Standard 2: Assessment System and Unit Evaluations

The College of Education and Human Services has developed a plan for an assessment system (Unit Assessment Plan) that is aligned with its Conceptual Framework, state, and professional standards. The plan evolved as part of the self-study conducted during the 2001Winter and Spring Quarters to assess the Unit’s alignment with the new state, professional, and NCATE standards, and learned society expectations (Unit Self-study). The study was conducted across initial and advanced programs with input from College administrators, department chairs, program advisors, CEHS faculty, faculty in the arts and sciences, and directors and staff in the Offices of Student Services and Professional Field Experiences (Self-study Assessment).

The Unit Assessment Plan was then developed by a group of College faculty in consultation with the CEHS Teacher Education Council and the Advisory Councils from each of our partnership schools (Partnership School Advisory Councils). During Fall Quarter 2001, the Plan will be presented to the faculty at the College Fall Retreat, and again shared with the Teacher Education Council, faculty in the arts and sciences, educators in the Partner Schools, cooperating teachers and practicum supervisors, our initial and advanced teacher education candidates, and our candidates for professional school roles.

The Unit Assessment Plan also aligns with the Wright State Assessment Plan. The annual University assessment report summarizes learning outcomes, measures, and improvements across all programs. In 1999-2000 programs focused on assessing essential skills and knowledge, discipline based knowledge and skills, attitudes and values, and alumni accomplishments. Multiple measures were employed to reflect appropriateness of curriculum and instruction, student success while enrolled, and student success after graduation. Findings and improvements focused on faculty development and curriculum and instruction.

The CEHS 1999-2000 Assessment Report prepared for the University focused on assessing the following three outcomes:

• Instruction and curriculum alignment with professional, state, and institutional standards.

• The efficacy of courses, field experiences, and programs.

• Candidate content knowledge, and when appropriate, demonstrated teaching that leads to student learning.

The new Unit Assessment System expands upon University assessment requirements and existing structures that currently collect and assess data related to candidate qualifications for admission, and candidate progression through all initial and advanced programs.

 

 

  Assessment Plans: Department of Educational Leadership
    Department of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation
    Department of Human Services
    Department of Teacher Education

CEHS Data Management Committee

Element A: Assessment System

The Unit Assessment System outlines a comprehensive and integrated set of evaluation measures the Unit will draw upon to monitor candidate performance, improve programs, improve Unit operations, and assess the impact of candidate performance on student learning. Key decisions about candidate progress and program completion will be based upon multiple assessment measures grounded in professional, state, and institutional standards. Performance-based assessment measures are linked with the Conceptual Framework and learning outcomes for the Unit (INTASC/Conceptual Framework Content Matrices).

The assessment system will focus on data collection and analysis at four critical transition points (benchmarks) across all initial and advanced programs (Program Assessment Plans):

• Entry/admission

• Midpoint

• Exit/completion

• Alumni performance

Below is a summary of the internal and external candidate and Unit assessment data currently collected by existing Unit structures across initial and advanced programs at each of the four critical points. Traditionally, this data has been compiled and analyzed for the purpose of improving existing programs and Unit operations. As part of the newly designed Unit Assessment System, however, this information will also be used to assess our candidates’ impact on P–12 student learning. It is acknowledged that additional measures will need to be developed over the next several years as the Unit focuses on candidate performance and impact on learning. 

Data Collected at Four Critical Points Across All Programs

In the new Unit Assessment Plan, this data will be used to assess what our candidates and graduates know and are able to do to make a positive impact on student learning. Results from internal and external candidate assessments will be used to improve programs, courses, teaching, and field experiences.

1. Entry/Admission

Cumulative GPA 2.5 or higher for undergraduate admission/Minimum Bachelor
GPA 2.7 or 2.5 with 3.0 for last 90 hours of coursework for graduate admission
C or higher grades in all content related undergraduate coursework; B or higher in graduate work

Passing scores on required standardized tests (Praxis I, GRE, MAT, or Praxis II) Acceptable writing sample

Personal interview with university faculty and partnership representatives

Letters of recommendation

Completion of general education courses or baccalaureate degree from a regionally accredited institution

2. Mid-point

Ratings on candidate performance in practica; B grade or higher for graduate counseling field experiences

Minimum education coursework GPA 2.5 in undergraduate courses; 3.0 GPA in graduate courses and completion of 36 credit hours for counseling

Performance ratings on micro-teaching videotapes

Ratings on candidates’ portfolios

Concern conferences status

3. Exit/Completion

Minimum cumulative GPA (2.5 in undergraduate courses; 3.0 in graduate courses)

Performance ratings and overall evaluation of candidate performance in capstone practica; B grade or better in all graduate counseling field experiences

Performance in culminating courses (comprehensive exam, action research, thesis, projects, portfolios)

Passing scores on appropriate Praxis II tests; comprehensive exam for counseling

4. Alumni Performance

Department surveys of alumni

CEHS Graduate Follow-up Survey

First Year Graduate Survey

Praxis III ratings (when provided by ETS beginning in September 2002)

Element B: Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation

The College currently maintains information on each candidate’s qualifications and performance to document success and make licensure recommendations to the state. The data now needs to be regularly and systematically compiled, summarized, and analyzed for informed programmatic decisions. We are beginning to collect data from candidates, recent graduates, faculty and partnership personnel to aid in decision-making about candidate qualifications and performance requirements, program quality, and unit operations. Candidate data collected will include Praxis I and II test scores, practica evaluations, Concern Conferences, candidate grievances, and first-year Praxis III/Pathwise ratings on graduates (if this data is released by the state). Unit data collected will include candidate exit surveys, proficiency data on districts employing graduates, alumni surveys, and employer surveys. The analysis of both candidate and Unit data will provide direction and guidance in the assessment of what our candidates know and are able to do to help all students learn.

Element C: Use of Data for Program Improvement

The systematic collection of data from multiple sources will provide essential information for Unit planning and decision making. Data analysis will assess the effectiveness of courses, practica, and programs of study and drive modifications to improve candidates’ preparation and job performance. Faculty will benefit from the data in the selection of course activities, practica assignments, and professional development goals. Wide dissemination of assessment data will promote faculty involvement and ownership of program innovations and Unit improvements.

The initial analysis of Praxis II scores has generated the following activities to improve programs and Unit operations:

To determine if admission requirements are related to candidate success, a correlational analysis of candidates’ Praxis I and Praxis II test scores was conducted Summer Quarter 2001. The analysis provided support for maintaining high admissions standards on Praxis I cut scores, which are determined by the Unit. Additional studies will follow tosubstantiate this conclusion.

Preliminary data from individual cases of failure on Praxis II tests suggests a correlation with a low GPA—especially when students were admitted without the required GPA.While the current sample of students failing Praxis II exams is too small for valid statistical analysis, these cases suggest existing GPA admission standards are valid and exceptions must be carefully evaluated.

The College funded an ETS Praxis II workshop for faculty from the College, as well as from the arts and sciences to guide curriculum decisions to improve student performance.

After Praxis II test failures by quality students, Spanish language faculty took the Praxis II exams to determine the content and types of questions on the tests; the faculty then modified the format of several courses.

Unit Assessment Plan

Adapted from the NCATE Transition Plan for the Implementation of NCATE 2000 Standards

Current Practices

A self-study was conducted during the 2001 Winter and Spring Quarters to assess the Unit’s alignment with state, professional, and NCATE standards and learned society expectations (Unit Self-study). This study was conducted across initial and advanced programs with College administrators, department chairs, program advisors, faculty in the arts and sciences, and directors and staff in the Offices of Students Services and Professional Field Experiences (Self-study Assessment). During Fall Quarter 2001, as part of the Unit Assessment Plan, the themes will again be shared with College faculty at the College Fall Retreat, faculty in the arts and sciences, the Teacher Education Council, educators in the partner schools, cooperating teachers, practicum supervisors, our teacher education candidates, and our candidates for professional school roles. The following current practices emerged as part of the Unit Self-study.

As a North Central accredited institution, the College of Education and Human Services contributes annually to the Wright State University assessment plan.

Wright State University and the College of Education and Human Services consider student advising and the monitoring of candidates’ progress to be a significant activity. Considerable attention is given to the advising services provided by faculty advisors and the certification/licensure advisors in the Office of Student Services (Advising and Monitoring of Candidates).

The CEHS Standard 2 Self-study Committee is charged with drafting and defining, but not implementing the Unit Assessment Plan.

Programs are designed to align with state, institutional, and professional standards.

Multiple formative and summative performance-based assessments are embedded in most programs of study.

Factors considered in the admission process consist of letters of recommendation, a writing sample, an interview, grade-point average, and Praxis I/II scores.

Critical points (benchmarks) in monitoring the progress of candidates are clearly identified at entry and exit to a program of study. Midpoint “benchmarks” are to be identified for most programs.

Concern conferences are convened at any time by either a student, advisor, or a professor.

Portfolios are required in most programs of study.

Assessments align with the Unit’s Conceptual Framework.

The current information system used to advise and track student progress in the Offices of Student Services and Professional Field Experiences is adequate for existing Unit operations.

The Unit Assessment System (A Five-year Plan)

 

Copyright Information © 2001 | Accessibility Information. Last updated , by the WSU Web Team (sk). " align="left" border="0" width="207" height="15" alt="Counter"> Please send comments to valerie.doll@wright.edu