CCTS Rationale and Artifacts
The purpose of the CCTS Rationales and Artifacts assessment is to ensure both student proficiency with and familiarity with each of the Common Core Teacher Standards (CCTS). For each standard, Candidates are required to select an artifact and a specific indicator from a standard that is met by the artifact. Candidates select artifacts that they believe demonstrate proficiency with at least one specific indicator for a standard, and then write a rationale explaining their level of proficiency with the standard and justifying how the artifact serves as evidence of their proficiency level. Candidates are assessed on ability to (1) communicate the meaning of the standard, (2) align evidence with indicators, (3) justify/articulate the relationship between evidence and proficiency with the standard, (4) clearly communicate through writing and (5) demonstrate proficiency through evidence. The scoring rubric is broken into two components, with the first section focusing on the rationale alone, and the second focusing on the rationale with the artifact to assess overall proficiency with the standard indicator. Candidates in each program are required to write at least one rationale for standards 1-10, and two for standard 11 (all programs will address 11.4). By utilizing unit-wide assessments, the Unit ensures all students in every program are expected to meet the same standards, and that all programs have consistent definitions for proficiency.
The Essential Areas of Teaching is a unit-wide assessment conducted by mentor teachers and field supervisors during the student teaching field experience at mid-term and end of term. Students also self evaluate using this same instrument. The instrument was piloted in the past however this is the first year that the data has been collected for all student teachers across all programs.
The rubric consists of 43 indicators in five categories: Planning, Instruction, Management, Assessment, and Technology. All categories are important in the process of teaching and learning, and all are emphasized in the student teacher’s development. The indicators for each category are rated on a 4-point Likert scale: 1=Does not meet; 2=Partially meets; 3=Meets; and 4=Exceeds. In cases where indicators were not rated, 0=No rating/not rated.
The Panorama Student Survey is a tool designed to measure K-12 student perceptions of teaching and learning, and to provide student input in assessing effective teaching. Student Teachers implement the student survey once during their student teaching experience, closer to the end of their lead time in their classroom. Three versions of the same survey are administered, depending on grade level: K-2nd grade, 3rd-5th grades, and 6th-12th grades. Data is analyzed using a scale of 1-low to 5-high by semester in order to monitor areas of strength and areas for growth based on K-12 student feedback about their student teachers. UMF Field Services staff selected three constructs measuring various aspects of students’ perceptions of their classroom experiences: 1. Pedagogical Effectiveness, 2. Expectations & Rigor, and 3. Relationships & Support. Within each construct, multiple questions are designed to measure various facets of the same construct.
Classroom Management Observation Checklist
The Classroom Management Observation Checklist is an EPP-developed observation tool that provides specific, actionable feedback regarding classroom management. The tool includes indicators of both teacher and student actions in the classroom that are integral to an effective, safe classroom community. Indicators are intended to be actionable to provide useful feedback to student teachers about strategies they can work on to improve classroom management.
The rubric consists of 23 indicators in three categories: Student Behavior Observed (referring to students in the student teachers’ classroom), Teacher Behavior Observed (referring to the student teachers themselves), and Misbehavior. In order to provide a comprehensive view of candidate proficiency with classroom management, a broad assortment of validated indicators are included which vary in complexity and difficulty. The indicators for each category are rated on a 3-point Likert scale: 1=Does not meet; 2=Partially meets; and 3=Meets. In cases where indicators were not rated or not applicable, 0=No rating/not rated.
Unit-wide Lesson Plan
During the 2015-16 academic year, in response to the CAEP Early Instrument Evaluation, the Unit worked to develop a unit-wide assessment that could be used across all programs both before and during student teaching. The Unit-Wide lesson plan and rubric are standards aligned and include elements that all programs identified as integral to effective lesson planning. The lesson plan is aligned to state (CCTS) and national (InTASC/CAEP) standards. Since the 2015-16 academic year the instrument has been through a variety of revisions and has been validated using faculty, partner mentors and the Education Advisory Council.
Faculty within programs introduce the template to candidates and provide training for specific components of the lesson plan. Students in practicum and student teaching field courses all use the lesson plan template and are assessed on their progress. Faculty and field supervisors were involved with the creation of the rubric and have revised the rubric several times. It is expected that all teaching candidates will meet expectations on all areas of the lesson plan prior to graduation. During student teaching, candidates are given the lesson plan assessment during their first lesson observation, very early in their student teaching experience. The results are indicative of where the students are in their development, knowing that they must all meet expectations by the end of the term. 2017-2018 was the first year that this process was used.