ASSESSMENT REPORT
FOR
Bachelor of Science Degree in Early Childhood Education/Reading
Specialization (BS)
Instructional Degree Program
Spring 2004
Assessment Period Covered
June 1, 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 an 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 provide a comprehensive and coherent professional development
system for educators linking all aspects of the educational profession.
Through educational experiences provided by the 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. Preservice teachers 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
Spring 2004
Assessment Period Covered
June 1, 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__ Preservice teachers 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:
__1__a. 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).
1. a. Summary of Data Collected:
Out of a population of 57 students, only 54 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
three 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 76.83%
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 79.46% accuracy and Competency
#2 (Understands and applies concepts related to student diversity) with
78.65% accuracy. On Competency #1 (Understands and applies human developmental
processes), students demonstrated 77.3% accuracy and 71.93% 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.
Out of a population of 73 students, only 23 took the Pedagogy and Professional Responsibilities (PPR) Test of the new Texas Examination on Educator Standards (TExES) during the Spring term of 2004. On average, the students who took the PPR Examination obtained 77.00% 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 75.17% accuracy and Competency #2 (Understands and applies concepts related to student diversity) with 79.22% accuracy. On Competency #1 (Understands and applies human developmental processes), students demonstrated 80.04% accuracy and 73.57% 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.
__1__a. Use of Results to Improve Instructional Program:
Students' performance data were shared with program faculty who
agreed that it was important to refine their instructional efforts with
respect to Domain I. Additionally, closer inspection of the Fall 2003
and Spring 2004 TExES data revealed that greater attention needs to
be given to Domain III of the TExES, since students’ average performance
on competencies #7 (Communication), #8 (Instructional Practice), #9
(Technology), and #10 (Assessment) did not consistently exceed 75%
across two administrations of this exam. Faculty agreed to develop
a plan to systematically incorporate these competencies into their courses
and will begin implementing the revised courses in the Fall 2004 semester.
Second Means of Assessment for Outcome Identified Above:
__1__b. 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.
__1__b. Summary of Assessment Data Collected:
Spring 2004 Block II Data collected from 74 students through the
use of the Internship Interview Rubric indicated that 74 (100%) 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 74 students interviewed, no more than four (5%)
needed to strengthen their understanding of: a) how to successfully
work with students having special needs; b) develop a greater understanding
of the learner-centered proficiencies; c) authentic assessment; or d)
multiple intelligences.
____b. Use of Results to Improve Instructional Program:
Program faculty reviewed the data mentioned above and agreed to
continue to refine their courses by placing greater attention on the
four areas mentioned and assessing through different means students’
understanding of all relevant competencies.
Since students' performance on the Internship Interview Rubric has exceeded
expectations, faculty members decided to place a special emphasis on
Competency #7 (Communication: The teacher understands and applies principles
and strategies for communicating effectively in varied teaching and
learning contexts) from Domain III of the Pedagogy and Professional
Responsibilities (PPR) Texas Examination of Educator Standards (TExES),
especially since students’ average performance over the last two TExES
administrations has not been higher than 69%. This competency will
be incorporated into the Professional Education courses that preservice
teachers take.
ASSESSMENT REPORT
FOR
Bachelor of Science Degree in Early Childhood Education/Reading
Specialization (BS)
Instructional Degree Program
Spring 2004
Assessment Period Covered
June 1, 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:
__2__a. Means of Program Assessment & Criteria for Success:
The average score of students completing the educator preparation
program will be at or near 85% on the Field Performance Evaluations,
with no score lower than 65%.
__2__a. Summary of Assessment Data Collected
Data collected from 73 students during the Spring 2004 semester
through the use of the Field Performance Evaluations revealed that their
scores ranged from 50 to 100 and that the mean for the group was 92.2.
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.
__2__a. 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 to help them identify program strengths and areas of need.
Since students performance on the Field Performance Evaluations has exceeded expectations, faculty has decided to focus on Competency #10 (Assessment: The teacher monitors students performance and achievement; provides students with timely, high-quality feedback; and responds flexibly to promote learning for all students) from Domain III of the Pedagogy and Professional Responsibilities (PPR) Texas Examination of Educator Standards (TExES).
Second Means of Assessment for Outcome Identified Above:
__2__b. 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.
__2__b. Summary of Assessment Data Collected:
During the Spring 2004 term, 70 Block III students prepared and
presented their portfolios for evaluation. Seventy-nine percent (55)
of the 70 students earned a score of 80% or higher on their portfolios.
The average score obtained by the 70 students was 87.17%. As a part
of the portfolio presentation, students demonstrated an appropriate
understanding of instructional design and assessment.
__2__b. 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. The rubric will then be used to help educators monitor
program strengths and areas of need.
ASSESSMENT REPORT
FOR
Bachelor of Science Degree in Early Childhood Education/Reading
Specialization (BS)
Instructional Degree Program
Spring 2004
Assessment Period Covered
June 1, 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.
__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:
__3__a. 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 EC-4th grade, TExES 101 exam, Domain I will be
at the passing standard.
__3__a. Summary of Assessment Data Collected:
Because Early Childhood through 4th Grade with a Reading
Specialization is no longer an option for students, data are being collected
on students pursuing the Bachelor of Science in Early Childhood – 4th
Grade teaching certificate. The Language Arts subtest of the EC-4 Generalist
TExES exam is the focus of this analysis. Of the 12 students pursuing
the Bachelor of Science in Early Childhood – 4th grade teaching certificate
who took the TExES exam in the Spring 2004 term, 11 (92%) successfully
completed the Language Arts portion with a score above the passing standard.
In the Fall 2003, six students pursuing this same teaching credential
took the TExES exam, and all six (100%) successfully completed the Language
Arts portion of the exam with a score above the passing standard. In
effect, of these 18 students , 17 (94%) successfully completed the Language
Arts portion of the EC-4 TExES exam by exceeding the passing standard.
___3_a. Use of Results to Improve Instructional Program:
Reading agreed to refine the curriculum by placing a greater emphasis
on issues regarding the “alphabetic principle, oral language, and ways
of addressing the literacy needs of English Language Learners, as well
as those students experiencing speech and language delays. In a survey,
the four students pursuing identified their perceived areas of strength
and need. Competencies concerning the alphabetic principle and oral
language development will be emphasized in appropriate courses, e.g.,
EDRD 3309 Teaching Reading in the Schools and EDRD 3303 Teaching Reading
and Language Arts to help students acquire a deeper understanding of
these concepts and their application. Since literacy concepts associated
with English Language Learners are appropriately addressed EDRD 3302
Literacy, curricular modifications will be made during the Fall 2004
to incorporate EDRD 3302 into the required courses for individuals pursuing
the Bachelor of Science in Early Childhood Education – 4th
Grade Generalist teaching credential. Finally, ways of addressing the
needs of children with speech and language delays will be addressed
as part of EDRD 3311 Classroom Diagnosis and Remediation of Reading
Difficulties and in EDSE 3305 Introduction to Special Education. It
is anticipated that this change will be implemented on or before the
Spring 2005 semester.
Second Means of Assessment for Outcome Identified Above:
__3__b. 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
__3__b. Summary of Assessment Data Collected:
Four students who completed Block
III in the Spring of 2004 majored in Early Childhood Education with
a specialization in reading. They completed the self-assessment survey
measuring their knowledge of the competencies on Domain I of the EC-4
standards.
Mean scores for the competencies
ranged from a low of 3.1 to a high of 3.9 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 3.49. A score of “3” indicates “adequate knowledge.”
Since our objective was that students would have a mean of “3” on these
competencies, we did achieve this objective for these students at the
end of Block III in the spring of 2004.
__3__b. Use of Results to Improve Instructional Program:
Although no competency mean
score fell below “3,” results from the survey allow us to pinpoint potential
areas of strength and weakness. Those competencies rated the highest
were “literacy development” with a mean of 3.8 and “reading fluency,”
with a mean of 3.9. The competencies rated the lowest were “alphabetic
principle,” with a mean of 3.2 and “oral language,” with a mean of 3.1.
In reviewing individual items, these
students consistently rated lower those items having to do with differences
in instructional methods for English language learners and speech and
language delays. Modifications for diverse populations will need to
be addressed to a greater extent in all reading courses.
Competencies concerning the alphabetic principle and oral language development will be emphasized in appropriate courses, e.g., EDRD 3309 Teaching Reading in the Schools and EDRD 3303 Teaching Reading and Language Arts to help students acquire a deeper understanding of these concepts and their application. Since literacy concepts associated with English Language Learners are appropriately addressed EDRD 3302 Literacy, curricular modifications will be made during the Fall 2004 to incorporate EDRD 3302 into the required courses for individuals pursuing the Bachelor of Science in Early Childhood Education – 4th Grade Generalist teaching credential. Finally, ways of addressing the needs of children with speech and language delays will be addressed as part of EDRD 3311 Classroom Diagnosis and Remediation of Reading Difficulties and in EDSE 3305 Introduction to Special Education. It is anticipated that this change will be implemented during the Spring 2005 semester.
Although only four students responded to this Likert scale survey, the questionnaire (see attached copy) will continue to be used in the Fall semester of 2004, since it is difficult to generalize about a program based upon so few responses. The topics covered in the survey are applicable to students pursuing the Bachelor of Science in Early Childhood – 4th Grade Generalist teaching credential.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
| SOURCE |
LOCATION/Special Instructions |
| TExES Summary of Results |
|
| Questionnaire for Early Childhood Students |
|
Texas A&M International University
TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAM
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD STUDENTS IN BLOCK III
TExES Framework: Domain I
Please take a few moments to respond to the following questions as honestly and openly as possible. DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME ON THIS PAPER. This survey will help us to know how well we are teaching this Domain. Your answers reflect your whole program, not one specific professor.
Rate what you consider to be your current level of knowledge in each competency from the English Language Arts and Reading Domain of the TExES Framework by circling the appropriate number based on the scale below.
| No knowledge |
A little knowledge |
Adequate knowledge |
A great deal of knowledge |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
Oral language development
|
|
|||
| 1. Basic concepts (phonemes, semantics, syntax etc.) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| 2. Developmental stages of oral language development |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| 3. Speech or language delays and differences |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| 4. Relationship between oral language and literacy |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
Phonological and phonemic awareness
|
|
|||
| 5. Patterns of development in phonemic awareness |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| 6. Differences for English language learners |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
Alphabetic principle
|
|
|||
| 7. Relationship of letters to spoken words |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| 8. Patterns of alphabetic skill development |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| 9. Differences in alphabetic knowledge for English language learners |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
Literacy development
|
|
|||
| 10. Development of emergent literacy |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| 11. Awareness of environmental print, uses of print |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| 12. Understanding that literacy develops in multiple contexts through reading, writing, and speaking |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
Word analysis and decoding
|
|
|||
| 13. Patterns of development |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| 14. Word recognition (decoding, context clues, sight words, orthographic analysis, syllabic analysis, morphemic analysis) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| 15. Procedures for assessing word analysis skills |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
Reading fluency
|
|
|||
| 16. Understanding of fluency as rate, accuracy and intonation |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| 17. Understanding of how fluency affects comprehension |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| 18. The development of fluency |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| 19. Norms for identifying and monitoring fluency |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
Research and comprehension skills
|
|
|||
| 20. Locating, retrieving and retaining information from content area texts |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| 21. Use of text organizers ( headings, table of contents, etc.) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| 22. Summarizing and organizing materials from multiple sources (notetaking, outlining, graphic organizers) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
Writing conventions
|
|
|||
| 23. Children’s development through invented spelling |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| 24. Relationship between spelling and phonological awareness |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| 25. Similarities and differences between spoken and written language |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
Development of written communication
|
|
|||
| 26. Individual variations in writing development |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| 27. Addressing the needs of English language learners |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| 28. The difference between first draft writing and writing for publication |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
Assessment
|
|
|||
| 29. Characteristics of formal and informal assessments |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| 30. State standards (TEKS) for reading, writing, listening, and speaking |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| 31. How to determine independent, instructional, frustration levels |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| 32. How to communicate assessment results with parents |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
Additional comments regarding your level of knowledge in this Domain: