Program Assessment 2011-2012 Academic Year

University of Alaska Southeast School of Education

Elementary Education MAT: Juneau

Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI)

Anne Jones, Ed.D.

Introduction The University of Alaska Southeast is a public, comprehensive university located in

Juneau, Sitka and Ketchikan. It is one of three Major Academic Units (MAUs) of the

University of Alaska. UAS provides graduate and undergraduate educational

opportunities in Elementary Education to the residents of Southeast Alaska and,

through distance technologies, across the state.

The School of Education’s mission is to provides undergraduate and graduate

programs, both on-site and distance, that identify, prepare, and strengthen effective

teachers who make sustained contributions to students and the education profession in

rural and urban settings in Alaska and nationally.”

The State of Alaska has Beginning Teacher Expectations that were adopted in 2008.

These form the underlying basis for evaluation of beginning teacher candidates and are

met in order for an Alaska teacher certification program to recommend a candidate. The

Goals of the School of Education are closely aligned to the Alaska Teacher Standards,

ACEI Standards, UAS Core Themes and Objectives and the UAS Graduate

Competencies. An alignment table is presented on the following page.

The Elementary (K-8) Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) in the School of Education at

The University of Alaska Southeast (UAS) prepares and graduates a cohort of teacher

candidates annually. Program graduates are eligible for Alaska State (K-8) Teacher

Certification. The state of Alaska requires program approval and NCATE accreditation

through a joint review process. Alaska recognizes the national standards of the

Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI). Performance criteria for

program candidates align to ACEI Standards. Alaska performance criteria that directly

influence the application of ACEI Standards in the program are:

Student Profile

Theme: Student Success

Objective: Access

Objective: Success Theme: Teaching and Learning

Objective: Breadth of Programs and Services Objective: Academic Excellence

Admission criteria or other measures of selecting students.

Theme: Student Success

Objective: Success Theme: Teaching & Learning

Objective: Academic Excellence

Admission Criteria are as follows:

Bachelor’s Degree with GPA of 3.0 or better

A grade of C or better in the following content areas: English, College Level Math, Psychology, Earth or Physical Science, Life Science, U.S. History or Government.

Praxis I scores at state pass level

Two writing samples: an impromptu sample and a Statement of Professional Objectives

Two letters of recommendation

Evidence of successful work with children (Early Classroom Experience Form.)

This program is essentially open admission. Candidates who do not meet a requirement such a content preparation, Praxis I or GPA are admitted with departmental conditions.

A criminal background check

Student credit hours (SCH) generated for each of the past five years.

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

1047 972 1008 1281 1013

Number of admitted students

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

24 15 9 12 9

Annual number of graduates

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

10 13 9 11 8

Analysis and commentary on enrollment and graduation trends

Data indicate a majority of students who begin the one-year program complete the program within that year. Of the few students who do not finish within the one year, most do not complete because they need more time to present their Master’s Portfolio. These students usually complete within the next semester.

2. Faculty Profile

Theme: Teaching and Learning

Objective: Quality of Faculty and Staff

Profile of unit faculty with degrees, areas of specialization, rank and tenure status, years of experience

Faculty Member

Highest Degree & Institution

Tenure Track Y/N

Assignment/ Rank

Scholarship or Leadership

Anne Jones Doctorate, University of Southern California

Y Assistant Professor

Virgil Fredenberg

Doctorate, University of Montana

Y Associate Professor

Susan Baxter N Adjunct

Laurie Schoenberger

N Adjunct

Patty Winegar N Adjunct

Geoffrey Wyatt N Adjunct

Brief Analysis of Faculty Data

Faculty are well qualified for the courses they instruct. Each adjunct faculty accomplished a least 20 years classroom teaching and all are mentors in the Alaska Mentoring Program.

3. Institutional Data

Theme: Teaching and Learning

Objective: Effectiveness & Efficiency

Headcount and Instructional Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) for Full and Adjunct Faculty

Status 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

Regular 2 2 1 3 3

Adjunct 2 1 2 0 0

Total 4 3 3 3 3

Instructional Faculty Full-time Equivalent (FFTE) (Actual FFTE = sum of credits taught/12)

Status 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

Regular .67 .42 .25 .92 .75

Adjunct .25 .17 .5 0 0

Total .92 .59 .75 .92 .75

Average Student Credit Hours (SCH) Per Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Faculty

Status 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

Regular 197 180 108 179 136

Adjunct 132 168 72 0 0

Total 179 176 84 179 136

Average Class Size by Full-Time and Adjunct Faculty

Status 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

Full-Time 11 15 4 11 11.3

Adjunct 11 14 3 0 0

Total 11 14.7 9 11 11.3

Brief Analysis of Institutional Data

This is a small program reflected in the student/faculty ratio

4. Quality of Graduates (criteria used by the program for SPA reporting)

Assessment #1: Licensure Assessment, or Other Content Based Assessment: Praxis Pass Rates Theme: Student Success

Objective: Success Theme: Teaching & Learning

Objective: Academic Excellence Pass Rates on Praxis I Entrance Examinations

2007 – 2008 2008 – 2009 2009 – 2010 2010 – 2011 2011 – 2012

PRAXIS PPST Test

N Average Score

% of Candidates Passing

N Average Score

% of Candidates Passing

N Average Score

% of Candidates Passing

N Average Score

% of Candidates Passing

N Average Score

% of Candidates Passing

Math

13

182.5

100% 8 182.5

100% 10

180.5

100% 7 181.7

100% 10

182.6

100%

Reading

13

182.2

100% 8 181.4

87.5 10

180.6

100% 7 181.4

100% 10

182.7

100%

Writing

13

180.5

100% 8 178.5

100% 10

177.7

100% 7 178.1

100% 10

180.2

100%

Pass Rates on Praxis II Content Examinations (Elementary Education Content Knowledge)

2007 – 2008 2008 – 2009 2009 – 2010 2010 – 2011 2011 – 2012

PRAXIS ELED: CK

N Average Score

% of Candidates Passing

N Average Score

% of Candidates Passing

N Average Score

% of Candidates Passing

N Average Score

% of Candidates Passing

N Average Score

% of Candidates Passing

Content

13

180.3

100% 9 176 100% 14

175 100% 8 174.3

100% 11

179.1

100%

Our candidates’ score are well above state determined cut-off scores. Many of our candidates are recognized by ETS as high scorers on the Praxis II.

Assessment #2: Assessment of Content Knowledge (ECPC CF: All) Theme: Teaching & Learning

Objective: Academic Excellence Theme: Community Engagement

Objective: Individual Engagement

Intern Evaluation Form Supplemental

2007– 2008 2008 – 2009 2009 – 2010 2010 – 2011 2011 – 2012

N % Proficient or

Above N

% Proficient or Above

N % Proficient or

Above N

% Proficient or Above

N % Proficient or

Above

13 100% 9 100% 13 100% 8 100% 10 100%

The Intern Evaluation Form Supplement (IEFS) measures candidate’s proficiency in content area competence in English-language arts, mathematics, social studies, science, health education, physical education, and the arts. Proficient candidates, “meet” or “exceeds”, score a 3 or higher (on a scale of 1-6) on all nine goals.

Assessment #3: Assessment of Candidate Ability to Plan Instruction (Unit Plan) Theme: Community Engagement

Objective: Individual Engagement

Objective: Institutional Engagement

Integrated Unit Plan

2007 – 2008 2008 – 2009 2009 – 2010 2010 – 2011 2011 – 20012

N % Proficient or

Above N

% Proficient or Above

N % Proficient or

Above N

% Proficient or Above

N % Proficient or

Above

13 100% 9 100% 13 100% 8 100% 10 100%

The Integrated Unit rubric project assesses candidates’ ability to plan instruction. The rubric assesses the candidates proficiency in: development, learning, and motivation; integrating and applying knowledge for instruction; adaptations for diverse students; development of critical thinking and problem solving; assessment for instruction; professional growth, reflection, and evaluation; as well as the overall unit presentation. Proficient candidates, “meets” or “exceeds”, score a 2 or higher (on a scale of 1-3) on all nine goals.

Assessment #4: Assessment of Clinical Practice (ECP CF:All) Theme: Research & Creative Expression

Objective: Learning Impact Intern Evaluation Form

2007 – 2008 2008 – 2009 2009 – 2010 2010 – 2011 2011 - 2012

N

Not Met

Met Target

N

Not Met

Met Target

N

Not Met

Met Target

N

Not Met

Met

Target

N

Not Met

Met

Target

13

0 (0%)

11 (84.6%)

2 (15.4%)

9

0 (0%)

3 (33.3%)

6 (66.7%)

14

0 (0%)

4 (28.6%)

10 (71.4%)

10

0 (0%)

7 (70%)

3 (30%)

10

0 (0%)

3 (30%)

7 (70%)

The Intern Evaluation Form (IEF) and Intern Evaluation Form Supplemental (IEFS) assess interns’ proficiency in teaching. The Intern Evaluation Form (IEF) measures candidate’s ability in the nine School of Education goals. Proficient candidates score a 2 or higher (on a scale of 1-3) on all nine goals. The Intern Evaluation Form Supplement (IEFS) measures candidate’s proficiency in content area competence in English-language arts, mathematics, social studies, science, health education, physical education, and the arts. Proficient candidates scores 2 or better (on a scale of 1-3) in all seven content areas. The scores reported here reflect the ACEI standards for elementary teachers, rated on a scale of 1-3. The scores reflect a particular strength in diversity.

Assessment #5: Assessment of Candidate Effect on Student Learning (Portfolio CF: ALL) Theme: Teaching & Learning

Objective: Academic Excellence

MAT Portfolio (Based on all 9 SOE Goals)

2007 – 20088 2008 – 2009 2009 – 2010 2010 – 2011 2011 - 2012

N

Not Met

Met Target

N

Not Met

Met Target

N

Not Met

Met Target

N

Not Met

Met

Target

N

Not Met

Met

Target

13

0 (0%)

6 (46.2%)

7 (53.8%)

9

0 (0%)

7 (77.8%)

2 (22.2%)

14

0 (0%)

3 (21.4%)

11 (78.6%)

10

0 (0%)

2 (20%)

8 (80%)

10

0 (0%)

4 (40%)

6 (60%)

The portfolio is a final summative measure of the completers’ proficiency on all nine

goals of the Conceptual Framework. Proficient candidates, “meets” or “exceeds”, score

a 2 or higher (on a scale of 1-3) on all nine goals to be proficient on this assessment. It

is obvious that candidates do well in the portfolios.

Assessment #6: Additional Assessment that Addresses SPA Standards (ECP CF: 1, 8) Theme: Teaching & Learning

Objective: Academic Excellence Intern Evaluation Form (SOE Goal 1)

2007 – 2008 2008 – 2009 2009 – 2010 2010 – 2011 2011 - 2012

N

Not Met

Met Target

N

Not Met

Met Target

N

Not Met

Met Target

N

Not Met

Met

Target

N

Not Met

Met

Target

13

0 (0%)

12 (92.3%)

1 (7.7%)

9

0 (0%)

5 (55.6%)

4 (44.4%)

14

0 (0%)

6 (42.9%)

8 (57.1%

10

0 (0%)

7 (70%)

3 (30%)

10

0 (0%)

7 (70%)

3 (30%)

Intern Evaluation Form (SOE Goal 8)

2007 – 2008 2008 – 2009 2009 – 2010 2010 – 2011 2011 – 2012

N

Not Met

Met Target

N

Not Met

Met Target

N

Not Met

Met Target

N

Not

Met

Met

Target

N

Not Met

Met

Target

13

0 (0%)

12 (92.3%)

1 (7.7%)

9

0 (0%)

8 (88.9%)

1 (11.1%)

14

0 (0%)

4 (28.6%)

10 (71.4%)

10

3 (30%)

5 (50%)

2 (20%)

10

0 (0%)

2 (20%)

8 (80%)

Intern Evaluation Form (SOE Goals 1 & 8)

2007 – 2008 2008 – 2009 2009 – 2010 2010 – 2011 2011 - 2012

N

Not Met

Met Target

N

Not Met

Met Target

N

Not Met

Met Target

N

Not

Met

Met

Target

N

Not Met

Met

Target

13

0 (0%)

12 (92.3%)

1 (7.7%)

9

0 (0%)

5 (55.6%)

4 (44.4%)

14

0 (0%)

3 (21.4%)

11 (78.6%)

10

3 (30%)

6 (60%)

1 (10%)

10

0 (0%)

2 (20%)

8 (80%)

Goal 1 and Goal 8 of the Intern Evaluation Form (IEF) measure dispositions (scored 1-3) for teaching at the mid-point of the internship and at the end of the internship. A score of 3 or greater indicates a met competency. Program completers exhibit the teaching dispositions necessary for professional success.

Assessment #7: Additional Assessment that Addresses SPA Standards Theme: Teaching & Learning

Objective: Academic Excellence

2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

(Brief narrative analysis) Assessment #8: Additional Assessment that Addresses SPA Standards Theme: Research & Creative Expression

Objective: Learning Impact

2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

(Brief narrative analysis)