University of La Verne College of Education ... · Biennial Report Credential Program’s Name: ......

1

University of La Verne College of Education & Organizational Leadership

Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report

Credential Program’s Name: PPS Professional School Counseling Preparation Program I. Credential Program Specific Information’s Contextual Information General Program Information The Master of Science in Educational Counseling and Pupil Personnel Services Credential has been offered at the University of La Verne since 1974. The School Counselor Preparation Program is designed to meet the standards for the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing for the Pupil Personnel Services Credential in School Counseling, including the Internship Credential, and the requirements for the Master of Science in Educational Counseling. Graduates of the program will be able to effectively function at an entry level position as a professional school counselor. The School Counselor Preparation Program strongly embraces The National Standards for School Counseling as well as the comprehensive school counseling and guidance model. It is expected that program graduates will continue professional development throughout their careers as school counselors. The program is located on the main campus as well as in cohorts throughout the state. The main campus has approximately 140 candidates, and is staffed by four full time faculty members, one of whom is the coordinator of the field work component of the program statewide. There are also several adjunct faculty members teaching in the on campus program. The off campus program, housed under the University’s Regional Campus Administration (RCA), is staffed by four full time Lead Regional Faculty members who oversee, administrate and teach in 4-6 cohorts within their respective regions. In looking carefully at our number of off campus cohorts and candidates, adequacy of facilities, and staffing, the decision was made to significantly change the off campus program locations and facilities. As a result, the Northern California locations will be phased out over the next two years. By condensing the geographical area of our off campus program, we are ensuring adequate ratios of Lead Regional Faculty to cohorts, adequate facilities for candidates to have classes in, and reinforcing equality of resources across all components of our program. Expectations for Graduates of the School Counselor Preparation Program By the conclusion of the School Counselor Preparation Program, it is expected that all program graduates will be able to:

1. Serve all students by implementing a comprehensive, developmental, and collaborative school counseling and guidance program;

2. Effectively implement the academic, career, and personal/social domains of the National Standards for School Counseling Programs;

3. Effectively employ their knowledge and skills in individual counseling, group counseling, classroom guidance interventions, and facilitations, consultation, and collaboration;

2

4. Be school leaders and advocates for students to maximize students’ learning for school success;

5. Continually increase their knowledge of and commitment to social justice and advocacy for all students and families by recognizing that it is an active and ongoing process;

6. Develop a professional identity by engaging in ongoing professional development; 7. Effectively utilize technology, especially the resources available on the World wide Web; 8. Effectively assess, evaluate, research, and design programs and practices to positively

affect student success; 9. Professionally apply relevant laws and ethical standards.

Program Specific Candidate Information

Program Location 2008-2009 Enrollment

2008-2009 Completers

2009-2010 Enrollment

2009-2010 Completers

PPS - School Counseling Total 528 110 451 117

Main 134 27 128 28 Antelope Valley 12 5 25 7 Bakersfield 54 14 28 12 Burbank 36 2 25 12 Long Beach 118 24 92 23 Newhall 70 16 55 10 Sacramento 41 13 30 11 San Luis Obispo 9 0 9 0 Santa Maria 11 1 19 7 Ventura 34 8 31 7 Victorville 9 0 9 0

Changes Since Commission Approval of Current Program Document

• Fall 08 o Based on data from the collection of Evidence of Meeting Learning Outcomes

(EMLOs) and rubric scores for each course, modified the EMLOs to better reflect the needs of the candidates and the specificity of the instruction for each course

o Piloted the new EMLOs with a limited number of candidates on and off campus • Spring 09

o Hired a full-time non tenure track faculty to assist with the regional campus locations based on the needs of the program and faculty to student ratio

• Summer 09 o Hired a full time tenure track faculty for the main campus based on the needs of

the program and faculty to student ratio • Fall 09

3

o Hired a full time non tenure track faculty to coordinate fieldwork statewide. Revised internship manual New MOU for fieldwork and internship Implemented monthly virtual meetings for fieldwork faculty

o Adopted Lead Regional Faculty designation, identified designated regional locations and revised job description for full time off campus faculty

o Awarded a federal grant to develop and implement a Spanish Bilingual Bicultural Counseling Certificate - Fall 10 start

• Spring 10 o Developed new program admissions requirements

CBEST or CCTC approved equivalency test passed prior to admittance Certificate of Clearance application submitted prior to admittance All exceptions to the 2.75 GPA minimum required for admission

determined by program admissions committee Refereed writing prompts administered and scored with a rubric before

admittance Pre-admittance interviews conducted with program chairs or regional lead

faculty and scored with a rubric Technology literacy requirement embedded in Educ. 565 Presentation

must be completed with a grade of “B” or better to advance to candidacy o Assembled and met with a Program advisory Board for the first time. The board

will meet semi-annually o Based on discussions at program focus group meetings, refined measurement of

key assessments that better reflect Knowledge Planning Use of Assessment Diversity Technology

o Implemented a mandatory fieldwork orientation for candidates in the semester or term prior to starting fieldwork

o Course sequence updated to accommodate the addition of SBBC courses On campus Off campus

Summer10 o First annual statewide Educational Counseling Faculty Training Day held o Designed new fieldwork handbooks for the counselor trainee, on-site supervisor,

and University supervisor to clarify state and University fieldwork requirements o Added regularly scheduled meetings with off-campus advisors and program

faculty for better communication o Adopted Lead Course Faculty for all program courses. Lead Course Faculty are

supported by Lead Regional Faculty and program chairs o Launched a faculty web resource page which includes lead course faculty contact

information, course syllabi, key assignments and rubrics, and other resources for adjuncts

4

o Hired a full time non tenure track faculty to assist with the regional campus locations based on the needs of the program and faculty to student ratio.

Proposed program changes:

• Fall 10 o Re-aligned course sequence for off-campus cohorts;.

5

II. Candidate Assessment/Performance & Program Effectiveness Information

NCATE 5 Key Areas

CCTC Standards 1-32

for PPS Key Assessments Description and Rubrics

Statement of Purpose

Student writing sample based on rubric Transition Point 1: Program Admission

(TP 1 occurs at point of

formal admission to CEOL programs.)

Minimum GPA Requirements

4, 5 ,13 ,16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, & 29

EMLO assignment for Educ 546

This assessment ascertains the candidate’s introductory knowledge and understanding of the core areas including history, philosophy and trends in school counseling; state and national standards; models of comprehensive and developmental school counseling and guidance programs; and the theoretical bases for counseling practices in schools. Also assessed are the candidate’s understanding of ways to develop a professional identity congruent with knowledge of all aspects of professional functions, professional development, and organizational representation and knowledge of current legal mandates impacting school counselors and pupils and knowledge of the ethical standards and practices of the school counseling profession and how these standards may apply to specific counseling situations. Based on rubric

Transition Point 2: Fieldwork Ready

(TP 2 occurs upon

admission, throughout coursework and before

entry to fieldwork in CEOL programs.)

And

Transition Point 3: Program Completion

(TP 3 occurs upon end of fieldwork and program

completion or graduation.)

Knowledge 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32

Educ 583a & b Fieldwork evaluations: Candidate evaluation of Site Supervisor, Site Supervisor evaluation of Candidate, and University Supervisor of candidate

Counselor candidates are given formative and summative assessments during fieldwork. The counselor trainee’s level of competency is rated in each of the following skill areas: Counseling Skills, Individual Counseling, Group Counseling and Facilitation, Family-School Collaboration and Consultation, Collaboration and Coordination of Pupil Support Systems, and Collaboration, Coordination and Team Building. The evaluations are based on an established rubric. A rating of 3 or 4 in each area indicates the counselor trainee is fully competent to perform as a beginning professional counselor in the public schools or in an agency. Counselor trainees evaluate site supervisors to ascertain the site’s ability to provide supervision and mentoring activities.

6

EMLO for Educ. 543

This assessment ascertains the candidate’s ability to plan and organize a career counseling program/center that enable pupils to acquire knowledge, attitudes, and skills that help them understand and respect themselves and others, make decisions, set goals and take necessary action to achieve goals. Also assessed is the candidate’s ability to identify institutional, systemic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal barriers to planning and implement strategies to a career counseling program and to eliminate barriers effectively by supporting positive learning and achievement outcomes for all pupils. Based on rubric. Planning

9, 10, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, & 29 4, 9, 10, 13, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, & 30

Audit for 543 This assessment requires Candidates to use their knowledge and skills in planning, designing and implementing an evaluation of a comprehensive counseling and guidance program, including the collection of data and the preparation of an evaluation report. The assignment is assessed with an established rubric and requires Candidates to assess all aspects of the counseling and guidance program at a public K-12 education setting. This assessment is designed to utilize both the state standards and the American School Counseling Association Standards as a basis for comparison.

Use of Assessments

4, 5, 28, 30, 32

Test Review Summary for Educ 501

This assessment requires that candidates find a standardized education or psychological test in one of the Buros Mental Measurements Yearbooks and write a clear, thorough review and evaluation, including validity, reliability and usability. Candidates must understand and synthesize key information about test quality and use.

Diversity

3, 14, 21, 25, 26, & 27 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 14, 15, 18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30

EMLO for Educ 573

This assessment ascertains the candidate’s understanding of ways in which ethnic, cultural, socioeconomic, and environmental factors influence pupil learning and achievement and their skills to work effectively with pupils and their families from diverse backgrounds. Also the candidates’ understanding of the ways in which educational policies, programs and practices can be developed, adapted, and modified to be culturally congruent with the needs of pupils and their families are assessed. Based on rubric

7

Diversity 3, 14, 21, 25, 26, & 27 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 14, 15, 18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30

EMLO for Educ 573

This assessment ascertains the candidate’s understanding of ways in which ethnic, cultural, socioeconomic, and environmental factors influence pupil learning and achievement and their skills to work effectively with pupils and their families from diverse backgrounds. Also the candidates’ understanding of the ways in which educational policies, programs and practices can be developed, adapted, and modified to be culturally congruent with the needs of pupils and their families are assessed. Based on rubric

Diversity Project for Educ 573

This assignment is an examination of diversity in a school setting from the culture-general to the culture-specific. Emphasis is placed on the previously learned counseling skills as applied to culturally diverse populations including, but not limited to, racial/ethnic, socioeconomic status, environmental factors, religious, sexual orientation, differently-abled, educationally handicapped, and children in non-traditional homes.

15 & 30

Final Presentation for Educ 597

Candidate’s understanding of technology and skills for communication and collecting, organizing, distributing and analyzing data and resources in order to facilitate effective and appropriate outcomes in program management and individual student achievement are assessed as well as candidate’s understanding and utilization of computer technology. based on rubric

Technology 15, 19, 20, 23, 27, & 32

Technology-Based Presentation for Educ 565

This assessment requires Candidates to utilize technological skills in gathering credible data on the internet, developing presentational material with packaged programs, and embedding self generated audio visual material into a presentation on Career Related Resources. The assignment is assessed with an established rubric and requires Candidates to incorporate various technological skills throughout the activity. Candidates are then able to collaborate with other Candidates in developing a compendium of detailed career web site information.

Transition Point 4: Program Completion

(TP 4 occurs after

program completion or graduation.)

22 , 23, & 24 End of Program Survey

Completed at end of Educ 597

8

Table 1: Summary of Transition Point 1: Admission Data (For students active from Fall 2007 to Spring 2010)

Main Campus & RCA Combined

Average of GPA

Count of GPA

Average of Writing Score

Count of Writing Score

2007-2008 3.063 278 3.298 194 2008-2009 3.075 207 3.354 175 2009-2010 3.054 154 3.317 126

Average of GPA

Count of GPA

Average of Writing Score *

Count of Writing Score

Main 2007-2008 3.107 63 3.492 61 2008-2009 3.073 30 3.563 29 2009-2010 3.101 34 3.529 34

RCA 2007-2008 3.050 215 3.209 133 2008-2009 3.075 177 3.313 146 2009-2010 3.041 120 3.238 92

*yellow highlights represent statistically significant differences Table 2: Summary of Key Assessments and Associated Course Grades (For courses completed from Fall 2008 to Spring 2010) Key Assessment 1 (Knowledge)


Average of Grade 546

Count of Grade 546

Average of KA 1 - 546 Intro to Counseling &

Guidance Count of KA 1 - 546 Intro to Counseling & Guidance

2008-2009 3.878 156 3.904 25 2009-2010 3.949 116 3.898 51


Count of Grade 546

Average of KA 1 - 546 Intro to Counseling &

Guidance Count of KA 1 - 546 Intro to Counseling & Guidance

Main 2008-2009 3.673 37 4 14 2009-2010 3.892 36 3.947 19

RCA 2008-2009 3.942 119 3.782 11 2009-2010 3.976 80 3.869 32

*yellow highlights represent statistically significant differences

9

Table 2 (Cont) Key Assessment 2 (Planning)


Average of

Grade 543

Count of

Grade 543

Average of KA 2 - 543

School Guidance Seminar (EMLO)

Count of KA 2 - 543 School

Guidance Seminar (EMLO)


School Guidance Seminar (Audit)


Guidance Seminar (Audit)

2008-2009 3.904 225 4 11 2009-2010 3.885 106 3.88 20 4 2

Average of

Grade 543

Count of

Grade 543


School Guidance Seminar (EMLO)


Guidance Seminar (EMLO)


School Guidance Seminar (Audit)


Guidance Seminar (Audit)

Main 2008-2009 3.683 30 4 11 2009-2010 3.915 33 3.882 17 4 2

RCA 2008-2009 3.939 195 2009-2010 3.871 73 3.867 3

Table 2 (Cont) Key Assessment 3 (Assessment)



Count of Grade 501

Average of KA 3 - 501 Educational

Assessment

Count of KA 3 - 501 Educational Assessment

2008-2009 3.915 150 4 1 2009-2010 3.895 83 3.65 8


Count of Grade 501

Average of KA 3 - 501 Educational

Assessment

Count of KA 3 - 501 Educational Assessment

Main 2008-2009 3.950 26 4 1 2009-2010 3.846 26 3.65 8

RCA 2008-2009 3.907 124 2009-2010 3.918 57

10

Table 2 (Cont) Key Assessment 4 (Diversity)

Main Campus & RCA

Combined

Average of

Grade 573

Count of

Grade 573

Average of KA 4 - 573 Counseling

Diverse Popul

(EMLO)

Count of KA 4 - 573

Counseling Diverse Popul

(EMLO)


Diverse Popul (Proj)

Count of KA 4 - 573

Counseling Diverse

Popul (Proj) 2008-2009 3.915 200 4 19 2009-2010 3.851 147 3.588 50 3.625 2

Average of

Grade 573

Count of

Grade 573


Diverse Popul

(EMLO)

Count of KA 4 - 573

Counseling Diverse Popul

(EMLO)


Diverse Popul (Proj)

Count of KA 4 - 573

Counseling Diverse

Popul (Proj) Main

2008-2009 3.978 40 4 19 2009-2010 3.850 36 3.191 23 3.25 1

RCA 2008-2009 3.899 160 2009-2010 3.851 111 3.926 27 4 1

Table 2 (Cont) Key Assessment 5 (Technology)

Main Campus &

RCA Combined

Count of Grade 597 (Credit/No

Credit Course Grade)

Average of KA 5 -

597 Graduate Seminar

Count of KA 5 -


Average of

Grade 565

Count of

Grade 565


Career Development

Count of KA 5 - 565 Career

Development 2008-2009 246 3.731 16 3.933 213 2009-2010 151 3.822 30 3.926 102 4 2

Count of Grade 597 (Credit/No

Credit Course Grade)

Average of KA 5 -


Count of KA 5 -


Average of

Grade 565

Count of

Grade 565


Career Development

Count of KA 5 - 565 Career

Development Main

2008-2009 33 3.731 16 3.954 41 2009-2010 25 4.000 1 3.867 18 4 2

RCA 2008-2009 213 3.927 172 2009-2010 126 3.816 29 3.939 84

11

Table 3: Educational Counseling Correlation Tables (Data inclusive of 2007-2008 through 2009-2010); Pearson r Main Campus

546 Grade

KA 1 Intro

KA2 EMLO

501 Grade KA3 501

KA 4 EMLO

KA 5 Seminar

565 Grade

GPA 0.304 -0.114 -0.001 0.357 0.259 0.072 0.628 0.179

Writing Score 0.438 0.179 0.026 0.448 0.719 0.054 N/A 0.168

543 Grade -0.176 0.499 N/A -0.007 0.264 -0.146

KA3 501 N/A N/A 0.667

573 Grade 0.381 0.729 0.187

RCA 546

Grade KA 1 Intro

KA2 EMLO

501 Grade KA3 501

KA 4 EMLO

KA 5 Seminar

565 Grade

Writing Score 0.121 -0.069 -0.493 0.003 N/A 0.539 0.102 0.083

546 Grade 0.521 N/A 0.217 N/A -0.076 N/A 0.053

543 Grade -0.5 0.079 N/A N/A -0.359 0.034

KA2 EMLO 1 N/A N/A N/A 0.5

501 Grade N/A -0.141 0.668 0.11

573 Grade 0.608 -0.125 0.271

*yellow highlights represent moderate to high correlation values

12

Table 4: Educational Counseling Fieldwork Evaluation Summary (Data inclusive of 2007-2008 through 2009-2010)

Average Response (out of 4)

Standard Deviation*

Number of Responses

Candidate Evaluation of Site Supervisor (TaskStream N=16) 3.834 The Site supervisor was accessible to me 3.845 0.428 219 The Site supervisor was supportive in the supervision process 3.877 0.372 219 The Site supervisor gave me useful suggestions for improvement 3.767 0.539 219 The Site supervisor enabled me to express my opinions, ask questions, and state concerns about my counseling 3.895 0.428 219 The Site supervisor was helpful in critiquing my paper work 3.771 0.478 218 The Site supervisor motivated and encouraged me 3.868 0.430 219 The weekly supervision meetings were helpful 3.795 0.543 218 The overall performance of the Site supervisor was 3.854 0.420 219


Standard Deviation*

Number of Responses

University Supervisor Evaluation of Candidate (TaskStream N=8) 3.718 Is committed to the welfare of others. 3.865 0.351 118 Is sensitive to others. 3.775 0.457 118 Is empathic. 3.708 0.501 118 Respects individuality. 3.829 0.434 117 Believes in the positive potential of people. 3.865 0.351 118 Is self-aware and self-accepting. 3.585 0.669 118 Has a high tolerance for stress and frustration. 3.458 0.601 118 Respects freedom of choice. 3.814 0.453 118 Communicates effectively. 3.594 0.637 118 Is creative. 3.591 0.553 116 Possesses a sense of humor. 3.627 0.556 118 Maintains objectivity. 3.653 0.574 118 Exercises self-discipline. 3.693 0.601 117 Is committed to professional growth. 3.814 0.504 118 Recognizes and responds appropriately to his/her personal and professional abilities and limitations. 3.636 0.642 118 Is committed to and upholds professional ethics. 3.839 0.453 118 Attended required class meetings. 3.701 0.607 117 Was punctual. 3.667 0.706 117 Completed assignments. 3.793 0.549 116 Participated actively in class discussions. 3.787 0.530 117 Gave helpful feedback to class members. 3.787 0.530 117

13


Standard Deviation*

Number of Responses

Site Supervisor Evaluation of Candidate (TaskStream N = 8) 3.717 Is committed to the welfare of others. 3.864 0.418 235 Is sensitive to others. 3.885 0.370 235 Is empathic. 3.87 0.360 235 Respects individuality. 3.885 0.351 235 Believes in the positive potential of people. 3.902 0.331 234 Is self-aware and self-accepting. 3.809 0.439 235 Has a high tolerance for stress and frustration. 3.645 0.584 234 Respects freedom of choice. 3.845 0.402 234 Communicates effectively. 3.802 0.455 235 Is creative. 3.720 0.491 235 Possesses a sense of humor. 3.777 0.460 234 Maintains objectivity. 3.786 0.482 234 Exercises self-discipline. 3.791 0.472 235 Is committed to professional growth. 3.890 0.395 233 Recognizes and responds appropriately to his/her personal and professional abilities and limitations. 3.723 0.550 234 Is committed to and upholds professional ethics. 3.863 0.408 234 Demonstrated knowledge and skills of concepts / processes contributing to effective individual counseling related to personal / social / academic / career development. 3.687 0.514 234 Effected positive changes in counselees’ attendance, behavior, and peer relationships. 3.674 0.528 234 Effected positive changes in academic achievement. 3.643 0.547 234 Demonstrated knowledge and skills of group counseling processes. 3.639 0.554 235 Demonstrated knowledge and skills in developing positive human relations. 3.752 0.489 235 Developed socio-cultural competence in group members. 3.751 0.457 234 Acted as a facilitator in problem-solving, group change processes and decision-making. 3.665 0.547 235 Demonstrated knowledge and skill in the consultation processes/programs in which pupils/teachers/ administrators/ parents/community members collaborate with the counselor on ways to address pupil needs. 3.690 0.534 234 Demonstrated knowledge of available school/community resources offering services to address educational needs of pupils. 3.614 0.546 234 Demonstrated knowledge and skills in consulting with families in the areas of academic, personal-social, and career development. 3.631 0.553 233 Successfully worked with families in the areas of growth and development, learning, achievement and instruction, early intervention and socio-cultural awareness. 3.600 0.543 232 Served as an advocate for students and their parents. 3.753 0.445 233

14

Served as a member of a Student Study Team, IEP Team, and/or School Attendance Review Board. 3.720 0.485 234

Demonstrated skill in assessment through the selection/administration/ interpretation of a wide variety of assessment procedures. 3.537 0.620 234

Provided opportunities for families and the school to work together in comprehensive prevention and early intervention for achievement. 3.613 0.581 232 Provided opportunities for families and the school to work together in school safety and violence prevention 3.605 0.583 234 Provided opportunities for families and the school to work together in developing self-esteem and personal and social responsibility. 3.702 0.499 233 Provided prevention education and training to families and staff members. 3.509 0.622 234 Provided diversity programs. 3.560 0.621 233 Accepted counseling responsibilities commensurate with increasing knowledge and skills. 3.798 0.525 232 Participated in programs for school safety and violence prevention and prevention education and training. 3.655 0.552 232 Coordinated activities related to learning theory and educational psychology. 3.521 0.601 232 Participated in research, program education and technology. 3.589 0.648 230 Demonstrated skills in working effectively with on-site and university supervisors. 3.825 0.483 232 Demonstrated an understanding of the development, improvement and evaluation of programs that support effective pupil learning. 3.695 0.578 230 Demonstrated knowledge and skills in building effective working teams for eliminating personal, social and institutional barriers to learning and increasing student academic achievement and learning success. 3.694 0.564 231

Demonstrated knowledge and understanding the history, philosophy and trends in school counseling; state and national standards; models of comprehensive school counseling and guidance programs. 3.625 0.594 231 Demonstrated knowledge of the theoretical bases for counseling practices in schools. 3.631 0.571 231

Demonstrated knowledge of state requirements for academic progress. 3.724 0.495 230

Demonstrated knowledge of state requirements for high school graduation. 3.761 0.470 229 Demonstrated knowledge of California/Federal laws and regulations affecting 3.560 0.570 233

Demonstrated knowledge of and skill in applying ethical standards and practices to specific counseling situations. 3.741 0.485 233 *Standard deviation is based on the "raw" fieldwork data. The additional data from the fieldwork evaluations in TaskStream was not included (N=8 to 16)

15

Table 5: Educational Counseling End of Program Survey Results (Data inclusive of 2007-2008 through 2009-2010) Educational Counseling End of Program Survey

Please respond to the questions: To what degree do you believe that you can demonstrate the knowledge and/or skills learned through this program? Circle the appropriate number: 3 = Maximum Degree 2 = Average Degree 1 = Minimum Degree 0 = Cannot Demonstrate I CAN DEMONSTRATE:

Answer Options 3 2 1 0 Rating Average

Response Count

Knowledge of the design, rationale, and coordination of the program (discussed in orientation sessions and throughout the duration of the program)

9 1 0 0 2.90 10

Knowledge of growth and development (Educ 550, 503, 573) 10 0 0 0 3.00 10

Knowledge of socio-cultural competence (Educ 573, 546, 583a,b) 10 0 0 0 3.00 10

Knowledge and skill in program and performance assessment (Educ 501, 543, 546, 583a,b) 8 2 0 0 2.80 10

Knowledge and skill in comprehensive prevention and early intervention for achievement (Educ 503, 501, 564, 567, 573, 574, 583a,b)

8 2 0 0 2.80 10

Knowledge of professional ethics and legal mandates (Educ 543, 546, 571, 572, 583a,b) 8 2 0 0 2.80 10

Knowledge and skill in family-school collaboration (Educ 574, 550, 564, 583a,b) 8 1 0 0 2.89 9

Knowledge of self-esteem and social responsibility (Educ 503, 567) 10 0 0 0 3.00 10

Knowledge of school safety and violence prevention (Educ 567, 550) 9 1 0 0 2.90 10

Knowledge and skill in collaboration (Educ 574, 583a,b, 504, 564) 7 1 0 0 2.88 8

Knowledge of learning theory and educational psychology (Educ 503, 564, 583a,b) 9 1 0 0 2.90 10

Knowledge of professional leadership development (Educ 543, 504, EdMgt 576) 9 1 0 0 2.90 10

Knowledge and skill in collaboration and coordination of pupil support systems (Educ 574, 583a,b)

9 0 0 0 3.00 9

Knowledge and skill in human relations (Educ 572, 573, 583a,b, EdMgt 576) 6 2 0 0 2.75 8

Knowledge and skill in technology literacy (prerequisite for advancement to candidacy through prior course work, documentation letters from supervisors, or examination; Educ 504, 543, 565)

8 1 0 0 2.89 9

Knowledge of supervision and mentoring (Educ 583a,b) 8 1 0 0 2.89 9

Knowledge of foundations of the school counseling profession (Educ 546, 543) 8 0 0 0 3.00 8

Knowledge of professionalism, ethics, and legal mandates (Educ 543, 546, 583a,b) 9 0 0 0 3.00 9

Knowledge of academic development (Educ 503, 9 0 0 0 3.00 9

16

564, 565, 546) Knowledge of career development (Educ 565, 583a,b) 9 0 0 0 3.00 9

Knowledge and skill in personal and social development (Educ 571, 572, 583a,b) 9 0 0 0 3.00 9

Knowledge of leadership (EdMgt 576, Educ 543) 8 1 0 0 2.89 9 Knowledge and skill in advocacy (Educ 543, 503, 565, 573) 7 1 0 0 2.88 8

Knowledge of learning, achievement, and instruction (Educ 503, 564, 583a,b) 7 2 0 0 2.78 9

Knowledge and skill in individual counseling (Educ 571, 549, 546, 543, 574) 9 0 0 0 3.00 9

Knowledge and skill in group counseling and facilitation (Educ 572, 549) 8 1 0 0 2.89 9

Knowledge and skill in collaboration, coordination and team building (Educ 574, 567, EdMgt 576)

8 1 0 0 2.89 9

Knowledge of organizational systems and program development (Educ 543, 501, 504, EdMgt 576)

7 2 0 0 2.78 9

Knowledge and skill in prevention education an training (Educ 503, 564, 574, 583a,b) 8 1 0 0 2.89 9

Knowledge of research, program evaluation and technology (Educ 504, 501, 543) 5 4 0 0 2.56 9

Skills acquired in practica (100 hours in Educ 546, 565, 571, 572) 9 0 0 0 3.00 9

Skills acquired in supervised field experience (600 hours in Educ 583a,b) 9 0 0 0 3.00 9

Demonstrated skills of candidate competence (Documentation required in portfolios in Educ 597 and 583a,b)

8 1 0 0 2.89 9

answered question 10 skipped question 1

Directions: Previously you evaluated the instructor in each course listed below. Now we would like you to rate the usefulness of the content of each course you took. Please use the following scale by circling your response: VH = Very Helpful H = Helpful NH = Not Helpful NA = Not Applicable—Did not take course

Answer Options VH (3) H (2) NH (1) N/A Rating

Average Response

Count Educ 501 Educational Assessment 4 4 1 0 2.33 9 Educ 503 Educational Psychology 9 0 0 0 3.00 9 Educ 504 Methods of Research 6 3 0 0 2.67 9 Educ 543 School Guidance Seminar 7 2 0 0 2.78 9 Educ 546 Introduction to School Counseling 9 0 0 0 3.00 9 Educ 549 School Counseling Theories 7 1 0 0 2.88 8 Educ 550 Human Development 8 1 0 0 2.89 9 Educ 564 Instruction and Achievement 5 3 0 0 2.63 8 Educ 565 Career Development 6 1 0 1 2.50 8 Educ 567 School Safety and Crisis Prevention 8 0 0 0 3.00 8 Educ 571 Individual Counseling Skills 8 0 0 0 3.00 8 Educ 572 Group Counseling Skills 9 0 0 0 3.00 9

17

Educ 573 Counseling Diverse Populations 6 2 0 0 2.75 8 Educ 574 Facilitation, Consultation, and Collaboration Skills 7 1 0 0 2.88 8

Educ 583a,b Supervised Field Work (Levels I and II) 9 0 0 0 3.00 9

Educ 597 Graduate Seminar in School Counseling (Portfolios) 6 2 0 0 2.75 8

EdMgt 576 Organizational Management and School-Community Collaboration 6 2 0 0 2.75 8


Please tell us what strengths you found in your program:

Answer Options Response Count 6


availability of instructors, it is very necessary to have students experience 600 hours of supervised fieldwork Professor Laub, Morrier, Smeer, McCann, Miles Group and peer bonding, support, and collaboration within the cohort 99% of the teachers were outstanding. The material presented by each, was based on facts, life experiences and backed up with the books. Flexibility of the staff to understand that we are working adults with lives and families but also pursuing a dream. The strengths I found in this program were that the courses provided much useful and important material, the field work experience was extremely useful and a good introduction to working in the school districts, and the program was very preparatory for beginning a career as a school counselor.

Please tell us what was not included in your program that should have been: Answer Options Response Count 5


one-on-one counseling with us- students in regards to future plans after the program. Debriefing, time management and organization of assigned work More actual role-playing, counseling practicing, and mentoring within the classes. A good teacher for ED 501 Education Assessment. I learned nothing from Archibald and received no resolution with my concerns when I contacted administration. Thierry was the only one that listend and showed he cared. The person in charge of Thierry never bothered to follow up on my concerns, never took the time to reach for me, didn't show any empathy or concern that I was torn in recommending this program to future Eduction Counseling program seekers. It would have taken one simple phone call in response to my many e-mails and phone calls. I feel that courses covering all the breakdown of the assessments used in the education field would be helpful, such as IEP, CST, CAHSEE.

Other comments, if any: Answer Options Response Count 5


thanks

18

great program, loved janet trotter, ben miles, tony kazan, tomika palmer and jean laub! Portfolios contents/arrangement should be revisited; purpose? how can it best be used by students in the work force, need fast accessability and references. When it comes to students paying the tuition, ULV wastes no time in reaching out to us, but when it comes to our investment concerns as it pertains to really bad instructors and requests for tuition adjustments based on proven facts, no one with power cares enough to call me. Thierry Kolpin did his best, but he had no power to deal with my concers - this would have been a program Administrator's job... they failed. none at this time

19

III. Analysis of Candidate Assessment Data Analysis of Table 1 – Summary of Transition Point 1: Admission – The 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 data from this table was used to inform the program in evaluating Transition Point 1 – entrance criteria. The following two items were the focus for this analysis.

a. Applicants entering GPAs in the 2008-2009 academic year were higher for the Regional Campus Applicants compared to the Main Campus Applicants, and the reverse was true for the 2009-2010 academic year. Although the differences were not statistically significant, the raw data indicated a number of applicants entering the program with GPAs lower than what the program requires for admission.

b. Additional data was analyzed with regard to applicants writing scores upon entrance. The writing scores for Applicants on the Main Campus were significantly higher in both years compared to the writing scores for Applicants on the Regional Campuses. The discrepancy in the data and the lack of validity in the measure helped the program in deciding to move towards a more applicable writing assessment that is proctored and scored by two reviewers, thus ensuring inter-rater reliability.

Analysis of Table 2 – Summary of Key Assessments – The data from this table was used to inform the program in evaluating Transition Points 2 and 3 – and all the key assessments for the program. The following five items were the foci for this analysis.

a. Candidates in the regional campuses scored lower on Key Assessment 1 compared to Candidates on the main campus, yet course grades were higher for Candidates in the regional campuses compared to Candidates on the main campus. This finding was counter-intuitive, but was also tempered with the low number of responses in data collection. Due to the new method of obtaining and analyzing data through the Task Stream Assessment Program, fewer than expected applicants participated in the data gathering process, hence further trainings for faculty and candidates are required and planned to help every Candidate take advantage of the program’s new assessment system.

b. Candidates in the regional and main campuses had relatively equal scores on Key Assessment 2, yet course grades were higher for Candidates in the regional campuses compared to Candidates on the main campus. This finding was also counter-intuitive, but again tempered with the low number of responses in data collection. Due to the new method of obtaining and analyzing data through the Task Stream Assessment Program, fewer than expected applicants participated in the data gathering process, hence further trainings for faculty and candidates are required and planned to help every candidate take advantage of the program’s new assessment system, Additionally, although Key Assessment 2 showed more data sensitivity amongst scores compared to that of 2006-2008, the program decided to change the assessment for the planning component to better measure the students’ mastery on this key assessment. The new assessment is a school counseling program audit assignment that is based on the National Model of the American School Counseling Association.

c. Based on the quality of data obtained through Key Assessment 3 and the reflective nature of the assignment, the program decided to utilize a more robust key assessment and started with a pilot on the main campus in fall 09. Based on the initial qualitative results with feedback from faculty teaching the course, candidates taking the course and

20

discussion in the program assessment meetings, the program elected to use the assessment with all candidates. The program is highly sensitive to the need of training faculty in this key area, and has adopted a Lead Course Faculty model to help in the development and implementation of Key Assessments. The program also implemented a mandatory faculty meeting which includes training in the use of the Task Stream Data Collection Program and the overall program assessment system.

d. Candidates on the main campus received higher grades in the course with Key Assessment 4 compared to Candidates in the regional campuses; however the Regional Campus Candidates scored higher on key assessment 4 compared to Main Campus Candidates. This finding was counter-intuitive since it is our expectation that the course and Key Assessment data should correlate. Based on the data from the table, the Lead Course Faculty, the program’s adoption of a new Spanish Bi-lingual/Cultural Certificate Program, and discussion at the program assessment meetings, a more robust assessment was implemented in the summer 2010 term to better assess Candidates’ ability in understanding the multiple issues of diversity in a school counseling environment. Additionally, due to the low N values, the program implemented a mandatory faculty meeting which includes training in the use of the Task Stream Data Collection Program and the overall program assessment system.

e. Although Key Assessment 5 showed more data sensitivity amongst the scores compared to the Bi-annual Report submitted in the Fall 08, the difference was negligible. The program decided to change the assessment for the technology area based on the quantitative data presented, qualitative input from faculty and candidates, direction from the Lead Course Faculty, and input from the Commission’s response to the 2008 Program Assessment Report. Additionally due to the new method of obtaining and analyzing data through the Task Stream Assessment Program, fewer than expected applicants participated in the data gathering process, hence further trainings for faculty and candidates are required and planned to help every Candidate take advantage of the program’s new assessment system.

Analysis of Table 3 – Correlation Table

The correlations between the Writing Assessments and course and key assessment performance indicate a need to revisit the expectations of the writing assessment. Future analysis should include multiple variables to better determine cause-effect.

Analysis of Table 4 – Fieldwork Data

Data in Table 4 represents a combination of electronic and manually collected data. The program initiated an electronic method of data collection, through the use of Survey Monkey, after the 2008 Biennial Report. The low electronic response rate and discussions between University faculty and site supervisors indicated the need for procedural changes and a monitoring process for collection of evaluations. In addition, the data highlights the need to differentiate between the two levels of fieldwork to clearly document the growth and competence of beginning fieldwork participants (583A) versus advanced fieldwork participants (583B).

21

Analysis of Table 5 – End of Program Data Although the program initiated an electronic method to obtain data for Transition Point 4, the results from the table make it clear that the program must redesign the method by which the data is collected. The low response rate makes it difficult to ascertain meaningful interpretations of the data. Preliminary discussions focused on increasing the response rate include a procedural component that encourages candidates to respond to the survey prior to obtaining final credential approval.

22

IV. Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance

Program Changes

Change Semester Data Used for Decision Details of Change

Further refined the EMLOs to more clearly reflect the knowledge attained by candidates as related to course material and requirements

Fall 08 rubric scores on key assessments as well as direct feedback from faculty and students regarding relevance of the assessment

Piloted new EMLOs with a limited number of students on and off campus

All exceptions to the 2.75 GPA entrance requirement will be determined solely by the PPS program admissions committee

Spring 10 Collection of GPA data showing a large number of candidates admitted below the minimum requirement

A program admissions committee will review and approve all exceptions to the 2.75 entrance requirement

Implemented key assessments that better reflect knowledge, use of assessment, planning, diversity and technology (Table I)

Spring 10 (pilot) Fall 2010 (Implementation)

Course year program data Through course year program data analysis and discussion at program assessment group meetings; faculty identified assessments that more directly reflect the key program standards

Established mandatory annual training day for all statewide part-time and full-time faculty.

Spring 2010 Course year program data Data collected from pre- and post-surveys filled out by attendees at the first training day for all part and full time faculty indicated a lack of knowledge of key program requirements and components, as well as a strong desire for more communication

23

between program faculty and administration; Attendance at an annual training and collaborative learning day for all part time and full time faculty as well as administration will be required for continued employment in the program

Established a process of electronic collection for all fieldwork evaluations.

Fall 2010 Fieldwork data and direct feedback from faculty and site supervisors

Candidates will enter the site evaluation into TaskStream. University supervisors will enter their evaluation and the site supervisor evaluation at the end of 583A and 583B to more clearly document the growth and competence of counselor trainees.

Replace current writing assessment with one that is refereed and standardized

Fall 2010 Transition Point 1 data The goal is to more accurately ascertain the writing competencies of applicants

University of La Verne College of Education ... · Biennial Report Credential Program’s Name: ......

Documents

Transcript of University of La Verne College of Education ... · Biennial Report Credential Program’s Name: ......