STANDARD 2/A.2 Clinical Partnerships and Practice

STANDARD 2/A.2 Clinical Partnerships and Practice
Tatiana Rivadeneyra, Ed.D. Accreditation Director, Site Visitor Development and EPP Accreditation Procedures TR

STANDARD 2 CLINICAL PARTNERSHIPS AND PRACTICE

Session Overview Of CAEP Initial-Licensure and Advanced-Level Standards 2/A.2. Including suggested evidence, evidence sufficiency criteria, and additional CAEP resources available. Content will reference the evidence sufficiency criteria, handout. Forewarn that they will be asked to reflect on possible evidence sources and should be prepared to take notes. Time for Q&A is scheduled at the end.

Standard 2/A.2’s Holistic Case
That a strong collaborative clinical preparation is only as strong as the P- 12 partnerships, clinical educators (initial), and the clinical experiences. CAEP Standards for Initial-Licensure/Advanced-Level Programs, Evidence Sufficiency Criteria, Handout that the whole is more than merely the sum of its parts

EVIDENCE SUFFICIENCY: RESOURCES
CONSULT: Evidence Sufficiency Criteria Evaluation Criteria for Self-Study Evidence - Standard 2 CAEP Guidelines for Plans for phase-in plan content 2017 SSRs can present plan with progress data Site visits in F18 and beyond are not eligible for phase-in Assessment Sufficiency Criteria CAEP Evaluation Framework for EPP-Created Assessments

Standard 2. Clinical Practice
The provider ensures that effective partnerships [components 2.1 and 2.2] and high-quality clinical practice [component 2.3] are central to preparation so that candidates develop the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions necessary to demonstrate positive impact on all P-12 students’ learning and development.

Rules for Standard 2 General for all Standards Special for Standard 2
All components addressed EPP-Created Assessments at CAEP level of sufficiency At least 3 cycles of data Cycles of data are sequential Disaggregated data on candidates, for main/branch campuses No required components

Standard 2, Guidance from Component 2.1
Partners co-construct mutually beneficial P-12 school and community arrangements, including technology-based collaborations, for clinical preparation and share responsibility for continuous improvement of candidate preparation. Partnerships for clinical preparation can follow a range of forms, participants, and functions. They establish mutually agreeable expectations for candidate entry, preparation, and exit; ensure that theory and practice are linked; maintain coherence across clinical and academic components of preparation; and share accountability for candidate outcomes. Consider: What evidence do I have that would demonstrate mutually beneficial and accountable partnerships in which decision-making is shared?

Evidence Sufficiency Criteria, 2.1
EVIDENCE THAT A COLLABORATIVE PROCESS IN PLACE AND REVIEWED Documentation provided for a shared responsibility model that includes elements of Co-construction of instruments and evaluations Co-construction of criteria for selection of mentor teachers Involvement in on-going decision-making Input into curriculum development EPP and P-12 educators provide descriptive feedback to candidates Opportunities for candidates to observe and implement effective teaching strategies linked to coursework

Co-Construction of Clinical Experiences
Co-Construct the opportunities, challenges, and responsibilities, along with the support and guidance of clinical educators and designated faculty. Co- Constructed opportunities allow Candidates to apply the knowledge, dispositions and skills developed in general education and professional courses. Candidates should continue learning to adapt to the various conditions of classrooms in Co-Construction opportunities.

Partners co-select, prepare, evaluate, support, and retain high-quality clinical educators, both provider- and school-based, who demonstrate a positive impact on candidates’ development and P-12 student learning and development. In collaboration with their partners, providers use multiple indicators and appropriate technology-based applications to establish, maintain, and refine criteria for selection, professional development, performance evaluation, continuous improvement, and retention of clinical educators in all clinical placement settings. Consider: What evidence do I have that would demonstrate the depth of partnership around highly effective clinical educators?

EVIDENCE EPP AND P-12 CLINICAL EDUCATORS/ADMINISTRATORS CO- CONSTRUCT CRITERIA FOR CO- SELECTION Clinical educators receive Professional development, resources, and support Are involved in creation of professional development opportunities, the use of evaluation instruments, professional disposition evaluation of candidates, specific goals/objectives of the clinical experience, and providing feedback Data collected are used by EPPs and P-12 clinical educators for modification of selection criteria, future assignments of candidates, and changes in clinical experiences

Clinical Educator Development/Responsibilities
Process of collaboration with partnerships; further demonstrate partnerships, in field-experiences Developed - criteria, reflective teaching and learning, mutual engagement,… Monitored - facilitate learning and development Evaluated - opportunities for partners to…

The provider works with partners to design clinical experiences of sufficient depth, breadth, diversity, coherence, and duration to ensure that candidates demonstrate their developing effectiveness and positive impact on all students’ learning and development. Clinical experiences, including technology-enhanced learning opportunities, are structured to have multiple performance-based assessments at key points within the program to demonstrate candidates’ development of the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions, as delineated in Standard 1, that are associated with a positive impact on the learning and development of all P-12 students. Consider: What evidence do I have that clinical experiences develop candidates’ Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions to have a positive impact on P-12 learning?

EVIDENCE ALL CANDIDATES HAVE CLINICAL EXPERIENCES IN DIVERSE SETTINGS Attributes (depth, breadth, diversity, coherence, and duration) are linked to student outcomes and candidate/completer performance documented in Standards 1 and 4 Evidence documents a sequence of clinical experiences that are focused, purposeful, and varied with specific goals Clinical experiences include focused teaching experience where specific strategies are practiced Clinical experiences are assessed using performance-based

Clinical Experience Table Course Sample

Clinical Experience Table
Program Sample

POTENTIAL ISSUES: Standard 2
AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT MAY BE CITED WHEN: Case: Limited or no convincing evidence in any of the following that partnerships effectively co-select, prepare, evaluate, support or retain clinical faculty An EPP fails to provide evidence, or provides limited evidence, that clinical experiences allow opportunities for the partners and the candidates to employ instructional uses of technology There is no or only limited documentation that clinical experiences provide opportunities for candidates to engage diverse P-12 students

POTENTIAL ISSUES: Standard 2
STIPULATIONS MAY BE CITED WHEN: Case: Limited or no substantial evidence that partnerships effectively share decision-making for expectations of candidates, coherence across clinical and academic components, and/or accountability for results Limited or no evidence of monitoring in clinical experiences, of “positive impact on all P-12 students’ learning and development” If there is evidence that clinical experiences provide limited or no opportunities for candidates to practice developing and improving their professional knowledge and skills through application in classroom situations

STANDARD A.2 CLINICAL PARTNERSHIPS AND PRACTICE

EVIDENCE SUFFICIENCY: RESOURCES
CONSULT: Evidence Sufficiency Criteria Evaluation Criteria for Self-Study Evidence – Standard A.2 CAEP Guidelines for Plans for phase-in plan content SSR submitted through academic year 2018/2019 can include plans for Components A.2 .1 and A.2.2 SSRs can present plan with progress data for Components A.2 .1 and A.2.2 Site visits in F22 and beyond are not eligible for phase-in Assessment Sufficiency Criteria CAEP Evaluation Framework for EPP-Created Assessments The process of building a case that standard is met can begin with a review of the quality sufficiency of each measure currently in use and how they can combine to create a well-balanced set that speaks to the evidence sufficiency criteria. This would be followed by an exploration of how to best fill any gaps. Or, building a case can begin with a review of the evidence sufficiency criteria, followed by taking inventory of available evidence that meets sufficiency criteria for assessments, then by an exploration of how to best fill any gaps. Since EPPs are conducting assessments that are more for operational purposes than accreditation purposes, it may help to begin by looking at the evidence sufficiency criteria to see where existing sources can serve dual purposes. The Evaluation Framework for EPP-Created Assessments is a general tool for thinking about the quality of individual instruments. The Evidence Evaluation Exercise is more directly tied to the evidence quality factors discussed in Component 5.2/A It is also more tailored to evaluating evidence for particular standards or components, whether EPP created or not. This tool can be applied to individual measures or to sets of evidence, and provides a way to document that the whole is more than the sum of its parts or what gaps remain even after the strengths of multiple sources are combined. This can allow for a much more focused approach to selecting additional evidence.

STANDARD A.2: CLINICAL PARTNERSHIPS & PRACTICE
The provider ensures that effective partnerships [component A.2.1] and high- quality clinical practice [component A.2.2] are central to preparation so that candidates develop the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions appropriate for their professional specialty field.

Rules for Standard A.2 Special for Standard A.2
General for all Standards Special for Standard A.2 Key concepts in standard and components are addressed EPP-created assessments meet CAEP assessment sufficiency criteria At least three cycles of data that are sequential and most recent available Results disaggregated by licensure area (when appropriate) Main and additional campuses, on site and online programs (if applicable) Phase-In Plans for Standard A.2 meet the criteria for the CAEP Guidelines for Plans and are consistent with the Phase-In Schedule. No required components

Standard A.2, Guidance from Component A.2.1
Partners co-construct mutually beneficial P-12 school and community arrangements, including technology-based collaborations, for clinical preparation and shared responsibility for continuous improvement of candidate preparation. Partnerships for clinical preparation can follow a range of forms, participants, and functions. They establish mutually agreeable expectations for candidate entry, preparation, and exit; ensure that theory and practice are linked; maintain coherence across clinical and academic components of preparation; and share accountability for candidate outcomes.

EVIDENCE FOR A.2.1 Consider: What evidence do you have that would demonstrate mutually beneficial and mutually accountable partnerships in which decision-making is shared?

Evidence Sufficiency Criteria, A.2.1
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE Illustrates specific benefits to provider and P-12 partners Outlines the collaborative nature of the relationship Documents that effectiveness of the partnership is reviewed at least annually Shows that the EPP seeks input from partners to refine criteria for entry/exit to clinical experiences Documents partner participation in development and review activities (e.g., for clinical instruments, clinical curriculum, EPP-curriculum) Phase-in Plans meet CAEP guidelines and schedule Instruments for evaluating partnership (if any) meet CAEP’s assessment sufficiency criteria Standard A.2 Sufficiency Criteria: Component A.2.1 Evidence is presented that P-12 schools and EPPs have both benefitted from the partnership. Evidence presented that a collaborative process is in place and reviewed annually. Provider regularly seeks input from P-12 educators with professional responsibilities relevant to the specialty fields for which candidates are being prepared, including developing or refining criteria for entry/exit into clinical experiences A shared responsibility model that includes these components: Co-construction of instruments and evaluations Evidence of co-constructed clinical experiences Involvement in ongoing decision-making Input into curriculum development EPP supervisor and/or P-12 educators provide descriptive feedback to candidates. Opportunities for candidates to observe and implement appropriate and effective strategies for their fields of specialization.

SUGGESTED for PARTNERSHIPS for CLINICAL PREPARATION
Documents illustrating co-construction of a collaborative relationship Documents outlining provider and partner responsibilities for examining and improving clinical preparation Evidence that of assessments and performance standards are mutually acceptable to providers and partners Documentation of shared perspective on appropriate uses of technology for the candidate’s future role

Standard A.2, Guidance from Component A.2.2
The provider works with partners to design varied and developmental clinical settings which allow opportunities for candidates to practice applications of content knowledge and skills emphasized by the courses and other experiences of the advanced preparation program. The opportunities lead to appropriate culminating experiences in which candidates demonstrate their proficiencies, through problem-based tasks or research (e.g., qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, action) that are characteristic of their professional specialization as detailed in component A.1.1

EVIDENCE FOR A.2.2 Consider: What evidence do you have that would demonstrate that clinical experiences promote specialty-area specific applications of content knowledge and general skills referenced in Component A.1.1? For example, how might “employment of data analysis and evidence to develop supportive school environments” involve different clinical/practical experiences for school counselors versus principals? How might different types of partners (and professional standards) play a role in developing the clinical experience expectations for different specialties?

Evidence Sufficiency Criteria, A.2.2
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE Documents that all candidates have practical experiences in workplace settings Illustrates that candidates observe and implement appropriate and effective strategies for their fields of specialization Documents the attributes of clinical/practical experiences Illustrates that they are varied and developmentally progressive Illustrates that they relate to coursework Demonstrates a relationship between clinical/practical experiences and candidate outcomes reported in Standard A.1 Phase-in Plans meet CAEP guidelines and schedule Standard A.2 Sufficiency Criteria: Component A.2.2 All general rules for the Standard 2 are met. Evidence documents that all candidates have active clinical experiences. Particular attributes of varied and developmental clinical settings are investigated in relation to candidate outcomes. Investigations employ both formative and summative assessments in more than one clinical setting and have: used two comparison points, used the results to guide preparation decision-making, modified instruction and clinical experiences based on results. Evidence documents that candidates have used technology in applications appropriate to their field of specialization Evidence documents a sequence of clinical experiences with specific goals that are focused, purposeful, and varied. Clinical experiences are assessed using performance-based criteria. Evidence documents the relationship between clinical experiences and coursework (coherence). Opportunities for candidates to observe and implement appropriate and effective strategies for their fields of specialization.

SUGGESTED for CLINICAL EXPERIENCES
Charts illustrating the breadth, depth, duration, and coherence of the opportunities to practice applying content knowledge and skills to practical challenges in their specialty area Evidence mapping the developmental trajectory of specific practical knowledge and skills as candidates’ progress through courses and the clinical experiences embedded within or external to the courses Candidate evaluations of connection between coursework and fieldwork

Clinical Experience Table Course Sample
Clinical Internships & Associated Description (Observation and/or Implementation) Program Fields Hours Measures Schools/Districts EDU 2100: This supervised practicum in elementary settings, exposes candidates with practical experiences in workplace settings and scenarios to evaluate the connections between coursework and fieldwork M.Ed., Ed.D. 45 hours of Observation and/or Implementation -Dispositional/ Professional Responsibility Data -Problem-based projects, coursework Internship- Must be Approved by PDS/D during semester of application prior to… EDU 2900: This clinical internship in elementary education, is designed for Candidates to appropriately and effectively apply research based instructional learning theory/strategies for their fields of specialization, in P -12 60 hours of Observation and Implementation -Problem-based projects, school/district -Action Research -Capstones/ Portfolios/ Thesis

Clinical Experience Table Program Sample
Field Field Experiences & Associated Hours (Observation) Clinical Internships & Associated Hours (Implementation) Hours M.Ed., Secondary Mathematics Education MEDU 552, EDUM 553, EDUM 554, EDUM 555, EDUM 556 (Practicum) – 200 hours observation EDU-M 699 – 500 hours of participation and implementation of coursework and fieldwork 700 M.Ed., English as a Second Language (TESL) TESL 500 (Practicum) – 250 hours of observation and participation EDU-TESL 699 – 500 hours of participation and implementation of research based instructional learning strategies 750

POTENTIAL ISSUES: STANDARD A.2
AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT (AFIs) MAY BE CITED WHEN Instrument Quality is Poor: EPP-created assessments used to collect Standard A.2 data have significant deficiencies with respect to CAEP’s assessment evaluation framework Phase-In Plans for one or more components do not meet CAEP’s guidelines for plans Evidence Quantity is Limited: Less than three cycles of data are provided Less than one cycle of phase-in data collected by academic year 2019/2020 Site visitors may recommend AFIs or stipulations if general rules, special rules, or specific evidence sufficiency criteria are not met. Only the Accreditation Council can decide if AFIs or stipulations will be cited or whether standards are met or not met. The following three slides are intended to clarify some of the conditions under which this has happened in the past may or in the future.

AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT (AFIs) MAY BE CITED WHEN Case is Weak: Deficiency in evidence that partnerships with P-12 schools are collaborative and mutually beneficial Deficiency in evidence that partnerships are effective in promoting continuous improvement of clinical experiences Clinical/practical experience are not varied and developmentally progressive Site visitors may recommend AFIs or stipulations if general rules, special rules, or specific evidence sufficiency criteria are not met. Only the Accreditation Council can decide if AFIs or stipulations will be cited or whether standards are met or not met. The following three slides are intended to clarify some of the conditions under which this has happened in the past may or in the future. Clinical/Practical experiences are not varied and developmental. The clinical experiences target a very limited number of practical skills with respect to the role/position description of the specialist as described by stakeholders. The clinical experiences do not progress toward independent practice (e.g., the first opportunity for authentic practice is in a full-scale work situation where real P-12 stakeholders are affected). Evidence does not document the relationship between clinical experiences and coursework There is limited or no evidence that partnerships involve mutual benefit. The EPP-created measures used for evidence of Standard A.2 (e.g., partner surveys) do not meet CAEP’s sufficiency criteria. Site team tasks intended to verify the accuracy of results reported in the self-study report could not be completed using the data provided by the EPP, or the effort uncovered significant discrepancies between the data set(s) and the rates or performance levels reported in the self-study report. Review of available data indicates that the EPP did not provide the most sequential and the most recent data that was relevant to their analysis. One or more of the three components of the phase-in plan for Standard A.2 do not meet criteria in the CAEP Guidelines for Plans. For example, under Timeline, the plan will not result in at least one data point in the academic year [The site team clearly describes the deficiencies in the plan as they relate to the guidelines].

STIPULATIONS MAY BE CITED WHEN Evidence Quality is Low Significant aspects/key language of the standard are not addressed by relevant measures A component is omitted or addressed very superficially No efforts to ensure validity of evidence and/or no information on representativeness of the data Case is Weak Limited or no evidence that clinical experiences are central to preparation Clinical preparation does not promote development of competencies emphasized in specialty area standards. Clinical experiences do not provide familiarity with authentic work settings Limited or no evidence that partnerships involved co-construction and shared responsibility or that they their effectiveness is reviewed at least annually. The EPP did not make the case that clinical experiences are central to preparation. Candidates complete the clinical/practical components of the program by fulfilling time requirements rather than meeting performance criteria aligned to professional standards and stakeholder input. Candidates complete the program despite not completing or performing poorly in required clinical/practical activities that test the actionability of their knowledge and skills in realistic settings /situations. The types, number, duration, and goals of required practical and clinical experiences do not substantially align with standards and expectations for professional competencies in specialty areas. The goals for clinical/practical activities are vague, and the provider cannot describe how or what each experience contributes to candidate development. There’s an assumption that setting will provide the appropriate experiences by being authentic, but minimal or no effort by the EPP to ensure that candidates have a range of experiences that effective professional practice would involve. There is evidence that clinical experiences provide limited or no opportunities for candidates to practice developing and improving their professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions through application in authentic settings. There is limited or no convincing evidence that the EPP maintains functioning partnerships and regularly reviews the arrangements. There is limited or no evidence that partnerships involve co-construction and shared responsibility. There is limited or no evidence that clinical/practical experiences are meaningfully connected to an input from stakeholders with professional responsibilities relevant to the specialty fields for which candidates are being prepared. There is limited or no evidence that he EPP shares candidate performance results with partners and uses evidence of candidate performance (such as that provided for Standard A.1) to improve clinical preparation continuously. The EPP does not address the key concepts in A.2 and does not provide a Phase In-Plan that meets the criteria in the CAEP Guidelines for Plans. None of the three components of the phase-in plan for Standard A.4 meet criteria in the CAEP Guidelines for Plans. [The site team clearly describes the deficiencies in the plan as they relate to the guidelines]. Phase-in Plans are submitted for Standard A.2 after the expiration of the period for submitting new plans. Progress on Phase-in Plans for Standard A.2 does not include any results. Results submitted to demonstrate progress on Phase-In Plans for Standard A.2 show inadequate levels of satisfaction for the majority of completers or employers who responded.

Cross-Cutting Themes Embedded in Every Aspect of Educator Preparation
Coursework Diversity Technology Fieldwork Interpersonal Interactions

Cross-Cutting Themes of Diversity and Technology
Places in which the cross-cutting themes of diversity and technology must be explicitly addressed through evidence are identified by the following icons in the CAEP Evidence Table. = diversity and = technology

Themes of Diversity and Technology
Standard 2 Clinical experiences prepare candidates to work with all students. Technology Standard 2 Technology-enhanced learning opportunities Appropriate technology-based applications Technology-based collaborations

Themes of Diversity and Technology
Standard A.2 Clinical experiences prepare candidates to fulfill their specialized professional roles to benefit all students. Technology Standard A.2 Technology-based collaborations may be included in partnerships

In Summary - The Case for Standard 2/A.2
Information is provided from several sources and provides evidence of shared decision-making, collaboration among clinical faculty, and continuous functioning. Data are analyzed. Differences and similarities across licensure areas, comparisons over time, and demographical data are examined in relation to clinical experiences, as appropriate. Appropriate interpretations and conclusions are reached. Trends or patterns are identified that suggest need for preparation modification. Based on the analysis of data, there are planned or completed actions for change that are described. Standard 2 The guiding questions may help focus the selection of evidence and the EPP inquiry of its message: STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES—What strengths and areas of challenge have you discovered in your clinical experiences and in your partnership arrangements as you analyzed and compared the results of your disaggregated data by program and by demographics? What questions have emerged that need more investigation? How are you using this information for continuous improvement? TRENDS What trends have emerged as you compared program and demographic data describing clinical experiences across evidence sources and programs? What questions have emerged that need more investigation? How are you using this information for continuous improvement? IMPLICATIONS—What implications can you draw or conclusions can you reach across evidence sources about your school/districts partnerships and your clinical experiences? What questions have emerged that need more investigation? Improvement? How have data driven decisions on changes been incorporated into preparation?

STANDARD 2/A.2 Clinical Partnerships and Practice

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "STANDARD 2/A.2 Clinical Partnerships and Practice"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

STANDARD 2/A.2 Clinical Partnerships and Practice

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "STANDARD 2/A.2 Clinical Partnerships and Practice"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback