Unit Assessment Handbook - The University of Akron

THE UNIVERSITY OF AKRON  

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION  

  

  

UNIT ASSESSMENT HANDBOOK  

EDUCATOR AS DECISION MAKER  

AUGUST  2009 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

College of Education  

Unit Assessment Handbook  

I. Introduction....................................................................................................................... 3 

II. Conceptual Framework Proficiencies............................................................................... 3 

III. Standards Alignment......................................................................................................... 4 

IV. Development of the Unit's Assessment System................................................................ 17 

V. Assessment Philosophy .................................................................................................... 17 

VI. Transition Points .............................................................................................................. 25 

VII. Key Assessments ............................................................................................................ 30 

VIII. Fairness, Accuracy, Consistency, and Elimination of Bias in Candidate Assessments.. 43 

IX. Relationship of Data Sources ......................................................................................... 43 

X. Assessment of Support for Candidate Learning ............................................................. 46 

XI. Procedures for Data Collection, Aggregation, Disaggregation, and Dissemination 

of Bias ............................................................................................................................. 50 

XII. Analysis and Use of Assessment Data .......................................................................... 57 

XIII. Summary ........................................................................................................................ 58 

Glossary ......................................................................................................................... 59 

References ...................................................................................................................... 63 

2

I. INTRODUCTION 

The Unit Assessment System is designed to collect, analyze, and evaluate data that informs 

the Unit about our candidates' qualifications and performance as they progress through their 

programs; candidates' knowledge, skills, and dispositions as they perform in the field; and the Unit 

operations in the course of delivering programs. The Unit Assessment Handbook describes the 

comprehensive approach the College of Education (the “Unit”) takes in measuring the 

effectiveness of our efforts in preparing candidates for roles in K-12 schools. Its purpose is to 

provide all stakeholders with information about the assessment system that collects and analyzes 

data on applicant qualifications, candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to 

evaluate and improve the performance of candidates, the unit, and its programs at the initial 

teacher preparation and advanced program levels. 

The assessment system is based on the Unit’s Conceptual Framework (The University of 

Akron, 2008). This framework guides the Unit in achieving its primary goal of providing 

educators with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to become effective decision makers within 

the education profession. Therefore, the handbook begins with a description of our Conceptual 

Framework which serves as our foundation of practice. The assessment system is also standardsbased. 

Alignments have been developed to reflect the alignment of assessments with the 

conceptual framework and applicable state and national standards. 

Within this context, the development of the Unit’s Assessment System is detailed for the 

reader, including a list of the evaluation tools used to assess candidates and the unit. Procedures 

for the collection and dissemination of the data collected are outlined as are procedures that help 

ensure fairness, accuracy, consistency, and the elimination of bias. A master timeline for the 

collection of these evaluations is provided. 

II. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK PROFICIENCIES 

The College of Education (COE) is guided by its Conceptual Framework which has the 

theme of Educator as Decision Maker (University of Akron, 2008). Four components of 

professional practice identified in the conceptual framework undergird the assessment system: 

Knowledge, Technology, Diversity, and Ethics. Proficiencies for each of the four components 

have been identified. It is the expectation that all candidates in initial and advanced programs will 

meet the proficiencies listed below: 

A. Knowledge 

Candidates will: 

K1. demonstrate knowledge of the content necessary for optimum practice and/or 

research in their respective employment settings (content knowledge). 

K2. demonstrate an understanding of students’ and individuals’ cognitive, social, 

academic, linguistic, physical, and emotional development to explain and present 

content in multiple ways that facilitate cognitive, academic achievement, linguistic, 

physical and affective development (pedagogical knowledge). 

K3. demonstrate knowledge of the interaction of subject matter and effective 

strategies to make cognitive, academic achievement, linguistic, physical and 

affective growth attainable for all students and individuals (pedagogical content 

knowledge). 

3

K4. demonstrate an understanding of professional, state and institutional standards, 

the role of assessment, and the use of formative and summative assessments. 

B. Technology 


T1. demonstrate an ability to integrate appropriate technology to facilitate learning 

and development for all students and individuals. 

T2. demonstrate an ability to use technology for assessment, analysis of data, and 

research to support and enhance student learning and individual development. 

C. Diversity 


D1. demonstrate knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary to meet the 

individual needs of students and individuals based on gender, socio-economic 

status, racial, ethnic, sexual orientation, religion, language, and exceptionalities 

(both disabilities and giftedness). 

D2. demonstrate dispositions that value fairness and learning for all students and 

individuals. 

D. Ethics 


E1. demonstrate an ability to collaborate and communicate with other educators, 

administrators, community members, students and parents to support student 

learning. 

E2. demonstrate knowledge of and adherence to the roles and responsibilities of the 

profession and to respective professional ethics and codes of conduct including the 

Licensure Code of Professional Conduct for Ohio Educators. 

E3. demonstrate ability to reflect on their effectiveness in helping all students or 

individuals learn and develop to their fullest potential. 

A full text version of the Conceptual Framework is available at: 

http://www.uakron.edu/colleges/educ/docs/CF-Fall08.pdf 

III. STANDARDS ALIGNMENT 

The College of Education’s assessment system is standards based. The Ohio 

Standards for the Teaching Profession (Ohio Department of Education, 2007) have been 

aligned with the COE's Conceptual Framework and with numerous national standards 

including, the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC), the 

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), Praxis II, Praxis III, 

NBPTS, and the Value-Added metric as applied in Ohio. The Ohio Principal Standards 

(Ohio Department of Education, 2007) have been aligned with the Interstate School 

Leaders License Consortium (ISLLC) standards, Educational Leadership Constituents 

Council (ELCC) standards, NCATE standards, Praxis II Educational Leadership Test 

categories, and the Value-Added metric as applied in Ohio. The master alignment for each 

is provided in table format below. The master alignment for each is provided in Excel 

format: Ohio Standards for Teachers Alignment Matrix with Conceptual Framework and 

Ohio Standards for Principals Alignment Matrix with Conceptual Framework. 

4

Ohio's Standards for the Teaching Profession 

Standard 

Number Teacher Standards 

1 

1.1 

1.2 

1.3 

1.4 

1.5 

UA 

Conceptual 

Framework INTASC NCATE Praxis II 

Students: Teachers understand student learning and development, and respect the diversity of the students they teach. 

Teachers display knowledge of how 

students learn and of the developmental 

characteristics of age groups. 

Teachers understand what students know 

and are able to do and use this knowledge 

to meet the needs of all students. 

Teachers expect that all students will 

achieve to their full potential. 

Teachers model respect for students’ 

diverse cultures, language skills and 

experiences. 

Teachers recognize characteristics of 

gifted students, students with disabilities 

and at-risk students in order to assist in 

appropriate identification, instruction, and 

intervention. 

5 

Praxis 

III NBPTS 

K2 BK1 BK3 BP2 BP3 1c 1d IA1 IA2 A1 1.3 

BP4 BP5 FD3 FD4 

FP2 GP3 

IC2 IC3 

Value 

Added 

Unit 

Assessments 

K2 BP1 CK1 CP2 HD1 1c 1d IB1 IB2 A1 A2 1.2 2.2 2 

HP1 3c IB4 IB5 A4 C2 

IB6 

D2 CD1 CP3 BP3 BP4 1g 4a IC3 D2 1.1 4 

FK5 HD2 HP3 

D1 CD3 CD4 CP5 CP6 1c 1g IB1 IB6 A1 B1 1.4 

GD3 GP4 JD1 JP4 4a 4d IIIB IVB2 B2 

BP5 CK4 CD2 

K2 BK2 BD1 BD2 BP1 1c 1d IB2 IB4 A1 A4 2.3 2 

HP2 CK2 CP1 CP3 3c 4a IIA2 IIA4 B2 C3 4 

CP4 FD5 4d 5 

Unit Assessments: 1. GPA 2. Praxis II PLT 3. Praxis II Content 4. Student Teaching Evaluation 5. Impact on Student Learning 6. Dispositions Assessment 

2 

5 

6 

6

Standard 


2 

2.1 

2.2 

2.3 

2.4 

2.5 

UA 

Conceptual 


Content: Teachers know and understand the content area for which they have instructional responsibility. 

6 

Praxis 

III NBPTS 

Value 

Added 



Teachers know the content they teach and 

use their knowledge of content-specific 

concepts, assumptions and skills to plan 

K1 AK1 AD1 DK1 DP1 1a 1b IIB1 A2 A4 2.1 1.1 

3 

instruction. 3c 

1.2 5 

Teachers understand and use contentspecific 

instructional strategies to 

effectively teach the central concepts and 

skills of the discipline. 

K3 AP1 AP2 AP4 AD3 1b 3b IIB2 C1 C2 2.2 1.2 

EP5 3c C4 

Teachers understand school and district 

curriculum priorities and the Ohio 

K1 DK2 DP1 1a 1b IIB1 A3 5.3 

academic content standards. 1c 

Teachers understand the relationship of 

knowledge within the content area to other 

content areas. 

Teachers connect content to relevant life 

experiences and career opportunities. 

K3 AK3 AP5 A3 

K3 AD3 CP5 CP6 DK2 1c 1d IB6 IIB2 A1 2.1 1.2 3 

DK3 DP1 DP5 6 


2.3 

3 

4 

3 

3

Standard 


3 

3.1 

3.2 

3.3 

3.4 

3.5 

UA 

Conceptual 


7 

Praxis 

III NBPTS 

Assessment: Teachers understand and use varied assessments to inform instruction, evaluate and ensure student learning. 

Value 

Added 



Teachers are knowledgeable about 

assessment types, their purposes and the 

K4 T2 BP1 HK1 HK3 1d IIC1 IIC2 A5 3.1 2 

data they generate. IIC5 

Teachers select, develop and use variety 

of diagnostic, formative and summative 

assessments. 

K4 T2 BP1 HK2 HP1 HP3 1d 3c IIC3 IIC4 A5 3.3 3.4 3.2 4 

Teachers analyze data to monitor student 

progress and learning to plan, differentiate 

K4 T2 BD2 BP1 HD1 HD2 1d 3c IIC4 C4 D1 3.3 3.4 3.3 4 

and modify instruction HP1 HP5 

5 

Teachers collaborate and communicate 

student progress with students, parents 

E1 HP2 HP6 3c IIC6 C4 D4 3.4 3.4 5 

and colleagues 6 

Teachers involve learners in selfassessment 

and goal setting to address 

gaps between performance and potential. 

E1 HD2 HP3 BP3 BP4 3.5 


5 

6

Standard 


4 

4.1 

4.2 

4.3 

4.4 

4.5 

4.6 

4.7 

UA 

Conceptual 


Instruction: Teachers plan and deliver effective instruction that advances the learning of each individual student. 

Teachers align their instructional goals and 

activities with school and district priorities 

and Ohio’s academic content standards. 

Teachers use information about students’ 

learning and performance to plan and 

deliver instruction that will close the 

achievement gap. 


8 

Praxis 

III NBPTS 

Value 

Added 



K2 K4 DK1 DK2 DP1 1b IIB1 IIB2 A2 A4 4 

K2 K4 BK1 BK2 DK3 DD2 1b 1c IIB1 IIB2 A1 A4 1.1 1.2 3.3 4 

EP2 DP2 DP3 EK3 1d 

2.2 5 

Teachers communicate clear learning 

goals and explicitly link learning activities 

K3 IIIA A2 B3 4 

to those defined goals. C1 5 

Teachers apply knowledge of how 

students think and learn to instructional 

K1 K2 BK2 BK3 DK2 DP2 1d IIA1 IIA2 C2 C4 1.2 3.1 4 

design and delivery. K3 DP3 EK1 

5 

Teachers differentiate instruction to 

support the learning needs of all students, 

including students identified as gifted, 

students with disabilities and at-risk 

students. 

K3 CK1 CK2 DP2 DP3 1c 1d IB1 IB2 A4 B1 1.1 1.2 4 

EP2 4a IB4 IB6 B3 C2 2.2 2.3 5 

3.1 6 

Teachers create and select activities that 

are designed to help students develop as 

independent learners and complex 

K1 K2 BP3 DP1 ED1 EK1 1b 1c IIA1 IC3 C3 B3 1.1 1.2 4 

problem-solvers. K3 K4 EP2 FP7 1d 

2.3 3.2 6 

Teachers use resources effectively, 

including technology, to enhance student 

learning. 

K3 T1 EK2 EP2 1b IIA4 A4 4 

T2 5 

5

Standard 


5 

5.1 

5.2 

5.3 

5.4 

5.5 

UA 

Conceptual 


9 

Praxis 

III NBPTS 

Learning Environment: Teachers create learning environments that promote high levels of learning and achievement for all students. 

Value 

Added 



Teachers treat all students fairly and 

establish an environment that is respectful, 

K2 D2 CP6 CD3 CD4 FP5 1b 1g IC4 B1 B2 1.2 1.4 4 

supportive and caring. 4a B4 

6 

Teachers create an environment that is 

physically and emotionally safe. 

K2 D1 FP4 FP5 CD5 CP7 4a IC4 B2 B5 1.2 1.4 4 

D2 

1.5 6 

Teachers motivate students to work 

productively and assume responsibility for 

K2 BP3 FK3 FP2 FP6 1b IC3 1.5 3.2 4 

their own learning. FP1 

6 

Teachers create learning situations in 

which students work independently, 

K2 D2 FK1 FD3 FP1 FP7 1b IC2 1.5 1.6 4 

collaboratively and/or as a whole class. 3.2 6 

Teachers maintain an environment that is 

conducive to learning for all students. 

K2 D1 FD1 FP3 CD1 1d 3c IC4 A1 A4 1.1 4 

D2 4a B3 B5 6 

Unit Assessments: 1. GPA 2. Praxis II PLT 3. Praxis II Content 4. Student Teaching Evaluation 5. Impact on Student Learning 6. Dispositions Assessment

Standard 


6 

6.1 

6.2 

6.3 

UA 

Conceptual 


10 

Praxis 

III NBPTS 

Value 

Added 



Collaboration and Communication: Teachers collaborate and communicate with other educators, administrators, students and parents and the community 

to support student learning. 

Teachers communicate clearly and 

effectively. 

Teachers share responsibility with parents 

and caregivers to support student learning, 

emotional and physical development and 

mental health. 

E1 EP5 FP4 GK4 GD2 1a 1b IC2 IC4 A2 B3 4.1 4.3 3.4 5 

GD3 GP1 GP3 GP4 1d 4a IIC6 IIIA C1 6 

GP5 4d IIIB IIIC 

E1 HP6 JP2 JP4 1c 1e IVB3 D4 3.4 5.1 3.4 

1f 1g 5.5 

3c 4a 

Teachers collaborate effectively with other 

E1 AD3 HP6 JD3 JP2 1c 1g IVB3 D3 5.1 5.3 3.4 

teachers, administrators and school and 

district staff. JP5 4c 4d 

Teachers collaborate effectively with the 

E1 JD3 JP2 JP5 1c 1g IVB3 D3 5.1 5.2 3.4 

6.4 

local community and community agencies, 

when and where appropriate, to promote a 

positive environment for student learning. 

4c 


4d 

6 

6 

6

Standard 


7 

7.1 

7.2 

7.3 

UA 

Conceptual 


11 

Praxis 

III NBPTS 

Value 

Added 



Professional Responsibility and Growth: Teachers assume responsibility for professional growth, performance, and involvement as an individual and as a 

member of a learning community. 

Teachers understand, uphold and follow 

professional ethics, policies and legal 

codes of professional conduct. 

E2 ID5 1g IVB3 IVB4 D2 D3 3.4 4 

Teachers take responsibility for engaging 

in continuous, purposeful professional 

E3 ID1 ID2 IP2 IP3 1c IVA1 IVA2 D3 4.1 4.2 

development. IVA3 4.3 

Teachers are agents of change who seek 

opportunities to positively impact teaching 

quality, school improvements and student 

achievement. 

E1 E3 ID4 IP3 1c IVB3 D3 5.1 5.2 3.4 

5.3 5.5 


6 

6 

6

Ohio's Principal Standards 

Standard 

Number Ohio Principal Standards 

UA Conceptual 

Framework ELCC NCATE ISLLC Praxis 

1 Principals help create a shared vision and clear goals for their schools and ensure continuous progress toward achieving those goals. 

1.1 

1.2 

1.3 

1.4 

Principals facilitate the articulation and 

realization of a shared vision of continuous 

improvement. 

Principals lead the process of setting, 

monitoring and achieving specific and 

challenging goals that reflect high expectations 

for all students and staff. 

Principals lead the change process for 

continuous improvement. 

Principals anticipate, monitor, and respond to 

educational developments that affect school 

issues and environments. 

K1 K2 1.1a 1.1b 1.2a 1.2b 1.e 1 1.D2 1.P1 1.P2 2.12 

K4 E1 1.2c 1.f 1.P3 1.P4 1.P6 1.P11 

12 

1.P12 

K1 K2 1.3a 1.3b 1.4b 2.1a 1.e 1 1.P5 1.P8 1.P9 2.1 2.2 

K4 D1 

D2 

2.2a 2.2b 2.2c 2.3a 1.f 1.P10 1.P13 1.P14 1.P15 2.3 2.5 

3.2a 3.2b 6.3a 6.3b 1.P16 2 2.P2 2.8 3.2 

6.3c 3.4 

K1 T2 1.2a 1.4a 1.5a 1.5b 1.e 2 2.D5 2.P5 2.P17 1.6 2.7 

D1 D2 

E1 

2.1a 2.2a 2.2b 2.2c 1.f 2.P18 2.P19 2.K9 3 2.9 3.1 

2.3a 2.3b 2.3c 3.1a 1.g 3.P3 3.P12 3.D2 6 3.5 3.7 

3.1b 6.1a 6.1b 6.1c 6.K5 3.8 4.1a 

6.1d 6.1e 6.1f 6.1g 

6.1h 6.2a 

K1 E1 1.3a 1.3b 1.4a 1.4b 1.e 4 4.K1 6 6.K4 1.4 1.5 

E3 

1.4c 4.2b 1.f 6.K6 

1.g 

Value 

Added 

Possible 

VA 

Possible 

VA

Standard 


UA 

Conceptual 


2 Principals support the implementation of high-quality standards-based instruction that results in higher levels of achievement for all students. 

2.1 

2.2 

2.3 

2.4 

2.5 

2.6 

Principals ensure that the instructional content 

that is taught is aligned with the Ohio 

academic content standards and curriculum 

priorities in the school and district. 

Principals ensure instructional practices are 

effective and meet the needs of all students. 

Principals advocate for high levels of learning 

for all students, including students identified 

as gifted, students with disabilities and at-risk 

students. 

Principals know, understand and share 

relevant research. 

Principals understand, encourage and 

facilitate the effective use of data by staff. 

Principals support staff as they plan and 

implement research-based professional 

development. 

K1 K3 2.2b 6.1d 6.3c 1.e 2 2.K4 2.P12 

2.P1 

3 

1.1 2.1 

K4 

2.P1 

4 

3 3.D5 6 2.2 2.3 

6.K3 6.K4 6.P4 

13 

Value 

Added 

K1 K3 2.2a 2.3a 2.3b 2.3c 1.e 2 2.K6 2.D1 2.D2 1.3 2.4 Possible VA 

K4 T1 4.2c 4.2d 1.f 2.D3 5 5.D8 5.P7 2.5 2.6 

T2 D1 4.a 6 6.K3 2.7 

D2 

K2 D1 1.1a 1.1b 1.2a 1.2b 1.e 1 1.D1 2 2.K7 1.1 2.8 Possible VA 

D2 1.2c 2.1a 2.2b 4.2c 1.f 2.D1 2.D2 2.D3 2.D6 

6.3a 6.3b 6.3c 1.g 2.D8 2.P5 2.P11 

2.P2 

0 

4.a 4 4.P3 4.P12 5 

5.K3 5.D3 5.D4 5.P8 

5.P9 5.P10 6 6.D1 

K1 1.2b 1.4b 2.3b 2.3c 1.e 2 2.K1 2.K2 2.K3 1.5 2.9 

6.D5 

4.2b 6.1a 6.1f 6.1h 2.K9 2.K10 2.P9 3 2.1 2.11 

3.P1 

K4 T2 1.2b 1.4b 2.3c 3.1a 1.e 1 1.K4 1.P11 2 2.9 3.2 OPS 2.5a 

1.f 

2.P1 

6 

4.1 

c 

2.P17 2.P18 OPS 2.5b 

K1 E3 2.4a 2.4b 2.4c 1.e 2 2.K8 2.D4 2.D5 2.9 3.4 

1.f 2.P2 2.P7 2.P8 

1.g 5 5.P6 

2.P1 

9 

3.8 

OPS 2.5c

Standard 


UA 

Conceptual 


3 Principals allocate resources and manage school operations in order to ensure a safe and productive learning environment. 

3.1 

3.2 

3.3 

3.4 

3.5 

Principals establish and maintain a safe 

school environment. 

Principals create a nurturing learning 

environment that addresses the physical and 

mental health needs of all. 

Principals allocate resources, including 

technology, to support student and staff 

learning. 

Principals institute procedures and practices 

to support staff and students and establish an 

environment that is conducive to learning. 

Principals understand, uphold and model 

professional ethics, policies and legal codes of 

professional conduct. 

K1 K2 3.1b 3.2c 1.f 2 2.D7 3 3.K3 4.4d 

D1 D2 3.K6 3.D7 3.P6 3.P21 

K1 K2 3.1b 1.f 2 

14 

2.P1 

2 

3 3.K6 3.9 3.11 

D1 D2 5 5.K3 5.D1 5.D3 5.5 

K1 T1 2.2c 3.1c 3.3a 3.3b 1.e 3 3.K5 3.K8 3.D1 2.9 3.10 

T2 3.3c 1.f 3.P10 

K1 K2 2.4a 2.4b 3.1b 3.1c 1.f 2 

3.P1 

1 

3.P2 

0 

5 4.3 4.3a 

5.P5 4.3b 

2.P1 

9 

3 3.K2 3.2 3.4 

D1 D2 3.2a 3.2b 3.2c 3.K4 3.D1 3.D3 3.D5 4.1a 

3.D6 3.P2 3.P7 3.P22 

E2 3.2c 3.3a 5.3a 1.g 3 3.K7 3.P5 3.P23 3.9 4.4 

5 5.D3 5.P8 5.P9 4.4a 4.4b 

5.P10 

5.P1 

5 

6.K3 6.D5 

5.P1 

6 

6 4.4c 

Value 

Added

Standard 


UA 

Conceptual 


4 Principals Establish and sustain collaborative learning and shared leadership to promote learning and achievement of all students. 

4.1 

4.2 

4.3 

Principals promote a collaborative learning 

culture 

Principals share leadership with staff, 

students, parents and community members 

Principals support and advance the leadership 

capacity of all educators. 

K2 D1 2.1a 4.1a 1.e 1 1.K6 3 

D2 E1 1.f 4 4.D2 4.D3 

15 

1.g 4.P16 

3.P1 

3 

4.P1 

5 

1.7 2.12 

5.2 5.3 

E1 3.2a 3.2b 1.e 1 1.D4 1.P7 3 2.12 4.2c 

K1 E2 2.4a 2.4b 2.4c 

E3 

4.3 

a 

1.f 3.P14 4 4.D2 4.D5 

1.g 4.D8 4.P4 4.P8 4.P9 

1.e 

1.g 

4.P15 6 6.P4 

Value 

Added 

Possible 

VA

Standard 


5 

5.1 

5.2 

5.3 

5.4 

UA 

Conceptual 

Framework ELCC NCATE ISLLC Praxis Value Added 

Principals engage parents and community members in the educational process and create an environment where community resources support student learning, 

achievement, and well being. 

Principals connect the school with 

the community 

Principals involve parents and 

community members in improving 

student learning. 

Principals use community resources 

to improve student learning. 

Principals establish expectations for 

the use of culturally responsive 

practices that acknowledge and 

value diversity 

K1 T1 1.2c 1.3a 1.4a 1.5a 1.e 1 1.P7 1.D4 3 1.3 2.12 

E1 1.5b 3.2b 4.1a 4.1b 1.f 3.D6 4 4.P2 4.P4 4.2b 4.2c 

4.1c 4.1d 4.1e 4.1f 1.g 4.P6 4.P7 4.P8 4.P9 

4.1g 4.1h 4.2a 4.3a 4.P10 4.P15 6 6.P4 

4.3b 4.3c 6.1e 6.2a 

6.3a 

K1 E1 1.5a 4.1a 4.1b 4.1c 1.e 4 4.D2 4.D5 4.D6 2.12 4.2b OPS 5.2a 

4.1d 4.1f 6.2a 1.f 4.D8 4.2c 5.3 OPS 5.2b 

16 

1.g OPS 5.2c 

K1 E1 3.3a 3.3b 4.1a 4.1c 1.e 3 3.P10 4 4.K3 4.2b 5.3 

4.1d 4.1e 4.1g 4.1h 1.f 4.K5 4.D7 4.P2 4.P4 

4.2d 4.3a 4.3b 4.3c 1.g 4.P6 4.P7 4.P8 4.P9 

6.1b 4.P14 

K1 K2 1.1a 1.1b 2.1a 2.2b 1.e 1 1.K1 1.D1 2 1.3 3.11 

D1 D2 2.3b 3.2c 4.2b 4.2c 1.f 2.K7 2.D6 2.P6 4 5.3 

4.2d 5.1a 5.2a 5.3a 1.g 4.K2 4.D4 4.P11 5 

6.1f 6.1g 6.2a 6.3a 4.a 5.K3 5.P10 5.P12 6 

6.3c 6.K8 6.D2 

OPS 5.2d

IV. DEVELOPMENT OF THE UNIT’S ASSESSMENT SYSTEM 

The College of Education developed a program assessment model based on the 

philosophy of assessment developed by the Graduate Studies Committee in 1998. The model 

was originally approved by College faculty in August 2000, at which time departments began 

preparing assessment plans for specific initial and advanced programs. In 2001, faculty from 

the various licensure area met during a day-long retreat to design an assessment using 

guiding questions from Campbell, Melenyzer, Nettles, and Wyman (2000). What do our 

candidates know and what can they do when they graduate? How will we assess the extent 

to which our candidates have attained the standards that we have adopted? What type of 

evidence will we offer to indicate quality? A standard format for the portfolio was developed 

that included a section of assignments in the professional and pedagogical core that reflect 

the Ohio/INTASC, a section of assessments based on the standards of the Specialized 

Professional Association Standards guiding the specific program, a reflection prior to student 

teaching, and a culminating assessment at the end of student teaching. Faculty from each 

program area determined the assessments that would best reflect the standards of the 

program. As the portfolio design was developed, it was reviewed by school partners from the 

P-12 community and from candidates enrolled in the teacher preparation program. 

As the NCATE program review process was revised, program area faculty met to 

review performance assessments and make revisions to the assessments and accompanying 

rubrics as indicated. With the impetus provided by the increased emphasis on advanced 

programs, faculty in these programs met to analyze assessments being used in these programs 

and make the revisions and additions required. In 2007-2008, a Professional Education 

Council (PEC) NCATE Standard 2 workgroup led the effort to review the model, analyze the 

alignment with the NCATE 2008 standards, and include explicit links to Conceptual 

Framework proficiencies. PEC, a standing committee of the college, has wide representation 

from the professional community which includes COE faculty, Arts & Sciences faculty, Fine 

and Applied Arts Faculty, Dean (or designee), NCATE coordinator, and P-12 educators. The 

model collaboratively developed by this group reflects a systemic approach to the collection, 

aggregation, and analysis of data at critical points in the program to evaluate candidate 

learning and develop plans for the improvement of programs. 

V. ASSESSMENT PHILOSOPHY 

The College of Education seeks to cultivate a culture in which assessment is an 

essential part of teaching and learning. Assessment and evaluation are extremely important 

elements for the improvement of academic programs and for both internal and external 

accountability. Many of the assessment activities performed by the College of Education are 

required for professional accreditation. The College recognizes the importance of assessment 

and evaluation as tools for decision-making and increasing College effectiveness. 

The College of Education has developed an outcomes assessment program intended 

to provide an ongoing review of the College’s effectiveness. The program for assessing 

effectiveness has three specific and complementary purposes: 

1. to improve candidate learning and performance, 

2. to improve programs, program planning, and program development, and 

3. to improve support for programs and candidate learning. 

17

These purposes will be achieved by gathering and compiling information on the extent of the 

College’s accomplishments in achieving defined purposes and using such information for 

planning and program improvements. The College of Education’s assessment efforts can be 

characterized as: 

• Integrated 

• Participatory 

• Comprehensive 

Each of these facets are described in detail below. 

Integrated – Assessment efforts within the College of Education begin with the mission 

of the College. Academic programs, candidate support services, and other college 

activities should work together to fulfill the mission. Assessments within the College are 

directly related to the mission as identified in the Conceptual Framework. The assessment 

program is intended to be an integral part of the institutional assessment process of 

planning, review, and revision. 

Participatory – The College of Education’s assessment program is an ongoing 

collaborative effort by faculty, staff, administrators, and extended professional 

community. The College follows a combination of a centralized/decentralized approach 

to assessment, with departments and faculty groups responsible for establishing and 

assessing specific candidate outcomes. The administration’s role is to coordinate and 

document assessment activities occurring at the department level, coordinate collegewide 

activities, and provide college data to various constituencies. It is an administrative 

responsibility to ensure that assessment activities provide useful and usable data in a costeffective 

manner. 

Comprehensive – Assessment activities in the College reflect the following areas of 

concentration: 

• Candidates: Outcomes Assessment – Assessment of Candidate Learning 

• Programs: Academic Program Evaluation 

• Support: Field Experiences, Diversity, Faculty, and Governance 

These areas assess the effectiveness of all college functions, with the highest priority 

placed on the assessment of candidate learning and effectiveness. The sections that follow 

address the assumptions, structure, and focus of the College’s assessment efforts. It should be 

noted that assessment efforts in the College of Education began in earnest in 1992 with the 

College’s short-term assessment models. These models established the groundwork for the 

current, more comprehensive model. 

General Assumption 

The development of an assessment framework presumes a reference base. The 

College of Education has identified concepts that are appropriate to assessment at every level 

(candidates, program, and faculty) and guide the assessment practices employed. The 

principles serve as a guide for all assessment activities in the college. The first nine principles 

quoted directly below were developed under the auspices of the American Association for 

18

Higher Education's Assessment Forum with support from the Fund for the Improvement of 

Postsecondary Education with additional support for publication and dissemination from the 

Exxon Education Foundation (Astin et al., 1996). The principles are patterned on Chickering 

and Gamsom’s (1987) Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. The 

tenth principle was offered by Banta, Lund, Black, and Oblander (1996) in Assessment in 

Practice: Putting Principles to Work on College Campuses. 

AAHE Assessment Forum 

9 Principles of Good Practice for Assessing Student Learning 

1) The assessment of student learning begins with educational values. 

Assessment is not an end in itself but a vehicle for education improvement. Its 

effective practice, then, begins with and enacts a vision of the kinds of learning we 

most value for students and strive to help them achieve. Educational values should 

drive not only what we choose to assess but also how we do so. Where questions 

about educational mission and values are skipped over, assessment threatens to be an 

exercise in measuring what’s easy, rather than a process of improving what we really 

care about (Astin et al.,1996). 

2) Assessment is more effective when it reflects an understanding of learning as 

multidimensional, integrated, and revealed in performance over time. 

Learning is a complex process. It entails not only what students/candidates know but 

what they can do with what they know; it involves not only knowledge and abilities 

but values, attitudes, and habits of mind that affect both academic success and 

performance beyond the classroom. Assessment should reflect these understandings 

by employing a diverse array of methods, including those that call for actual 

performance, using them over time so as to reveal change, growth, and increasing 

degrees of integration. Such an approach aims for a more complete and accurate 

picture of learning, and therefore firmer bases for improving our candidates’ 

educational experience (Astin et al.,1996). 

3) Assessment works best when the program it seeks to improve have clear, 

explicitly stated purposes. 

Assessment is a goal-oriented process. It entails comparing educational performance 

with educational purposes and expectations- these derived from the institution’s 

mission, from faculty intentions in program and course design, and from knowledge 

of students’ own goals. Where program purposes lack specificity or agreement, 

assessment as a process pushes a campus toward clarity about where to am and what 

standards to apply; assessment also prompts attention to where and how program 

goals will be taught and learned. Clear, shared, implementable goals are the 

cornerstone for assessment that is focused and useful (Astin et al.,1996). 

4) Assessment requires attention to outcomes but also and equally to the 

experiences that lead to those outcomes. 

Information about outcomes is of high importance; where students “end up” matters 

greatly. But to improve outcomes, we need to know about student experience along 

19

the way – about the curricula, teaching, and kind of student effort that lead to 

particular outcomes. Assessment can help us understand which students learn best 

under what conditions; with such knowledge comes the capacity to improve the 

whole of their learning (Astin et al.,1996). 

5) Assessment works best when it is ongoing, not episodic. 

Assessment is a process whose power is cumulative. Though isolated, “one-shot” 

assessment can be better than none, improvement over time is best fostered when 

assessment entails a linked series of cohorts of students; it may mean collecting the 

same examples of student performance or using the same instrument semester after 

semester. The point is to monitor progress toward intended goals in a spirit of 

continuous improvement. Along the way, the assessment process itself should be 

evaluated and refined in light of emerging insights (Astin et al.,1996). 

6) Assessment fosters wider improvement when representatives from across the 

educational community are involved. 

Student learning is a campus-wide responsibility, and assessment is a way of enacting 

that responsibility. Thus, while assessment efforts may start small, the aim over time 

is to involve people from across the educational community. Faculty play an 

especially important role, but assessment’s questions can’t be fully addressed without 

participation by student services educators, librarians, administrators, and students. 

Assessment may also involve individuals from beyond the campus (alumni/ae, 

trustees, employers) whose experience can enrich the sense of appropriate aims and 

standards for learning. Thus understood, assessment is not a task for small groups of 

experts but a collaborative activity; its aim is wider, better-informed attention to 

student learning by all parties with a stake in its improvement (Astin et al.,1996). 

7) Assessment makes a difference when it begins with issues of use and 

illuminates questions that people really care about. 

Assessment recognizes the value of information in the process of improvement. But 

to be useful, information must be connected to issues or questions that people really 

care about. This implies assessment approaches that produce evidence that relevant 

parties will find credible, suggestive, and applicable to decisions that need to be 

made. It means thinking in advance about how the information will be used, and by 

whom. The point of assessment is not to gather data and return “results”; it is a 

process that starts with the questions of decision-makers, that involves them in the 

gathering and interpreting of data, and that informs and helps guide continuous 

improvement (Astin et al.,1996). 

20

8) Assessment is most likely to lead to improvement when it is part of a larger 

set of conditions that promote change. 

Assessment alone changes little. Its greatest contribution comes on campuses where 

the quality of teaching and learning is visibly valued and worked at. On such 

campuses, the push to improve educational performance is a visible and primary goal 

of leadership; improving the quality of undergraduate education is central to the 

institution’s planning, budgeting, and personnel decisions. On such campuses, 

information about learning outcomes is seen as an integral part of decision making, 

and avidly sought (Astin et al.,1996). 

9) Through assessment, educators meet responsibilities to students and to the 

public. 

There is a compelling public stake in education. As educators, we have a 

responsibility to the publics that support or depend on us to provide information about 

the ways in which our students meet goals and expectations. But that responsibility 

goes beyond the reporting of such information; our deeper obligation – to ourselves, 

our candidates, and society – is to improve. Those to whom educators are accountable 

have a corresponding obligation to support such attempts at improvement (Astin et 

al.,1996). 

10) Assessment is most effective when undertaken in an environment that is 

receptive, supportive, and enabling. 

More specifically, successful assessment requires an environment characterized by 

effective leadership, administrative commitment, adequate resources (for example, 

clerical support and money), faculty and staff development opportunities, and time. 

(Banta et al., 2006). 

Assessment Measures 

Methodologies provide the vehicle to obtain data for evaluation of effectiveness. 

Relative to assessment activities in the College of Education, multiple measures better assure 

a well-rounded assessment, especially candidate learning and performance. Recognizing the 

need for alternative assessments to standardized testing, the COE agrees that standardized 

tests provide limited measures of learning, that their overuse narrows the curriculum, that 

they are poor diagnostic tools, and that they do not reflect or capture the diversity of 

students’ backgrounds and experiences (Darling-Hammond, Ancess, & Falk, 1995; Darling- 

Hammond, 1999). Assessment works best when it is embedded and ongoing (Stroble, 2000). 

Assessment activities in the COE focus on both content standards and performance 

standards. Content standards identify what is important to learn and performance standards 

describe what students should be able to do with what they know, i.e., the kind of 

performance that will be assessed. Performance indicators must be varied to allow for 

diverse and complex kinds of student learning. The interpretation of the data is used in both 

formative and summative contexts. Methodologies used may include: 

21

• Standardized tests of basic skills and academic aptitudes (e.g. Praxis) 

• Performance assessments embedded in courses 

• Observations 

• Attitude inventories 

• Alumni surveys/focus groups 

• Persistence studies 

• Exit surveys/interviews 

• Capstone courses 

• Portfolio analysis 

Use of Results 

The results of assessment activities are valuable tools for decision-making and 

improvement. They produce results that serve to increase effectiveness and meet the stated 

objectives of improving candidate learning and performance and improving programs, 

program planning, and program development. On a yearly basis, data are aggregated and 

analyzed by appropriate decision-makers. On the basis of this data, program and support 

improvements are made. In this way, a continuous cycle of improvement has been 

established. Results of assessment activities can be demonstrated in various ways: 

• Modifications of course assignments, assessments, and rubrics 

• Changes in instructional styles 

• Reorganization of courses 

• Development of courses 

• Elimination of courses 

• Changes in major requirements 

• Changes in admission or exit requirements 

• Modification of course and teaching evaluation instruments 

• Modification of course schedules 

• Revision of syllabi and changes in course emphasis 

• Provision of additional or specialized technology facilities for candidates and faculty 

• Addition of capstone courses 

• Development of portfolio assessment within courses or programs 

• Revision of student services activities 

• Adjustments in operating procedures 

Structure 

As previously stated, assessment in the College of Education is comprehensive, 

reflecting three areas of concentration: candidates, program, and support for candidate 

learning. 

Candidates – Outcomes Assessment: Assessment of Candidates 

Unit Assessment charts were developed for initial teacher preparation programs. 

The transition points for initial teacher preparation programs are as follow: 

22

1) Program entry – These assessment activities focus on those indicators identified to 

allow entry into the College of Education or a specific program within the college. 

The criteria might include standardized test scores, writing sample, interviews, 

completion of required coursework in general education, and/or performance 

assignments. 

2) Entry to extended field/clinical experience – These assessment activities focus on 

those indicators identified to evidence competence as progress is made. Activities in 

initial teacher education programs might, for example, reflect the INTASC standards, 

specialized program association (SPA) standards, and the domains of Praxis. These 

standards guide the initial teacher preparation program and assessments performed 

with a focus on the competencies to indicate progression. Syllabi clearly reflect the 

expected course outcomes and identify the standards that are introduced or reinforced 

during the course. In addition, competency in the content knowledge demonstrated 

through Praxis specialty area scores is required. 

3) Exit from extended field/clinical experience – These assessment activities focus on 

indicators of initial teacher competencies. Evidence of a candidate’s impact on 

student learning should be a major part of this assessment point. The criteria include 

student teaching evaluations, portfolio components, and candidate reflection on 

his/her own performance and decision-making. 

4) Program completion – At this point, assessment focuses on evidence of 

achievement of program or College criteria. These indicators include successful 

completion of coursework designed to provide the content, professional, and 

pedagogical knowledge for beginning teachers and an acceptable evaluation of a 

portfolio. 

5) Follow-up – Praxis III observational evaluations of candidate’s performance in 

their first two years of teaching were implemented in Fall 2002 and were required 

throughout the 2008-2009 academic year. In addition, focus group interviews are 

conducted to collect qualitative data on the effectiveness of the programs. Faculty and 

school colleagues review this data and data collected through surveys and focus group 

interviews on an annual basis for the purpose of analyzing and improving program 

quality. 

The transition points established for advanced teacher preparation programs are: 

1) Program entry – These assessment activities focus on those indicators identified 

to allow entry into the College of Education or a specific program within the 

college. The criteria might include standardized test scores, writing sample, 

and/or interviews. 

2) Midpoint – Progress is reviewed and evaluated at the point of advancement to 

candidacy. 

23

3) Program completion – At this point, assessment focuses on evidence of 

achievement of program or College criteria. 

4) Follow-up – Alumni surveys are periodically conducted by Institutional Research. 

In addition, focus group interviews are conducted to collect qualitative data on the 

effectiveness of the programs. 

Program – Academic Program Evaluation 

Program evaluation in the college is a systematic, ongoing process that is considered 

a routine feature of the work. While program evaluations necessarily focus on academic 

learning as evidenced by candidate outcome assessment, other components such as the 

degree to which a program supports the academic mission of the college and the Conceptual 

Framework should be considered. Together, these statements provide the overall guiding 

framework for the operation of the individual programs. Additionally, advising, student 

services, and human and financial support resources should be reflected in the program 

evaluation. 

Following the general mission statements and the more specific program purposes 

statement, program assessment plans address the three general components of the College of 

Education Outcomes Assessment System: program goals and standards, assessment criteria 

and procedures, and use of results. 

1) Program goals and standards – The goals for candidate outcomes should be 

programmatically identified through relevant Specialized Program Associations, 

accrediting bodies, licensure, and/or other faculty determined requirements or 

expectations. 

2) Assessment criteria and procedures – This area identifies the criteria and related 

procedures that are used to assess the success of the program in assuring that the 

program goals are met. As data are collected on candidates at the transition points, the 

data are aggregated and analyzed. Trend data reports are produced and presented to 

stakeholders for analysis. 

3) Use of assessment results - The assessment system requires regular and 

systematic review and use of performance operations data to initiate changes in 

programs and unit operations. 

Support 

• Field experience, student teaching assignments, and internship data are collected 

and trend data reported. 

• Data on diversity of candidates and faculty are collected and trend data reported. 

• Faculty, administration, and staff are responsible for fulfilling the mission of the 

College of Education. Their collective performance contributes to the 

effectiveness of the College; therefore, evaluation is a necessary component. 

- Staff and administrative assessment occurs through annual institutional 

performance appraisals. 

24

- The performance of faculty for tenure and promotion is based on 

guidelines outlined in the College of Education Retention, Promotion, and 

Tenure document. These guidelines reflect the department, college and 

University missions, and faculty members are evaluated according to their 

contributions to the objectives of the department, College and University 

relative to the areas of research, teaching, and service. 

- Department faculty are evaluated for merit as per the merit guidelines 

developed by each department. Each faculty member needs to meet the 

minimum criteria to be eligible for across the board and merit raises. 

- Department Chairs develop annual Professional Development Plans with 

each of their faculty members in an attempt to spell out, in detail, the 

mutually agreed upon objectives the faculty member will work towards for 

that year in the areas of research, teaching, and service. Chairs and 

faculty review these plans at the end of each year not only to assist in the 

retention, promotion, and tenure process, but also as they relate to merit 

and improvement. The process of professional development planning also 

helps the department chairs plan for the following year. 

- Candidates evaluate the effectiveness of their instructors’ teaching at the 

end of each course, each semester. 

Operations data that are produced for annual review include: 

• Enrollment data 

• Graduation statistics 

• Retention and time-to-degree data 

• Candidate complaints record/documentation of resolution 

• Advisor/advisee assignment lists 

• Budget 

• Personnel 

• Facilities 

• Unit resources, including technology 

• Specific study data and university comparison data 

Assessment Models 

The College of Education assessment model has been developed for the previously 

identified comprehensive areas of candidates, program, and support. Developed 

collaboratively, this model reflects criteria deemed critical to evaluate and evidence 

candidate learning, candidate performance, program effectiveness, and effective support 

candidates and programs. Furthermore, this model includes a cyclical process that involves 

aggregation of data and review by decision-makers for the purpose of improving programs 

and policies. This constitutes a continuous improvement process. 

VI. TRANSITION POINTS 

In accordance with the assessment philosophy data the College of Education has 

identified transition points at which candidate performance and progress are evaluated. These 

points for initial and advanced levels are grouped according to program and are described in 

the following documents: 

25

Transition Points - Initial Teacher Preparation Programs 

Assessment Transition Responsibility Purpose 

Background Clearance Investigation Admission Office of Student Services Candidate assessment 

(Dispositions) 

Computer Literacy Test – Hands on test Admissions Office of Student 

Candidate assessment 

Services/Technology Coordinator (Technology) 

GPA (2.50 or higher) Admissions Office of Student Services/Data Candidate assessment 

Manager 

(Content knowledge 

1) PRAXIS I scores: Reading (173), Writing (172), 

Math (172); or SAT score (1050 or higher) ACT 

score (22 or higher); or B or better in general 

education English and math courses 

General Education courses: 30 semester hours 

distributed as indicated by audit sheets (UG) 

Admissions Office of Student Services/Data 

Manager 

26 


(Content knowledge) 

Admissions Office of Student Services Candidate assessment 


Admission to Graduate School (G) Admissions Office of Student Services Candidate assessment 

GPA: 2.50 overall, in education course, and in major Admissions Office of Student Services Candidate assessment 

Portfolio (Core, Content, Reflective Essay): Copy of Entry to Student Teaching Faculty/Faculty advisor/ Student Candidate assessment 

review on file with appropriate signature 

Teaching Director/Data Manager (Content, professional & pedagogical knowledge, skills, and dispositions) 

PRAXIS II content test Entry to Student Teaching Licensure Officer/Data Manager Candidate assessment (Content knowledge) 

Student Teaching Evaluation 

Exit from Student Teaching Cooperating and Supervising Candidate assessment 

PRAXIS III- based 

Teachers/Director of Student (Content, professional & pedagogical knowledge, skills, and 

Teaching/Assessment Director dispositions.) 

Student Teaching Evaluation 

Exit from Student teaching Cooperating and Supervising Candidate assessment 

SPA specific 

Teachers/Director of Student (Content, professional & pedagogical knowledge, skills, and 

Teaching 

dispositions.) 

Completers’ Surveys Exit from Student Teaching Candidates/Director of Student Program assessment 

(Also Entry to Student Teaching) Teaching/Assessment Director 

Impact on Student Learning Exit from Student teaching Colloquium instructor/Data Candidate assessment 

Manager 

(Content, professional & pedagogical knowledge, skills, and 


Portfolio (All items including Core, Content, 

Exit from Student teaching Colloquium instructor/Data Candidate assessment 

Reflective Essay, Impact on Student Learning and 

Manager 

(Content, professional & pedagogical knowledge, skills, and 

Student Teaching Evaluations) 


Program Completers Surveys Exit from Student teaching Colloquium Instructor/Assessment 

Director 

Program assessment 

Cooperating Teacher Survey Exit from Student teaching Cooperating Teachers/Assessment 

Director 

Program assessment 

PRAXIS II (PLT) Program Completion 

Licensure Officer/Data Manager Candidate assessment 

(Licensure Application) 

(Professional & pedagogical knowledge, skills, and dispositions) 

Comprehensive Examination (G) Program Completion Department of Curricular & 

Instructional Studies 


Degree Clearance: 128 credits minimum, 2.50 GPA 

overall, 2.50 in education courses, 2.50 in major (UG) 

Program Completion Office of Student Services Candidate assessment 

PRAXIS III Evaluations Follow-up State Pathwise Evaluation 


(ODE)/Assessment Director (Professional & pedagogical knowledge, skills, and dispositions) 

Focus Group Interviews Follow-up Assessment Director Program assessment 

Employers' Survey Follow-up Assessment Director Program assessment

Transition Points - Master’s Programs In Curricular And Instructional Studies (C&I) 


GPA 

Admission C&I Department Chair Candidate Assessment 

Professional Experience 

COE Office of Student (Content Knowledge) 

Graduate School Admission 

Services 

Graduate School (sending letter 

of acceptance with specific 

information). 

Advancement to Candidacy and graduation a) B Mid-point C&I Faculty Advisor signature Candidate Assessment 

or better in 15 credit hours of program course 

asserting completion of 15 (Content knowledge, professional growth and dispositions) 

work and 

credits and acceptable scores 

b) Successful completion of field experience in 

on the Field Experience and 

5610:605 OR 5500: 600 as evidenced by a 

score of 3 (target) or 2 (acceptable) 

Dispositions 

c) Score of 3 (target) or 2 (acceptable) on the 

Office of Student Services 

Dispositions Measurement in 5610: 605 or 

(NOTE: This requirement is 

5500: 600 course 

outlined on the Program Course 

Distribution Plan (PCD). The 

candidate’s acceptance letter 

into the program instructs the 

candidate to meet with the 

assigned advisor to complete 

the PCD. During this time, the 

C&I advisor explains each 

requirement including the Midpoint 

assessment described 

above). 

Successful completion of Master’s Written 

Comprehensive Examination as evidenced by a 

score of 3 (target) or 2 (acceptable) on each 

section of the examination 

Capstone assessment: 

1. Successful completion Master’s Research 

Project/Problem as evidenced by a score of 3 

(target) or 2 (acceptable) on each section of the 

Project/Problem 

2. Score of 3 (target) or 2 (acceptable) on the 

C&I Faculty rating of 

candidate’s performance in 

5500: 600 or 5610: 605 

Program Completion C&I Faculty rating of 

candidate’s performance on 

Comprehensive Examination 

Program Completion C&I Faculty rating of 

candidate’s performance on 

Master’s Research 

Project/Problem and 

Dispositions 

C&I Faculty collect 

27 

Candidate Assessment (content, professional and pedagogical 

knowledge) 

Candidate Assessment (Content, professional and pedagogical 

knowledge, and dispositions)

Dispositions Measurement 

3. Completers Survey (submitted during the 

final class meetings of the Master’s Research 

Project/Problem course) 

Alumni Surveys 

Focus Group Interviews 

GPA 

Professional Experience 

Graduate School Admission 

Completers Survey 

Follow-up Institutional Research 

COE Assessment Office 

28 

Program Assessment 

Transition Points - Master's Programs in Educational Foundations and Leadership 

Master’s Programs in Instructional Technology, Technology Facilitation Endorsement, 

Principalship Master's, and Principalship Licensure Programs 


Teaching Experience for Advanced 

Programs 

Admission Assistant Department Chair (EFL) Candidate Assessment 


Admissions Office of Student Services Candidate Assessment 

(Experience required for Endorsements, and 

Licensures) 

Admissions Graduate School Candidate Assessment (Content Knowledge) 

Confirmation of a completed undergraduate 

degree 

Program Course Requirements Mid-point Advisor Candidate Assessment (Rubrics to assess meeting 

program standards, including aligned dispositions) 

Advancement to Candidacy and graduation Mid-point EFL Faculty Advisor signature Candidate Assessment 

a) 3.0 GPA or better in at least 12 credit 

asserting completion of at least 12 

hours or program course work 

credits of 3.0 GPA or better. 

Successful completion of Master's Portfolio Program Completion EFL Faculty rating of the candidate's Candidate Assessment (Content, professional and 

with a score of 3(target) or 2 (acceptable) 

overall on the portfolio rubric 

performance on final program portfolio pedagogical knowledge, and dispositions) 

Master’s Project Program Completion Office of Student Services Candidate Assessment (Content, professional and 

pedagogical knowledge, and dispositions) 

Completers’ Survey Program Completion Candidates Program Assessment 

Focus Group Interviews Follow-up Assessment Office Program Assessment

Ed.D. 

Transition Points - Doctoral Program In Educational Foundations And Leadership 

GPA Admission Office of Student Services Candidate Assessment 

(Content Knowledge) 

Controlled Writing Sample Admission Office of Student Services Candidate Assessment 


Interview Admission Office of Student Services Candidate Assessment (Content, professional and 

pedagogical knowledge, and dispositions) 

GRE Score Admission Office of Student Services Candidate Assessment 


Internship Mid-Point Faculty Advisor; Office of Student 

Services 

Advancement to Candidacy Mid-Point Faculty Advisor; Office of Student 

Services 

Dissertation Proposal Program Completion Faculty Advisor; Office of Student 

Services 

Dissertation Defense Program Completion Faculty Advisor; Office of Student 

Services 

29 

Candidate Assessment 

(Content knowledge, professional and pedagogical 

knowledge, and dispositions) 




knowledge, and dispositions) 

Completers survey Program Completion Candidates Program Assessment 

Focus Group Interviews Follow-up Assessment Office Program Assessment 



knowledge, and dispositions)

VII. KEY ASSESSMENTS 

Admissions criteria have been established for all programs. Once admitted to a 

program, key assessments are in place to monitor the progress of candidates as they move 

through and complete the programs. 

For initial teacher preparation programs, performance assessments that address 

Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates have been 

implemented. There are thirteen separate assessments at the undergraduate level and ten at 

the graduate level that have been aligned with both the Ohio/INTASC Standards and the 

Ohio Standards for the Teaching Profession (Ohio Department of Education, 2007). For each 

initial and advanced licensure program, there are six to eight key assessments. These have 

been aligned with the Specialized Professional Association (SPA) Standards which are 

specific to teaching fields. Collectively, they delineate what candidates should know and be 

able to do within their chosen teaching field. The assessments are completed at various points 

during the programs and are reviewed at the identified transition points. Some assessments 

are unique to a specific program; others are unit-wide assessments. For initial teacher 

preparation, the key assessments constitute the candidate assessment portfolio. [Portfolio 

checklists are located through the following link: 

http://www.uakron.edu/dotAsset/576616.pdf.] 

At the advanced level, assessments have also been implemented to determine what 

candidates know and are able to do and to evaluate the rigor and effectiveness of the 

programs. The assessments for the Master’s Degree in Educational Administration/ 

Principalship and the Post-Master’s Principalship Licensure Program are aligned with 

Educational Leadership Constituents Council (ELCC) standards. The assessments for the 

Master’s Degree in Instructional Technology and the Technology Facilitation Endorsement 

are aligned with International Standards for Technology Education (ISTE). The advanced 

programs in Curricular and Instructional Studies reflect the Ohio Standards for the Teaching 

Profession which have been aligned with the National Board for Professional Teaching 

Standards (NBPTS). 

The Ed.D in the Department of Educational Foundations and Leadership primarily 

prepares candidates for continuing roles in K-12 schools. Therefore, transition points and 

corresponding assessments that are reviewed at each point have been identified for this 

program. 

Details of the key assessments are reflected in the following table. 

30

INITIAL TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS 

Professional and Pedagogical Core 

Professional and Pedagogical Core – Baccalaureate/Post-Baccalaureate 

Assessment Assessment Name Ohio/INTASC 

Standards* 

31 

Transition Point Unit/ 

Unique 

to 

Program 

Data 

Technology 

Source 

1 Beginning Philosophy of Education (5100:200) C, D, E, G, H, I, J 2 – Entry to Student Teaching Unit Tk20 

2 Field Synthesis Report (5100:200) B, C, I 2 – Entry to Student Teaching Unit Tk20 

3 Comprehensive Project (5100:220) B, C, H, I 2 – Entry to Student Teaching Unit Tk20 


5 Electronic Presentation (5500:230) A, D, E, F, G 2 – Entry to Student Teaching Unit Tk20 

6 Field Report (5610:225) A, C, D, E, F, G, J 2 – Entry to Student Teaching Unit Tk20 

7 "Multicultural Pedagogical Project" (5100:300) C, G, I, J 2 – Entry to Student Teaching Unit Tk20 

8 Unit Plan (5500:360) A, B, C, D, E, F, H, J 2 – Entry to Student Teaching Unit Tk20 

9 Lesson Plan (5500:360) B, C, D, E, F, H 2 – Entry to Student Teaching Unit Tk20 

10 Management Plan (5500:360) A, C, E, F, J 2 – Entry to Student Teaching Unit Tk20 

11 Personal Management Plan (5500:370) A, B, C, E, F, J 2 – Entry to Student Teaching Unit Tk20 

12 Assessment Plan (5500:370) B, F, G, H, I, J 2 – Entry to Student Teaching Unit Tk20 

13 Praxis II – Principles of Learning & Teaching B, C, D, F, G, H, I, J 4 – Program Completion Unit COE 

Database 

Professional and Pedagogical Core – Master’s with Licensure 

Assessment 

# 

Assessment Name Ohio/INTASC 

Standards* 


Unique 

to 

Program 

1 Philosophy of Education Statement (5100:604) C, D, E, G, H, I, J 2 – Entry to Student Unit Tk20 

2 Comprehensive Project (5100:620) B, C, H, I 2 – Entry to Student Teaching Unit Tk20 


4 Candidate Created Assessment (5100:642) B, D, G, H, I 2 – Entry to Student Teaching Unit Tk20 

5 Classroom Management Plan (5500:619) B, C, F, G, I, J 2 – Entry to Student Teaching Unit Tk20 

6 Unit Plan, Lesson Plan, Micro-Teach Rubric A, D, E, G, H, I 2 – Entry to Student Teaching Unit Tk20 

(5500:617) 

Data 

Technology 

Source 

7 Case Study Presentation (5500:617) B, C, D, F, H, I, J 2 – Entry to Student Teaching Unit Tk20 

8 Praxis II – Principles of Learning & Teaching B, C, D, F, G, H, I, J 4 – Program Completion Unit COE 

Database 

* Ohio/INTASC Standards have been aligned with the Ohio Standards for the Teaching Profession

Specialized Professional Association (SPA) Key Assessments 

Early Childhood Education – Baccalaureate/Post-Baccalaureate 

Assessment Assessment Name NAEYC Standards Transition Point Unit/ 

Unique 

to 

32 

Program 

Data 

Technology 

Source 

1 Praxis II Education of Young Children (#20021) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 2 – Entry to Student Teaching Unit COE 

Database 

2 Make Learning Visible 1, 2, 3 2 – Entry to Student Teaching Unique Tk20 

3 Collaborative Primary Unit Plan 3, 4 2 – Entry to Student Teaching Unique t Tk20 

4 Student Teaching Evaluation/NAEYC Specific 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 3 – Exit from Student Unit SPSS 

Evaluation 

Teaching 

5 Impact on Student Learning 1, 3, 4, 5 3 – Exit from Student 

Teaching 

Unit Tk20 

6 Family School Relationship (2006-2007) 1, 2 2 – Entry to Student Teaching Unique Tk20 

Family Interview (2007-2008) 

7 Letter to Congressman 2, 5 2 – Entry to Student Teaching Unique Tk20 

8 Classroom Management Plan 1, 5 2 – Entry to Student Teaching Unique Tk20 

Middle Childhood Education – Baccalaureate/Post-Baccalaureate 

Assessment Assessment Name NMSA Standards Transition Point Unit/ 

Unique 

to 

1 Praxis II Principles of Learning and Teaching– 

Grades 5-9 (#30523) 

Middle Level Language Arts (#10049) 

Middle Level Mathematics (20069) 

Middle Level Science (#10439) 

Middle Level Social Studies (#20089) 

1, 4, 5, 6, 7 PLT: 4 – Program 

Completion 

Content: 2 – Entry to Student 

Teaching 

Program 

Data 

Technology 

Source 

Unit COE 

Database 

2 Summary of Research Article 2, 4 3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unique Tk20 

3 Interdisciplinary Unit 1, 3, 4, 5 3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unique Tk20 

4 Student Teaching Evaluation 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 3 – Exit from Student 

Teaching 


5 Impact on Student Learning: Modified Teacher 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 3 – Exit from Student Unique Tk20 

Work Sample 

Teaching 

6 Parent Communication 2, 6 3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unique Tk20 

7 Field Research Project 1, 2, 7 3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unique Tk20

Early Childhood Intervention Specialist – Baccalaureate/Post-Baccalaureate 

Assessment Assessment Name CEC Standards 

1 Praxis II: Special Education: Knowledge-based 

Core Principles (data provided on test #0351) 

33 


Unique 

to 

Program 

Data 

Technology 

Source 

1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unit COE 

Database 

2 

Test #0353 has now replaced #0351. 

Research Paper on a Disability 1, 2 3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unique Tk20 

3 Individualized Education Plan 4, 7, 10 3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unique Tk20 

4 Student Teaching Evaluation (including CEC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 3 – Exit from Student Unit SPSS 

specific evaluation) 

10 

Teaching 

5 Impact on Student Learning 4, 5, 7, 8, 3 – Exit from Student 

Teaching 


6 Practicum Case Study 3, 6, 8, 9 3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unique Tk20 

7 Family Interview 1, 2 3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unique Tk20 

Early Childhood Intervention Specialist – Master’s Degree 

Assessment Assessment Name CEC Standards Transition Point Unit/ Data 

Unique Technology 

to 

Program 

Source 

1 Praxis II: Special Education: Knowledge-based 



Database 

2 






10 

Teaching 

5 Practicum Case Study – Impact on Student 4, 5, 7, 8 3 – Exit from Student Unit Tk20 

Learning 

Teaching 

6 Assessment Report 3, 8, 9 3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unique Tk20

Mild to Moderate Intervention Specialist – Baccalaureate/Post-Baccalaureate 


1 Praxis II Special Education: Knowledge-based 


34 


Unique 

to 

Program 

Data 

Technology 

Source 


Database 

2 

Test #0353 has now been replaced by Praxis II 

test (#0351) 


3 Analysis of Best Practices for Youth with 

Mild/Moderate Disabilities 

4, 7, 10 Unique Tk20 


Specific Evaluation) 

10 

Teaching 

5 Impact on Student Learning 4, 5, 7, 8, 3 – Exit from Student 

Teaching 




Mild to Moderate Intervention Specialist – Master’s Degree 

Assessment Assessment Name Standards 

Transition Point Unit/ Data 


to 

Program 

Source 

1 Praxis II Special Education: Knowledge-based 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unit COE 


Database 

2 

Test #0353 has now been replaced by Praxis II 

test (#0351) 


3 Analysis of Best Practices for Youth with 

Mild/Moderate Disabilities 

4, 7, 10 3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unique Tk20 



10 

Teaching 


Learning 

Teaching 


Moderate to Intensive Baccalaureate/Post-Baccalaureate 


1 Praxis II Special Education: Knowledge-based 


35 


Unique 

to 

Program 

Data 

Technology 

Source 


Database 

2 






10 

Teaching 

5 Impact on Student Learning 4, 5, 7, 8 3 – Exit from Student 

Teaching 




Moderate to Intensive - Master’s Degree 


Transition Point Unit/ Data 


to 

Program 

Source 

1 Praxis II Special Education: Knowledge-based 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unit COE 


Database 

2 


Research Paper on Disability 1, 2 3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unit Tk20 

3 Individualized Education Program 4, 7, 10 3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unique Tk20 



10 

Teaching 


Learning 

Teaching 


AYA Integrated Mathematics Education - Baccalaureate/Master’s 

Assessment Assessment Name NCTM 

Standards 

36 

Transition Point Unit/Uni 

que to 

Program 

Data 

Technology 

Source 

1 Praxis II Content Knowledge Exam 0061 1, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unit COE 

14, 15 

Database 

2 Mathematics Grades 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 

12, 13, 14, 15 

3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unique PeopleSoft 

3 Mock Praxis III Assessment 3, 7, 8, 3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unique Tk20 

4 Student Teaching Assessment 7, 8, 3 – Exit from Student 

Teaching 

Unit SPSS 

5 Impact on Student Learning 7, 8, 3 – Exit from Student 

Teaching 


6 Proof Skills Assessment – Lower Level 1, 2, 3, 4, 3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unique Tk20 

7 Proof Skills Assessment – Upper Level 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11 3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unique Tk20 

8 Standards-Based Strategy Portfolio 6, 8 3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unique Tk20 

AYA English Language Arts -Baccalaureate/Master’s 

Assessment Assessment Name NCTE Standards Transition Point Unit/ Data 


to 

Program 

Source 

1 Praxis II Subject Area Test 0041 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3 – Entry to Student Unit COE 

4.9 

Teaching 

Database 

2 Grades in Required Content Courses 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3 – Entry to Student Unit PeopleSoft 

3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 

4.1, 4.2, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 

4.10 

Teaching 

3 Mentoring Report 2.2, 2.4, 4.4, 4.5, 4.7, 3 – Entry to Student Unique Tk20 

4.8, 4.9 

Teaching 

4 Student Teaching Evaluation 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 3 – Exit from Student Unit SPSS 

3.2, 3.5, 3.6, 4.1, 4.2, 

4.3, 4.6, 4.10 

Teaching 

5 Impact on Student Learning 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 3.1, 3.3, 3 – Exit from Student Unit Tk20 

3.4, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 

4.9, 4.10 

Teaching 

6 Language Development Response 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3 – Entry to Student Unique Tk20

7 Integrated Language Arts Unit 

Plan/Teach/Reflect 

3.3, 3.6, Teaching 

2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6, 

3.4, 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 

4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10 

8 Critical Analysis and Reflection on the 

Teaching of Literature 

AYA Science Education - Baccalaureate/Master’s 

Assessment Assessment Name NSTA Standards 

37 

3 – Entry to Student 

Teaching 

3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7 3 – Entry to Student 

Teaching 

1 Praxis II Content Knowledge Tests 1a 3 – Entry to Student 

Teaching 

2 Grades – Science Content 1a 3 – Entry to Student 

Teaching 

3 Unit Plan 1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3 – Entry to Student 

3b, 4a, 4b, 6a, 6b, 7a, 

7b, 8a, 8b, 8c 

Teaching 

4 Student Teaching Evaluations (Praxis III–based 1a, 1c, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 3 – Exit from Student 

and Science-specific) 

5e, 5f, 6a, 6b, 8a, 8b, 8c, 

9a, 9b 

Teaching 

5 Impact on Student Learning – Modified for 1a, 1b, 2c, 3b, 4b, 8c 3 – Exit from Student 

AYA Science 

Teaching 

6 Safety Plan 9a, 9b 3 – Entry to Student 

Teaching 

7 Research Report Reflection 1d, 1e 3 – Entry to Student 

Teaching 

8 Portfolio – NSTA Standards 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 4a 3 – Entry to Student 

Teaching 

Unique Tk20 

Unique Tk20 


Unique 

to 

Program 

Data 

Technology 

Source 


Database 

Unit PeopleSoft 

Unique Tk20 

Unit SPSS 


Unique Tk20 

Unique Tk20 

Unique Tk20

AYA Social Studies Education – Baccalaureate/Post-baccalaureate 

Assessment Assessment Name NCSS Standards 

38 


Unique 

to 

Program 

Data 

Technology 

Source 

1 Praxis II “Social Studies Content Knowledge” 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unit COE 

(10081) 

1.6, 1.7, 1.10 

Database 

2 Course Grades 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 

1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10 

3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unit PeopleSoft 

3 NCSS Lesson Plans 1.1, 1.3 3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unique Tk20 

4 Student Teaching Evaluations 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 3 – Exit from Student Unit SPSS 

1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10 Teaching 

5 Impact on Student Learning 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 3 – Exit from Student Unit Tk20 

1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10 Teaching 

6 Content Portfolio/Curriculum Connections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unique Tk20 

Portfolio 

1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10 

P-12 Multi-age Foreign Language - Baccalaureate/Master’s 

Assessment Assessment Name ACTFL Standards Transition Point Unit/ Data 


to 

Program 

Source 

1 Praxis II Content Knowledge Exam French 1, 2 3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unit COE 

(#0173) 

Praxis II Content Knowledge Exam Spanish 

(#0191) 

Database 

2 Essay/Writing Assessment 1, 2 3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unique Tk20 

3 Big Book Unit Plan 2, 3, 4, 5 3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unique Tk20 

4 Student Teaching Evaluation (including ACTFL 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 3 – Exit from Student Unit SPSS 

specific section) 

Teaching 

5 Impact on Student Learning 3, 4, 5 3 – Exit from Student 

Teaching 


6 Candidate Oral Proficiency (OPI) 1 3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unique Tk20 

7 Culture Project 1, 2 3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unique Tk20 

8 Field Journal 3, 4, 6 3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unique Tk20

P-12 Multi-age Physical Education – Baccalaureate 

Assessment Assessment Name AAHPERD-NASPE 

Standards 

39 


Unique 

to 

Data 

Technology 

Source 

1 Praxis II Physical Education: Content 

1, 2 3 – Entry to Student Teaching 

Program 


Knowledge Test (#10091) 

Database 

2 Course Grades 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unit PeopleSoft 

3 Physical Education Lesson Plans 2 3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unique Tk20 

4 Student Teaching Evaluation 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 3 – Exit from Student 

Teaching 

Unique Tk20 

5 Impact on Student Learning 7, 8 3 – Exit from Student 

Teaching 

Unique Tk20 

6 Adapted PE Clinical Report 3, 5 3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unique Tk20 

7 Microteaching Portfolio 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 

10 

3 – Entry to Student Teaching Unique Tk20 

ADVANCED PROGRAMS 

Curricular and Instructional Studies – Master’s Programs for Practicing Teachers 

Assessment Assessment Name Ohio Standards for 

the Teaching 

Profession 

1 Comprehensive Examination 

OSTP 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 

2.4, 2.5 

2 Field Experience Report OSTP 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 

5.4, 5.5 

3 Master’s Project/Problem OSTP 1.2, 1.4, 2.1, 

2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 

4.3, 4.4, 5.5, 6.1, 6.3, 

7.1, 7.2, 7.3 

4 Theory to Practice Applied Project OSTP 1.2, 1.4, 4.2, 

4.4, 5.3, 5.5, 7.2 

5 Dispositions Assessment #1 

OSTP 1.2, 1.4, 4.5, 

Dispositions Assessment #2 

5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 7.1, 7.2, 

7.3 


Unique 

to 

Program 

Program Completion Unique Excel 

Mid-point Unique Excel 



Mid-point 

Program Completion 

Unique Excel 

Data 

Technology 

Source

Principalship: Master’s/Post-Master’s Licensure 

Assessment Assessment Name ELCC Standards 

1* Praxis II Education Leadership: Administration 

and Supervision (#410) 

2 Foundations of Educational Leadership 

Part A – Vision Project 

Part B – Implications of Law 

Part C – School Contexts 

3 Leading and Evaluating School Improvement 

and Cultures Projects 

Part A – School Cultures Projects 

Part B – Supervision and Professional 

Development Project 

1.1, 1.3, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 

3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 

4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1 

1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 

6.1, 6.2, 6.3 

4* Internship Project 1.5, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 

4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 

40 


Unique 

to 

Program 

Data 

Technology 

Source 

Program Completion Unit COE 

Database 

Within Program Coursework Unique Excel 

2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 Within Program Coursework Unique Excel 

5.3, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 7.3 

5* Employer Survey 1.1, 1.2, 1.3,.1.4, 1.5, 

2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 

3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 

5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 6.1, 6.2, 

6 Capstone Project with Portfolio 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 

2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 

7 Organizational Management and Community 

Relations Projects 

Part A – Building and Facilities Safety 

Part B – Human Resources 

Part C – School Community Audit 

6.3 

4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 6.1 

3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 

4.3 

*Assessments # 1, 4, & 5 are only required for those candidates completing the licensure track. 


Post-program Unique Excel 

Exit From MA 

Program/Midpoint in 

Licensure 

Unique Excel 

Within Program Coursework Unique Excel

Technology Facilitation Endorsement – Instructional Technology Master’s 

Assessment Assessment Name ISTE Standards 

1* Competencies Verifications (GPA, Teaching, 

and NETS-T Verifications) 

TF-IA, TF-IB, TF-IIA, 

TF-III B, 

TF-IIIC, TF-VA, TF- 

VB, TF-VC, TF-VIA, 

TF-VIB, 

TF-VIIA, 

41 


Unique 

to 

Program 

Admissions Unique Excel 

Data 

Technology 

Source 

2 E-Portfolio Assessment TF-IA, TF-IIIA Program Completion Unique Excel 

3 Web-Based Deliverable Instruction Project TF-IIA, TF-IIB, TF- 

IIC, TF-IID, TF-IIE, 

TF-IIF, 

TF-IIIA, TF-IIIC, TF- 

IVA, 

TF-IVB, 

TF-IVC, TF-VC, TF- 

VD, 

TF-VIIA 

Mid-Point Unique Excel 

4 Field Experience TF-IA, TF-IIF, TF-VC, 

TF-VD, TF-VID, TF- 

VIE, TF-VIIA, TF- 

VIIB, TF-VIIC, TF- 

VIIIA, 

TF-VIIIB, 

TF-VIIIC, TF-VIIID, 

TF-VIIIE 


5 Technology Integration Classroom Project TF-IB, TF-II A, TF- 

IIB, TF-IIC, TF-IID, 

TF-IIE, TF-IIIA, TF- 

IIIB, TF-IIIC, TF-IIID, 

TF-IIIE, TF-IVA, TF- 

IVB, TF-IVC 

Mid-point Unique Excel 

6 Technology Plan Case Study TF-IIA, TF-IIB, TF- 

IID, TF-IIE, TF-IIF, 

Mid-point Unique Excel

7 Instructional Design Project 

TF-IIIA, TF-IIIB, TF- 

IIID, TF-IIE, TF-IVA, 

TF-IVC, TF-VA, TF- 

VB, TF-VC, TF-VD, 

TF-VIA, TF-VIB, TF- 

VIC, TF-VID, TF-VIE, 

TF-VIIA, TF-VIIB, 

TF-VIIC, TF-VIIIA, 

TF-VIIIB, TF-VIIIC, 

TF-VIIID 

TF-IIA, TF-IIB, TF- 

IIE, TF-IIF, TF-IIIA, 

TF-IIC, TF-IIID, TF- 

IVA, TF-IVB, TF-IVC, 

TF-VC, TF-VD, VIIIC 

* Assessment #1 is only required for those candidates completing the Technology Facilitation Endorsement. 

Educational Foundations and Leadership – Ed.D. 

Assessment Assessment Name Conceptual 

Framework 

Proficiencies 

42 

Beginning of Program Unique Excel 


Unique 

to 

Program 

1 Internship Evaluation K1, E2 Mid-Point Unique Excel 

2 Dissertation Proposal K1, E2 Program Completion Unique Excel 

3 Dissertation Defense K1, E2 Program Completion Unique Excel 

Data 

Technology 

Source

VIII. FAIRNESS, ACCURACY, CONSISTENCY, AND ELIMINATION OF BIAS 

IN CANDIDATE ASSESSMENTS 

The Unit utilizes several methods to ensure the fairness, accuracy, consistency and 

the elimination of bias as required by NCATE Standard 2. For the external measures in place 

such as Praxis I, Praxis II, and Praxis III evaluations, the program relies on the validity and 

reliability studies and the fairness review conducted by the Educational Testing Service and 

the module selection and benchmarking processes at the state level. Research shows that 

while these measures may have a disparate effect on certain populations, the measures in 

themselves are not biased (Gitomer, Latham & Ziomeck, 1999). The COE, however, is 

monitoring any differential impact of these measures. 

For internal measures procedures have also been implemented to provide this 

assurance. For the design of measures such as surveys and focus group interviews, an 

Assessment Design Matrix has been developed. This matrix assures the alignment with the 

components of the COE Conceptual Framework and the appropriate standards. For 

assessments embedded in coursework and aggregated in candidate assessment portfolios, 

rubrics have been developed. At the orientation session, candidates are provided copies of 

portfolio checklists for their respective programs and the assessment expectations are 

discussed. Inter-rater reliability exercises have been conducted for selected assessments in 

candidate portfolios for Early Childhood and Intervention Specialist programs. A 

continuation of these exercises to cover the unit and program assessments utilizing rubrics is 

planned to enhance the assurance of accuracy, consistency, fairness and avoidance of bias. A 

student teaching evaluation based on the 19 Praxis III criteria is employed to assess the 

performance of candidates in the culminating clinical experience. Supervisors of student 

teachers have received training on the four domains of Praxis and on using this assessment to 

evaluate candidates. 

IX. RELATIONSHIP OF DATA SOURCES 

Two tables demonstrate the relationship among the data sources and uses of the data. 

The Assessment Relationship Table (see p. 45) outlines the relationship among the levels of 

data aggregated to address the operation of the programs, the unit, and the institution. The 

table also indicates the reciprocal manner in which the data are used by the institution, the 

Unit, and the programs to improve and enhance the outcomes for candidates and the students 

with whom they will be working. 

The key assessments in place at both the unit and program levels provide data for 

decision-making at all levels, provide multiple sources of data, both internal and external to 

the Unit and are administered at multiple points in the candidates’ programs. Identified key 

assessments provide information to the Unit about how candidates are performing in relation 

to the competencies delineated in the Conceptual Framework and are represented in the 

Relationship of Conceptual Proficiencies and Key Assessments Table (see p.46). 

43

Level of Data 

Sources 

Institutional 

Level: 

Student 

(candidate) 

satisfaction 

survey; graduate 

survey 

� 

Unit Level: 

Transition data 

aggregated for 

all candidates; 

candidate 

satisfaction 

surveys (unit) 

� 

Program Level: 

Professional & 

Pedagogical 

Core, 

Dispositions, 

Impact on 

Student 

Learning, PIII 

Student 

Teaching 

(Disaggregated 

by Program 

Area); 

Program-specific 

key assessments 

� 

Candidate Level: 

Key assessments 

(Core & 

Content), 

aggregated by 

transition points 

Key Assessments 

Employed 

• National Survey of 

Student Engagement 

(NSSE) 

• IR graduate followup 

survey 

• GPA 

• Praxis II & III 

• Core key assessments 

• Dispositions 

• PIII Student 

Teaching Eval. 

• Impact on Student 

Learning (ISL) 

• Teacher Quality 

Partnership (TQP) 

Survey 

• Completers’ Survey 

• GPA 





Teaching Evaluation 




• Employer’s Survey 

• Program key 

assessments 

• GPA 





Teaching Evaluation 




• Program key 

assessments 

Assessment Relationship Table 

Key Assessments by Level 

Responsibility 

for Data 

Collection 

Institutional 

Research 

Dean’s Office, 

State-wide 

Teacher Quality 

Partnership (TQP) 

project 

Program faculty, 

department chairs, 

Dean’s Office 

Candidates, 

course instructors, 

supervisors 

44 


for Summary & 

Analysis 

Dean, Associate 

Dean, Assistant 

Dean, Advisory 

Committees 

(Administrative 

Council, PEC, 

NCATE Steering) 




Committees 

(Administrative 

Council, PEC, 

NCATE Steering) 

Consumers of 

Data 




Committees 




Committees 

Program faculty Dean Associate 


Dean, Director 

of Assessment 

& 

Accreditation, 

department 

chairs, program 

faculty 

Supervisors, 

course instructors, 

program faculty 

Supervisors, 

course 

instructors, 

program faculty 

Use of Data 

Review and 

revision of 

policies and 

programs 

� 

Review and 


policies and 

programs 

� 

Review and 


curriculum, 

assessments, 

field/clinical 

experiences 

� 

Improvement 

of candidate 

knowledge, 

skills, 

dispositions, 

and effect on 

student 

learning

Relationship of Conceptual Framework Proficiencies and Key Assessments 

Conceptual Framework 

Proficiencies � 

Key Assessments 

� 

Grade Point Average 

(Admissions) 

Praxis II Content Area Tests 

Praxis II Principles of 

Learning and Teaching 

Praxis III Entry-year 

Assessment 

Praxis III Student Teaching 

Evaluation 

Impact on Student Learning 

(ISL) Assessment 

Dispositions Assessment 

Completers Survey 

Teacher Quality Partnership 

(TQP) Survey 

National Survey of Student 

Engagement (NSSE) 

K1 

Knowledge 

K2 

K3 

� � 

� 

� � � 

K4 

45 

Technology 

T1 

T2 

Diversity 

D1 

D2 

E1 

Ethics 

E2 

� � � � � � � � 

� � � � � � � � 

� � � � � � � � 

E3 

� � � � � 

� � � � � � � � 

� � � � � � � � 

� � � �

X. ASSESSMENT OF SUPPORT FOR CANDIDATE LEARNING 

Assessment measures of support for candidate learning provided by operations and 

student services key indicators are reported on an annual basis. These reports are reviewed by 

Unit administrators and necessary changes as indicated are made to goals, policies and 

procedures. These reports serve as a basis for a discussion of the Unit's support for candidate 

learning. Furthermore, this review provides information to assist the dean in planning for the 

following year's budget and personnel requests. These discussions also allow the Unit to make 

the necessary operational changes to administrative policies and procedures and help guide the 

development of the following year's goals. 

Operations 

The associate dean has identified the operations data that will be collected each semester. 

PeopleSoft provides data on many of the operations key indicators. An Access database is 

employed to collect and record faculty data for teaching, research and service. The data is 

aggregated and reported for unit operations reports. 

The operations review process includes the submission of reports by center directors and 

department chairs. Other reports include budget, personnel, external funding, candidate 

enrollment data, and facilities including technology. The faculty members in the Unit are 

required to go through an annual merit process. This requires faculty to submit their 

accomplishments in Teaching, Research and Service to their department chairs. These 

accomplishments are reviewed and discussed with each faculty member and merit points are 

assigned accordingly. During spring, faculty members discuss their professional development 

plans for the following academic year, which helps the department chairs plan for the allocation 

of resources for the next fiscal year 

Key Indicators Key 

Documents 

Budget: 

Total 

Operating 

Student 

(candidate) 

Enrollment: 

Undergraduate 

Students, 

Graduate 

Students 

Average ACT 

Score 

Average SAT 

Score 

Budget 

Documents 

Key Indicators – Operations 

Responsible 

to Collect 

Data 

Fiscal 

Administrator 

from Budget 

Office 

Zip Reports Institutional 

Research 

Institutional 

Research 

Report 

Institutional 

Research 

Report 

Institutional 

Research 

Associate 

Dean 


for Summary 

Fiscal 

Administrator 

Associate 

Dean 

Associate 

Dean 

Associate 

Dean 

46 

Consumers of 

Data 

Dean, 

Administrative 

Council 


Council, 

alumni, faculty 

Department 

Chairs 

Department 

Chairs 

Use of Data Technology 

Data 

Budget 

planning, 

development of 

goals, resource 

allocation, 

operations 

review 

Development of 


allocation, 

operations 

review 

Source 

PeopleSoft 

Financials 



PeopleSoft

Number of 

employees: 

FT Tenure 

Track Faculty, 

FT Faculty 

Non Tenure 

Track, 

PT faculty, 

Contract 

Professionals, 

GA’s, Staff 

Student/Teacher 

Ratio 

Faculty 

Teaching 

Reports 

Faculty 

Research 

Reports 

Faculty Service 

Reports 

Research 

Productivity 


Research 


Research 

TAARS 

Reports, 

Candidate 

Evaluation 

Reports 

Faculty 

Publications, 

Faculty 

Presentation 

s 

Faculty 

Collaboration, 

Faculty 

Collegiate 

Activities, 

Faculty 

Membership 

Activities, 

Faculty 

Professional 

Assignments 

Monthly and 

annual 

research 

reports to 

Board of 

Trustees 

Technology Instructional 

Technology 

Services 

Annual 

Degrees 

Awarded 

Report 

Associate 

Dean, 

Director Data 

Management 

Director, 

Data 

Management 

Director, 

Data 

Management 

Office of 

Research 

Services and 

Sponsored 

Programs 

Computer 

Support 

Assistant 


Research 

Associate 

Dean 

Associate 

Dean 

Associate 

Dean 

Associate 

Dean 

Associate 

Dean 

Associate 

Dean 

Associate 

Dean 

Associate 

Dean 

47 


Council, 



Council 


Council 


Council 


Council 


Council, 



Council, faculty 


Council, 




allocation, 

operations 

review 



allocation, 

operations 

review 

Professional 

Development 

Plans 


HR 


PeopleSoft, 

Excel 

documents 

Annual Reports Faculty 

Database 

Annual Reports Faculty 

Database 



allocation, 

operations 

review 



allocation, 

operations 

review 



allocation, 

operations 

review 


grant 

module 


financials, 

ITS 

scheduling 

database 

PeopleSoft

Student Credit 

Hours 

Generated 

Living 

Education 

Alumni 

Facilities: 

Square 

Footage 

Candidate 

Progression & 

Completion 

Reflection of 

candidate 

admission, 

progression 

through 

programs, and 

completion 

Student 

Issues/Alerts/ 

Complaints 

Reflection of 

student issues 

brought to the 

attention of the 

assistant dean 

Field 

Placements 

Student 

Teaching 

Entrance and 

Exit 

Audit for 

Licensure 


Research 

Alumni 

Report 

Facilities 

Usage report 

-Admissions 

-Changes in 

majors or 

advisors 

-Advancement 

to 

Candidacy 

-Comps 

-Dissertations 

-Degrees 

awarded 

Student 

Issues/Alerts/ 

Complaints 

Field 

Placement 

Database 

Description 

of Fields 

-Applica-ions 

-Midterm 

-Final 

Licensure 

Application 

& Supporting 

Documentation 

Alumni 

Office 

Capital 

Planning 

Student 

Services 

Student 

Services 

Student 

Services & 

Student 

Teaching and 

Field 

Experiences 

Student 

Services & 

Student 

Teaching and 

Field 

Experiences 

Student 

Services 

Associate 

Dean 

Associate 

Dean 

Associate 

Dean 

48 


Council 


Council, 

alumni, faculty, 

alumni board 


Council 

Assistant Dean Dean, 

Department 

Chair 

Assistant Dean Dean & 

Assistant Dean 

Director of 

Student 

Teaching 


Student 

Teaching 

Coordinator of 

Licensure 


Student 

Teaching 


Student 

Teaching; 

Faculty & 

Student 

Teaching 

Committee 



allocation, 

operations 

review 

Development 

goals and plans 

Operations 

review 

Enrollment 

review, 

time to 

completion, 

Faculty load 

Review and 

document for 

needed 

improvement 

Placement 

decisions 

Review of 

candidate 

performance 

and eligibility 

Assistant Dean Confirmation of 

licensure 

program 

completion & 

review of 

number of 

candidates 

obtaining 

license 


Alumni 

database 

Facilities 

database 

COE 

Database 

DARS for 

undergraduate 

degree 

clearance 

forms 

effective fall 

2009 

Word 

Excel 

Excel 

Word

Lists and 

Criteria for 

school based 

faculty 

-Resumes 

-Copies of 

Licenses 

Student 

Services & 

Student 

Teaching and 

Field 

Experience 


Student 

Teaching 

49 


Student 

Teaching 

Employment 

decisions 

Excel and 

hard Copy 

Student Services 

The Assistant Dean for Student Services assists with the coordination of data collected, 

aggregated and disseminated by the Office of Student Services. This includes data that is 

instrumental for the determination of student success. Specifically, data from pre-admission 

advising, scholarships, student issues and other documentation of program 

progression/completion are identified below. In addition, data regarding field placements, 

student teaching, and licensure are included. Some reports are cyclical, such as review of 

academic program advisor assignments which are run every spring semester, checked for 

accuracy and updated over the summer for fall day of development. 

Key Indicators Key 

Documents 

Advisor/advisee 

List that 

identifies advisor 

and advisee 

assignments 

Advising 

satisfaction 

Scholarships 

Scholarship 

applicants, 

ratings and 

amounts 

disbursed 

Satisfaction of 

school based 

faculty and 

student teachers 

Advisor/ 

Advisee Lists 

-Advising 

Satisfaction 

Survey 

-Advising 

Tickets 

showing time 

in/out 

Scholarship 

Applicants and 

Disbursements 

Satisfaction 

surveys for 

school based 

faculty and 

student 

teachers 

Key Indicators: Student Services 

Responsible 

to Collect 

Data 

Student 

Services 


for Summary 

Consumers 

of Data 

Assistant Dean Department 

Chairs 

Advisors Advisors and 

Assistant Dean 

Student 

Services 

Student 

Services & 

Student 

Teaching 

and Field 

Experiences 

Assistant 

Dean 

Assistant Dean Dean 

Assistant 

Dean 

Development 

Office 


Student 

Teaching 


Student 

Teaching 

Use of Data Technology 

Data 

Review of 

resource needs 

Review for 

efficiency 

Resource 

allocation for 

student 

retention 

Placement 

decisions 

Source 

Excel 


Excel 

Excel 

Excel

XI. PROCEDURES FOR DATA COLLECTION, AGGREGATION, 

DISAGGREGATION, AND DISSEMINATION OF DATA 

“Everyone agrees; colleges of education need databases. They need databases to be accountable, 

to manage programs, and to implement data-based change and development” (Schroeder, 2000, p.1). 

The College of Education uses multiple technologies to support the data management system. 

TK20 HigherEd, PeopleSoft, the College of Education Access database and Excel templates and other 

data sources such as SPSS are employed to manage the data needed for decision making in the COE. The 

Information Management System input diagram (Figure 1) identifies the modules containing the 

data that are collected by the unit. The unit system, developed in collaboration with unit 

stakeholders, includes the actuarial data module, candidate performance assessment module, 

field/student teaching module, operations module, faculty module, and outreach module. The 

Information Management System output diagrams (Figures 2 and 3) identify the data used to 

create reports provide information on the quality of candidate learning and the effectiveness of 

support for candidate learning. 

Assessment of Candidate Learning 

Initial Teacher Licensure 

The unit uses the Tk20 HigherEd system for managing most initial program 

performance assessment data. Prior to the beginning of each academic year, faculty members 

review the key performance assessments and rubrics in their courses for the upcoming academic 

year to the director of data management for upload to Tk20. The rubrics for the assessments are 

then distributed to the candidates who submit their artifacts for scoring in Tk20 by faculty. The 

Tk20 system provides ready access to data for candidates in their courses. The TK20 Higher Ed 

system also provides the capability to aggregate and disaggregate data by program, standard, 

course, and assignment. 

Data from the Tk20 system are augmented by Praxis II licensure test scores from the 

College of Education database, the student teaching scores from SPSS data files, and dispositions 

assessment data from Excel. The director of data management creates the performance key 

assessment data reports at the end of each academic year. Reports are shared with the College 

Administrative Council and placed on the SharePoint server for faculty review and analysis prior 

to the Fall Day of Development. Analysis reports are generated that inform curriculum proposals 

that need to be generated. 

50

Advanced Programs 

Prior to the beginning of each academic year, faculty members also review assessments 

and rubrics for the key performance assessments in advanced programs and changes as indicated 

are made. Since the Tk20 HigherEd system has not yet been implemented for advanced 

programs, multiple approaches are taken to collecting this data. 

For assessments in the Master’s for Practicing Teachers, the Principalship Master’s and 

Principalship Licensure programs, and the endorsements in TESOL and Reading, the criteria 

identified in the rubrics is uploaded to Excel spreadsheets. The spreadsheets are distributed to 

faculty by the director of data management at the beginning of the semester. Faculty members 

assess candidate artifacts and record the scores in the Excel spreadsheet. The spreadsheets are 

then returned to the director of data management at the end of each semester. For assessments in 

the Instructional Technology Master’s and the Technology Facilitation Endorsement programs, 

Google Docs has been piloted. Faculty members assess candidate dispositions in designated 

courses and also return it in Excel spreadsheet format to the director of data management at the 

end of the semester. 

Utilizing the performance data from the Excel spreadsheets and from Google Docs, the 

director of data management creates reports at the end of each academic year. As with the initial 

programs, these advanced programs reports are shared with Administrative Council and faculty 

for review and analysis. 

51

Bio- 

Demographic 

Initial Teacher Preparation  

Key Assessment Reports  

Tk20 | Access Database | Excel Spreadsheets  

Advanced Programs  

Key Assessments & Disposition Reports  

Tk20 | Access Database | Excel | SPSS  

Field Experience and  

Student Teaching Reports  

Figure 1 

College of Education 

Unit Information Management System: Input 

Admission Licensure 

Access Database | Excel Spreadsheets  

Undergraduate 

Data 

Access Database | PeopleSoft   

Actuarial Data  


Data 

52 

Graduate 

Data 

Completion 

Data 

Advisors 

Outreach Actuarial Data Reports  

Access Database | Excel Spreadsheets  

Faculty Teaching,  

Research, and Service Reports  

Access Database  | Excel Spreadsheets  

  

Operations Reports  

PeopleSoft | Excel Spreadsheets 

Professional/Pedagogical  

Core Reports UG/G  

By Assessment  

By Standards Body  

SPA 6‐8 Key Assessment  

Reports  

By Assessment  

By Standards Body  

Figure 2 


Unit Information Management System: Output 

Population of Completers or  

Class Rosters  

PeopleSoft   

Praxis II PLT Scores  

Access Database  

Performance Assessments  

Tk20  

Population of Completers  

Class Rosters | Course Grades  

PeopleSoft  

Praxis II Subject Test Scores  

Access Database  

Student Teaching Evaluations  

SPSS  


Tk20  

Assessment of Candidate Learning 


Data 

53 




Praxis II Subject Test Scores  

(Principalship)  

Access Database   


Excel  

Performance Assessments   

(TFE & Instructional Technology)  

Google Docs   




Assessments at  

Identified Transition Points  

Excel   

SPA 6‐8 Key Assessment  

Reports  

(Principalship and  

Technology Facilitation  

Endorsement)  

Dispositions  

Assessment  

Reports 

Personnel  

Reports  

  

External Funding  

Reports  

Facilities including  

Technology  

Figure 3 



Support for Candidate Learning – Operations 

Number of Employees  

PeopleSoft | HR  

Student/Teacher Ratio  


Student Credit Hours  


Faculty Teaching  

PeopleSoft | Excel  

Faculty Research  

Productivity  


Facilities Usage  

Facilities Database  

Instructional Technology  

Usage  

PeopleSoft | ITS Database  


Data 

54 

Operating Budget  

PeopleSoft Financial  

Undergraduate & Graduate  

Enrollment  


ACT & SAT  


Degrees Awarded  


Alumni  

Alumni Database  

Budget  

Reports  

Candidate Data  

Reports 

Advising Reports  

Advising  

Reports  

Retention Reports  

Field Reports  

Licensure Reports  

Figure 4 



Support for Candidate Learning – Student Services 

Advisor Lists  

PeopleSoft | Excel  

Advising Satisfaction  

Survey  

Excel  

Retention/Time to Degree  

Scholarships  

Excel  

Field Placements  

Excel  

Audit for Licensure  

Access Database | DARS  


Data 

55 

Student Teaching Entrance &  

Exit  

Excel  

Criteria for School based  

Faculty  

Excel | Hardcopy  

Satisfaction of School based  

Faculty & Student Teacher  

Excel  

Admissions through Program  

Completion  

Access Database | DARS  

Student  

Issues/Alerts/Complaints  

Word  

Student Teaching  

Reports  

Candidate Progression  

& Completion Reports 

In addition to measures regarding candidate performance assessments, operations, 

and student services, an array of surveys and focus group interviews are employed to collect 

data from multiple stakeholders. These measures provide information to improve candidate 

learning, the quality of our programs, and the support for student learning. 

Surveys and Focus Group Interviews 

Inventory and Dissemination Plan 

Instrument Description Data Collected Dissemination Groups/Units 

Completers 

Survey 

Cooperating 

Teacher 

Survey 

Employer 

Survey 

Evaluation 

of Student 

Teaching 

Experience 

by 

Candidate 

Completers 

Survey - 

Principalship 

Principalship 

Internship 

Survey 

Evaluation 

by 

Candidate 

Survey aligned with 

Conceptual Framework that 

is distributed to initial 

program completers 



is distributed to cooperating 

teachers 


conceptual framework that is 

distributed to employers of 

initial program completers 

Survey designed to collect 

operational data about the 

student teaching experience 



is distributed to Principalship 

completers 


operational data about the 

internship experience 

Each semester Fall Day of 

Development 

Each semester Fall Day of 

Development 

Piloted in 

Spring 2009; 

full 

implementation 

in Spring 2010 

56 

Fall Day of 

Development 

• PEC 

• Department 

Chairs 

• Faculty 

• PEC 


Chairs 

• Faculty 

• PEC 


Chairs 

• Faculty 

Each semester Fall • PEC 

• NCATE 

Steering 

• Office of 

Student 

Teaching & 

Field 

Piloted in 

Spring 2009; 

full 



Piloted in 

Spring 2009; 

full 




Development 


Development 

Experiences 

• PEC 


Chairs 

• Faculty 


Chair 

• Faculty 

• Internship 

Coordinator

Instrument Description Data Collected Dissemination Groups/Units 

Principalship 

Internship 

Field 

Administrator 

Survey 

Focus Group 

Interviews 

Teacher 

Quality 

Partnership 

(TQP) 

Survey 

National 

Survey of 

Student 

Engagement 

(NSSE) 


operation data regarding the 

internship experience from 

the field administrator’s 

perspective 

Structured focus groups 

conducted with completers 

of initial and advanced 

programs 

Statewide survey of preservice 

candidates at the 

point of initial program 

completion 

National survey of 

undergraduate candidates 

perception of various aspects 

of their experience 

administered by Institutional 

Research 

Piloted in 

Spring 2009; 

full 



Rotating 

schedules 

57 


Development 


Development 


Chair 

• Faculty 

• Internship 

Coordinator 

• PEC 

• NCATE 

Steering 


Chairs 

• Faculty 

Each semester Fall • PEC 

• NCATE 

Steering 


Chairs 

Rotating basis 

(approximately 

every 3 years) 

• Faculty 

Spring • PEC 

• NCATE 

Steering 


Chairs 

• Faculty 

XII. ANALYSIS AND USE OF ASSESSMENT DATA 

A Program Review Cycle based on candidate assessments that speak to both candidate 

competencies and program quality has been implemented. The candidate data collected are 

aggregated, analyzed, and summarized to determine candidate learning and effectiveness of 

the programs of study offered. Stakeholders review the assessment results each August at the 

Day of Development meeting, propose program or course changes to improve programs and 

facilitate candidate learning, and direct these through necessary college and university 

governance procedures. An analysis form has been developed to facilitate this task. The 

results of this process have included changes in program portfolio requirements, changes in 

course requirement/assignments, changes in course content and objectives, changes in course 

delivery methods, changes in GPA requirements, changes in Praxis requirements, revision of 

rubrics, and numerous other changes. 

In addition to candidate performance data aggregated by program area, other data 

measures are included in the assessment system. Two large-scale data sources, the Ohio 

Teacher Quality Partnership (2006, 2007) pre-service report and the National Survey of 

Student Engagement (NSSE) survey report, provide data for review by stakeholders (Kuh, 

2001). The TQP five-year survey research initiative provides candidates in the last semester 

of their preparation programs the opportunity to respond to questions about learning 

experiences within their programs. All fifty institutions in the state of Ohio that prepare

teachers have participated. Data reported to each institution include responses from 

candidates at each institution and aggregate data for all candidates statewide. A report has 

been developed that aligns candidate responses with the NCATE Standards. 

The NSSE survey of student opinion of the educational experience yields data for the College 

of Education and the institution as a whole. This survey, which has been administered three 

times since 2004, provides trend data on candidate responses. Several surveys have also been 

developed by the college. These include the Completers Survey, the Cooperating Teachers 

Survey, and the Employers Survey, which have been constructed to directly relate to the 

Conceptual Framework. 

Finally, an Operations Review Cycle that speaks to the sufficiency of support for 

candidate learning. Operational data are summarized for review at the end of each fiscal 

year. This allows judgment about unit operations to support candidate learning and program 

quality and indicates changes that need to be made. 

XIII. SUMMARY 

It is the intention of the College of Education to “ensure that its programs and 

graduates are of the highest quality” (NCATE, 2008, p. 27). Our assessment system includes 

multiple sources of data aligned with candidate proficiencies and the Conceptual Framework. 

The unit collects, analyzes and uses these sources to both assess candidate learning and 

evaluate unit operations and programs. The unit recognizes that to ensure quality the work 

must be ongoing. In this way an effective a continuous cycle of improvement has been 

operationalized. 

58

Glossary 

*Advanced Programs. Programs at postbaccalaureate levels for (1) the continuing education 

of teachers who have previously competed initial preparation or (2) the preparation of other 

school professionals. Advanced programs commonly award graduate credit and include 

master’s, specialist, and doctoral degree programs as well as non-degree licensure programs 

offered at the post baccalaureate level. Examples of these programs include those for teachers 

who are preparing for a second license at the graduate level in a field different from the field 

in which they have their first license; programs for teachers who are seeking a master’s 

degree in the field in which they teach; and programs not tied to licensure, such as programs 

in curriculum and instruction. In addition, advanced programs include those for other school 

professionals such as school counselors, school psychologists, educational administrators, 

and reading specialists. 

*Assessment System. A comprehensive and integrated set of evaluation measures that 

provides information for use in monitoring candidate performance and managing and 

improving unit operations and programs for the preparation of professional educators. 

*Candidates. Individuals admitted to, or enrolled in, programs for the initial or advanced 

preparation of teachers, teachers continuing their professional development, or other 

professional school professionals. Candidates are distinguished from “students” in P–12 

schools. 

*Conceptual Framework. An underlying structure in a professional education unit that 

gives conceptual meaning to the unit's operations through an articulated rationale and 

provides direction for programs, courses, teaching, candidate performance, faculty 

scholarship and service, and unit accountability. 

*Content (knowledge). The subject matter or discipline that teachers are being prepared to 

teach at the elementary, middle level, and/or secondary levels. Content also refers to the 

professional field of study(e.g., special education, early childhood, school psychology, 

reading, or school administration). 

*Dispositions. Professional attitudes, values, and beliefs demonstrated through both verbal 

and nonverbal behaviors as educators interact with students, families, colleagues, and 

communities. These positive behaviors support student learning and development. NCATE 

expects institutions to assess professional dispositions based on observable behaviors in 

educational settings. The two professional dispositions that NCATE expects institutions to 

assess are fairness and the belief that all students can learn. Based on their mission and 

conceptual framework, professional education units can identify, define, and operationalize 

additional professional dispositions. 

59

Diversity. Differences among groups of people and individuals based on socioeconomic 

status, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, language, religion, and exceptionalities (both 

disabilities and giftedness), language, religion, sexual orientation, and geographical area. The 

types of diversity necessary for addressing the elements on candidate interactions with 

diverse faculty, candidates, and P–12 students are stated in the rubrics for those elements. 

Educator as Decision Maker. The theme adopted by the College of Education to reflect the 

complexity of the nature of a role of practitioners in their practice. As a Unit, we strive to 

prepare candidates to use reflective processes and make sound judgments. 

ELCC (Educational Leadership Constituent Council). A project of the National Policy 

Board for Education Administration. Standards for advanced programs in educational 

leadership for principals, superintendents, curriculum directors, and supervisors. KH - does 

this look correct? 

Ethics. The College of Education’s commitment to creating an ethical environment that 

promotes a culture of intellectual excellence, respect for diversity, caring, civility, and 

responsibility. 

Field/Clinical Experiences. A variety of early and ongoing field-based opportunities in 

which candidates may observe, assist, tutor, instruct, and/or conduct research. Field 

experiences may occur in off-campus settings such as schools, community centers, or 

homeless shelters. Field experiences are identified as urban or suburban based upon more 

than one ethnicity being significantly represented according to the US Census. As field 

placements are made, the candidate’s history of prior placements is determined and future 

placements are based upon candidate need. 

*Initial Teacher Preparation. Programs at baccalaureate or post baccalaureate levels that 

prepare candidates for the first license to teach. 

Inquiry. Reflected in faculty inquiry in research and scholarly activities and student inquiry 

in problem solving and decision making. 

*INTASC (Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium). A project of 

the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) that has developed model performancebased 

standards and assessments for the licensure of teachers. 

ISLLC (Interstate School Leaders License Consortium). A project of the Council of Chief 

State School Officers (CCSSO). ISLLC Standards are organized around core proposition that 

the most critical aspect of a school leader’s work is the continuous improvement of school 

learning. 

*Licensure. The official recognition by a state governmental agency that an individual has 

met certain qualifications specified by the state and is, therefore, approved to practice in an 

occupation as a professional. 

60

*NBPTS (National Board for Professional Teaching Standards). An organization of 

teachers and other educators, which has developed both standards and a system for assessing 

the performance of experienced teachers seeking national certification. 

NCATE. (National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education). NCATE is a 

coalition of 33 specialty professional associations of teachers, teacher educators, content 

specialists, and local and state policy makers. All are committed to quality teaching, and 

together, the coalition represents over 3 million individuals. NCATE is the profession’s 

mechanism to help establish high quality teacher preparation. Through the process of 

professional accreditation of schools, colleges and departments of education, NCATE works 

to make a difference in the quality of teaching and teacher preparation today, tomorrow, and 

for the next century. 

Outcomes Assessment. See Performance Assessment. 

*Pedagogical Content Knowledge. The interaction of the subject matter and effective 

teaching strategies to help students learn the subject matter. It requires a thorough 

understanding of the content to teach it in multiple ways, drawing on the cultural 

backgrounds and prior knowledge and experiences of students. 

*Pedagogical Knowledge. The general concepts, theories, and research about effective 

teaching, regardless of content areas. 

*Performance Assessment. A comprehensive assessment through which candidates 

demonstrate their proficiencies in subject, professional, and pedagogical knowledge, skills, 

and professional dispositions, including their abilities to have positive effects on student 

learning. 

*Portfolio. An accumulation of evidence about individual proficiencies, especially in 

relation to explicit standards and rubrics, used in evaluation of competency as a teacher or 

other school professional. Contents might include end-of-course evaluations and tasks used 

for instructional or clinical experience purposes such as projects, journals, and observations 

by faculty, videos, and reflective essays on the student teaching application. 

Praxis tm tests. Praxis encompasses three categories of assessment provided by Educational 

Testing Service (ETS), that are used as part of the teacher licensure process. Praxis I® is 

taken prior to entry to the teacher education program; Praxis II® assesses Principles of 

Teaching and Learning and subject specialty area(s); Praxis III® assesses classroom 

performance. 

*Professional Knowledge. The historical, economic, sociological, philosophical, and 

psychological understandings of schooling and education. It also includes knowledge about 

learning, diversity, technology, professional ethics, legal and policy issues, pedagogy, and 

the roles and responsibilities of the profession of teaching. 

61

*School Partners. P–12 schools that collaborate with the higher education institution in 

designing, developing, and implementing field experiences, clinical practice, delivery of 

instruction, and research. 

*Standards. Written expectations for meeting a specified level of performance. Standards 

exist for the content that P–12 students should know at a certain age or grade level. 

*Technology, Use of. What candidates must know and understand about information 

technology in order to use it in working effectively with students and professional colleagues 

in the (1) delivery, development, prescription, and assessment of instruction; (2) problem 

solving; (3) school and classroom administration; (4) educational research; (5) electronic 

information access and exchange; and (6) personal and professional productivity. 

Tk20. Tk20's HigherEd tm is an online assessment, accountability, and management system 

developed to support college accreditation needs in areas such as course, program and unitlevel 

assessments, standards-based portfolios, data aggregation, and report generation (Tk20, 

n.d.). 

*Unit. The college, school, department, or other administrative body in colleges, universities, 

or other organizations with the responsibility for managing or coordinating all programs 

offered for the initial and advanced preparation of teachers and other school professionals, 

regardless of where these programs are administratively housed in an institution. Also known 

as the “professional education unit.” The professional education unit must include in its 

accreditation review all programs offered by the institution for the purpose of preparing 

teachers and other school professionals to work in pre-kindergarten through 

twelfth grade settings. 

Zip Report. A report made available to the College of Education by The University of 

Akron's Office of Institutional Research. 

* From NCATE (2008) glossary. 

62

References 

Astin, A.W., Banta, T.W., Cross, P., El-Khawas, E., Ewell, P.T., Hutchings, P., et al. 

(1996). AAHE assessment forum: 9 principles of good practice for assessing 

student learning. Retrieved June 19, 2009, from 

http://www.academicprograms.calpoly.edu/pdfs/assess/nine_principles_good_pra 

ctice.pdf 

Banta, T., Lund, J.P., Black, K.E., & Oblander, F.W. (1995). Assessment in practice: 

Putting principles to work on college campuses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Campbell, D., Melenyzer, B., Nettles, D., & Wyman, R. (2000). Portfolio and 

performance assessment in teacher education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 

Chickering, A. & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in 

undergraduate education. Retrieved June 19, 2009, from 

http://www.csuhayward.edu/wasc/pdfs/End%20Note.pdf 

Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J., & Falk, B. (1995). Authentic assessment in action: 

Studies of schools and students at work. New York: Teachers College Press. 

Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state 

policy evidence. Retrieved June 26, 2009, from the University of Washington, Center for 

the Study of Teaching and Policy Web site: 

http://www.nctaf.org/resources/archives/documents/LDH_State_Policy_Evidence.pdf 

Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context. 

Teaching and Teacher education, 16(5-6), 523-545. 

Gitomer, D.H., Latham, A.S., & Ziomek, R. (1999). The academic quality of prospective 

teachers: The impact of admissions and licensure testing. Princeton, NJ: Educational 

Testing Service. 

Kuh, G.D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the National 

Survey of Student Engagement. Change, 33(3), 10-17, 66. 

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (2008). Professional 

standards for the accreditation of teacher preparation institutions. Washington, DC: 

Author. 

Ohio Department of Education. (2007). Standards for Ohio's educators. Retrieved June 16, 

2009, from http://esb.ode.state.oh.us/PDF/Standards_OhioEducators.pdf 

63

Schroeder, G.G. (2005). The UK College of Education database issue sets. Retrieved August 

7, 2009, from the University of Kentucky, College of Education Web site: 

http://ukdame.coe.uky.edu/dameportal/documents/UK%20Database%20Issue%20Set 

s%20v3.pdf 

Stroble, E. (2000). Unit assessment systems. Retrieved June 16, 2009, from: 

http://www.ncate.org/documents/articles/stroble_unit%20assessment%20systems.pdf 

Teacher Quality Partnership (2006). [2006 preservice cohort III state norm]. 

Unpublished raw data. 

Teacher Quality Partnership (2007). [2007 preservice cohort IV state norm]. 

Unpublished raw data. 

Tk20. (n.d.). Retrieved June 18, 2009, from http://www.tk20.com/ 

University of Akron (2008). Conceptual framework. Retrieved June 18, 2009, from 

The University of Akron, College of Education Web site: 

http://www.uakron.edu/colleges/educ/docs/CF-Fall08.pdf 

64

Unit Assessment Handbook - The University of Akron

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?