Standard 2C
Use of Data
What are assessment data indicating about candidate performance on the main campus, at off-campus sites, and in distance learning programs?
Candidates in all programs are assessed by the use of Signature Assignments in all department courses (see exhibit, “Signature Assignments”). Candidate performance on the signature assignments has been strong, indicating that candidates are performing at a high level with regard to their understanding of the content presented in their program coursework. Given that the vast majority of these signature assignments involve a case study component, it appears that candidate success in these assignments also indicates an ability to successfully implement the concepts and strategies presented in their university coursework in field settings.
The unit engages in an annual analysis and decision-making process in response to the results from the CSU System-wide Survey. Survey data is collected from first year teaching graduates from all credential programs and their employing supervisors one year after program completion. The most recently obtained data is from the survey administered in 2007 to candidates who completed their initial credential program in 2005-2006.
The results from this most recent survey reveal that a particular strength of the unit’s programs, as viewed by both employing supervisors and first year teaching graduates, is in their evaluation of how well the department programs prepared them to monitor student progress by using formal and informal assessment methods (93% of Employing Supervisors and 83% of first year teaching candidates gave a rating of “Well or Adequately Prepared”; see item #18 on Tables 2 & 4 from Tab 1-B: All Credentials in exhibit, CSU System-wide Survey). This strength is particularly relevant, given that improving candidate preparedness to use assessment methods for this purpose was identified as a unit-wide improvement goal in past years.
An area identified for improvement from this data is in regard to employing supervisors and first year teaching candidates’ assessment of how well the department’s programs prepared them to think about problems that occur in teaching and try out various solutions (67% of employing supervisors and 59% of first year teaching graduates gave a rating of “Well or Adequately Prepared”; see item #12 on Tables 1 & 3 from Tab 1-B: All Credentials in exhibit, CSU System-wide Survey) and to know about resources in the school and community for at-risk students/families (60% of employing supervisors and 43% of first year teaching graduates gave ratings of “Well or Adequately Prepared”; see item #24 or Tables 2 & 4 from Tab 1-B: All Credentials in exhibit, CSU System-wide Survey).
How are data regularly used by candidates and faculty to improve performance?
Unit faculty meet individually with candidates at each of the unit’s transition points, and are available to meet with candidates for additional advisement sessions at the candidate’s request. During these meetings candidates and faculty review candidate progress based on the assessment information derived from that period. This assessment information guides planning for the successful performance of upcoming program requirements and transition points (e.g., future coursework, field experience, subject matter preparation, etc). Plans are then developed or revised for each candidate, outlining the steps to be taken in order to ensure their improvement and/or continued success.
Unit faculty use data regularly to reflect upon and improve their own performance. The unit has a formal course/faculty evaluation process. This evaluation process provides faculty with anonymous feedback from candidates on their courses and their instruction. Also unit faculty make use of other formative assessments, such as peer observation, to improve performance. These forms of assessment, along with faculty reflections on the data and their plans for improvement are used in the retention, tenure and promotion process for all faculty.
Unit faculty reflect upon data collectively also. Data from various assessment sources are presented and discussed at program and department meetings. Goals are identified from these data sources, and strategies for reaching these goals are agreed upon and implemented (For the entire assessment, analysis and improvement cycle, see the exhibit entitled “CSUMB Teacher Education Unit Assessment Plan”).
How are data used to discuss or initiate program or unit changes on a regular basis?
Data are analyzed by unit faculty and unit goals are established and revised on an ongoing basis (for the entire assessment, analysis and improvement cycle, see the exhibit entitled “CSUMB Teacher Education Unit Assessment Plan”). Data are continuously generated, trends are analyzed periodically, and new unit-wide improvement goals are developed when indicated. Progress toward and the implication of implementing strategies to achieve the unit-wide improvement goals are reviewed annually.Currently the unit has identified, and is working towards achieving, the following six unit-wide improvement goals based upon data obtained from the unit’s assessment cycle thus far. These unit-wide improvement goals also reflect and further the unit’s mission to build a multicultural learning community founded on academic excellence from which all partners in the educational process emerge prepared to contribute productively, responsibly, and ethically to California and the global community:
- To develop a comprehensive unit-wide assessment system for collecting and analyzing data on applicant qualifications, candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate the unit and improve the unit and its programs
- To ensure that unit-wide assessments are predictors of candidate success
- To develop a formal procedure for documenting candidate complaints and their resolutions
- To verify candidate use of technology in field placement settings
- To enhance candidate ability to think about problems that occur in teaching and try out various solutions
- To enhance candidate knowledge about resources in the school & community for at-risk students/families
[RETURN TO TOP]
What data-driven changes have occurred over the past three years?
Data have been used to inform unit faculty to effect reflective improvements to the unit. The examples below reflect improvements made to the unit based upon data obtained as a result of the NCATE Accreditation Visit for Professional Preparation Programs at CSU, Monterey Bay in November 2006 and the Accreditation Report outlining the Accreditation Team’s Recommendations provided to the unit in January 2007. Information was also obtained from the Accreditation Visit by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing and their Accreditation Report provided in 2007 outlining technical stipulations to be addressed. Additionally, data from the annually administered CSU System-wide Survey of department graduates and their employing supervisors has been used to inform decisions regarding unit-wide improvements to address candidate preparation.The improvements outlined below address each of the Accreditation Teams’ recommendations for improvement outlined in their respective Accreditation Team Reports, along with key, unit-wide areas for improvement as identified from the results of the 2007 CSU System-wide Survey.
The following represent actions taken to address the data informed unit-wide improvement goals (listed in item 3 above):
- To address the need for a comprehensive system for assessing candidate performance, the unit has adopted the Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT) Teacher Performance Assessment. Full implementation of PACT is currently underway.
- To manage the unit’s comprehensive assessment system, the Tk20 comprehensive outcomes-based assessment, accountability and reporting system was adopted during Summer 2008.
- A comprehensive unit-wide assessment system for collecting and analyzing data on applicant qualifications, candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate the unit and improve the unit and its programs was developed and approved by unit faculty at the beginning of the Fall 2008 semester.
- A unit-wide system for assessing candidate dispositions was developed and approved during the 2007-08 academic year by the faculty for full implementation for the Fall 2008 semester.
- In order to ensure that candidate assessments predict candidate success, the PACT Teacher Performance Assessment was selected for use based upon its robust support in the literature for predicting candidate success.
- All unit faculty members have been trained on the content and requirements of PACT tasks and on the use of the PACT scoring rubrics used to evaluate candidate performance.
- Candidate performance on the PACT is shared with each candidate following the scoring of the various PACT tasks.
- Candidate scores on the PACT are to be reviewed by the college dean, department chair and department faculty on an annual basis, through Tk20 generated reports, to evaluate the impact on candidate performance and to identify areas for further improvement.
- A formal candidate complaint procedure was developed, along with a complaint and resolution tracking form which is kept on file with the dean’s assistant. This procedure has been in place since Spring 2008. Filed complaints are analyzed and evaluated by the Dean and Department Chair and subsequently reviewed with the faculty by the end of each academic year, in order to evaluate the student complaint procedures and determine areas for improvement.
- Verification of all candidates’ use of technology in the classroom is being formally assessed unit-wide. This was first addressed at a policy level in that the District Memoranda of Understandings were revised to include assurances that field placements would include opportunities for candidates to use technology. Secondly, at the candidate level a classroom data form was developed and is now in use for candidates in all unit programs to self-evaluate the use of technology in field placement settings. Lastly, for verification in the field, evaluations are conducted by the university supervisors who report the extent to which technology is used by candidates on the respective program’s field observation form.
- In order to enhance our candidates’ ability to think about problems that occur in teaching and try out various solutions a signature assignment was put in place in each program that requires candidates to evaluate student and classroom scenarios and potential problems, and to plan appropriate responses. Additionally, the Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT) system adopted by the department requires candidates to reflect on potential classroom scenarios encountered in their field placement and to plan and implement various strategies to address these scenarios
- In order to enhance candidate knowledge about resources in the school and community for at-risk students and families a new assignment is being added this fall 2008 semester to a course required for all candidates in the department. This assignment requires candidates to identify one local resource in their community to be shared with colleagues during a class activity. In the future, the unit will develop and maintain a compilation of local resources for at-risk students and families. This compilation will be made available to all unit candidates.
How are assessment data shared with candidates, faculty and other stakeholders?
Faculty members are involved in the unit-wide assessment plan, and have continuous access to individual candidate data through candidate files and the university’s PeopleSoft student management system. With the adoption of Tk20, information from PeopleSoft will be synched with Tk20 and the additional unit-specific assessment information will be available to faculty.Candidates are informed of assessment data on their performance in their respective program as described in item 2 above. However candidates are also made aware of program and unit-wide data trends and areas targeted for improvement during group meetings such as orientation meetings, open houses, and capstone and graduate celebrations held by the candidates’ respective program.
The CSU system-wide survey data is reviewed and analyzed at the program level and then shared unit-wide through Department meetings. Strengths and needs are discussed and Unit-wide goals are developed.
The unit’s University-wide Teacher Education Council (UTEC), consisting of representatives of the key stakeholder constituencies in the university’s teacher education programs, meets annually to review and provide input regarding unit-wide data obtained and the resulting improvement goals identified.
[RETURN TO TOP]
100 Campus Center
