the framework of standards.

Does Not Apply = Not applicable and/or lack of basis for judgment at

this time. 76 Assessment of students formatively and summatively

Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component. Distinguished = Teacher candidate implements both types of

assessment with regularity that advises next steps for both the teacher and the students.

Proficient = Teacher candidate uses formative assessments as the unit progresses and summative assessments at its conclusion.

Basic = Teacher candidate can articulate the difference between formative and summative assessment but uses outcomes of assessments almost exclusively to assign grades.

Unsatisfactory = Teacher candidate cannot articulate the function of formative and


77 Assessment of interpretive communication Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component.

Distinguished = Teacher candidate assesses students on their ability to interpret oral and printed texts, involving students in self-assessment and independent interpretation.

Proficient = Teacher candidate assesses students on their ability to interpret oral and printed texts, using a variety of response types from forced-choice to open-ended.

Basic = Teacher candidate uses interpretive assessments found in instructional materials prepared by others. The reading/listening materials with which they work are primarily those developed by others for pedagogical purposes.

Unsatisfactory = Teacher candidate does not use interpretive assessments in their classroom instruction that identify successfully the differential levels of proficiency of students.


78 Assessment of interpersonal communication Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component.

Distinguished = Teacher candidate uses self-created interpersonal assessments that meet the reliability criteria as established by MOPI (modified oral proficiency interview) or state-designed instruments.

Proficient = Teacher candidate uses inter-personal assessments that gauge learners' abilities to negotiate meaning as listeners/speakers and as readers/writers in an interactive mode. The candidate provides assessments that are doable but challenging.

Basic = Teacher candidate uses interpersonal assessment materials found in instructional materials prepared by others.

Unsatisfactory = Teacher candidate does not use interpersonal

assessments in their classroom instruction that identify successfully the differential levels of proficiency of students.


79 Assessment of presentational communication Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component.

Distinguished = Teacher candidate uses self-created high-interest presentational tasks to develop students' abilities to self-assess, self-correct and revise in terms of audience, style, and cultural context.

Proficient = Teacher candidate uses self-created tasks that capture how well students speak and write in planned contexts.

Basic = Teacher candidate uses tasks that are prepared by others to gauge students' abilities to speak and write in planned contexts.

Unsatisfactory = Teacher candidate does not use presentational assessments as part of classroom instruction that identify successfully differential levels of students' proficiency.


80 After completing the evaluation, please click on "Submit Form" at the bottom of the page. On the following screen, click on "Create Printable Version." BEFORE you print the completed evaluation, please copy and e-mail the unique URL link of this page to the seminar instructor. (You can also use this unique URL link to access the evaluation at a later time.) Manual copies must be signed by all necessary parties with a signed copy provided to the teacher candidate as well as the seminar instructor.

(please leave the box above empty)

81 Thank you!

show properties

SEC 510-524 Methods Course Portfolio Assessment Rubric by Secondary Education

Assessment Directions

To all Instructors: please complete the following portfolio assessment. This assessment evaluates teacher candidates' performance in regards to the benchmarks and portfolio requirements associated with this course. Your responses should be based (among other things) on teacher candidates' initial or original performance on previously submitted portfolio requirements.

SEC 510-524 Methods Course Portfolio Assessment Rubric

Does Not Meet Meets (1 pt) Exceeds (2 pts) Teachers develop,

practice, articulate, and

maintain a philosophy of

education based on critical self-

reflection. (1, 14%)

This performance is evidenced by the candidate’s lack of ability to apply his/her philosophy of education through the planning and development of a unit plan and lesson plans.

This performance is evidenced by the candidate's ability to satisfactorily apply his/her philosophy of education through the planning and development of a unit plan and lesson plans.

This performance is evidenced by the candidate's ability to capably and creatively apply his/her philosophy of education through the planning and development of a unit plan and lesson plans.

Teachers differentiate

instruction with respect for

individual and cultural diversity.

(1, 14%)

This performance is evidenced by the candidate’s lack of ability to apply teaching and learning strategies and techniques in the planning of instructions based on his/her understanding of how human development affects learning, various teaching and learning styles, and with respect to individual and cultural diversity.

This performance is evidenced by the candidate’s ability to satisfactorily apply teaching and learning strategies and techniques in the planning of instructions based on his/her understanding of how human development affects learning, various teaching and learning styles, and with respect to individual and cultural diversity.

This performance is evidenced by the candidate’s ability to capably apply teaching and learning strategies, techniques, and activities/projects in the planning of instructions based on his/her understanding of how human development affects learning, various teaching and learning styles, and with respect to individual and cultural diversity.

Teachers possess and demonstrate

effective academic

This performance is evidenced by the candidate’s lack of ability to

This performance is evidenced by the candidate’s ability to

This performance is evidenced by the candidate’s ability to

content knowledge and pedagogical skills. (1, 14%)

apply his/her academic content knowledge and pedagogical skills using the backward design when planning and developing unit plans, lesson plans, activities/projects, and assessments.

satisfactorily apply his/her academic content knowledge and pedagogical skills using the backward design when planning and developing unit plans, lesson plans, rubrics, activities/projects, and assessments.

capably and creatively apply his/her academic content knowledge and pedagogical skills using the backward design when planning and developing unit plans, lesson plans, activities/projects, and assessments.

Teachers collaborate as partners with

colleagues, parents, families, and/or the larger

community to support student

learning. (1, 14%)

This performance is evidenced by the candidate’s lack of ability to develop a critical understanding of the teaching and learning community in regards to effective classroom practices and student learning that is based on informal interactions with schools, reflections, collegial and classroom experiences, and at least 45 logged hours of classroom observations.

This performance is evidenced by the candidate’s ability to develop a critical understanding of the teaching and learning community in regards to effective classroom practices and student learning that is based on informal interactions with schools, reflections, collegial and classroom experiences, and at least 45 logged hours of classroom observations.

This performance is evidenced by the candidate’s ability to develop a critical and adept understanding of the teaching and learning community in regards to effective classroom practices and student learning that is based on informal interactions with schools, reflections, collegial and classroom experiences, and at least 45 logged hours of classroom observations.

Teachers exhibit professionalism, leadership, and

ethical behavior. (1, 14%)

This performance is evidenced by the candidate’s lack of ability to exhibit a dedicated attitude to teaching and learning as a profession as well as demonstrate an understanding (through academic content specific activities/projects and classroom discussions) of the significance of professional conduct, planning and instruction, and students well-being and motivation, regardless of ethnicity, race, gender, ability, or socioeconomic status, in developing stimulating, inclusive, and safe learning environments.

This performance is evidenced by the candidate’s ability to exhibit a dedicated attitude to teaching and learning as a profession as well as demonstrate a competent understanding (through academic content specific activities/projects and classroom discussions) of the significance of professional conduct, planning and instruction, and students well-being and motivation, regardless of ethnicity, race, gender, ability, or socioeconomic status, in developing stimulating, inclusive, and safe learning environments.

This performance is evidenced by the candidate’s ability to exhibit a dedicated attitude to teaching and learning as a profession as well as demonstrate a highly competent understanding (through academic content specific activities/projects, classroom discussions, and leadership) of the significance of professional conduct, planning and instruction, and students well-being and motivation, regardless of ethnicity, race, gender, ability, or socioeconomic status, in developing stimulating, inclusive, and safe learning environments.

Teachers use current technology

creatively and effectively to

improve classroom instruction. (1,

14%)

This performance is evidenced by the candidate’s lack of ability to plan and develop a unit plan, lesson plans, and activities/projects that integrate technology software and/or the Internet

This performance is evidenced by the candidate’s ability to satisfactorily plan and develop a unit plan, lesson plans, and activities/projects that integrate technology software and/or the Internet

This performance is evidenced by the candidate’s ability to capably and creatively plan and develop a unit plan, lesson plans, and activities/projects that integrate technology

into his/her academic content.

into his/her academic content.

software and the Internet into his/her academic content.

Teachers continue their professional growth through a

commitment to reflection and

learning. (1, 14%)

This performance is evidenced by the candidate’s lack of ability to exhibit professional growth through classroom discussions and the creation of an annotated bibliography in APA format with five educational resources that illustrate the candidate’s capacity to reflect and understand the significance of certain educational sources in informing teaching and learning in his/her academic content.

This performance is evidenced by the candidate’s ability to satisfactorily exhibit professional growth through classroom discussions and the creation of an annotated bibliography in APA format with at least five educational resources that satisfactorily illustrate the candidate’s capacity to reflect and understand the significance of certain educational sources in informing teaching and learning in his/her academic content.

This performance is evidenced by the candidate’s ability to capably exhibit professional growth through classroom discussions and the creation of an annotated bibliography in APA format with at least five educational resources that capably illustrate the candidate’s capacity to reflect and understand the significance of certain educational sources in informing teaching and learning in his/her academic content.

Documents

NCE Annual Program Assessment Information, Template and … secondary education - world...NCE Annual Program Assessment Information, Template and Rubric Purpose: The purpose of annual