1. 2.3.4 MVNU Annual Education Unit & Program Assessment 2006-07 Part I

2. 2 Drive Checked for Aggregated for Used for Evaluated by Generate assessment scores Collected atDemonstrated by MVNU Conceptual Framework, SPA, and Ohio Standards Expected Competenc y Levels Progra m Gates Program/Unit Review & Improvement: Reported by Research Questions driven by Conceptual Framework and Ohio Standards Candidate Admissions, Retention, and Program Completion Assessmen t Validation & Reliability Data Collected, Analyzed: Chalk & Wire, University Database Department Approved Rubrics Selecte d Artifacs MVNU Performance Assessment System

3. 3 Reviewing How the System Works with Additions & Changes  Unit Assessments Includes both Departments Only Key Assessments reported Assessments are aggregated from multiple measures at different transition points (Gates)  Program Assessments Assessments disaggregated by program area Inform the Unit of candidate performance by program

4. 4 Logistics  2005-2006 Transition from assessments based solely on Department Outcomes to ITASC Standards  2006-2007 Transition form INTASC Standards to Ohio Standards for the Teaching Profession  2007-2008 All assessments on Chalk & Wire or CARS!

5. 5 How will last year’s (2006-07) report look?  Answer: Much like the reports for Fall Semester 2006. Most significant difference is the linkage to Ohio Standards for the Teaching Profession Let’s look at major Unit Assessment Tables (W/O the data)

6. Unit Key Assessments by Gates (Transition Points)

7. 7 Undergraduate (Initial) Gate 1 Program Entry Freshman Year ACT/SAT Scores (Admissions Data) Gate 2 Admission to Teacher Education Sophomore Year * Candidate Profile Field Assessments * Praxis I Math Writing Reading * Faculty Assessments of Candidate Dispositions Gate 3 Admission to Clinical Practice Junior Year * Candidate Profile Field Assessments * Faculty Recommendations for Student Teaching * Faculty Assessments of Candidate Dispositions Gate 4 Program Exit Senior Year * Portfolio Review * Candidate Profile Student Teaching Assessments * Unit Work Sample Reflection * Praxis II PLT and Specialties * Teacher Quality Partnership Measures (Pre- service) * Internal Stakeholder Assessment of Unit Programs and Processes * External Stakeholder Assessment of Unit Programs and Processes

8. 8 Graduate: PEL (Advanced Initial) Gate 5 Admission to Degree Status Second Semester * Candidate Profile Field Assessments * Faculty Assessments of Candidate Dispositions Gate 6 Admission to Clinical Practice Third Semester * Candidate Profile Field Assessments * Faculty Recommendations for Student Teaching Gate 7 Program Exit Final Semester * Portfolio Review * Candidate Profile Student Teaching Assessments * Unit Work Sample Reflection * Praxis II PLT and Specialties * Teacher Quality Partnership Measures (Ohio comparisons) * Faculty Assessments of Candidate Dispositions * Internal Stakeholder Assessment of Unit Programs and Processes * External Stakeholder Assessment of Unit Programs and Processes

9. 9 Graduate: C&I (Advanced) Admission to Graduate StatusUndergraduate GPA (Admissions Data) Gate 8 Admission to Degree Status End of Second Semester * Unit Work Sample * Proposal for Action Research Project/National Board Licensure * Faculty-research advisor recommendations: commence research study/project * Faculty Assessments of Candidate Dispositions Gate 9 Program Exit Final Semester * Portfolio Review * Chalk & Wire Overall Course Assessments * Completed Action Research Project/National Board Licensure process * Faculty Assessments of Candidate Dispositions * Internal Stakeholder Assessment of Unit Programs and Processes * External Stakeholder Assessment of Unit Programs and Processes

10. Unit Performance Triangulation Table

11. 11 Internal Measures : Portfolio Score (holistic) Student Teaching Score (initial only) Action Research Score (advanced only) Faculty/Recent Grad Survey Unit Work Sample Grand Mean Score: Quality Index External Measures: TQP: In service Alumni/Employer Surveys Praxis I Praxis II

12. Candidate Performance by Program

13. 13 Compassion: How well do our candidates respond to issues of compassion? Ohio Standards for the Teaching Profession And Other Measures of Performance GatesUndergraduateGraduate ECEMCEAYAPELC&I 1.3 Teachers expect that all students will achieve to their full potential. 2-9 1.4 Teachers model respect for students’ diverse cultures, language skills and experiences. 2-9 5.1 Teachers treat all students fairly and establish an environment that is respectful, supportive and caring. 2-9

14. 14 Additional Reports by Program  Candidate Demographics (C&W)  Interrater Reliability (C&W)  Rubric Scores by Percentage, Mean, Median, Std. Dev. (C&W)  Scores by Licensure Area; by Gate (C&W)  Customized Reports upon request

15. Are Candidates Ready for the Gates? Chalk & Wire is Ready… CARS is Ready…

16. 16 Department action following candidate review at each Gate:  Pass The candidate progresses to the next Program Gate or completes the program.  Pass/Conditional The candidate continues in the Program while all remaining Gate requirements are completed.  PendingThe candidate remains at the Program Gate until the successful completion of a Department Action Plan.  Fail Candidate dismissed from the Program.

17. 17 Next Step: Part II  An analysis and review of Unit data for: 2005-06 2006-07 Preparation of 2007-08

18. MVNU Annual Education Unit & Program Assessment 2006-07 Part II

19. 19 2006-07 Unit Data Report  Points to consider: Within Gate Data Across Gates Data Across Years Data Unusually High Scores Unusually Low Scores Review: what does the Triangulation Table tell us?