Columbia College Program Academic Assessment Annual Report/media/Files/Academic... · Columbia College Program Academic Assessment Annual Report Program: 2015Education Academic Year:

Columbia College Program Academic Assessment Annual

Report Program: Education Academic Year: 2015-2016

Submitted By: Kristi Clevenger

Outcome Statements and Assessment Tools: 1. Which program outcomes did you assess this year? (Please include the full text of the outcome along with

any numbering system you will use later in this report).

Program outcomes for the Teacher Certification Program are mandated by the Missouri Department of

Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). Our Course Learning Outcomes come from the indicators

associate with each of these standards and are listed here as well.

Standard 1: The emerging teacher understands the central concepts, structures, and tools of inquiry of the

discipline(s) and creates learning experiences that makes these aspects of subject matter meaningful and

engaging for students.

Demonstrates knowledge of the academic language of the appropriate discipline applicable to the

certification area(s) sought as defined by the Subject Competencies for Beginning Teachers in Missouri.

(1.1)

Demonstrates content knowledge and ability to use multiple subject specific methodologies for specific

instructional purposes to engage students. (1.2)

Demonstrates understanding of how to engage students in the methods of inquiry and research in his

or her respective discipline. (1.3)

Can create interdisciplinary lessons that are aligned with content standards. (1.4)

Demonstrates understanding of diverse cultural perspectives by creating and implementing lessons to

introduce those perspectives, recognizing the potential for bias. (1.5)

Standard 2: The emerging teacher understands how students learn, develop, and differ in their approaches

to learning. S/he provides learning opportunities that are adapted to diverse learners and support the

intellectual, social, and personal development of all students.

Knows and identifies child/adolescent developmental stages and uses this knowledge to adapt

instruction. (2.1)

Demonstrates knowledge on how to assist students in setting short- and long-term learning goals and

self-reflect on their overall growth. (2.2)

Applies knowledge of the theory of learning in all aspects instructional design. (2.3)

Recognizes diversity and the impact it has on education. (2.4)

Can plan learning activities to address students’ prior experiences, learning styles, multiple

intelligences, strengths, and needs in order to positively impact learning. (2.5)

Demonstrates an understanding that instruction should be connected to students’ prior experiences

and family, culture, and community. (2.6)

Standard 3: The emerging teacher recognizes the importance of long-range planning and curriculum

development. S/he develops, implements, and evaluates curriculum based upon student, district, and state

standards data.

Page 2 of 34

Understands the components and organization of an effective curriculum, is able to create aligned

learning experiences, can locate national and state standards, and is able to align them to learning

outcomes. (3.1)

Understands how to select appropriate strategies for addressing individual student needs in meeting

curriculum objectives. (3.2)

Understands the concept of differentiated instruction and short- and long-term instructional goal

planning to address student needs in meeting curriculum objectives. (3.3)

Standard 4: The emerging teacher uses a variety of instructional strategies and resources to encourage

students’ critical thinking, problem-solving, and performance skills.

Demonstrates knowledge of researched-based models of critical thinking and problem- solving,

including various types of instructional strategies, to support student engagement in higher level

thinking skills. (4.1)

Demonstrates knowledge of current instructional resources to support complex thinking and

technological skills. (4.2)

Can demonstrate knowledge of strategies for facilitating multiple configurations for student learning

including cooperative, small group and independent learning. (4.3)

Standard 5: The emerging teacher uses and understanding of individual/group motivation and behavior to

create a learning environment that encourages active engagement in learning, positive social interaction,

and self-motivation.

Knows how classroom management, motivation, and engagement relate to one another and has

knowledge of strategies and techniques for using this to promote student interest and learning. (5.1)

Demonstrates competence in managing time, space, transitions, and activities to create an effective

learning environment. (5.2)

Recognizes and identifies the influence of classroom, school and community culture on student

relationships and the impact on the classroom environment and learning. (5.3)

Demonstrates competence in the use of basic classroom management techniques that reduce the

likelihood of student misbehavior and address any misbehavior that does occur with the least

disruption of instruction. (5.4)

Standard 6: The emerging teacher models effective verbal, nonverbal, and media communication

techniques with students, colleagues and families to foster active inquiry, collaboration, and supportive

interaction in the classroom.

Understands the importance of and develops the ability to use effective verbal and nonverbal

communication techniques. (6.1)

Develops sensitivity to differences in culture, gender, intellectual, and physical ability in classroom

communication and in communication with families. (6.2)

Develops the ability to facilitate learner expression in speaking, writing, listening, and other media

ensuring it adheres to district policy. (6.3)

Develops skills in using a variety of technology media communication tools. (6.4)

Standard 7: The emerging teacher understands and uses formative and summative assessment strategies to

assess the learner's progress and uses both classroom and standardized assessment data to plan ongoing

Page 3 of 34

instruction. S/he monitors the performance of each student and devises instruction to enable students to

grow and develop, making adequate academic progress.

Has knowledge of the development, use, and analysis of formal and informal assessments. (7.1)

Has knowledge of how data can be accessed, analyzed, and appropriately used to design instruction

and improve learning activities.(7.2)

Describes, explains, and analyzes a variety of self and peer assessment strategies, understands the need

to prepare students for the demands of particular assessment formats, can set their own learning goals,

and is able to teach students to set learning goals. (7.3)

Develops a knowledge base of assessment strategies and tools, including how to collect information by

observing classroom interactions and using higher order questioning, and uses analysis of the data to

determine the effect of class instruction on individual and whole class learning. (7.4)

Can explain ethical and legal implications of confidentiality of student records and can describe and

analyze strategies to communicate student progress to students, families, colleagues, and

administrators. (7.5)

Demonstrates a capacity to engage in a collaborative classroom/department/school data analysis

process. (7.6)

Standard 8: The emerging teacher is a reflective practitioner who continually assesses the effects of choices

and actions on others. S/he actively seeks out opportunities to grow professionally in order to improve

learning for all students.

Understands strategies for reflecting on teaching practices to refine their own instructional process in

order to promote the growth and learning of students. (8.1)

Identifies and understands the use of an array of professional learning opportunities including those

offered by educator preparation programs, school districts, professional associations, and/or other

opportunities for improving student learning. (8.2)

Is knowledgeable of and demonstrates professional, ethical behavior and is aware of the influence of

district policies and school procedures on classroom structure. (8.3)

Standard 9: The emerging teacher has effective working relationships with students, families, school

colleagues, and community members.

Understands the importance of collegial activities designed to build a shared mission, vision, values,

and goals; participates in collaborative curriculum and staff development meetings and demonstrates

the ability to collaborate with his/her cooperating teacher and supervisor to establish relationships in

the school, district, and community. (9.1)

Understands school-based systems designed to address the individual needs of students by working

with the cooperating teacher/supervisor to engage with the larger professional community across the

system to identify and provide needed services to support individual learners. (9.2)

Recognizes the importance of developing relationships and cooperative partnerships with students,

families and community members to support students’ learning and well-being. (9.3)

Page 4 of 34

2. What assessment instruments/prompts and rubrics or answer documents did you use to assess

program outcomes this year? (Include copies of these documents where possible.)

In introductory courses (EDUC 100, 200/542, 230/560, 390), reflective papers were used to assess students’

knowledge of the teaching profession and the field of education. These papers also address students’

commitment to the profession and their beliefs and values as they relate to education.

In mid-level courses (EDUC 270, 311), projects were used to assess students’ ability to apply specific skills

taught during these courses, including analysis and evaluation of literature, and development of a plan for

classroom management.

In the benchmark course for TCP admission (EDUC 300), a project was used to assess students’ ability to

reflect upon and analyze their current progress toward becoming a teacher.

In teaching methods courses (EDUC 345, 346, 360, 362, 365, 367, 368, 369, as well as EDUC 338), students are

assessed on their ability create effective lesson plans.

In the capstone course (EDUC 400), a project was used to assess students’ ability to reflect upon and analyze

their journey toward becoming a teacher.

Course Standard(s)

Assessed

Assessment Instrument

100 1, 3, 5, 6, 8 Teaching Commitment Paper

200 1-3, 5, 7-9 Ethics Case Study, Philosophy of Education Paper

230 2-9 Personal Learning Theory Paper

270 1, 5-6 Book Reviews

300 1-6, 8-9 Synthesis Project

311 1-2, 5-6, 8-9 Classroom Management Plan

338 1-9 Content Reading Lesson Plans, TCP Lesson Plan Evaluation

345 1-9 TCP Lesson Plan Evaluation








390 1-9 Philosophy of Special Education Paper

400 1-9 Synthesis Paper

542 1-3, 5, 7-9 Ethics Case Study, Philosophy of Education Paper

560 2-9 Personal Learning Theory Paper

Page 5 of 34

3. Were your assessments an effective measure of each outcome? Provide specific answers for

individual assessments.

- If yes, explain how the assessments were effective

- If no, explain why the assessments were not effective and provide plans for how to improve the efficacy of the

assessments in the future

EDUC 100: Teaching Commitment Paper

The Teaching Commitment Paper establishes the student’s knowledge of the teaching profession and what it

means to be a teacher, and requires that the student evaluate his or her decision to teach or not to teach.

Student performance according to the guidelines of the assignment was strong. Given that EDUC 100 is the

first course students take on their journey to teacher certification, however, performance on the standards was

higher than expected, but only in the Day program. This begs the question of whether the rubric was used

properly. Overall, it appears this assessment is effective, but further education on how to use the rubric may

be in order.

EDUC 200/542: Ethics Case Study

The Ethics Case Study is designed to establish the student’s understanding of ethics in teaching, and the

complex situations that can arise. For undergraduate students, this case study is reflected upon later in EDUC

300. For graduate students, that same reflection occurs at the time they apply for the Teacher Certification

Program. Student performance according to the guidelines of the assignment was strong, and performance

according to the standards was as expected. It appears this assessment is effective.

EDUC 200/542: Philosophy of Education Paper

The Philosophy of Education Paper establishes a baseline for students, asking them to consider what they

believe with regard to the field of education at this point in their journey toward certification. For

undergraduate students, this paper is reflected upon later in EDUC 300. For graduate students, that same

reflection occurs at the time they apply for the Teacher Certification Program. Student performance according

to the guidelines of the assignment was strong, and performance according to the standards was as expected

in the Graduate, Day, and Evening venues. Results from the Online course were less consistent with the other

venues, which begs the question of whether the rubric was used properly. Overall, though, it appears this

assessment is effective.

EDUC 230/560: Personal Learning Theory Paper

The Personal Learning Theory Paper establishes a baseline for students, asking them to consider their beliefs

about learning and their understanding of learning theory at this point in their journey toward certification.

For undergraduate students, this paper is reflected upon later in EDUC 300. For graduate students, that same

reflection occurs at the time they apply for the Teacher Certification Program. Student performance according

to the guidelines of the assignment was strong in both the Graduate and Day venues, although data from

EDUC 560 was limited only to the Online course. Results from the Online EDUC 230 showed much greater

disparity in performance, although this may be due in part to the significantly larger numbers (135 as

compared to 40 in the Graduate and Day). Performance according to the standards was as expected in the

Graduate and Day venues, but again there was much greater disparity in the Online venue. This begs the

question of whether the rubric was used properly in the online course. Overall, it appears this assessment is

effective, but further education about how to use the rubric may be in order.

EDUC 270: Book Reviews

Page 6 of 34

The Book Reviews assess students’ ability to evaluate child and adolescent literature. Student performance

according to the guidelines of the assignment was strong. Performance according to the standards was as

expected in the Day program, but higher in the Online venue. This begs the question of whether the rubric

was used properly in the online course. Overall, it appears this assessment is effective, but further education

on how to use the rubric may be in order.

EDUC 300: Synthesis Project

The Synthesis Project requires students to reflect on their education coursework to date and look for the

connections among the courses and the assignments. Student performance according to the guidelines of the

assignment was generally strong, and performance according to the standards was as expected. The Day

program, however, measured performance on the standards using different language than all other assessed

courses. This needs to be corrected in the future. Otherwise, it appears this assessment is effective.

EDUC 311: Classroom Management Plan

The Classroom Management Plan gives students the opportunity to apply their knowledge of classroom and

behavior management. Student performance according to the guidelines of the assignment was strong, and

performance according to the standards was as expected. It appears this assessment is effective.

EDUC 338: TCP Lesson Plan Evaluation and Content Reading Lesson Plans

The TCP Lesson Plan Evaluation assesses students’ ability to create and evaluate a comprehensive and

relevant lesson plan. This assessment was used to measure student performance according to assignment

guidelines. Scores in this area were strong.

Performance according to the standards was assessed in the Content Reading Lesson Plans. Data from the

Day program showed performance as expected, however results were based on only 9 students. Nationwide

data was incomplete and unclear, and therefore not usable. It is hard to determine the effectiveness of this

assessment given the lack of data.

EDUC 345, 346, 360, 362, 365, 367, 368, 369: TCP Lesson Plan Evaluation

In these teaching methods courses, TCP Lesson Plan Evaluation assesses students’ ability to create and

evaluate a comprehensive and relevant lesson plan in their content area. Student performance according to

the guidelines of the assignment was generally strong. Data was not collected with regard to the standards

and indicators, and should be in the future. It appears this assessment is effective, but further data is needed

in order to be conclusive.

EDUC 390: Philosophy of Special Education Paper

The Philosophy of Special Education Paper establishes students’ knowledge of law related to special

education and calls upon them to consider how they want their future classrooms to accommodate students

with special needs. Student performance according to the guidelines of the assignment was relatively strong.

Performance according to the standards was as expected, although data was only collected in the Day

program. It appears this assessment is effective.

EDUC 400: Synthesis Paper

The Synthesis Paper requires students to reflect on the entirety of their education coursework as well as their

performance on the state-required Missouri Educator Profile (MEP). Student performance according to the

guidelines of the assignment was generally strong, but performance according to the standards was not quite

as expected. Of the assessed courses whose target performance is Teacher Candidate, students in the more

Page 7 of 34

advanced EDUC 400 course scored lower overall than students in the less-advanced EDUC 338 and EDUC

390. This calls into question the rubrics used in these four courses, and requires further investigation.

Otherwise, it appears this assessment is effective.

Data, Evidence and Analysis: 4. What were the results of these assessments? Use tables or graphs as appropriate. (You can report

raw data, and/or summary statistics along with other statistics to support your analysis.)

EDUC 100: Teaching Commitment Paper

EDUC 100 was assessed in 2015-2016 for performance on the Decision to Teach Paper (n=67). Results were

consistent across all venues. In all 16 assessed areas of the assignment, 61.5 % of students scored

Outstanding and another 23.9% scored Satisfactory. This means only 14.6% of students scored at either

Needs Work or Unsatisfactory. These results are consistent with average results from 2014-2015.

Students were also assessed according to 5 standards and indicators (n=67). The appropriate target for

undergraduates at this level is Beginning Candidate.

Results from the Day program indicate that 85.6% of students scored at the Approaching Mid-Prep

Candidate and Mid-Prep Candidate level, with the greatest numbers scoring at Approaching Mid-

Prep. This is higher than expected and begs the question of whether the rubric was used properly.

Similarly, results from the Evening campus show a distribution of students across all levels, although

the highest numbers were at the Beginning Candidate level on all standards except 2C6.

In contrast, 71% of students in the Nationwide venue scored at the Beginning Candidate level, as

would be expected.

Assessment: Teaching Commitment and Reflection Paper Standards/Indicators

Day Total Evening

Total Nationwide

Total

2.6 28 8 25

Approaching Beginning Candidate 1 2 6

Beginning Candidate 1 2 13

Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 15 3 6

Mid-Prep Candidate 11 1

5.3 28 8 25





6.1 28 8 25





6.2 27 8 25


Page 8 of 34




8.1 28 8 25



Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 14 1


EDUC 200/542: Ethics Case Study

EDUC 200/542 was assessed in 2015-2016 for performance on the Ethics Case Study. Results across all venues

indicate that all but 2 students performed either “Excellent” or “Average” on the two assessed areas of the

assignment (n=70).


undergraduates at this level is Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate.

EDUC 542:

Only 1 student on Standards 8.3, 9.1, and 9.2 and 3 students on Standard 5.3 scored at the Beginning

Candidate level. Otherwise, across all standards, an average of 15 of 22 students scored at the

Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate level, and 5 scored at the Mid-Prep Candidate level. One student

scored at the Approaching Teacher Candidate level on Standard 8.3. The numbers are not surprising,

given that these are graduate students.

EDUC 200:

In the Day program, 1 student of the 11 scored at the Mid-Prep Candidate level on Standards 8.1 and

9.1. All other students scored at the Beginning Candidate and Approaching Beginning Candidate

level on the five standards and indicators measured, with the majority scoring at the Approaching

Beginning Candidate level, as would be expected.

Assessment: Ethics Case Study Standards/Indicators

5.3 11

Beginning Candidate 3

Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 8

Mid-Prep Candidate

Approaching Teacher Candidate

8.1 11



Mid-Prep Candidate 1


8.3 11



Page 9 of 34

Mid-Prep Candidate


9.1 11





9.2 11



Mid-Prep Candidate


In the Nationwide campuses, across all five standards and indicators 2 of the 16 students scored at the

Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate level, 11 scored at the Mid-Prep Candidate level, and 3 scored at

the Approaching Teacher Candidate level. These scores are higher than expected and beg the

question of whether the rubric was used properly.

Results from the Evening and Online campuses are below. Results from the Evening campus are

more closely in line with expected levels than from the Online campus.

Assessment: Ethics Case Study Standards/Indicators Evening Online

5.3 9 13

Beginning Candidate 3 4




8.1 9 13





8.3 9 13





9.1 9 13





9.2 9 12



Page 10 of 34



EDUC 200/542: Philosophy of Education Paper

EDUC 200/542 was also assessed in 2015-2016 for performance on the Philosophy of Education Paper.

Students were assessed on 9 areas of the assignment (n=60).

In the Day program, across all 9 areas on average only 1 student performed at the lowest level. 81%

of students performed at the highest level.

In the Nationwide campuses, 12 students (58%) performed at the lowest level on Education Reform.

Otherwise, on average 76% of students performed at the highest level on the remaining 8 areas.

In the Evening campus, across all 9 areas an average of only 2 students performed at the lowest level.

81% of students performed at the highest level.

In the Online campus, 3 students performed at the lowest level on Grammar and Spelling. Otherwise

on average 80% of students performed at the highest level on the remaining 8 areas.

Students were also assessed according to 1 standard and indicator (n=50). The appropriate target for


EDUC 542:

Results show a range of scores, with the majority of students scoring at either Approaching Mid-Prep

Candidate or Mid-Prep Candidate. The numbers are not surprising, given that these are graduate

students.

Assessment: Philosophy of Education Standards/Indicators

8.1 24




Approaching Teacher Candidate 1

EDUC 200:

Results show some discrepancy among venues, with a disparate number of students scoring at the

Mid-Prep Candidate level in the Nationwide, Evening, and Online venues. This begs the question of

whether the rubric was used properly.

Assessment: Philosophy of Education Standards/Indicators

Day Total Nationwide

Total Evening

Total Online Total

8.1 11 17 9 13


Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate 4 3 3 4

Mid-Prep Candidate 4 12 6 9


EDUC 230/560: Personal Learning Theory Paper

Page 11 of 34

EDUC 230/560 was assessed in 2015-2016 for performance on the Personal Learning Theory Paper. Students

were assessed on 7 areas of the assignment (n=175).

EDUC 560:

Data was not submitted for the in-seat course and is therefore only available from the Online course. Few

students performed at the Needs Work level in any area, and the majority of students performed at the

Excellent level.

Assessment: Personal Learning Theory Introduction 30

Excellent 24

Average 5

Needs Work 1

Definition of Learning 26

Excellent 16

Average 10


Prominent Theorists 30

Excellent 24

Average 6

Needs Work

Personal Learning Theory 30

Excellent 14

Average 13

Needs Work 3

Personal Experiences 30

Excellent 24

Average 1

Needs Work 5

Use of Paper Template & Adherence to APA 30

Excellent 26

Average 1

Needs Work 3

Grammar, Spelling, and Length 30

Excellent 24

Average 1

Needs Work 5

EDUC 230:

In the Day program, 7 of 10 students performed at the Average level on Prominent Theorists.

Otherwise, 87% of students performed at the Excellent level on the remaining 6 areas, with an average

of only 2 students performing at the Needs Work level. This is an improvement from 2014-2015; only

41% of students performed at the Excellent level then.

Page 12 of 34

Results from the Online campus are below. Clearly there was much greater disparity in performance

in the Online venue, although this may be due in part to the significantly larger numbers. Of note is

the general improvement in results when compared to reported data from 2014-2015.

Assessment: Personal Learning Theory

2015-2016 2014-2015

Introduction 135

Excellent 59

Average 46

Needs Work 30

Definition of Learning 113

Excellent 79 70% 42%

Average 34 30% 47%

Needs Work 11%

Prominent Theorists 135


Average 41 30% 32%

Needs Work 40 30% 44%

Personal Learning Theory 135


Average 52 38% 35%

Needs Work 24 18% 22%

Personal Experiences 135

Excellent 69

Average 41

Needs Work 25

Use of Paper Template & Adherence to APA 135

Excellent 98

Average 25

Needs Work 12

Grammar, Spelling, and Length 135

Excellent 98

Average 29

Needs Work 8



EDUC 560:

No data was collected in the in-seat course. In the Online course, all students performed at the

Approaching Teacher Candidate level. Given that this is a master’s level course, this result is not

surprising.

Page 13 of 34

EDUC 230:

In the Day program, all 8 students scored at the Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate level.

Results from the Online campus are below. Again, clearly there was much greater disparity in

performance in the Online venue, although this may be due in part to the significantly larger numbers.

Still, the greatest numbers were at the Mid-Prep Candidate level and the Approaching Teacher

Candidate level, which begs the question of whether the rubric was used properly.

Assessment: Personal Learning Theory Standards/Indicators

2.3 130





2.5 130





EDUC 270: Book Reviews

EDUC 270 was assessed in 2015-2016 for performance on the Book Reviews. Students were assessed on 4

areas of the assignment (n=51). Across the Day and Online venues, 87% of students scored at Level 3 on all

areas, with just 1 or 2 in the Online venue scoring at Level 1.


undergraduates at this level is Beginning Candidate or Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate.

Across all 8 standards, students in the Day program scored at either the Beginning Candidate level or

the Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate level, as expected. Of note, however, is that all 6 students

scored at the Approaching Beginning Candidate level on standard 6.4. In 2014-2015, however, few

Day students scored at the Beginning Candidate level on any of the standards except 4.2 and 6.3.

Instead, students primarily scored at the Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate level across all standards

except 4.2, where 54% of students scored at the Approaching Beginning Candidate level. It should be

noted that standard 6.4 was not evaluated in 2014-2015.

Results from the Online campus indicate the greatest numbers were at the Approaching Mid-Prep

Candidate level (n=26), although there were also larger numbers at the Mid-Prep Candidate level

(n=16). This begs the question of whether the rubric was used properly. Of note is that data was

collected on just 19 Online students in 2014-2015, all of whom scored at the Mid-Prep Candidate level.

This data was deemed untrustworthy due to its lack of discrimination among students and therefore

cannot be used as a point of comparison.

Assessment: Book Review Standards/Indicators Day Total Online Total

1.1 6 48

Approaching Beginning Candidate 4

Page 14 of 34




1.5 5 48





4.2 6 48





5.3 6 48





6.1 6 48





6.2 6 48





6.3 6 48





6.4 6 48

Approaching Beginning Candidate 6 4




EDUC 300: Synthesis Project

EDUC 300 was assessed in 2015-2016 for performance on the Synthesis Project. Students were assessed on 12

areas of the assignment (n=48).

In the Day program (n=9), the majority of students scored at the Advanced or Acceptable level on most

of the 12 areas. Only 1 student consistently scored at the Making Progress level. Additionally, only 1

Page 15 of 34

student scored at the Improvement Needed level on the Synthesis/MoSPE Standards area. These

results show a greater range than in 2014-2015, when 60-90% of students scored at the Advanced level

and none scored at Making Progress or Improvement Needed on any of the 12 areas. Note that

although the course was offered in both fall and spring, no data was collected in the spring.

Assessment: Synthesis Project Introduction 9

Advanced 3

Acceptable 6

Making Progress

Improvement Needed

Component 1: EDUC 100 "Why I Want to Be a Teacher" Paper

9

Advanced 4

Acceptable 4

Making Progress 1

Improvement Needed

Component 2: EDUC 200 Case Study 9

Advanced 4

Acceptable 4

Making Progress 1

Improvement Needed

Component 3: EDUC 200 Philosophy of Education Paper 9

Advanced 4

Acceptable 4

Making Progress 1

Improvement Needed

Component 4: EDUC 230 Educational Philosophy paper 9

Advanced 4

Acceptable 4

Making Progress 1

Improvement Needed

Component 5: EDUC 300 Lesson Plans 9

Advanced 5

Acceptable 4

Making Progress

Improvement Needed

Component 6: MEP 9

Advanced 5

Acceptable 3

Making Progress 1

Improvement Needed

Component 7: MoGEA 9

Page 16 of 34

Advanced 4

Acceptable 3

Making Progress 2

Improvement Needed

Clarity of Explanations 9

Advanced 3

Acceptable 5

Making Progress 1

Improvement Needed

Writing Style 9

Advanced 4

Acceptable 4

Making Progress 1

Improvement Needed

Synthesis/MoSPE Standards 9

Advanced 3

Acceptable 2

Making Progress 3

Improvement Needed 1

Holistic Purpose 9

Advanced 3

Acceptable 5

Making Progress 1

Improvement Needed

No data was collected from the Evening campus.

Results from the Nationwide campuses are below. An average of 4 students consistently scored at the

Improvement Needed level, with as many as 6 students needing improvement on the MoGEA and the

Philosophy of Education Paper. The majority of students (an average of 62%), however, scored at the

Advanced level. Data was not collected from the Nationwide campuses in 2014-2105.

Assessment: Synthesis Project Introduction 39

Advanced 27

Acceptable 12

Making Progress

Improvement Needed

Component 1: EDUC 100 "Why I Want to Be a Teacher" Paper

39

Advanced 33

Acceptable 3

Making Progress


Component 2: EDUC 200 Case Study 39

Advanced 26

Page 17 of 34

Acceptable 8

Making Progress


Component 3: EDUC 200 Philosophy of Education Paper 39

Advanced 28

Acceptable 4

Making Progress 1


Component 4: EDUC 230 Educational Philosophy paper 39

Advanced 28

Acceptable 5

Making Progress 1


Component 5: EDUC 300 Lesson Plans 39

Advanced 29

Acceptable 6

Making Progress


Component 6: MEP 39

Advanced 32

Acceptable 3

Making Progress


Component 7: MoGEA 39

Advanced 27

Acceptable 6

Making Progress


Clarity of Explanations 38

Advanced 23

Acceptable 12

Making Progress 1


Writing Style 39

Advanced 19

Acceptable 12

Making Progress 6


Synthesis/MoSPE Standards 39

Advanced 25

Acceptable 10

Making Progress 1


Page 18 of 34

Holistic Purpose 39

Advanced 26

Acceptable 10

Making Progress 1


Students were also assessed according to 6 standards and indicators (n=59). Note that the Day program

assessed the standards using the same measures used in the assignment: Improvement Needed, Making

Progress, Acceptable, and Advanced. The Nationwide campuses assessed the standards using the more

typical measures: Beginning Candidate, Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate, Mid-Prep Candidate, and

Approaching Teacher Candidate.

The appropriate target for undergraduates at this level is Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate or Mid-Prep

Candidate. The equivalent of this using the Day program’s terminology would be Acceptable or Advanced.

In the Day program, 1 student scored at the Making Progress level on standards 2.5, 3.2, and 8.1. All

others scored at either Acceptable or Advanced. Additionally, 4 students scored at the Making

Progress level on standard 3.1, with all others scoring at either Acceptable or Advanced.

Results from the Nationwide campuses show a range of results across all four levels, but the majority

of students scored at the Mid-Prep Candidate level, as expected.

Assessment: Synthesis Project Standards/Indicators

2.1 40





2.3 40





2.5 40





3.1 40





3.2 40



Page 19 of 34



8.1 40





EDUC 311: Classroom Management Plan

EDUC 311 was assessed for the first time in 2015-2016 for performance on the Classroom Management Plan.

Students were assessed on 7 areas of the assignment (n=77).

Results from the Day program indicate that no students performed Below Average. Students at the

Nationwide campuses scored similarly, although a small percentage (about 24%) scored at the

Average level. One student scored at Unacceptable on the Philosophy, Content, and Writing Style

areas of the assignment.

Assessment: Classroom Management Plan Day Total Online Total

Introduction 16 61

Outstanding 13 47

Above Average 1 10

Average 2 4

Below Average

Unacceptable

Philosophy 16 61

Outstanding 1 47

Above Average 6 11

Average 6 2

Below Average

Unacceptable 1 1

Content 16 61

Outstanding 7 38

Above Average 6 16

Average 3 5

Below Average

Unacceptable 1

Relating Content to Theory 16 61

Outstanding 2 43

Above Average 8 16

Average 5 2

Below Average

Unacceptable

Details 16 61

Page 20 of 34

Outstanding 15 40

Above Average 1 15

Average 6

Below Average

Unacceptable

Clarity of Explanations 16 61

Outstanding 11 44

Above Average 5 11

Average 5

Below Average

Unacceptable

Writing Style 16 61

Outstanding 7 31

Above Average 3 21

Average 4 5

Below Average

Unacceptable 1


undergraduates at this level is Approaching Teacher Candidate.

Results for both the Day program and Nationwide campuses were similar and for the most part as

expected. In the Day program, the majority of students scored at the Approaching Teacher Candidate

level. Five students scored at the Mid-Prep Candidate level on standard 5C1, and 4 students scored at

the Mid-Prep Candidate level on standard 5C3. All students at the Nationwide campuses scored at

the Approaching Teacher Candidate level.

Assessment: Classroom Management Plan Standards/Indicators

Day Total Nationwide

Total

5.1 19 30

Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate


Approaching Teacher Candidate 9 21

Teacher Candidate

5.2 19 29


Mid-Prep Candidate


Teacher Candidate

5.3 19 30




Teacher Candidate

Page 21 of 34

EDUC 338: TCP Lesson Plan Evaluation and Content Reading Lesson Plans

EDUC 338 was assessed for the first time in 2015-2016 for performance on the TCP Lesson Plan and Content

Reading Lesson Plans. Specifically, students were assessed on 22 areas of the TCP Lesson Plan assignment

(n=23). The Content Reading Lesson Plans were used to assess students on the relevant standards and

indicators.

With regard to the TCP Lesson Plan Evaluation, results from the Day program and Nationwide

campuses were similar, with nearly all students scoring Present on all 22 areas.

Assessment: TCP Lesson Planning Day Total Nationwide

Total

Unit/Lesson Title 9 14

Present 9 14

Not Present

Content Standards 9 14

Present 9 14

Not Present

Instructional Goals/Overview 9 14

Present 7 14

Not Present 2

Measurable Learning Objective(s) 9 14

Present 9 14

Not Present

Materials Required 9 14

Present 9 13

Not Present 1

Pre-assessment/Prerequisite Knowledge and Skills 9 14

Present 9 13

Not Present 1

Vocabulary Overview 9 14

Present 9 13

Not Present 1

Opening "Hook" 9 14

Present 9 14

Not Present

Clear Description of Teachers' Actions 9 14

Present 9 14

Not Present

Clear Description of Students' ActionsCriterion 10 9 14

Present 9 14

Not Present

Closure 9 14

Page 22 of 34

Present 9 14

Not Present

Checking for Understanding/Questions and Assessment(s) 9 14

Present 9 14

Not Present

Differentiation Strategies 9 14

Present 9 14

Not Present

Lecture 9 5

Present 9 2

Not Present 3

Demonstration 9 12

Present 7 12

Not Present 2

Facilitated Discussion 9 7

Present 6 6

Not Present 3 1

Guided Inquiry 9 10

Present 6 10

Not Present 3

Student Inquiry 9 6

Present 6 5

Not Present 3 1

Collaborative Learning 9 10

Present 9 10

Not Present

Independent Learning 9 9

Present 9 9

Not Present

Guided Practice/Review 9 14

Present 9 14

Not Present

Other (Describe) 5

Present 2

Not Present 3

The Content Reading Lesson Plans were used to assess students according to 3 standards and indicators. The

appropriate target for undergraduates at this level is Teacher Candidate.

Only the first lesson plan was assessed in the Day program. Results indicate that nearly all students

scored at the Teacher Candidate level, as expected.

Assessment: Content Reading Lesson Plans

Page 23 of 34

The lesson is engaging for students' grade level and demonstrates an understanding of lesson planning. Strategy is prominently featured in the lesson plan. The plan demonstrates a thorough understanding of the strategy. The content area of the plan offer

9


Mid-Preparation Candidate


Teacher Candidate 8

Strategy is featured in the lesson plan. The plan demonstrates an understanding of the strategy. The content area of the plan offers a context for the strategy. The plan adheres to the lesson plan format as provided in the syllabus. Lesson plan contain

9




Teacher Candidate 8

Other activities or elements of the plan overshadow the featured strategy. The content area does not relate to the strategy. Plan may or may not adhere to the lesson plan format and CCSS, MLSs are not present or are inaccurate, and/or questions are poorly

9




Teacher Candidate 7

Students in the Nationwide campuses were assessed on all 10 lesson plans, but data was incomplete

and unclear. Results generally showed students scoring at the Teacher Candidate level, as expected,

but a more complete collection of data would need to occur in order to be conclusive.

EDUC 345, 346, 360, 362, 365, 367, 368, 369: TCP Lesson Plan Evaluation

Teaching methods courses (EDUC 345, 346, 360, 362, 365, 367, 368, 369) were assessed for the first time in

2015-2016 for performance on the TCP Lesson Plan. Note that data was not collected for EDUC 345 (n=2) or

EDUC 365 (n=2). Additionally, EDUC 346 and 368 had no students enrolled. Students were assessed on 22


Results show students consistently scoring Present, with some noteworthy variation in EDUC 367 in

Facilitated Discussion, Guided Inquiry, Student Inquiry, Collaborative Learning, Independent

Learning, and Guided Practice/Review.

Assessment: TCP Lesson Planning EDUC 360

EDUC 362

EDUC 367

EDUC 369

Unit/Lesson Title 1 8 12 1

Present 1 8 12 1

Page 24 of 34

Not Present

Content Standards 1 8 12 1

Present 1 8 12 1

Not Present

Instructional Goals/Overview 1 8 12 1

Present 1 5 12 1

Not Present 3

Measurable Learning Objective(s) 1 8 12 1

Present 1 8 12 1

Not Present

Materials Required 1 8 12 1

Present 1 8 12 1

Not Present

Pre-assessment/Prerequisite Knowledge and Skills 1 8 12 1

Present 1 1 12 1

Not Present 7

Vocabulary Overview 1 8 12 1

Present 1 1 12 1

Not Present 7

Opening "Hook" 1 8 12 1

Present 1 8 12 1

Not Present

Clear Description of Teachers' Actions 1 8 12 1

Present 1 8 12 1

Not Present

Clear Description of Students' ActionsCriterion 10 1 8 12 1

Present 1 8 12 1

Not Present

Closure 1 8 12 1

Present 1 8 12 1

Not Present

Checking for Understanding/Questions and Assessment(s) 1 8 12 1

Present 1 7 11 1

Not Present 1 1

Differentiation Strategies 1 9 12 1

Present 1 6 11 1

Not Present 2 1

Lecture 1 5 12 1

Present 1 5 11 1

Not Present 1

Demonstration 1 2 12

Present 1 2 10

Not Present 2

Facilitated Discussion 1 8 12 1

Present 1 8 9 1

Page 25 of 34

Not Present 3

Guided Inquiry 1 2 12 1

Present 1 2 6 1

Not Present 6

Student Inquiry 1 1 12

Present 1 1 5

Not Present 7

Collaborative Learning 1 4 12

Present 1 4 7

Not Present 5

Independent Learning 1 7 12

Present 1 7 7

Not Present 5

Guided Practice/Review 1 7 12

Present 1 7 4

Not Present 8

Other (Describe) 1 7 12

Present

Not Present 1 7 12

Data was not collected in these courses on student performance on any standards.

EDUC 390: Philosophy of Special Education Paper

EDUC 390 was assessed for the first time in 2015-2016 for performance on the Philosophy of Special Education

Paper. Students were assessed on 22 areas of the assignment (n=41).

Students in the Day program consistently scored at the highest level, with lower performance

primarily being in the areas of Use of Paper Template & Adherence to APA and Overall Writing. The

Online course showed a wider range of scores, although except in Use of Paper Template &

Adherence to APA and Overall Writing, the majority of students scored at the highest level. Given

that the Course Learning Outcomes being measured are not actually related to the students’ writing

skills, these results are not of concern.

Assessment: Philosophy of Special Education Day Total Online Total

Discussion of Law 1 17 24

15-13 15 16

12-10 1 3

9 or less 1 5


15-13 12 13

12-10 2 5

9 or less 3 6


15-13 14 14

12-10 1 4

Page 26 of 34

9 or less 2 6

Philosophy of Special Education 17 24

15-13 15 18

12-10 1 4

9 or less 1 2

Class Impact 17 24

15-13 15 15

12-10 1 1

9 or less 1 8

Use of Paper Template & Adherence to APA 17 24

15-13 12 7

12-10 1 8

9 or less 4 9

Overall Writing 17 24

15-13 12 4

12-10 3 10

9 or less 2 10


undergraduates at this level is Teacher Candidate.

In the Day program, 16 of the 17 students scored at the Teacher Candidate level, as expected. Only 1

scored at the Approaching Teacher Candidate level.

The rubric used to assess the standards and indicators did not match the Online course. Therefore,

data was not collected.

EDUC 400: Synthesis Paper

EDUC 400 was assessed in 2015-2016 for performance on the Synthesis Paper. Students were assessed on 16


Students in both the Day program and the Nationwide campuses scored consistently at either Level 3

or 4. Data compiled in 2014-2105 was deemed untrustworthy and no interpretation was made, so it is

not possible to compare these results.

Assessment: Synthesis Paper Day Total Nationwide

Total

Introduction 25 8

Level 4 14 8

Level 3 11

Level 2

Level 1

Component One 25 8

Level 4 13 5

Level 3 12 3

Level 2

Level 1

Page 27 of 34

Component Two 25 8

Level 4 12 2

Level 3 13 6

Level 2

Level 1

Component Three 25 8

Level 4 9 6

Level 3 15 2

Level 2 1

Level 1

Component Four 25 8

Level 4 8 7

Level 3 17 1

Level 2

Level 1

Component Five 25 8

Level 4 7 7

Level 3 17 1

Level 2 1

Level 1

Component Six 25 8

Level 4 6 8

Level 3 18

Level 2 1

Level 1

Component Seven 25 8

Level 4 6 8

Level 3 18

Level 2 1

Level 1

Component Eight 25 8

Level 4 6 8

Level 3 19

Level 2

Level 1

Closing 25 8

Level 4 8 8

Level 3 16

Level 2 1

Level 1

Spelling and Grammar 25 8

Level 4 12

Level 3 13 8

Level 2

Level 1

Page 28 of 34

Voice and Word Choice 25 8

Level 4 11 8

Level 3 14

Level 2

Level 1

Appropriately Linked Artifacts 25 8

Level 4 13 8

Level 3 12

Level 2

Level 1

Title Page Formatting 25 8

Level 4 13 8

Level 3 12

Level 2

Level 1

Table of Contents 25 8

Level 4 13 8

Level 3 12

Level 2

Level 1

Bibliography 25 8

Level 4 12 8

Level 3 12

Level 2 1

Level 1

Because this is the capstone course for the Teacher Certification Program, students were assessed on all 36

standards and indicators (n=77). The appropriate target for undergraduates at this level is Teacher Candidate.

Results from the Day campus indicate that most students scored at the Teacher Candidate level, but a

sizable number of students scored at the Approaching Teacher Candidate level on about half of the

standards.

These results are intriguing. EDUC 400 is the last course taken prior to student teaching; students

would seemingly be as advanced as they could be at this point. But at lower level classes that had the

same Teacher Candidate target, such as EDUC 338 and EDUC 390, the vast majority of students scored

at the Teacher Candidate target. It does not make sense that the majority of students in EDUC 400

would not also score at this level.

A possible explanation is that the instruments used to measure student performance on the standards

and indicators are too varying among these courses and therefore cannot be compared. Another

explanation is that, because EDUC 400 is the final step before student teaching, students are more

closely scrutinized and evaluated in this course.

Assessment: Standards/Indicators 1-4 Day Total Nationwide

Total

Page 29 of 34

1.1 24 8

Mid-Prep Candidate


Teacher Candidate 20 8

1.2 24 8

Mid-Prep Candidate



1.3 24 8

Mid-Prep Candidate



1.4 24 8

Mid-Prep Candidate



1.5 24 8

Mid-Prep Candidate



2.1 24 8

Mid-Prep Candidate



2.2 24 8

Mid-Prep Candidate



2.3 24 8

Mid-Prep Candidate



2.4 24 8

Mid-Prep Candidate



2.5 24 8

Mid-Prep Candidate



2.6 24 8

Mid-Prep Candidate



3.1 24 8

Page 30 of 34

Mid-Prep Candidate



3.2 24 8

Mid-Prep Candidate



3.3 24 8

Mid-Prep Candidate



4.1 24 8

Mid-Prep Candidate



4.2 24 8

Mid-Prep Candidate



4.3 24 8

Mid-Prep Candidate



5.1 19 8

Mid-Prep Candidate



5.2 19 8

Mid-Prep Candidate



5.3 19 8

Mid-Prep Candidate



6.1 19 8

Mid-Prep Candidate



6.2 19 8

Mid-Prep Candidate



6.3 19 8

Mid-Prep Candidate

Page 31 of 34



6.4 19 8

Mid-Prep Candidate



7.1 19 8

Mid-Prep Candidate



7.2 19 8

Mid-Prep Candidate



7.3 19 8

Mid-Prep Candidate



7.4 19 8

Mid-Prep Candidate



7.5 19 8

Mid-Prep Candidate



7.6 19 8

Mid-Prep Candidate



8.1 19 8

Mid-Prep Candidate



8.2 19 8

Mid-Prep Candidate



8.3 19 8

Mid-Prep Candidate



9.1 19 8

Mid-Prep Candidate


Page 32 of 34


9.2 19 8

Mid-Prep Candidate



9.3 19 8

Mid-Prep Candidate



5. What were the strengths and weaknesses of the data collection process? How can data

collection be improved?

Significant effort has been put into the development of our program’s Course Learning Outcomes and in the

creation of assignments and rubrics that adequately assess them. The Education Department has the unique

advantage of expertise in the area of assessment and how to create strong and useful rubrics, which in theory

makes data collection easier for us.

However, because of the expectations put upon us by DESE, data collection in our department is also onerous.

In addition, we have a significant number of adjuncts teaching our courses across several different venues,

and communicating both the necessity of data collection and how to use the rubrics correctly is an almost

impossible task. Adjuncts do not always understand or appreciate the need for data collection, and are

sometimes reticent in their reporting. The result is data that is at times incomplete, inconclusive, or simply

inadequate.

6. What were the strengths and weaknesses of the data? What actions can result in stronger data?

Generally speaking, results from the data were as expected, with more consistency across venues than was

anticipated.

But even with clear rubrics and assignment guidelines, the instruments we use to assess our students are all

constructed-response and therefore open to greater subjectivity than a selected-response instrument. Most of

our standards cannot be adequately measured using selected-response instruments, though, and we therefore

must rely on our instructors to interpret the assignment guidelines and use the rubrics correctly. This is a

challenge, and one that most definitely has the potential to weaken our data.

For example, in an introductory level course like EDUC 200, most students would be expected to be at the

Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate level, yet in the Nationwide, Evening, and Online venues, most students

were scored at the Mid-Prep Candidate level. Continued efforts should be made to educate instructors across

venues on how to use the rubrics, and on what is generally expected.

7. Do the data provide information about actions taken in the past to improve learning? If so,

please explain.

No. The data provide information regarding our students’ performance that offers an indication of their

learning and progress through the program, and that is the goal.

Page 33 of 34

8. What do the data indicate about student mastery of learning outcomes and general student

learning?

Across all venues, our students are performing strongly with regard to the standards and indicators

measured, showing consistent mastery or near-mastery of the learning outcomes.

Plan for Use of Results and Proposed Actions: 9. For the actions proposed in your previous annual assessment report: Which actions were you

able to implement? Which actions were you not able to implement?

- For actions that were implemented, please provide a description on whether the actions appear to have been

successful.

- For actions that were not implemented, please provide a description of the difficulties encountered

Three specific actions were proposed in the 2014-2015 report.

Action #1: Provide additional training over the standards and indicators rubrics and the corresponding performance

levels. Online instructors, in particular, may not be familiar with the mandated standards for education certification in

the State of Missouri. In addition, we need to provide more training to clinical instructors so that students are rated at the

appropriate developmental level. Inflating the developmental level of a student does not serve well the program or the

individual student as it obfuscates needed improvements.

This is an ongoing action item that will likely continue indefinitely. It sounds simple to “provide more

training” to instructors, but how to do that is a significant challenge. The old adage “you can lead a horse to

water but you can’t make him drink” rings true in this situation; training information can be provided to our

countless adjuncts, but there is no guarantee they will abide by or even read it.

Action #2: Adjust the AY ’15-’16 timeline for implementation of new assessments. Although we had hoped to implement

several new assessments in fall 2015, based on the current data we realize that we need to ensure the current assessments

are occurring in a way that we receive valid and reliable results. Therefore, we will work in the fall on improvements to

current assessments, and implement new assessments in spring 2016.

With the departure of Dr. Weston and the change in Ms. Bradley’s responsibilities, our department has

quickly become understaffed and overwhelmed. Making significant changes to our assessments could not be

a priority and had to be postponed. We are, however, in the process of updating the Course Learning

Outcomes for nearly all our courses, which should help us to make the needed improvements to our

assessments in the future.

Action #3: We will investigate what actions we can take to improve student performance on the MO Content

Assessments. For example, we will meet with other departments to examine the assessment frameworks and ensure that

we have the proper course alignment in place.

Evaluation of the MO Content Assessments was not a part of this year’s Annual Assessment Plan. But faculty

in other departments have been consulted with regard to where our students have struggled on these exams,

and plans are in place to alter or adjust courses in order to better accommodate them. For example, our art

students have struggled with an inadequate knowledge of fibers, and we have worked with the Art

Department on where and how to incorporate this content into the existing art curriculum.

Page 34 of 34

10. What actions will be taken to improve learning based on the data? (describe the processes and goals

for these actions)

The data indicate that our students are learning as we would like them to be. There are no large holes that

need to be filled. We are always on a quest for improved learning and improved outcomes, but this quest is

the result of a shared mission and vision in our department and not based on this data.

11. Do you plan to change any part of your assessment process based on these assessments?

Please explain. Examples of changes to assessment process include, but are not limited to:

- Changes to communication structure regarding outcomes, assessments and expectations

- Changes to assessment methods or implementation

- Changes to assessment plan or schedule of assessed courses

- Changes to outcomes statements

It is evident that some of our assessments are not measuring the outcomes (i.e., standards and indicators)

quite like they should. Of primary concern is the assignment rubrics used to measure student development

toward teacher candidacy. The assignments themselves are sound measures of where students are according

to the standards and indicators. But one must remember that the assignment rubrics are designed to result in

a grade on that assignment, and grades are based on how well a student performs on the assignment. This is

important information. It helps to measure student learning, and that is certainly part of what we are

assessing. But it does not tell us where students are developmentally.

Students’ development toward teacher candidacy is a vital measure, given that this is not only the

information DESE wants from us but is information necessary for us to determine if students are progressing

as they should. Performance on these assignments, however, does not necessarily mean the student is at any

particular level (e.g., Beginning Candidate, Approaching Mid-Prep Candidate, etc.). Oftentimes, students’

lowest scores were on criteria related to their writing, including grammatical errors and overall writing style,

or were the result of poor attention to assignment guidelines. Even the most prepared and strong teacher

candidates can make these errors.

It is clear that our assessments need to be revisited and revised in order to more accurately reflect where

students are in their development.

Additionally, it is important to remain focused on working with our adjuncts in order to better ensure

accurate and consistent data. This may result in additional revisions to our assessment methods.

As noted earlier, nearly all our master syllabi have been recently updated with new or modified Course

Learning Outcomes that will be used in the 2017-2018 assessment process.

12. What else would you like to say in this report? Please explain.

Documents

Columbia College Program Academic Assessment Annual Report/media/Files/Academic... · Columbia College Program Academic Assessment Annual Report Program: 2015Education Academic Year: