Program Report for the Preparation of English Language ... · Program Report for the Preparation of...

Program Report for the Preparation of English Language Arts Teachers

National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE)2012 Standards - Option A

NCATE approved the 2012 NCTE Standards in 2012. Programs can use either the 2003 or the 2012 standards through Fall 2014. Beginning in Spring 2015, programs submitting reports must use the

2012 standards.

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR ACCREDITATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION

COVER SHEET

1. Institution NameNational Louis University

2. StateIllinois

3. Date submitted

MM DD YYYY

09 / 13 / 2016

4. Report Preparer's Information:

Name of Preparer:

Paula Di Domenico

Phone: Ext.

( ) -708 724 6372

E-mail:

[email protected]

5. NCATE Coordinator's Information:

Name:

Arlene Borthwick

Phone: Ext.

( ) -847 947 5025

E-mail:

[email protected]

6. Name of institution's program

Conf

ident

ial

Section 1 - Attachment 1

Clinical Observation Hour Course Distribution

Course

Term

Setting

Observation Hours

Total Hours

SEC502 Introduction to Secondary Education Methods

1

Middle or High School

25

80

SPE500 Special Education

1

Flexible

15

SEC512 (English Methods)

2

Middle or High School

40

Observation Hour Distribution

PROPOSED COURSE SEQUENCE: SECONDARY EDUCATION PROGRAM

FALL START COHORTS

Fall

SH

SEC 502

Introduction to Teaching at the Secondary Level

5

SPE 500

Introduction to Exceptional Children and Adolescents/Special Education

3

Winter

SH

SEC 512*

Methods of Teaching English at the Secondary Level

5

(SEC 510 - 524 may change locations for some cohorts and students from other cohorts will be combined.)

RLR 540**

Teaching Content Area Literacy at the Middle and Secondary Level

3

EPS 511**

Human Learning and Development in Instructional Contexts

2

CIL 505

Methods and Materials for Teaching English as a Second language

3

Spring

SH

SEC 590 B*

Student Teaching Secondary School Language Arts/English

6

(A required student teaching seminar meets a minimum of 5 times during student teaching.)

*For the courses SEC 510 - 524 and SEC 590 A F, each student will choose a content area and take the corresponding course with the appropriate course number ONLY.

**Students may register for these courses before admission.

To complete the M.A.T., students must decide on a particular program area and complete 2 courses from that program area within 6 years of completing the first course in the M.A.T. program. Electives must be within one program area only - e.g. Special Education.

Reading

ESL

Middle Level

Special Ed**

Urban Ed

Differentiation/Data- Driven Instruction

RLR 502 or

CIL 500

MLE 500

SPE 501

SEC 525

RLR 503 and

CIL 510

MLE 502

SPE 506

SEC 527

EPS 513

RLL 522* or

ESR 514

RLL 528*

*Students taking the 5 semester hours of Reading electives will need one extra semester hour, which they can fulfill either through a 1-s.h. workshop or by taking a 1-s.h. course by arrangement with their RLL professor. If taking a Course by Arrangement, students will need to obtain signatures from their Reading professor, advisor, and Director of Teacher Preparation after which they need to send the form to the Associate Dean in Wheeling. **Students who take the 2 courses above from the Special Education program area, in addition to SPE 527, can apply for a Special Education approval from the state that is good for 3 years. If, in addition, they pass the LBSI test, students become eligible for a Special Education endorsement. Total Semester Hours: 33

PROPOSED COURSE SEQUENCE: SECONDARY EDUCATION PROGRAM M.A.T.

WINTER START COHORTS

Winter

SH

SEC 502


5

SPE 500

Introduction to Exceptional Children and Adolescents/Special Education

3

Spring

SH

SEC 512*


5

(SEC 510-524 may change locations for some cohorts and students from other cohorts will combined.)

RLR 540**


3

EPS 511**


2

CIL 505


3

Fall

SH

SEC 590 B*


6


* For the courses SEC510-524 and SEC590 A-F, each student will choose a content area, and take the corresponding course with the appropriate course number ONLY.

** Students may register for these courses before admission.


Reading

ESL

Middle Level

Special Ed**

Urban Ed


RLR 502 or

CIL 500

MLE 500

SPE 501

SEC 525

RLR 503 and

CIL 510

MLE 502

SPE 506

SEC 527

EPS 513

RLL 522* or

ESR 514

RLL 528*

*Students taking the 5 semester hours of Reading electives will need one extra semester hour, which they can fulfill either through a 1-s.h. workshop or by taking a 1-s.h. course by arrangement with their RLL professor. If taking a Course by Arrangement, students will need to obtain signatures from their Reading professor, advisor, and Director of Teacher Preparation after which they need to send the form to the Associate Dean in Wheeling. **Students who take the 2 courses above from the Special Education program area, in addition to SPE 527, can apply for a Special Education approval from the state that is good for 3 years. If, in addition, they pass the LBSI test, students become eligible for a Special Education endorsement.

Total Semester Hours: 33

PROPOSED COURSE SEQUENCE: SECONDARY EDUCATION PROGRAM M.A.T.

SPRING START COHORTS

Spring

SH

SEC 502


5

SPE 500

Introduction to and Methods of Teaching Students with Disabilities

3

Fall

SH

SEC 512*


5

(SEC 510-524 may change locations for some cohorts and students from other cohorts will be combined.)

RLR 540**


3

EPS 511**


2

CIL 505


3

Winter

SH

SEC 590 B*


6


*For the courses SEC510-524 and SEC590 A-F, each student will choose a content area, and take the corresponding course with the appropriate course number ONLY.

**Students may register for these courses before admission.


Reading

ESL

Middle Level

Special Ed**

Urban Ed


RLR 502 or

CIL 500

MLE 500

SPE 501

SEC 525

RLR 503 and

CIL 510

MLE 502

SPE 506

SEC 527

EPS 513

RLL 522* or

ESR 514

RLL 528*

*Students taking the 5 semester hours of Reading electives will need one extra semester hour, which they can fulfill either through a 1-s.h. workshop or by taking a 1-s.h. course by arrangement with their RLL professor. If taking a Course by Arrangement, students will need to obtain signatures from their Reading professor, advisor, and Director of Teacher Preparation after which they need to send the form to the Associate Dean in Wheeling. **Students who take the 2 courses above from the Special Education program area, in addition to SPE 527, can apply for a Special Education approval from the state that is good for 3 years. If, in addition, they pass the LBSI test, students become eligible for a Special Education endorsement.

Total Semester Hours: 33

Description of Course Sequence

15

Section IV - ASSESSMENT #3

Candidates Ability to Plan Instruction

English Curriculum Development and Planning Rubrics from EdTPA

Assessment Tool 3: English Curriculum-Development Assessment/Rubric

1. A Narrative that includes the following:

a. A brief description of the assessment and its use in the program

The English-Curriculum Development Assessment Rubric is applied during a candidates second term in their English Methods Course (SEC512). The rubric is based on a candidates ability to design a Unit Plan that addresses a concept that is typically covered in a high school English curriculum, organized into categories. Each category is aligned to the NCTE standards. A similar assignment is required in the EdTPA assessment and is referred to as a learning segment and requires candidates to design a learning experience consisting of three to five lesson plans including the assessment piece. Both the planning of the overall unit and the individual lesson plans are assessed. Faculty members meet to discuss the rubric in terms of its effectiveness in evaluating this particular assignment. The unit plan assignment is considered a pivotal summative assessment; thus this assessment is key in student preparation to become and English teacher.

At the beginning of the English methods course in Term II, candidates are provided with the guidelines and accompanying rubric for the unit plan assignment. The course itself is organized around readings and experiences that prepare and support candidates in completing this assignment. Most instructors of English Methods include practice lesson plan assignments to help students determine how to design effective instruction.

b. A description of how this assessment specifically aligns with the standards it is cited for in Section III. (Cite SPA standards by number, title, and/or standard wording).

This English curriculum-development assessment aligns to elements of NCTE standards I, II, II, IV, V, and VI. See Table 4 for a complete and detailed description of the assignment and Table 5 for the rubrics that clearly indicate the connection between the assignment and the NCTE standards. This assignment and rubric was updated during the winter term of 2016 to reflect components of EdTPA, which is now mandated for candidates who are earning teaching licensure in Illinois. Both the winter 2015 and the winter 2016 rubrics and data are included in this report.

c. A brief analysis of the data findings:

During the winter term 2016, the assignment and rubric were updated to reflect alignment with the EdTPA requirements. Students scored at the proficient level 94% of the time and at the basic level 6% of the time. Similarly, in 2015, candidates scored at the meets level 94% of the time and at the partially meets level 6% of the time. The assignment reflects the major goals of the course and the majority of the course is designed to ensure that candidates can achieve the stated goals of the assessment. This assignment shows that the goals of the course aligns with the goals reflected in the NCTE standards and that candidates are prepared to meet those standards throughout their coursework and their work on this assessment and on all the practice activities designed during the course to ensure students are able to meet the expectations of the assessment.

d. An interpretation of how the data provides evidence for meeting standards, indicating the specific SPA standards by number, title, and/or standard wording.

Information related to how each aspect of this assignment and the rubric are aligned to the standards is present on both the assessment itself and the rubric designed to measure the assessment. Standard alignment is indicated by NCTE standard number in bold. The information gathered from the students in the winter 2015 and 2016 terms indicates that students are prepared to meet elements of Standard I in that they are knowledgeable about texts since they have to select a text set consisting of varied genres and modalities; further candidates include information about how students will engage with the texts to make meaning. In this assignment, candidates demonstrate they can meet elements of Standard II in that they design instruction for students composition of text and demonstrate that they understand the process in which students engage with texts they are composing. Candidates also demonstrate that they meet elements of Standard III in that they plan instruction that provides opportunity for students to read and study literature and elements of Standard IV as this plan for instruction must also include an opportunity for students to compose a text to answer a substantive topic. Elements of Standard IV are met with this assessment as well as formal, informal, formative, and summative assessments are included as part of the unit plan. Candidates must also demonstrate that they demonstrate an understanding of their students and their students prior knowledge and needs while connecting research and theories that support the learning of their specific students, which supports elements of NCTE Standard V and VI, respectively.

2. Assessment Documentation

e. The Assessment Tool itself or a rich description of the assessment

A detailed description of the assessment can be found in Table 4 and the rubrics can be found in Table 5. Each component of the assignment and the rubric are aligned to NCTE Standards.

f. The scoring guide for the assessment

Assessment: This rubric aligns with EdTPA requirements for successful completion of the portfolio tasks and is also aligned to NCTE Standards for Initial Preparation of Teachers of Secondary English Language Arts. (Updated winter 2016). The rubrics from 2015 and 2016 are included in Table 5.

g. Charts that provide candidate data derived from the assessment

Winter 2015 Data:

SEC 512 English Unit Plan: Winter 2015 (n=25)

Criteria

NCTE Standards

# N/A

% N/A

No Evdnc

No Evdnc

# Part. Meets

% Part. Meets

# Meets

% Meets

Mean

Mode

Stdev

1. Rationale

III Element 1

0

0%

0

0%

4

16%

21

84%

2.84

3

0.37

2. Objectives

III Elements 1,3,4, 6

IV Elements 1,2,3

0

0%

0

0%

1

4%

24

96%

2.96

3

0.20

3. Standards

III Element 3

IV Element 1

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

25

100%

3.00

3

0.00

4. Prior Knowledge

III Element 5

IV Element 4

0

0%

0

0%

2

8%

23

92%

2.92

3

0.27

5. Instruction: Reading

III Elements 1-5

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

25

100%

3.00

3

0.00

6. Instruction: Composition

IV Elements 1-4

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

25

100%

3.00

3

0.00

7. Assessment

III Elements 2, 4

IV Element 2

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

25

100%

3.00

3

0.00

8. Differentiation of Instruction

V Element 1, 3

0

0%

0

0%

1

4%

24

96%

2.96

3

0.20

9. Technology

II Element 1

IV Element 1

V Element 4

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

25

100%

3.00

3

0.00

10. Classroom Environment

III Element 3

IV Element 1

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

25

100%

3.00

3

0.00

OVERALL RATINGS

0%

0%

6%

94%

2.97

3

0.18

Winter 2016 Data:

SEC 512 English Unit Plan: Winter 2016 (n=18)

Criteria

NCTE Standards

# N/A

% N/A

# UNSAT.

% UNSAT.

# BASIC

% BASIC

# PROFIC.

% PROFIC.

Mean

Mode

Stdev

Section 1

[Standards III.1; VI.2; V.2]

0

0%

0

0%

1

6%

17

94%

2.94

3

0.23

Unit Narrative

[Standard II. 1, 3]

0

0%

0

0%

1

6%

17

94%

2.94

3

0.23

Instructional Outcome

[NCTE Standard III.3]

0

0%

0

0%

1

6%

17

94%

2.94

3

0.23

Assessment

[NCTE Standards III. 2 and IV. 2]

0

0%

0

0%

1

6%

17

94%

2.94

3

0.23

Progression of Learning

[NCTE Standard V.1]

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

18

100%

3.00

3

0.00

Lesson Plans

[NCTE Standards: I.1; III. 2, 3; V. 1, 3, 4; VI. 1, 2]

0

0%

0

0%

1

6%

17

94%

2.94

3

0.23

Reflection and Commentary

[NCTE Standard VI.1,2]

0

0%

0

0%

2

11%

16

89%

2.89

3

0.31

OVERALL RATINGS

0%

0%

6%

94%

2.94

3

0.23

Table 4: English Planning Assignment Description

SEC 512 English Planning Assignment Description (updated Winter 2016)

Description:

One of the most important elements of your job as an ELA teacher will be to plan appropriate, effective, and cohesive instruction. Designing a strong unit plan is the culmination of your learning experiences in this course. You will apply what you have learned about backward design; assessment; and instruction in the areas of reading, writing, vocabulary, and speaking/listening. Successful completion of this Unit Plan will help you prepare for Task 1 of EdTPA. Though there is one final product for this unit plan, some sections will have earlier due dates. This unit plan addresses NCTE Standards for Initial Preparation of Teachers of Secondary English Language Arts and is indicated in parenthesis in the assignment and on the rubric.

Section 1:

1. Establish outcomes and objectives.

a. Define the CCSS addressed by the unit. Identify the learning objectives by unpacking the standards.

b. Use student learning and curricular resources to conduct a content analysis of this unit. This assignment will prepare you to successfully submit the Planning and Instruction sections of your edTPA portfolio. [NCTE Standard III.1]

2. Connect to Research

a. Investigate the big idea(s) addressed by conducting a search on the NLU Library website. Look for articles that give you ideas as to how students learn your topic, what is at the core of their understanding, what is difficult to them, what misconceptions they have, etc. Research that addresses learning progressions of specific topics will be especially useful when identifying teaching sequences and related prior knowledge needed by students. [NCTE Standard VI. 2]

b. Compile information that is useful to YOU when you consider what it means knowing your topic for teaching. Then write a paragraph summarizing some of the key points in the article(s) and a paragraph about what you have learned. Add citation(s) of the article(s) in APA format.

3. Create Content Concept Map

a. Develop a concept map representing the relationships among the big idea(s) and other relevant concepts, understandings, and skills included in the unit. [NCTE Standard III.1]

4. Identify Prior Knowledge

a. Looking at curriculum materials, research on your topic, and your clinical insights, identify the necessary prior knowledge and skills students need to have to successfully achieve the unit objectives. [NCTE Standard V.2]

Section 2: Unit Narrative

This should be a short introduction in which you summarize the goals of the unit, the progression of skills you will address, and how you determine if students met these goals. You should also include the context of the class for which this unit is designed. [Standard II. 1, 3]

Part 3: Assessment

Construct an end-of-unit performance assessment (with a rubric) to assess student learning. This rubric should address teaching students to construct meaning from, responses to, and interpretations of complex text. [NCTE Standard III.2; IV.2]

Part 4: Progression of Learning

Most units take place over three to four weeks, so you should plan 15-20 days of instruction. An outline or a calendar will be sufficient. Each day should include instructional outcomes and a brief list/outline/description of learning activities. Sequence the daily lessons in the unit according to the progression of learning. [NCTE Standard V.1]

Part 5: Lesson Plans

Select FIVE lessons to expand in full lesson plans. Please be strategic about which lessons you choose. All of these elements do not necessarily need to be included in every lesson, but I should see evidence that you can integrate them throughout your unit. I will be looking for evidence of:

Supplementary materials/resources (videos, websites, poems, articles, infographics, etc.) [NCTE Standard I.1]

Differentiation to support various learners [NCTE Standard V.3]

Formative assessment [NCTE Standard III.2]

Vocabulary development, particularly language supports for students who have different levels of language learning [NCTE Standard [NCTE Standard V.1]

Modeling reading/writing strategies, scaffolds, and/or instructional supports for a range of learners [NCTE Standard V.4]

Preparing to address possible misconceptions

Engaging students in discussion wherein you support their construction of meaning and analysis of complex texts [NCTE Standard III.3]

Part 6: Reflection and Commentary

After completing this unit plan, write a reflection where you justify your instructional decisions in connection to students prior academic learning and their personal, cultural, or community assets. Justify your decisions with principles from research and/or theory. [NCTE Standard VI.1,2]

Table 5: Rubric: Updated Winter 2015 and Aligned to the NCTE Standards

Level 5

Level 4

Level 3

Level 2

Level 1

Section 1

[Standards III.1; VI.2; V.2]

All of level 4 and candidate explains and provides evidence of language use and content learning for students with varied needs.

Content is built around an important literacy concept (BIG IDEA), the related facts, concepts, and procedures are developed based on conceptual understanding. Conceptual connections are clearly explained (either in a concept map or in a narrative format).

Learning goals are clearly defined in terms of skills and understandings. Relevant CCSS standards are listed.

A thorough description of prior knowledge, conceptual understandings, and skills is provided.

Content focuses on an important literacy concept (BIG IDEA). Related subtopics are identified and the nature of the relationship among them is noted (either in a concept map or in a narrative format).

Learning goals are broadly defined in terms of the big idea and related facts and procedures. Relevant CCSS standards are listed.

A list of prior knowledge, conceptual understandings, and skills is provided.

Content choice needs to be more focused, based on conceptual understanding of an important literacy concept (BIG IDEA). Subtopics are mentioned, but the relationships among them are not.

Learning goals are present, but unclear and/or not centered around skills or understandings.

A superficial list of prior knowledge, conceptual understandings, and skills is provided.

Content is superficially defined, presented as a list of textbook chapter titles rather than a thoughtful selection of an important literacy concept (BIG IDEA) and related concepts and procedures.

List of learning goals are superficial and/or missing.

A list of prior knowledge, conceptual understanding, and skills is limited or missing.

Unit Narrative

[Standard II. 1, 3]

All of level 4 and candidate explains how s/he will use learning tasks and materials to lead students to make clear and consistent connections between textual references and constructions of meaning or form, interpretation of or responses to a complex text.

Summarizes the goals of the unit, the progression of skills, and how student learning will be measured clearly and concisely.

Summarizes the goals of the unit, the progression of skills, and how student learning will be measured.

Summarizes one or two of the following: goals of the unit, progression of skills, and how student learning will be measured OR summary is unclear.

Does not summarize any of the required components.

Instructional Outcomes

[NCTE Standard III.3]

All of level 4 and candidate creates opportunities for students to strategically select textual references to justify or check their constructions of meaning from interpretations of, or responses to a complex text.

Includes appropriate CCSS, enduring understandings, essential questions, knowledge, and skills. All components are clear and specific.

Includes appropriate CCSS, enduring understandings, essential questions, knowledge, and skills. Most components are clear and specific.

Includes mostly appropriate CCSS, enduring understandings, essential questions, knowledge, and skills. Some components are unclear and/or unspecific.

Does not include some/all required components (CCSS, enduring understandings, essential questions, knowledge, and skills).

Assessment

[NCTE Standards III. 2 and IV. 2]

All of level 4 and the assessments are strategically designed to allow individuals or groups with specific needs to demonstrate their learning.

Real-world, authentic performance assessment clearly measures student development toward specific standards. Rubric/examples provide students with a clear picture of success.

Real-world, authentic performance assessment somewhat measures student development toward standards. Rubric provides students with criteria for success.

Assessment may not be performance-based OR may not measure student development toward intended standards. Rubric may be unclear in some areas about how to achieve success.

Assessment is unrelated to the intended standards. Rubric may be missing or completely unclear.

Progression of Learning

[NCTE Standard V.1]

All of level 4 and supports include specific strategies to identify and respond to common errors and misunderstandings.

Calendar/outline includes a variety of instructional strategies and logically addresses the progression of learning required for development toward standards.

Calendar/outline includes multiple instructional strategies and [for the most part] logically addresses the progression of learning required for development toward standards.

Calendar/outline includes a few instructional strategies [repeated multiple times] and/or the sequence of lessons is [at times] illogical and does not address the progression of learning required to meet standards.

Calendar/outline is incomplete or missing.

Lesson Plans

[NCTE Standards: I.1; III. 2, 3; V. 1, 3, 4; VI. 1, 2]

All of level four, plus language supports are designed to meet the needs of students with different levels of language learning and

Lesson plans clearly address objectives and include: -supplementary materials that enhance learning

-differentiation to support all learners

-a variety of formative assessment techniques

-vocabulary development strategies

-explicit modeling of reading/writing strategies

Lesson plans mostly address objectives and include: -supplementary materials

-differentiation to support some learners

-a few formative assessment techniques



Lesson plans somewhat address objectives and include some of the following:

-supplementary materials

-differentiation to support some learners

-a few formative assessment techniques



Lesson plans are incomplete or missing OR do not include the required elements.

Reflection and Commentary

[NCTE Standard VI.1,2]

Candidates justification is supported by principles from research and/or theory (cited using APA).

Candidate justifies why learning tasks (or their adaptations) are appropriate using examples of students prior academic learning and personal, cultural, or community assets. Candidate makes connections to theory and research (cited using APA). .

Candidate justifies why learning tasks for their adaptations are appropriate using examples of students prior academic learning or personal, cultural, or community assets. Candidate makes superficial connections to research or theory (cited using APA).

Candidate justifies learning tasks with limited attention to students prior academic learning or personal, cultural, or community assets.

Candidates justification of learning tasks is either missing or represents a deficit view of students and their backgrounds.

Table 5.2 English Planning Rubric 2012

Exceeds Expectations (4.000pts)

Meets Expectations (3.000pts)

Partially Meets Expectations (2.000pts)

No Evidence (1.000pt)

1. Rationale (1.000, 10%) NCTE-2012

III Element 1

IV Element 1

Unit plan includes a thoughtful well-written explanation of how the content and pedagogy and are tied to the essential question(s) and correlated with identified objectives.

Unit plan includes an explanation of how the content and pedagogy and are tied to the essential question(s) and correlated with identified objectives.

Unit plan includes an explanation which refers to the content and pedagogy; however, the relationship of the essential question(s) and objectives to the pedagogy is not correlated.

No evidence of an explanation regarding how the content and pedagogy are connected to the essential question(s) and objectives.

2. Objectives (1.000, 10%) NCTE- 2012

III Elements 1,3,4, 6

IV Elements 1,2,3

Lesson plans include measurable statements of students cognitive and skill-based outcomes which are aligned to state and NCTE standards and reflect the instructional goals of the unit.

Lesson plans include some measurable statements of students cognitive and skill-based outcomes which are aligned to state and NCTE standards and reflect the instructional goals of the unit.

Lesson plans contain a limited number of statements and skills-based outcomes. They are somewhat aligned to standards, unrelated to instructional goals of the unit, or are not measureable.

Objectives are unrelated to state standards and the goals of instructional unit.

3. Standards (1.000, 10%) NCTE-2012

III Element 3

IV Element 1

Lesson plans explicitly align content and pedagogy with state (ie., Common Core State Standards) and NCTE standards.

For the most part content and pedagogy in lesson plans align to Common Core and NCTE standards.

Little effort has been made to align content and pedagogy with Common Core and NCTE standards

No evidence of alignment between content/pedagogy and standards.

4. Prior Knowledge (1.000, 10%) NCTE-2012

III Element 5

IV Element 4

Lesson plans include approaches that make learning relevant by allowing students to draw on past experiences, their interests, and their sociocultural backgrounds.

Lesson plans make some attempt to make learning relevant but are not consistent in allowing students to draw on past experiences or interests.

Approaches to access prior knowledge are limited and often not relevant to the topic nor do they connect to students past experiences or interests.

No evidence of approaches to access prior knowledge or connect to students' experiences or interests.

5. Instruction: Reading (1.000, 10%)

NCTE 2012

III Elements 1-5

Lesson plans contain creative and pedagogically sound instructional activities and allow students to experience a wide variety of strategies to interpret and evaluate texts.

Lesson plans contain sound instructional activities and allow students to experience a wide variety of strategies to interpret and evaluate texts; however, activities lack creativity.

There are a few instructional activities which provide the opportunity for students to use strategies to interpret and evaluate texts.

No instructional activities which incorporate strategies to help students interpret and evaluate texts.

6. Instruction: Composition (1.000, 10%) NCTE-2012

IV Elements 1-4

Lesson plans reflect an understanding of writing processes and strategies to compose written discourse for a variety of purposes and audiences.

Lesson plans show some understanding of writing processes and strategies to compose written discourse with only some attention toward variety of purposes and audiences.

Lesson plans show some understanding of writing processes and strategies to compose written discourse with only some attention toward variety of purposes and audiences.

No evidence that shows an understanding of writing processes or strategies to compose written discourse.

7. Assessment (1.000, 10%) NCTE-2012

III Elements 2, 4

IV Element 2

Lesson plans include a variety of well-developed formative and summative assessments which document how learners utilize skills to address interpretive, critical and evaluative abilities in reading, writing, speaking, listening, and presenting.

Lesson plans are somewhat limited in terms of formative assessments which show how learners use skills to develop interpretive, critical and evaluative abilities in reading, writing, speaking, listening, and presenting.

Both summative and formative assessments lack clarity in documenting how learners are using skills to address interpretive, critical and evaluative abilities in reading, writing, speaking, listening, and presenting.

No evidence of well-developed assessments.

8. Differentiation of Instruction (1.000, 10%) NCTE-2012

V Element 1, 3

Lesson plans include instructional activities that incorporate effective strategies to accommodate diverse learning styles.

Lesson plans contain some instructional activities that incorporate specific strategies that accommodate diverse learning styles.

Lesson plans contain limited instructional activities with specific strategies to accommodate diverse learning styles.

No evidence of instructional activities with strategies to accommodate diverse learning styles.

9. Technology (1.000, 10%) NCTE-2012

II Element 1

IV Element 1

V Element 4

Lesson plans seamlessly blend content knowledge and pedagogy with appropriate technologies. The uses of technology such as non-print and various media, are designed to assist students in making meaningful and creative connections between the ELA curriculum and developments in culture, society and education.

Lesson plans contain some use of technology that deal with non-print and various media requiring students to make meaningful connections between the ELA curriculum and developments in culture, society and education.

Lesson plans basically show that instructor uses technology for presentation, but does not really provide the opportunity for students to make meaningful connections with the ELA curriculum.

No evidence that plans contain effective use of technology.

10. Classroom Environment (1.000, 10%) NCTE-2012

III Element 3

IV Element 1

Lesson plans explicitly describe how to create a safe, responsive, and academic classroom culture designed to provide individual and collaborative opportunities for students to integrate reading, writing speaking, listening, and presenting into their learning.

Lesson plans allude to ideas to create a safe, responsive, and academic classroom, but it is not clear how these ideas will provide individual and collaborative opportunities for students to integrate reading, writing, speaking, listening and presenting into their learning.

Lesson plans lack ideas related to the creation of a safe, responsive, and academic classroom.

No evidence in plans of ideas to create a safe, responsive, and academic classroom.

Section IV: Assessment 3 EdTPA Planning Rubrics

Assessment Tool 3: EdTPA Planning Rubrics

1. A two-page narrative that includes the following:


The state of Illinois now requires candidates to earn a passing score (of 35) on the EdTPA assessment prior to earning licensure. The state of Illinois explains that, The Teacher Performance Assessment is a performance and knowledge assessment for pre-service teachers that is designed to measure teacher candidate effectiveness in the classroom by focusing on student learning. The edTPA consists of five key competencies: planning, assessment, instruction, reflection, and academic language. The process used is similar to the process used for National Board certification. The student teacher must upload a professional portfolio to Pearsons secure site. Specific items reflecting the competencies must be present in the portfolio including video recordings of the student teacher interacting with students in the classroom, lesson plans, student work samples, analysis of student learning, planning and assessment documentation, and reflective commentaries. For this assessment, the focus will be on the planning rubrics.

b. A description of how this assessment specifically aligns with the standards it is cited for

The EdTPA planning assignment and rubric asks candidates to write a lesson wherein candidates ask students to create plans that ask students to make clear connections between textual references and constructions of meaning from or responses to complex texts. This aligns with elements of NCTE Standard I and II. Further, the planning component of EdTPA asks candidates to use knowledge of students to support their ability to construct meaning from complex texts, which aligns with elements of NCTE standard 1.

c. A brief description of the data findings

Reviewing the overall data from the EdTPA assessment reveals that all but one candidate earned a passing score on the EdTPA. The one candidate who did not earn a passing sore earned a 0, indicating that the assessment was incomplete or had earned automatic 1s based on errors. According to the state of Illinois and EdTAP scoring requirements, all but one NLU English candidates have met the requirements set by EdTPA. A closer look at the planning rubrics for this specific assignment indicate that NLU candidates most frequently earned a score of level 3 or level 4 on rubric 1 and level 3 on rubric 2. This indicates that most candidates can organize instruction targeted toward providing students with the opportunity to engage with the interpretation of complex texts. Candidate scores on rubric 2 indicate that while candidates can use information from students to plan for instruction, they could use some skill development in this area.

d. An interpretation of how that data provides evidence for meeting standards, indicating specific SPA standard by number, title, and/or standard wording

e. The assessment tool itself or a rich description of the assessment

The EdTPA documents clearly describe the assessment. For the purposes of this assignment, the focus is on the planning components of the assessment. What follows is the description provided by EdTPA:

The purpose of edTPA Secondary English Language Arts, a nationally available performance-based assessment, is to measure novice teachers readiness to teach secondary English Language Arts. The assessment is designed with a focus on student learning and principles from research and theory. It is based on findings that successful teachers develop knowledge of subject matter content standards and subject-specific pedagogy, develop and apply knowledge of varied students needs, consider research and theory about how students learn, and reflect on and analyze evidence of the effects of instruction on student learning

As a performance-based assessment, edTPA is designed to engage candidates in demonstrating their understanding of teaching and student learning in authentic ways. Overview of the Assessment The edTPA Secondary English Language Arts assessment is composed of three tasks: 1. Planning for Instruction and Assessment 2. Instructing and Engaging Students in Learning 3. Assessing Student Learning For this assessment, you will first plan 35 consecutive English Language Arts lessons (or, if teaching within a large time block, 35 hours of connected instruction) referred to as a learning segment. Consistent with NCTE/IRA Standards for the English Language Arts (2012), 1 a learning segment prepared for this assessment should provide opportunities for students to use textual references to construct meaning from, interpret, or respond to complex text, AND to create a written product, interpreting or responding to complex features of a text that are just beyond your students current skill levels. You will then teach the learning segment, making a videorecording of your interactions with students during instruction. You will also assess, informally and formally, students learning throughout the learning segment. Upon completion of the three tasks, you will submit 1 The Standards for the English Language Arts (2012) can be found at http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Books/Sample/StandardsDoc.pdf.

edTPA Secondary English Language Arts Assessment Handbook 2 of 50 artifacts from the tasks (e.g., lesson plans, clips from your videorecording, assessment materials, instructional materials, student work samples), as well as commentaries that you have written to explain and reflect on the Planning, Instruction, and Assessment components of the tasks. The artifacts and commentaries for each task will then be evaluated using rubrics especially developed for each task. The edTPA Tasks and the Cycle of Effective Teaching The three edTPA tasks represent a cycle of effective teaching (i.e., teaching that is focused on student learning). Planning Task 1 documents your intended teaching, Instruction Task 2 documents your enacted teaching, and Assessment Task 3 documents the impact of your teaching on student learning. The three tasks and the evidence you provide for each are framed by your understandings of your students and their learning. As you develop, document, and teach your lessons, you will reflect upon the cyclical relationship among planning, instruction, and assessment with a focus on your students learning needs. Evidence of Teaching Practice: Artifacts and Commentaries. An essential part of edTPA is the evidence you will submit of how you planned, taught, and assessed your lessons to deepen student learning in English Language Arts. This evidence includes both artifacts and commentaries: Artifacts represent authentic work completed by you and your students. These include lesson plans, copies of instructional and assessment materials, video clips of your teaching, and student work samples.


EdTPA provides a full description of their scoring procedures and is available to candidates and faculty. The document explains that scores will be assigned by multiple reviewers and will be based on a preponderance of evidence for each element of the rubric. For this planning task, EdTPA explains that, The Guiding Question addresses how a candidates plans build a learning segment of three to five lessons around a central focus. Candidates will explain how they plan to organize tasks, activities, and/or materials to align with the central focus and the standards/objectives. The planned learning segment must develop students abilities to construct meaning, interpret, OR respond to complex text. For the second planning rubric, EdTPA explains that the purpose is that The Guiding Question addresses how the candidate plans to support students in relationship to students characteristics. This includes using the candidates understanding of students to develop, choose, or adapt instructional strategies, learning tasks and material.


Data from Rubrics 1 and 2: Planning for Learning N=26

Rubric

Alignment to NCTE Standard

Frequency of

Level 1

Frequency of Level 2




1

I.1 and I.2

II. 3

0

1

14

11

0

2

I.2

0

0

18

8

0

Overall Scoring Information for EdTPA

N = 26; Passing Score for Illinois = 35

Overall Score

Frequency

0

1

37

1

39

1

41

1

44

2

45

1

46

6

47

2

48

1

49

2

50

1

51

1

52

2

53

1

54

1

55

1

56

1

Assessment 3: two page narrative; the assessment, scoring guide, and data chart

4

Section IV: Assessment 5

EdTPA Impact on Student Learning, edTPA Assessment Task 3



The state of Illinois now requires candidates to earn a passing score (of 35) on the EdTPA assessment prior to earning licensure. The state of Illinois explains that, The Teacher Performance Assessment is a performance and knowledge assessment for pre-service teachers that is designed to measure teacher candidate effectiveness in the classroom by focusing on student learning. The edTPA consists of five key competencies: planning, assessment, instruction, reflection, and academic language. The process used is similar to the process used for National Board certification. The student teacher must upload a professional portfolio to Pearsons secure site. Specific items reflecting the competencies must be present in the portfolio including video recordings of the student teacher interacting with students in the classroom, lesson plans, student work samples, analysis of student learning, planning and assessment documentation, and reflective commentaries. For this assessment, the focus will be on edTPA Assessment Task 3, which is completed during student teaching.

In previous semesters, candidates would complete a portfolio during their student teaching in which they would plan a unit, lessons, and reflect on their teaching. Because edTPA is required and requires similar assessments, NLU English candidates focused on creating their edTPA assignments.


This edTPA task asks candidates to select an assessment they will use to evaluate students developing knowledge and skills, analyze the content of the assessment, and evaluate both quantitative and qualitative patterns of learning. For English/language arts candidates, this assessment must ask students construct meaning from complex text or interpret or respond to complex text. Candidates then reflect on and describe how they will provide feedback for their students. Thus, this assessment aligns to NCTE Standards III. 2 or IV.2 and V.3 and illustrates avenues candidates take to ensure their instruction makes an impact on students.


Reviewing the overall data from the EdTPA assessment reveals that all but one candidate earned a passing score on the EdTPA. The one candidate who did not earn a passing sore earned a 0, indicating that the assessment was incomplete or had earned automatic 1s based on errors. According to the state of Illinois and EdTPA scoring requirements, all but one NLU English candidates have met the requirements set by EdTPA. A closer look at the planning rubrics for this specific assignment indicate that NLU candidates most frequently scored level 3 when analyzing student learning (edTPA Rubric 11). This means that they are able to analyze student work in terms of what they did well and what they did not do well on, noting differences in whole-class learning. Students can develop skills in applying that analysis to the whole class. On edTAP Rubric 12, providing feedback to guide learning, NLU candidates most frequently scored a level 4, meaning that they provided feedback that is specific and addresses both strengths and needs related to learning objectives. Nevertheless, one candidate earned a score of 1 meaning that they did not provide feedback that is related to the learning objectives or was developmentally inappropriate. Thus, instructors should include more of a focus on providing feedback to guide student learning. Candidates most frequently earned a score at level 3, with many candidates also scoring at level 2 in terms of student use of feedback as reflected in rubric 13. This means that candidates who earned a level 3 were able to describe how students will understand or use feedback related to the learning objectives, and that candidates earning a level 2 provide only a vague description. Instructors of SEC 512 could provide more support to candidates in terms of sharing strategies that will be helpful for students to use feedback from assessments. Finally, the most frequent score candidates earned on rubric 15, using assessment to guide instruction, was level 3. This means that candidates were able to propose next steps that suggest general support to improve student learning on the objectives. Sharing more strategies with candidates that support student learning after assessments would be helpful.


The data indicate that NLU English candidates are prepared to assess students ability to construct meaning from complex text or interpret or respond to complex text and provide feedback to students. While candidates generally demonstrate success in analyzing student work on either constructing meaning from or interpreting or responding to complex text (NCTE Standard III.2 or IV.2), candidates could use more support to help students interpret that feedback and also learn how to adapt that instruction based on findings from the assessment (NCTE Standard V.3).


The EdTPA documents clearly describe the assessment. For the purposes of this assignment, the focus is on the planning components of the assessment. What follows is the description provided by EdTPA:



edTPA Secondary English Language Arts Assessment Handbook 2 of 50 artifacts from the tasks (e.g., lesson plans, clips from your videorecording, assessment materials, instructional materials, student work samples), as well as commentaries that you have written to explain and reflect on the Planning, Instruction, and Assessment components of the tasks. The artifacts and commentaries for each task will then be evaluated using rubrics especially developed for each task. The edTPA Tasks and the Cycle of Effective Teaching The three edTPA tasks represent a cycle of effective teaching (i.e., teaching that is focused on student learning). Planning Task 1 documents your intended teaching, Instruction Task 2 documents your enacted teaching, and Assessment Task 3 documents the impact of your teaching on student learning. The three tasks and the evidence you provide for each are framed by your understandings of your students and their learning. As you develop, document, and teach your lessons, you will reflect upon the cyclical relationship among planning, instruction, and assessment with a focus on your students learning needs. Evidence of Teaching Practice: Artifacts and Commentaries An essential part of edTPA is the evidence you will submit of how you planned, taught, and assessed your lessons to deepen student learning in English Language Arts. This evidence includes both artifacts and commentaries: Artifacts represent authentic work completed by you and your students. These include lesson plans, copies of instructional and assessment materials, video clips of your teaching, and student work samples.


EdTPA provides a full description of their scoring procedures and is available to candidates and faculty. The document explains that scores will be assigned by multiple reviewers and will be based on a preponderance of evidence for each element of the rubric. For this planning task, EdTPA explains the following expectations for this task:

Analysis uses specific evidence from [student] work samples to demonstrate the connection between quantitative and qualitative patterns of learning for individuals or groups. (Rubric 11)

Feedback is specific and addresses both strengths and needs related to learning objectives and provides a strategy to address individual learning need or makes connections to prior learning or experience to improve learning. (Rubric 12)

Candidate describes how s/he will support focus students to understand and use feedback on their strengths and weaknesses related to the learning objectives. (Rubric 13)

Next steps provide targeted support to individuals and groups to improve their learning relative to constructing meaning from, interpreting, or responding to complex text; next steps are justified with principles from research or theory. (Rubric 15)



EdTPA Rubric


Frequency of

Level 1


Frequency of Level 2.5





11: Analysis of Student Learning

III.2 or IV.2

0

1

0

15

2

8

0

12: Providing Feedback to Guide Learning

V.3

1

4

0

6

0

14

1

13: Student use of Feedback

III.2 or IV.2; V.3

0

8

1

10

0

7

0

15: Using Assessment to Inform Instruction

III.2 or IV.2; V.3

0

1

0

15

1

8

1



Overall Score

Frequency

0

1

37

1

39

1

41

1

44

2

45

1

46

6

47

2

48

1

49

2

50

1

51

1

52

2

53

1

54

1

55

1

56

1


1

Section IV: Assessment 6

EdTPA



The state of Illinois now requires candidates to earn a passing score (of 35) on the EdTPA assessment prior to earning licensure. The state of Illinois explains that, The Teacher Performance Assessment is a performance and knowledge assessment for pre-service teachers that is designed to measure teacher candidate effectiveness in the classroom by focusing on student learning. The edTPA consists of five key competencies: planning, assessment, instruction, reflection, and academic language. The process used is similar to the process used for National Board certification. The student teacher must upload a professional portfolio to Pearsons secure site. Specific items reflecting the competencies must be present in the portfolio including video recordings of the student teacher interacting with students in the classroom, lesson plans, student work samples, analysis of student learning, planning and assessment documentation, and reflective commentaries. Though specific sections of edTPA were used to illustrate NCTE standards in previous assignments, this assessment will focus on EdTPA in its entirety, with a focus on the commentaries that provide candidates with the opportunity to engage in reflection about their planning, delivery, and student learning.

In previous semesters, candidates would complete a portfolio during their student teaching in which they would plan a unit, lessons, and reflect on their teaching. Because edTPA is required and requires similar assessments, NLU English candidates focused on creating their edTPA assignments during their student teaching experience.


EdTPA requires candidates to plan for learning, deliver and record learning segments, and assess student learning and provide feedback. Special emphasis is placed on a complete understanding of the teaching context and also ensuring that candidates provide appropriate instruction for candidates language use. Special focus will be placed on planning of instruction, delivery of instruction, and candidate commentary as these aspects of edTPA were not reflected in earlier assignments and because they reflect candidates abilities to:

(NCTE Standard V.1) plan and implement instruction based on ELA curricular requirements and standards (edTPA rubric 2 and rubric 8)

(NCTE Standard VI. 2) candidates use knowledge of theories and research to plan instruction responsive to students local, national, and international histories, individual identities, and language (edTPA rubric 3)

(NCTE Standard VII.2) candidates engage in and reflect on a variety of experiences related to ELA that demonstrate understanding of the readiness for ongoing professional growth (edTPA rubric 10)


Reviewing the overall data from the EdTPA assessment reveals that all but one candidate earned a passing score on the EdTPA. The one candidate who did not earn a passing sore earned a 0, indicating that the assessment was incomplete or had earned automatic 1s based on errors. According to the state of Illinois and EdTPA scoring requirements, all but one NLU English candidates have met the requirements set by EdTPA. A closer look at rubric 2, planning to support varied learners needs suggests that candidates are able to plan supports that are tied to earning objectives and are focused on the whole class (frequency of level 3 = 18 ) and eight candidates are able to suggest supports that address the needs of specific individuals or groups with similar needs. While candidates are able to meet the needs of large groups of students, they could use support in terms of differentiating that instruction to specific students or groups of students. Reviewing candidate data from rubric 8, deepening student learning, illustrates that the most frequent score was a level 3, suggesting that candidates elicit student response related to constructing meaning from, interpreting, or responding to complex text. Candidates can use support in strategies that allow students to build on student responses and facilitate interactions among students. The most frequent score on edTPA rubric 3, using knowledge of students to inform teaching and learning, was level 3, indicating that candidates justify why learning tasks are appropriate using examples of students prior academic learning or personal, cultural, or community assets, making superficial connections to theory or research. Finally, a close examination of data from EdTPA rubric 10 shows that candidates most frequently earned a score of level 3 (n=16) in their analysis of teaching practice. This means that candidates propose changes that address students collective learning needs related to the central focus and that they make superficial connections to research/theory.


The data indicate that candidates are able to meet NCTE Standard V1.1 in that they are able to tailor instruction to student needs; nevertheless, candidates would benefit from a focus on how to differentiate instruction for varied learner needs. Further, while candidates are able to engage students in discussion, they would benefit from support in terms of helping students build their understanding and build on the ideas of others. The data indicate that candidates are able to meet NCTE Standard VI.2 because candidates can justify how the decisions they made are responsive to students needs, identifies and personal, cultural, or community assets. While candidates can use more support to differentiate those supports, their ability to address student needs based on who their students are, is solid. Finally, the data illustrate that candidates meet NCTE Standard VII.2 as they are focused on reflection as a form of professional learning. In fact, candidates are able to suggest changes to teaching and learning that are based on research/theory and are connected to students mastery of learning objectives.


The EdTPA documents clearly describe the assessment. For the purposes of this assignment, the focus is on the planning, instruction, and commentary components of the assessment. What follows is the description provided by EdTPA:



edTPA Secondary English Language Arts Assessment Handbook 2 of 50 artifacts from the tasks (e.g., lesson plans, clips from your videorecording, assessment materials, instructional materials, student work samples), as well as commentaries that you have written to explain and reflect on the Planning, Instruction, and Assessment components of the tasks. The artifacts and commentaries for each task will then be evaluated using rubrics especially developed for each task. The edTPA Tasks and the Cycle of Effective Teaching The three edTPA tasks represent a cycle of effective teaching (i.e., teaching that is focused on student learning). Planning Task 1 documents your intended teaching, Instruction Task 2 documents your enacted teaching, and Assessment Task 3 documents the impact of your teaching on student learning. The three tasks and the evidence you provide for each are framed by your understandings of your students and their learning. As you develop, document, and teach your lessons, you will reflect upon the cyclical relationship among planning, instruction, and assessment with a focus on your students learning needs. Evidence of Teaching Practice: Artifacts and Commentaries An essential part of edTPA is the evidence you will submit of how you planned, taught, and assessed your lessons to deepen student learning in English Language Arts. This evidence includes both artifacts and commentaries: Artifacts represent authentic work completed by you and your students. These include lesson plans, copies of instructional and assessment materials, video clips of your teaching, and student work samples.


EdTPA provides a full description of their scoring procedures and is available to candidates and faculty. The document explains that scores will be assigned by multiple reviewers and will be based on a preponderance of evidence for each element of the rubric. For this planning task, EdTPA explains the following expectations for this task:

Rubric 2: Planned supports are tied to learning objectives and the central focus. Supports address the needs of specific individuals or groups with similar needs; supports include specific strategies to identify and respond to common errors and misunderstandings (NCTE V.1)

Rubric 3: Candidate justifies why learning tasks are appropriate using examples of students prior academic learning and personal, cultural, or community assets; candidates make connections to research and/or theory (NCTE VI.2)

Rubric 8: Candidate elicits and builds on students responses to develop constructions of meaning from, interpretations of, or responses to a complex text (NCTE V.1)

Rubric 10: Candidate proposes changes that address individual and collective learning needs related to the central focus; Candidate makes connections to research and/or theory; candidate justifies changes using principles of research and/or theory. (NCTE VII.2).



EdTPA Rubric



Frequency of

Level 1






2: Planning to Support Varied Student Learning Needs

V.1

0

0

1

18

0

8

0

3: Using Knowledge of Students to Inform Teaching and Learning

VI.2

0

1

1

15

1

8

0

8: Deepening Student Learning

V.1

1

0

3

19

1

4

0

10: Analyzing Teaching Effectiveness

VII.2

0

0

6

16

1

3

0



Overall Score

Frequency

0

1

37

1

39

1

41

1

44

2

45

1

46

6

47

2

48

1

49

2

50

1

51

1

52

2

53

1

54

1

55

1

56

1


Assessment 4: Student Teaching or Internship

Assessment of Field or Clinical Experiences/Application to Professional Work

English Competency Appraisal

1. A two-page narrative that includes the following


During the third quarter of the MAT program, the candidates are placed in a middle or high school for their 11-week student teaching experience. These placements are made by the Office of Field Experiences at NLU. In most cases this is a school where the candidate observed during Practicum 2. The student teaching experience is a significant and integral phase of the program and completes the State of Illinois Licensure process. Its primary objective is to provide an opportunity for candidates to become actively involved in the teaching/learning process while working directly with an experienced teacher who has three or more years of teaching experience.

The Secondary Education department uses evaluation instruments based on the Danielson framework and SPA Standards for each content area. Each item in the competency appraisals provides a description of observable behaviors for the evaluators to use in evaluating student teachers. All competency appraisals were revised in 2015; all content area items are aligned to current standards. The competency appraisals consist of three sections. The first section (#1-#21) provides general information about the candidate and student teaching placement. The second section (# 22-#33) contains items describing general teacher competency specifically with regard to technological, pedagogical, and dispositional practices. This part is an adaptation of Charlotte Danielson's Framework for Professional Practice (DOMAINS 1-4) and is a shared assessment for all candidates in the Secondary Education Department. In this section there is space provided below the items pertaining to technology, questioning/discussion, and assessment/feedback for a written response describing a candidates strengths and/or suggestions for improvement. The third section (#34-#47) contains items related to English content specific pedagogy. These items are aligned to NCTE2012 Standards. Space is provided for evaluators to comment on candidates strengths and suggestions for improvement items; dealing with these topics are: reading comprehension/assessment, composition strategies/assessment, and differentiation.

During the student teaching experience the candidate is observed by the university supervisor three to four times; two of those observations are formal. For the formal evaluations the English Competency Appraisal is used. English candidates receive a midterm assessment and final assessment submitted to LiveText by both the cooperating teacher and the university supervisor. Conferences are held after the formal evaluations with the university supervisor, the cooperating teacher and the student teacher in attendance. Electronic copies of mid-term and final evaluations are shared with all parties and an electronic copy of each evaluation is sent to the university seminar instructor.

If a student teacher is not meeting the criteria based on informal evaluations, the cooperating teacher usually steps in and provides additional coaching. This cooperating teacher may also call in the university supervisor for help in supporting the candidate. If the midterm assessment indicates the student teacher is still struggling in several areas additional observations may be scheduled with the university supervisor. If the candidate is still not able to meet criteria, a plan for remediation will be developed.

b. A description of how this assessment specifically aligns with the standards

There are 7 principles that reflect the English MAT Programs student-teaching learning outcomes. These 7 principles are: 1) Professionalism, 2) Planning for Instruction, 3) Classroom Environment and Management, 4) Instruction and Assessment, 5) Core Language Arts, 6) Technology, and 7) Subject Area Performance. These seven principles are reflected in the student teaching evaluation and are aligned to meet the following NCATE/NCTE standards.

The Student Teaching Evaluation Instrument meets NCTE standards in the following detailed way, as presented in the table below.

English Student Teaching Principles Aligned to Instrument Questions and NCATE/NCTE Standards

Student Teaching Principles:

Aligned to Question Number on the Student Teaching Evaluation/Competency Appraisal

Aligned to the NCATE/NCTE Standards

1. Professionalism : The teacher understands the role of the community in education and develops and maintains collaborative relationships with colleagues, parents/guardians, and the community to support student learning and well-being. The teacher is a reflective practitioner who continually evaluates how choices and actions affect students, parents, and other professionals in the learning community and actively seeks opportunities to grow professionally. The teacher understands education as a profession, maintains standards of professional conduct, and provided leadership to improve student learning and well-being.

Question

a. Question 32

b. Question 33

NCTE Standard Alignment

a. VII.1

b. VII.2

2. Planning for Instruction: The teacher understands how individuals grow, develop, and learn and provides learning opportunities that support the intellectual, social, and personal development of all students. The teacher understands how students differ in their approaches to learning and creates instructional opportunities that are adapted to diverse learners. The teacher understands instructional planning and designs instruction based upon knowledge of the discipline, students, the community, and curriculum goals.

Question

a. Question 24

b. Question 34


a. III.1

b. I.1

3. Classroom Environment and Management: The teacher uses an understanding of individual and group motivation and behavior to create a learning environment that encourages positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation.

Question

a. Question 25

b. Question 26


N/A

4. Instruction/Assessment

The teacher understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage students development of critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills. The teacher understands various formal and informal assessment strategies and uses them to support the continuous development of all students.

Question

a. Question 27

b. Question 29

c. Question 30

d. Question 35

e. Question 36

f. Question 38

g. Question 39

h. Question 46


a. V.4

b. III.2

c. V.3

d. V.4

e. III.2

f. IV.1

g. IV.2

h. V.2

5. Core Language Arts

The teacher uses knowledge of effective written, verbal, nonverbal, and visual communication techniques to foster active inquiry, collaboration, and supportive interaction in the classroom.

Question

a. Question 41

b. Question 42


a. III.5

b. III.5

6. Technology

Teachers routinely use technology to support classroom instruction.

Question

a. Question 22


a. V.4

7. Subject Area Performance

The teacher understands the central concepts, methods of inquiry, and structures of the discipline(s) and creates learning experiences that make the content meaningful to all students.

Question

a. Question 43

b. Question 46


a. IV.4

b. II.1

c. A brief analysis of the data findings

The midterm assessment allows an opportunity for dialogue, reflection, and growth before a final grade is administered. The tables below show both individual candidate ratings as well as a summary of candidate ratings per area. These ratings are provided by the University Supervisor (US), Cooperating Teacher (CT), and the candidates own self-reflection (TC).

In looking at the final evaluations the data indicates that most of NLU SEC candidates performed at the proficient or distinguished level in all categories. However, this data is suspect because there is no norming process for supervisors and cooperating teachers; thus the scores lack the reliability to be compared in this manner. This calls into question the process of evaluating student teachers; supervisors and cooperating teachers may need more training to acquire consistency in reporting.

In analyzing the final appraisals of the university supervisors and cooperating teachers they appear to be in agreement in terms of rating the candidates on their performance during student teaching. Considering the final evaluations of the university supervisors and cooperating teachers, analysis of the Spring 2016 data reveals the following information:

6 25% were marked NA meaning Not applicable and/or lack of basis for judgment at this time in seven areas.

One candidate was rated unsatisfactory in the area of reflective classroom practice.

6 13% of candidates were rated basic in eight areas of the appraisal.

13-56% of candidates were rated proficient in most of the areas on the appraisal.

31- 88% of candidates were rated distinguished in most of the areas of the appraisal.

Considering the final evaluations of the university supervisors and cooperating teachers, analysis of the Winter 2016 data reveals the following information:

11-44% were marked NA meaning Not applicable and/or lack of basis for judgment at this time in six areas.

One candidate was rated unsatisfactory in the area of designing instruction lesson planning.

11-22% of candidates were rated basic in thirteen areas of the appraisal.

33-89% of candidates were rated proficient in most of the areas on the appraisal.

11-78% of candidates were rated distinguished in most of the areas of the appraisal.

It is conceivable that a significant majority of candidates excelled in the areas of technology, designing instruction/lesson plans, and use of strategies for reading. Data from the English Planning Rubric, confirms candidates strengths in these areas. It is also conceivable that candidates clearly understand the roles and responsibilities of a teacher and could assume a teaching position at this point in their training, thus accounting for the high percentage of candidates who scored distinguished in the areas mentioned above.

In the area of assessment, 33-67% of candidates earned distinguished scores. The low range of this score is corroborated by the English rubric, but the high end of his range may be inflated as it does not align with other data. Assessing and providing feedback to students is an area that can be strengthened for candidates in this program.

d. An interpretation of how that data provides evidence for meeting standards, indicating the specific SPA standards

The competency appraisal data indicate that NLU SEC candidates meet several NCTE standards. For example, planning for instruction is an area where all but one candidate earned proficient or distinguished scores. Items that are included in planning for instruction include show that candidates meet NCTE standards III.1 and I.1. Further, most candidates earned proficient or distinguished ratings in the areas of professionalism, which align to NCTE standard VII, elements 1 and 2. In the areas of assessment, most candidates earned basic, proficient, and distinguished ratings. This indicates that while many candidate demonstrate they meet NCTE standards III.21 and IV.2, assessment remains an area on which instructors can continue to support candidates. Further, most candidates earned proficient or distinguished ratings in elements of ELA content-specific evaluation items which relate to standards III.5, V.4, IV.1, and II.1. Interestingly, many candidates earned a rating of N/A or unobserved on many of these areas, suggesting that this is another area on which instructors can continue to support candidates.

e. The assessment tool itself or a rich description

English Competency Appraisal 2015 (Student Teaching Evaluation)

1

Directions: 1. Fill out the form, and without printing it, click on "Submit Form." Your first version has now been entered into the database, but it is not yet accessible to you or the candidate. 2. A new version will appear. Go to the top of this second version and click on "Create Printable Version." 3. When another new version appears--this is the third version--copy the URL from the address bar of your Internet browser. This is the only URL you should copy. With this URL, you will always be able to access your evaluation. 4. Save the URL for your records and send it to the seminar instructor. 5. You may want to print hard copies from the URL for the post conference.

Please Note: Please allow enough time to complete this entire evaluation in one sitting. You can use the unique URL link to access the completed evaluation at a later time.

2

Please choose your position:

Choose one...

NLU Supervisor

Cooperating Teacher

CPS Mentor

TFA Supervisor

ATL Supervisor

Teacher Candidate

3

Your Last Name

4

Your First Name

5

Today's Date

(MM/DD/YYYY)

6

Teaching Candidate's First Name

7

Teaching Candidate's Last Name

8

Term of student teaching

Choose one...

Fall

Winter

Spring

Full-Year

9

Year of student teaching

Choose one...

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

10

Type of certification program

Choose one...

Traditional

Alternative Route Certification (ARC)

Teach For America (TFA)

Chicago Teaching Fellows (CTF)

Subsequent Certification

Academy for Urban School Leadership (AUSL)

Urban Scholars Teacher Education Program (U-STEP)

Suburban Scholars Teacher Education Program (S-STEP)

11

Content Area/Endorsement

Choose One

English-Language Arts

Mathematics

Social Science

Science

World Language

12

Is this evaluation a midterm, final, or graded observation?

Choose one...

Midterm

Final

Observation (graded)

13

Based on the scoring range below, provide a score that best reflects the teacher candidate's performance.

100-97 = A+; 96-94 = A; 93-90 = A-; 89-87 = B+; 86-84 = B; 83-80 = B-; 79-77 = C+; 76-74 = C; 73-70 = C-; 69-60 = D; 59-0 = F

Example: 81

14

Total Number of conferences/meetings and other communications with the teacher candidate

This includes e-mail correspondences and phone conversations.

(numbers only)

15

Name of student teaching school placement

16

Area where is this school located

Choose one...

Suburbs

Chicago

17

Is this a K-8, middle school, or high school?

Choose one...

K-8

middle school

high school

18

What type of school is this?

Choose one...

Public

Charter

Private

Parochial

Other...

19

Grade

You may check more than one box.

6th

7th

8th

9th

10th

11th

12th

20

University Supervisor/Mentor's Name

Supervisor/Mentor please print your name in the box below

21

Cooperating Teacher's Name

Cooperating teacher(s) please print your name in the box below

22

Integration of Technology

Please rate the teacher candidate's performance on the above component.

Distinguished = Candidate uses instructional technology that is appropriate to the instructional outcomes, complements content-specific material, and actively engages students.

Proficient = Candidate uses instructional technology that is mostly appropriate to the instructional outcomes, engaging students most of the time. However, candidate uses it primarily for presentation purposes.

Basic = = Candidate uses instructional technology that is appropriate to some instructional outcomes; however, it is teacher-centered and does not consistently engage students

Unsatisfactory = Instructional technology used is unrelated to instructional outcomes and rarely used to augment learning in the classroom.

Does Not Apply = Not applicable and/or lack of basis for judgment at this time.

23

Strengths and

Program Report for the Preparation of English Language ... · Program Report for the Preparation of...

Documents

Transcript of Program Report for the Preparation of English Language ... · Program Report for the Preparation of...