ASSESSMENT REPORT
FOR
Bachelor of Science Degree in Early Childhood Education/Reading Specialization
(BS)
Instructional Degree Program
Fall 2003
Assessment Period Covered
February 8, 2004
Date Submitted
Expanded Statement of Institutional Purpose Linkage:
Institutional Mission Reference:
Texas A&M International University, a Member of The Texas A&M University
System, is committed to the preparation of students for leadership roles in
their chosen profession and in increasingly complex, culturally diverse state,
national, and global society … Through instruction, faculty and student research,
and public service, Texas A&M International University is a strategic point
of delivery for well-defined programs and services that improve the quality
of life for citizens of the border region, the State of Texas, and national
and international communities.
College/University Goal(s) Supported:
The mission of the College of Education at Texas A&M International
University is to The mission of the College of Education at Texas
A&M International University is to provide for educators a comprehensive
and coherent professional development system that links all aspects
of the educational profession. Through educational experiences provided
by this system, educators will be prepared to provide learner-centered
instructional experiences that promote excellence and equity for
all students in the field.
Intended Educational (Student) Outcomes:
1. Pre-service students in the educator preparation program
will demonstrate an understanding of instructional design and assessment
to promote student learning.
2. Student interns in the educator preparation program will
demonstrate the skills related to implementing effective, responsive
instruction and assessment.
3. Students completing the Bachelor of Science in Early
Childhood Education with a Reading specialization will demonstrate knowledge
of effective Language Arts/Reading principles.
ASSESSMENT REPORT
FOR
Bachelor of Science Degree in Early Childhood Education/Reading Specialization
(BS)
Instructional Degree Program
Fall 2003
Assessment Period Covered
February 8, 2004
Date Submitted
Intended Educational (Student) Outcome:
NOTE: There should be one form for each intended outcome listed. The
intended outcome should be restated in the box immediately below and the intended
outcome number entered in the blank spaces.
1. Pre-service students in the educator preparation program will
demonstrate an understanding of instructional design and assessment to
promote student learning.
First Means of Assessment for Outcome Identified Above:
1a. Means of Program Assessment & Criteria for Success:
The average score of students in the educator preparation program
will be 70% or a minimum of 240 on Domain I (Designing Instruction and
Assessment to Promote Student Learning) of the Pedagogy and Professional
Responsibilities (PPR) Texas Examination of Educator Standards (TExES).
1a. Summary of Assessment Data Collected:
Out of a population of 57 students, only 49 took the Pedagogy
and Professional Responsibilities (PPR) Test of the new Texas Examination
on Educator Standards (TExES) during the Fall term of 2003. The
remaining eight students either took the Examination for Certification
of Educators in Texas (ExCET) or had not tested at the time this
report was prepared. On average, the students who took the PPR Examination
obtained 77.2% of the items correct on Domain I. An analysis of
the students' performance on the four competencies comprising Domain
I indicated that their two strongest areas were Competency #3 (Understands
how to design effective instruction and assessment procedures) with
80.29% accuracy and Competency #2 (Understands and applies concepts
related to student diversity) with 79.45% accuracy. On Competency
#1 (Understands and applies human developmental processes), students
demonstrated 77.29% accuracy and 71.78% accuracy on Competency #4:
(Understands and applies learning processes and factors to plan effective
instruction and assessment). Despite these differences, students'
performance on Domain I and the respective competencies indicates
that they exceeded the 70% criterion.
1a. Use of Results to Improve Instructional Program:
Students' performance data will be shared with and examined by
appropriate faculty to determine how best to incorporate these components
into the teaching-learning experiences provided by the educator preparation
program. TExES data will also be disaggregated by levels of certification
sought (i.e., Early Childhood-4th grade, 4th-8th grade,
and 8th-12th grade) and by specializations
within each of these certification levels to help faculty identify
program strengths and areas that need modification.
Second Means of Assessment for Outcome Identified Above:
1b. Means of Program Assessment & Criteria for Success:
At the pre-service interview to enter the teaching internship, students
in the teacher preparation program will provide evidence of knowledge
of instructional design and assessment with a score of 90% or better,
as determined by a committee of public school personnel and College of
Education Supervising faculty who will use a rubric developed for this
purpose.
1b. Summary of Assessment Data Collected:
Fall 2003 Block II Data collected from 65 students through the
use of the Internship Interview Rubric indicated that 64 (98%) of
the students successfully participated in the interview process and
were subsequently admitted into the internship experience. During
this interview, students demonstrated appropriate knowledge of instructional
design and assessment. Of the 65 students interviewed, three were
identified as needing to strengthen their understanding of how to
successfully work with students having special needs, two were identified
as needing to strengthen their understanding of the learner-centered
proficiencies, two were identified as needing to strengthen their
understanding of authentic assessment, and one was identified as
needing to strengthen his / her understanding of multiple intelligences.
1b. Use of Results to Improve Instructional Program:
The data mentioned above will be shared with program faculty
to determine how best to incorporate it into the educator preparation
program. As needed, program faculty will examine and revise the
means of assessment used at this point in the educator preparation
program in order to better identify program strengths and weaknesses.
ASSESSMENT REPORT
FOR
Bachelor of Science Degree in Early Childhood Education/Reading Specialization
(BS)
Instructional Degree Program
Fall 2003
Assessment Period Covered
February 8, 2004
Date Submitted
Intended Educational (Student) Outcome:
NOTE: There should be one form for each intended outcome listed. Intended
outcome should be restated in the box immediately below and the intended outcome
number entered in the blank spaces.
2. Student interns in the educator preparation program will
demonstrate the skills related to implementing effective, responsive
instruction and assessment.
First Means of Assessment for Outcome Identified Above:
2a. Means of Program Assessment & Criteria for Success:
The average score of students completing the educator preparation
program will be 85% on the Field Performance Evaluations,
with no score lower than 65%.
2a. Summary of Assessment Data Collected:
Data collected from 57 students during the Fall 2003 semester
through the use of the Field Performance Evaluations revealed that
their scores ranged from 70 to 100 and that the mean for the group
was 89.6. Students were particularly capable of maintaining positive
rapport with the students and communicating information in an accurate,
clear, and logical manner to their students. A trend observed among
some students is that they need to make sure that students are attentive
before beginning the lesson or giving directions. In addition, they
need to question students in a variety of ways to promote critical
thinking. Overall, the desired performance standard was exceeded.
2a. Use of Results to Improve Instructional Program:
The data mentioned above will be shared with program faculty
to determine how to best incorporate these insights into the educator
preparation program. Program faculty will also re-examine and possibly
revise the assessment instrument used at this point in the educator
preparation program in order to help them identify program strengths
and weaknesses.
Second Means of Assessment for Outcome Identified Above:
2b. Means of Program Assessment & Criteria for Success:
At the Portfolio Review, students completing the educator preparation
program will provide evidence of their ability to apply principles
of instructional design and assessment with a score of 85% or better,
as determined by a team of Field Supervisors using a common rubric.
2b. Summary of Assessment Data Collected:
During the Fall 2003 term, 57 Block III students prepared and
presented their portfolios for evaluation. Ninety-eight percent
(56) of the 57 students earned a score of 80% or higher on their
portfolios. The other student obtained a score of 74%. The average
score obtained by the 57 students was 96.3%. As a part of the portfolio
presentation, students demonstrated an appropriate understanding
of instructional design and assessment.
2b. Use of Results to Improve Instructional Program:
A team of educators working with the educator preparation program
will re-examine the rubric used to assess students' performance on
their portfolios to determine if any modifications to the rubric
and/or program are needed. This team of educators will research
different types of rubrics used to assess e-portfolios and will create
a rubric to be utilized for e-portfolios with Block I students during
the Fall 2004 term, Block II students during the Spring 2005 term,
and Block III students during the Fall 2005 term.
ASSESSMENT REPORT
FOR
Bachelor of Science Degree in Early Childhood Education/Reading Specialization
(BS)
Instructional Degree Program
Fall 2003
Assessment Period Covered
February 8, 2004
Date Submitted
Intended Educational (Student) Outcome:
NOTE: There should be one form for each intended outcome listed. Intended
outcome should be restated in the box immediately below and the intended outcome
number entered in the blank spaces.
3. Students completing the Bachelor of Science in Early
Childhood Education with a Reading specialization will demonstrate knowledge
of effective Language Arts/Reading principles.
First Means of Assessment for Outcome Identified Above:
3a. Means of Program Assessment & Criteria for Success:
The average score of students completing the Bachelor of Science
in Early Childhood Education with a specialization in Reading on the
Generalist ECE-4th grade, TExES 101 exam, Domain I will be
at the passing standard.
3a. Summary of Assessment Data Collected:
Only one student who completed Block III in the fall of 2003
majored in Early Childhood Education with a specialization in reading. The
student completed the self-assessment survey measuring knowledge
of the competencies on Domain I of the EC-4 standards.
Mean scores for the competencies ranged from a low of 3 to a high of
4 on a Likert-type four-point scale with a score of “1” indicating no
knowledge and a score of “4” indicating a great deal of knowledge. The
overall mean score was 3.69. A score of “3” indicates “adequate knowledge.” Since
the objective was that students would have an mean of “3” on these
competencies, we did achieve this objective
.
Additional TExES data from Fall 2003 indicate that 11 students took the Early
Childhood – 4th Grade Generalist Exam, which includes a Language
Arts / Reading Domain (i.e., Domain I). The passing standard on this exam
is 70. All students exceeded this standard; the scores ranged from 73 to 92
and the mean was 80.64.
3a. Use of Results to Improve Instructional Program:
Although no competency score fell below “3”, results from the
survey allow us to pinpoint potential areas of strength and weakness. Those
competencies rated the highest were those having to do with “literacy
development,” “word analysis,” “writing conventions” and “assessment,” all
of which were rated with a mean score of 4. The competency rated
the lowest was phonological/phonemic awareness, with a score of 3.
Since this area was also rated lower in the spring of 2003, our courses
will need to emphasize this competency more. In reviewing individual
items, this student consistently rated lower those items having to
do with differences in instructional methods for English language
learners. For example, the student rated as 2 (a little knowledge)
the area involving differences in phonological awareness, alphabetic
knowledge,
and ways to address the needs of English Language Learners written
communication. Modifications for English language learners should
be addressed in all reading courses. The information mentioned above
will be incorporated into the English Language Arts and Reading (Domain
I on TExES) competencies that are addressed in courses leading to
Early Childhood – 4th Grade Teacher Certification.
Second Means of Assessment for Outcome Identified Above:
3b. Means of Program Assessment & Criteria for Success:
On the Questionnaire for Early Childhood Students, students completing
the Bachelor of Science in Early Childhood Education with a Reading specialization
will demonstrate knowledge of effective Language Arts/Reading principles
with an average score of 3 on a Likert scale of 1 – 4 on their knowledge
of TExES exam 101, Domain I competencies.
3b. Summary of Assessment Data Collected:
Only one student who completed Block III in the fall of 2003 majored
in Early Childhood Education with a specialization in reading. The student
completed the self-assessment survey measuring knowledge of the competencies
on Domain I of the EC-4 standards.
Mean scores for the competencies ranged from a low of 3 to a high of
4 on a Likert-type four-point scale with a score of “1” indicating no
knowledge and a score of “4” indicating a great deal of knowledge. The
overall mean score was 3.69. A score of “3” indicates “adequate
knowledge.” Since
the objective was that students would have an mean of “3” on these
competencies, we did achieve this objective.
3b. Use of Results to Improve Instructional Program:
Although no competency score fell below “3” results from the survey
allow us to pinpoint potential areas of strength and weakness. Those
competencies rated the highest were those having to do with “literacy
development,” “word analysis,” “writing conventions” and “assessment,” all
of which were rated with a mean score of 4. The competency rated the
lowest was phonological/phonemic awareness, with a score of 3. Since
this area was also rated lower in the spring of 2003, our courses will
need to emphasize this competency more. In reviewing individual items,
this student consistently rated lower those items having to do with differences
in instructional methods for English language learners. For example,
the student rated as 2 (a little knowledge) differences in phonological
awareness, alphabetic knowledge, and addressing ELL students’ needs in
written communication. Modifications for English language learners should
be addressed in all
reading courses. Use of this scale will be continued in Spring 2004,
since it is difficult to generalize about a program based upon the responses
of one student.
|