MICHAEL D. EISNER COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Institutional Summary and Plan of Action
Overview
To meet state and professional organization standards, candidates in all programs in the Michael D. Eisner College of Education (MDECOE)
program are assessed using Multiple Measures at three or more transition points. Transition points are critical gate-keeping points during a
program. Each program has a Transition Point Matrix that describes the transition points and measures in relation to the standards that are being
assessed. The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) sets standards for all credential programs in California and thus guides all
assessment in the MDECOE. Nearly all departments use the CCTC standards as Student Learning Objectives. All credential programs must
submit a Biennial Report every two years. The Biennial Report typically provides two to three or more years of data for every standard for each
program and is between 80 and 100 pages in length. Biennial Reports for the MDECOE programs may be accessed at the college’s accreditation
websitet: http://edutech.csun.edu/mdecoe under Unit Programs, then the specific department (Elementary Education, Secondary Education, Special
Education, Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, and Educational Psychology and Counseling). The Annual Reports list the program Student
Learning Objectives (SLOs) and their equivalent CCTC or other professional standard, and provide contextual information regarding the program in
order to facilitate understanding of the results, and conclude with a section on Candidate Strengths, Areas for Program/Candidate Improvement, and
an Action Plan. All programs in the Michael D. Eisner College of Education underwent an accreditation review and visit by the California
Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) and the National Council on the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) in November 7 – 11,
2009. Both the CCTC and NCATE passed all programs on all standards. NCATE indicated that the MDECOE met the standards relating to
assessing candidate performance, developing an assessment system, and faculty research, scholarship, and qualification at the highest level of the
standard.
The first part of this report provides an overall summary of data across the entire college with the exception of Deaf Studies because they submitted
their report earlier. The overall summary consists of Candidate Strengths, Programmatic Strengths, Candidate Areas of Improvement, Programmatic
Areas of Improvement, and an Action plan of for the college. This is followed by the summary of findings for each department in the college,
Elementary Education, Secondary Education, Special Education, Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, and Educational Psychology and
Counseling. Each of these reports contain the department Student Learning Outcomes, followed by a brief contextual description, the department
Assessment Matrix, and concluding with candidate and programmatic strengths and areas for improvement, and an action plan.
To facilitate analysis and reflection trends across credential programs within our unit and derive a plan of action, major areas of strength, need, and
action are summarized in the attached charts. Candidate Strengths. The data across all credential programs indicate that candidates are achieving at
or above average mean ratings in regard to nearly all of the standards (content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and skills, professional knowledge
and skills, knowledge and skills in regard to pupil learning and assessment, and dispositions). In nearly all programs candidates’ fieldwork
assessments are conducted by at least two raters (typically the fieldwork supervisor and the university supervisor) over one or more semesters.
Informal comparisons of the fieldwork and university supervisors’ mean scores show that they are typically concurring.
However we also find that the field site supervisors’ ratings tend to be a bit higher than those of university supervisors. In several instances we see
how candidate performance has improved over time. For example, the Administrative Services Credential has several tables showing candidate
1
performance before and after fieldwork. This type of comparison is possible because their programs are in cohorts. Most of the other programs show
candidate improvement over the span of several semesters. Of course, there are program differences in terms of candidate performance on specific
elements within standards. For example, the school psychology, school counseling, and the administrative services credential programs more clearly
show how their candidates excel in relation to professional ethics because their measures include more items and more frequently assess these.
Programmatic Strengths. The data also show that the unit clearly has a comprehensive, well-organized system of assessing candidate performance as
well as program effectiveness. It is also evident that the assessment instruments are aligned with CTC as well as NCATE standards and reflect the
values in the Conceptual Framework. All reports indicated how assessment results are regularly shared and discussed with faculty and advisory
groups for enhancing program effectiveness. The sections showing program changes since the last accreditation also show that the unit programs are
continuously evolving and making changes based on data in addition to those required by changes in standards.
Areas for Improving Candidate Performance. The Biennial Report data reveal two areas of need that consistently surface among nine of the ten
programs are assessment and technology. There are three other areas that surface among the three teaching credential programs: meeting the needs
of English Language Learners and Students with Special Needs, and providing information about resources for pupils at risk of academic failure. Of
course there were significant programmatic variations in terms of what improvements are needed in each of these areas, but issues around technology
were the most consistent even across programs.
Technology. In most of the programs (Multiple Subject and Education Specialist Credentials, School Counseling, Administrative Services
Credentials, Adapted Physical Education, and School Nurse) candidates need to learn how to integrate technology into instruction and into providing
client services (APE, School Nurse). An important point here is that “technology” is not limited to the use of computers. In the case of the
Education Specialist Credentials, for example, candidates must learn how to use assistive technologies as these apply populations facing a variety of
challenges (Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Multiply Physically Disabled, Learning Disabled) and/or tasks and contexts (School Counseling,
Administrative Services, Adapted Physical Education, School Nurse). In examining the data for this need across programs it is obvious that the
measures and items vary widely, from listing specific (i.e. using Power Point or assistive technology) to general (using technology proficiently)
skills.
Assessment. Five program areas (multiple subject, education specialist, school counseling, school psychology, Adapted Physical Education, and
Communication Disorders) also identified needs to improve candidates’ assessment skills. Most of the programs feel the need to improve
candidates’ ability to use multiple measures, and to analyze and apply the results of multiple measures to increase pupil performance. One program
pointed out that the Performance Assessment of California Teachers (PACT) demands more sophisticated levels of candidates’ knowledge and skills
in regard to assessment, as well as greater writing ability.
Meeting the Needs of English Language Learners and/or of Students with Special Needs. The teaching credential programs (Multiple and Single
Subject, and Education Specialist) clearly need to improve their candidates’ ability to meet the needs of English Language Learners as evidenced by
responses on the CSU CTQ Exit and Employer surveys. However the programs will need to conduct focus groups of graduates to identify the
specific areas in which they feel challenged in working with English Language Learners. In addition, there needs to be faculty development as well
as revision of program curricula in light of current research findings. The same surveys yielded parallel results in regard to Students with Special
Needs for the multiple and single subject programs and similar strategies will be applied.
2
School and Community Resources for Youth At Risk of Academic Failure. The CTQ Exit and Employer Surveys also revealed this as an area of need
for the three teaching credential programs. All three programs plan to conduct focus groups of graduates and employers to identify specific needs
and effective strategies. In addition, the programs will look at the foundational courses (EPC 315, 420, 500 and Multicultural Courses) to revise
course content to emphasize this area and examine other aspects of the curriculum for opportunities to infuse this information.
Areas for Improving Programs. The Biennial reports also show that most programs also identified several areas in which to improve Program
Assessment, such as identifying better dispositions assessment instruments, and ensuring that all students, faculty, and field site supervisors enter all
data electronically (some field site supervisors may still be submitting paper evaluations).
Supporting Field Site Supervisors. We also conduct two unit-wide assessments, the Candidate Fieldwork Experience Evaluation and the Supervisor
Fieldwork Experience Evaluation, in order to gauge satisfaction across all programs in relation to clinical practice (see attached). Candidate ratings
ranged from 4.00 (using technology) to 4.52 (Exhibit ethical and caring behavior) on a 5 point scale (1 = unsatisfactory, 2 = marginal, 3 =
satisfactory, 4 = strong, 5 = outstanding). Field site supervisor ratings on their experience with the CSUN program ranged from 3.46 (Guidance and
support received for ongoing development as a supervisor) to 3.99 (Information received about the expectations of the CSUN candidate) on the
same scale. The Supervisor ratings show that CSUN credential programs need to improve how they communicate information and provide support
to supervisors.
Reliability and Validity. We need to develop a viable model of conducting inter-rater reliability
studies of fieldwork evaluations and other assessments scored by multiple raters, as well as
reliability and validity studies across measures of the same standards. Although it is
commendable that candidate’s performance ratings are generally above average across all
standards, we need to make sure that these ratings reflect true growth and performance and are
not inflated. Several programs use multiple ratings for each candidate on critical assessments
such as fieldwork evaluations or portfolios. However the next evolution of the program
assessment system should include interrater reliability and concurrent validity studies.
Plan of Action
1. To ensure that each of the programs address improvements specific to their area we will use the Unit Assessment Committee as a vehicle to
support programs as they plan and implement proposed changes by serving as a platform in which program chairs and assessment coordinators
may share issues and strategies and maintain continuity as program chairs and assessment coordinators change over the years.
2.
To address issues of reliability, validity, and completeness of data, we plan to use a federal earmark we have received to finalize our assessment
system by fall 2010. The plan includes support for achieving the following objectives:
3
a. Conduct reliability studies on critical assessments such as student teaching evaluations and PACT.
b. Conduct workshops for faculty and master teachers for calibration and reliability studies.
c. Conduct workshops for faculty, master teachers, and staff to refine the management of electronic data collection and maximize its use by
university and district faculty.
d. Complete and/or enhance electronic links of the various unit and campus data sources of demographic and assessment information.
3. We will use our Unit Assessment Committee (UAC) meetings to a) explore viable ways of collecting pupil work samples and/or other evidence
of candidate activities and proficiency in assessing pupil data and b) ensure that all faculty and district field site supervisors use the electronic
system correctly and consistently. We also plan to examine the viability of linking the UAC meetings to other committees that address critical
issues for specific programs such as the Student Teaching and Intern Steering Committee and the university Teacher Education Committee
(TEC).
4. The Unit Assessment Committee as well as the Student Teaching and Internship Coordinating Committee may also serve as a vehicle for
exchanging ideas about how programs provide information and support to field site supervisors.
Beverly Cabello, Interim Associate Dean
Michael D. Eisner College of Education
California State University, Northridge
18111 Nordhoff St.
Northridge, CA 91330
4
Summary of Areas for Improvement and Action Plans
Department
Elementary Education
Secondary Education
Special Education
Areas for Improvement
*Meeting the needs of English
Language Learners (ELL)
*Meeting the needs of Students with
Special Needs
*Using technology for teaching and
classroom management
*Managing the classroom and
classroom behavior
*Knowing about resources for at risk
youth
Action Plan
*Program graduate focus groups about challenges of meeting needs of English Language
Learners & Students with Special Needs and using technology in the classroom. Meet with
faculty about implications for course content and instructional practices. * Provide professional
development for faculty in response to gaps in program courses in meeting the subject specific
needs of ELL and SSN & make program and course changes to course syllabi and instruction.
* Review National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETST) and for students
(NETS) and current technology methods courses*Meet with EPC 315/500 faculty regarding how
these courses address classroom management and pupil behavior. Meet with SPED 401C faculty
about how this course addresses classroom management for students with Special Needs. * Meet
with faculty of foundational & diversity courses about addressing resources for at risk youth.
-Addressing the needs of English
language learners
-Teaching Students with Special
Needs
- knowledge of school and
community resources for students at
risk of dropping out and their
families.
*Meet focus groups of program completers and employers to learn about new teachers’
-Screening applicants for admission
-Subject matter Competency
-Evaluation of Teaching performance
-Preparation needs: serving English
learners; using technology
proficiently; addressing preparation in
transition plans; knowledge of
resources in school and community
for at risk students and families;
increasing knowledge of program
effectiveness for graduates
challenges with teaching ELL and special needs students, meeting needs of students at risk of
failure or dropping out, teaching content literacy and teaching content with technology. *Revise
several courses to meet needs. *Professional development for full and part-time faculty and
fieldwork supervisors in these areas. Revise Student/Intern Teaching Evaluation forms to more
closely reflect these needs. Provide workshops for master teachers regarding these needs.
*Revise interview procedures; *Address NCLB subject matter requirement for secondary special
educators. *Rewrite programs to new standards requiring assessment of Teacher Performance
Expectations through PACT *Address preparation to serve English learners by developing a new
course based on Standard 3, Educating Diverse Learners; *increase emphasis on use of
technology as set forth by standard 6;* New Education Specialist standard 7 and 8 will address
transition plans; *as faculty develop new Education Specialist program, revise course content to
address school and community resources for students and families*the department will work
with Dean’s office to improve Teacher/Employer Follow-Up survey data.
5
Educational
Psychology and
Counseling
School Psychology
Educational Leadership
and Policy Studies
*Monitoring and support of candidates
with poor writing skills; * enhance
candidates’ use of data;
* Field supervisors need more
assistance in supporting candidates; *
Candidates need better strategies to tie
assessments and data with candidates’
practice;*Enhance candidates’ use of
technology;* Clarify candidates’
expectations for fieldwork;
* Enhance candidate knowledge of
human learning, law, behavioral
assessment, empirically based
interventions, academic interventions,
and program evaluation; * Enhance
candidate skills in supervising other
less trained fieldwork candidates
Tier 1: * Improve candidate
performance on the Curriculum,
Instruction, and Supervision portion of
the Tier 1 exam.*Enhance candidate
opportunities to engage in hands-on
experiences, do presentations, research,
technology, and writing; Tier 2: *
Enhance department and credential
office websites.
*Follow-up with/monitor the few candidates who have lower than acceptable writing skills as
evidenced in the Writing Assignment and grades in EPC 682 (Foundations of School
Counseling) to ensure they have obtained help with writing and this is impacting their academic
work in first semester courses. * Showcase 2nd year candidate work on using data to
demonstrate the impact of their work in improving student learning and achievement at Town
Hall meetings as incentive and models for first year students. *Provide timely and thorough
assistance to field supervisors when they experience challenges in supporting a candidate (See
Table 11). Challenges posed by candidates should be dealt with by the candidate's practicum or
fieldwork course instructor*Practicum and fieldwork instructors will explore with supervisors
the need to ensure that candidates are getting the experience they need with technology and
improve their experience with the use of data to show the impact of their work. * Clarify
candidate expectations for fieldwork. School Counseling Program Coordinators will ascertain the
need that candidates have in this area through discussions in practicum and fieldwork courses
and at Town Hall Meetings. They will also make sure that all candidates receive an electronic
copy of the Handbook and Fieldwork Manual for School Counseling Students by September 15,
2009.
*The School Psychology Coordinator and faculty will meet to plan ways to improve the
following elements of the curriculum: human learning, law, behavioral assessment, empirically
based interventions, academic interventions, program evaluation, describing reading, math, and
written language interventions. This involves working with some faculty who are not in the
School Psychology program as well.*Collect data from candidates to explore how we can
improve the quality of instruction (is it specific to certain courses?), overall satisfaction with the
program, and advisement and overall quality from the department office.
Tier 1: * review and revise coursework addressing Curriculum, Instruction, and Supervision; *
review and revise coursework to provide candidates with more opportunities for hands-on
experiences, do presentations, research, technology, and writing; Tier 2: * the department and
credential websites have been significantly changed, review new follow-up study results in
regard to this area.
6
Credential Area
Elementary
Education
Secondary Education
Special Education
Educational
Psychology and
Counseling
Educational
Administration and
Policy Studies
Areas of Strength
Across all transition points and multiple measures: content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and skills, Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge
and Skills, student learning, and dispositions candidates received at or above average evaluations. Entering students GPA’s are well above the
minimum required and all pass the CSET. Candidates demonstrated proficiency in Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills, with the
weakest element being using instructional time. Of all elements of NCATE Standard 1, measures of candidate’s management of Student Learning
yielded the lowest, but still respectable, ratings. Data from graduate and employer follow up studies show that employers rate teachers’ competencies
as high while candidates’ self assessments are not as high. Ratings of dispositions indicate that candidates exit the program with an understanding of
their professional and legal obligations and importance of their ongoing professional development.
Across all transition points and multiple measures: content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and skills, Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge
and Skills, student learning, and dispositions. Candidates demonstrate knowledge and skill in subject specific pedagogy (TPE 1/1b) in the areas of
language and mathematics, and to a lesser degree, science and social studies.
Leve1 and Level 2: Across all transition points and multiple measures: content knowledge. pedagogical knowledge and skills, Professional and
Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills, student learning, and dispositions.
At all transition points as measured by fieldwork evaluations and the Student Advancement Evaluation form, candidates achieved strong ratings in
Knowledge and Skills, dispositions, and student learning (creating a positive learning environment and assessment skills). The program is strong in
the diversity of candidates and faculty as well as in addressing issues of diversity across coursework and experiences. Electronic assessment is
working well. Candidates rated different program and department components very well.
Candidates received higher than average mean ratings in knowledge, skills, and dispositions across all transition points. The highest ratings related the
candidates’ ability to work with students, parents, and other professionals from different cultural backgrounds (knowing about acculturation,
assimilation, being respectful of differences, knowing about cultural issues), candidates’ ethics, individual and group counseling, ability to seek
assistance from supervisor, ability to receive criticism, and ability to create a positive environment and relationship with the students they serve.
Candidates yielded higher than average (4s)means on multiple measures across transition points on nearly all items of knowledge, skills, and
dispositions. Higher marks were yielded in the areas of laws and ethics, issues of diversity, general administration, finance. Program effectiveness
measures showed higher means for providing candidates with the opportunity to reflect on their practice, demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and
dispositions they have learned, providing feedback to help improve practice, and providing adequate advisement.
7
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES
Making subject matter comprehensible to students
2. Assessing student learning
3. Engaging and supporting students in learning
4. Planning instruction and designing learning experiences for students
5. Creating and maintaining effective environments for student learning
6. Developing as a professional educator
Contextual Information
The Multiple Subject Credential Program at California State University, Northridge prepares teacher candidates for careers as elementary school
teachers through five distinct pathways. Two pathways serve undergraduates who complete subject matter and credential program coursework
concurrently in a blended fashion. Three pathways are designed for students who have already earned the baccalaureate degree. Candidates
completing a post-baccalaureate pathway may opt to earn a BCLAD (Bilingual Cross-cultural Language and Academic Development) credential.
These five pathways reflect principles consistent with a developmental approach to learning to teach. Further, the organization of coursework and
experiences in each of the pathways is designed to meet the varying needs of our credential candidates.
Multiple Subject Program Pathways
1.
Integrated Teacher Education Program (ITEP) Freshman Option (129 units)
The ITEP-Freshman Option (FO) is an undergraduate program for students who have decided upon entering the university as freshmen that they will
pursue a career in teaching. The ITEP-Freshman Option is available to students who are prepared to enter college-level mathematics and English
classes. The program blends subject matter and education coursework and enables students to earn both a Bachelor of Arts degree in Liberal Studies
and the Multiple Subject Credential in four years.
Integrated Teacher Education Program (ITEP) Junior Option (~69 units)
The ITEP-Junior Option (JO) is an undergraduate program for junior-level CSUN students or community college transfers. Entering students have
completed all lower division General Education requirements. The program blends subject matter and education coursework and enables students to
earn both a Bachelor of Arts degree in Liberal Studies and the Multiple Subject Credential in two to three years following their entry into the
program.
Traditional Multiple Subject Credential Pathway (36 units)
The Traditional Multiple Program is a post-baccalaureate program for full-time or part-time students. Students who meet all credential requirements
upon admission may complete the program in as few as two semesters, though most teacher candidates elect a three or four semester schedule (link to
TRAD advisement form). The Traditional pathway provides the flexibility for students who must attend the university on a part-time basis.
8
Accelerated Collaborative Teacher (ACT) Preparation Program (37 units)
The ACT Program is a cohorted, intensive one-year full-time program for Multiple Subject, Single Subject, and Education Specialist Credential
candidates. The ACT Program is offered in collaboration with Local District 2, Los Angeles Unified School District. ACT MS candidates enroll in
many of the same classes as candidates in the Traditional pathway, but take a Core class that addresses diversity and students with special needs with
single subject and education specialist candidates enrolled in the program.
Multiple Subject University Intern Program (36 units)
The Multiple Subject University Internship Program is designed for individuals who are employed as teachers in a public school, have met basic
skills and subject matter requirements, but have not met teacher preparation requirements for the Multiple Subject Credential. Candidates in this two
year program proceed through a structured program of coursework in a sequence similar to that of a four semester sequence for Traditional Program
candidates. Interns enroll in and complete a supervised field experience in each of the four semesters of the program. For additional descriptions of
program pathways and requirements see the department website at www.csun.edu/educ/eed or http://edutech.csun.edu/mdcoe Unit Programs – EED
– EED Program Review Document)
CANDIDATE ASSESSMENT/PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
Transition Points and Key Assessments
We view all transition points as developmental in nature. For example, measures at Transition Point 1 provide baseline information regarding
candidates’ knowledge about the content they will teach, as well as basic skills. Grade point averages and passage of state exams reflect candidates’
basic skills and subject matter knowledge. However, we believe that candidates’ skills and subject matter knowledge will grow as they are asked to
teach children. We anticipate that their pedagogical content knowledge and skills, professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills, and student
learning will significantly increase as they experience the subject-specific methods courses we have built our curriculum around , and the
assessments at Transition Points 3 and 4 will reflect candidates’ growing knowledge and application of that knowledge because of their work in field
experiences. We are currently in a period of transition regarding our assessment used for Transition Point 4 and 5 as we are moving from the use of a
Professional Teaching Portfolio for assessment with candidates who entered the credential programs before July 1, 2008 and the Teaching
Performance Assessment (Performance Assessment for California Teachers Teaching Event, PACT TE) for candidates who entered the program after
July 1, 2008.
9
Transition Point Matrix for All Multiple Subject Credential Program Pathways (Initial)
Department of Elementary Education Fall 2007-Fall 2008
Knowledge
SLO 1 - 5
Transition Point 1
Entry to
Program
(1) Undergrad GPA of
2.67 overall or 2.75 in
last 60 units
(2) CSET subtests 1,
2, and 3 passed (ACT,
Fifth Year Program,
Intern)
Skills
SLO 1 - 5
Dispositions
SLO 5, 6
(1) Applicant
Interview
(2) CBEST attempted
(1) Applicant
Interview
(2) Dispositions Self
Survey at Beginning*
Transition Point 2
Entry to
Clinical Practice
(1) GPA of 3.0 or
higher in credential
program courses
(2) Coursework
passed with no grade
below “C”
(3) Overall GPA 2.75
or higher
(4) CSET subtests 1,
2, and 3 passed (ITEP
ONLY)
(1) CBEST Passed or:
(a) all three subsets of
CSET passed and (b)
CSET Writing Subtest
Passed
(2) Writing
Proficiency
(UDWPE score of 10
or higher, or passing
grade in composition
course, or minimum
score of 41 on
CBEST)
Transition Point 3
Exit from First
Clinical Experience
(1) GPA of 3.0 or
higher in credential
program courses
(2) Overall GPA
2.75 or higher
Transition Point 4
Exit from
Clinical Practice
(1) Classroom Teaching
Profile – Second semester
(2) Professional Teaching
Portfolio
or PACT Teaching Event
(3) Classroom
Teaching Profile –
First semester
(1) Classroom
Teaching Profile –
First semester
(1) Classroom Teaching
Profile – Second semester
(2) Professional Teaching
Portfolio
or PACT Teaching Event
Transition Point 5
Exit from
Program
(1) 3.0 GPA in
program courses and
2.75 overall
cumulative GPA
(2) Individual
Induction Plan
(3) CSU Exit Survey
(Candidates’
Perceptions)
(1) GPA of at least
3.0 in program
courses and 2.75
overall cumulative
GPA
(2) Individual
Induction Plan
Transition Point 6
Follow-Up
(1) CSU Follow-Up
Survey (Candidates’
Perceptions)
(2) CSU Follow-Up
Survey (Employers’
Perceptions)
(1) CSU Follow-Up
Survey (Candidates’
Perceptions)
(2) CSU Follow-Up
Survey (Employers’
Perceptions)
(3) CSU Exit Survey
(Candidates’
Perceptions)
(1) Classroom
Teaching Profile –
First semester
(1) Classroom Teaching
Profile – Second semester
(1) Individual
Induction Plan
(2) Professional Teaching
Portfolio or PACT
Teaching Event
(3) Dispositions Self
Survey at Conclusion*
10
Candidate Strengths, Areas for Program/Candidate Improvement, and Action Plan
The Department has established a meeting/committee structure for reviewing and evaluating assessment data, including department meetings and
standing Assessment, Credential Program, and MA Program Committees. The Assessment Committee regularly reviews assessment data and makes
recommendations for program and course changes and/or changes in the measures used which are shared with department faculty as a whole. The
Credential Committee develops and recommends program/course changes while the Assessment Committee recommends changes to measures of
candidate competency (e.g., Classroom Teacher Profile - CTP). Typically, Course Coordinators will convene discipline faculty to make specific
changes to courses and fieldwork/student teaching to improve the performance of teacher candidates and support their development as beginning
teachers. In addition, the department hosts meetings and retreats for University Supervisors to address relevant assessment data and provide
professional development around changes to programs and measures and such topics as calibration on the CTP.
Program and Candidate Strengths
1. Content Knowledge (NCATE Standard 1.a.). Content knowledge is measured at Transition Point 1 with GPAs and passage of the CSET at
admission. Across all pathways, on average, entering students’ GPAs are well-above the minimum required for admission to the program. In
addition, all candidates are required to pass CSET upon admission to the program, though by Chancellor’s Order, the program has the
flexibility to accept a small portion of students who have not met the CSET requirement on an Exceptional Admission basis should they
demonstrate strength in other measures (e.g., GPA and CBEST scores).
2. Multiple Subject Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Skills (NCATE Standard 1.b., TPEs 1, 4, 5, 7 and 9). Across all transition points,
across all pathways, candidates demonstrate knowledge and skill in subject specific pedagogy (TPE 1) in the areas of language and
mathematics, and to a lesser degree, science and social studies. The strength of candidates’ preparation to implement subject specific
pedagogy is undoubtedly linked to an instructional program that offers methodological coursework delivered by faculty with subject specific
expertise in the disciplines. Another important factor in considering the strength in PCK related to language and mathematics is the extensive
opportunities candidates have to practice teaching reading/language arts and mathematics on a daily basis across both first and second
semester student teaching. Candidates student teach in the science and social studies only in their second semester, and many candidates
report that given the emphasis in language and math in our local schools, they do not have the same opportunities to teach science and social
studies as they do these other content areas. Data related to candidates’ preparation to teach the arts, physical education, and health reflect the
few opportunities for candidates to practice teach in these areas in student teaching.
Funded through TNE, faculty in the department collaborated with subject matter faculty to develop fieldwork materials to better focus
university supervisors on candidates’ developing subject-specific knowledge. Fieldwork materials for mathematics, science, and social
studies are being piloted with university supervisors in the ITEP pathway. Materials will be rolled out to all program pathways upon
completion of the pilot study and any revision of materials. Initial results of the pilot indicate that these materials help to focus attention on
subject specific pedagogy in their post-observation conferences.
3.
Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills (NCATE Standard 1.c., TPEs 5, 6, 8, 10, 11). Data from the Classroom Teaching
Profile indicates that generally, candidates demonstrate proficiency in their ability to implement developmentally appropriate teaching
practices, learn about students, use instructional time effectively, and create an engaging social environment. Of these different elements,
11
using instructional time yielded the weakest ratings, a finding that is not surprising as it reflects a skill that is mastered over time as a
beginning teacher’s confidence and sense of efficacy develops in the first few years of teaching. In examining CSU Exit Survey data, several
areas emerge as strengths, while others emerge as weakness in our preparation of teachers. Areas of strength include candidates’ ability to
manage a class or group of students, learn about students, engage students, and promote positive interactions between students and group
skills.
4. Student Learning (NCATE Standard 1.d., TPEs 2, 3, and 8). Of all elements of NCATE Standard 1, measures of candidate’s management of
Student Learning yielded the lowest, but still respectable, ratings. Average scores on the CTP by pathway, range from a low of around 2.7 for
candidates in the ACT Program, to a high of 3.0 for Interns (though a small n). Generally, ratings fell within the 2.70-2.75 range. Given that
the Program offers specific foundational and subject specific pedagogical coursework, the topic of managing student learning through
assessment is embedded across most coursework in the program, beginning with EPC 315 for ITEP candidates, and EPC/EED 500 for postbaccalaureate candidates when principles of classroom assessment are introduced. Graduates’ responses to items on the CSU Exit Survey
relevant to NCATE Standard 1.d. and TPEs 2, 3 and 8 indicate that they do feel well to adequately prepared to (1) monitor and (2) assess
student progress and (3) design classroom activities to suit the attention spans of students, though more graduates feel well-prepared to design
a classroom environment than to assess and monitor student progress. Data from the CSU Follow-up study confirm the data from the CTP
and Exit Surveys. Employers of graduates rate their teachers’ competencies to assess and monitor pupil progress as high, while candidates
are not as positive about their abilities to do so. This is particularly the case in graduates’ ability to analyze assessment data and make
appropriate instructional decisions.
With Program implementation of PACT, faculty and candidates are more focused on issues of assessing and monitoring pupil progress
in their courses. All candidates complete the Teaching Event and analyze and discuss implications of assessment data related to Language
Arts, and also complete the Assessment Task as their Embedded Signature Assessment in mathematics. Further, in the context of
professional development around the PACT Teaching Event, the Department is working with University Supervisors on promoting
candidates’ ability to interpret classroom assessment data for their immediate and long-term implications to planning in response to
assessment data.
5. Dispositions (NCATE Standard 1.g., TPEs 12 and 13). Across all transition points where candidate dispositions are measured (e.g.,
Classroom Teaching Profile), a pattern of strength emerges. Ratings by University Supervisors and Supervising Teachers indicate that
candidates exit the program with an understanding of their professional and legal obligations and importance of their ongoing professional
development. As mentioned previously, the department will endeavor to develop a valid and reliable measure of candidate dispositions upon
entry to and exit from the program, this activity supported by a Federal “Assessment and Accountability for Teacher Education Programs”
grant.
Areas for Program Improvement
6. Meeting the Needs of English Learners (NCATE Standard 1.b., TPE 7). CTP ratings do not necessarily suggest that there is a significant
difference in scores on TPE 7 relative to other TPEs, the ability of candidates to meet the needs of English learners must continue to be a
focus of our program improvement efforts. As discussed earlier, generally, Supervising Teachers award lower scores on TPE 7 than do
12
University Supervisors, largely a function, we believe, in the regular daily observations Supervising Teachers make of our teacher candidates
in student teaching and the significant drive in the schools to make sure that teachers provide appropriate instruction for English learners.
Where very significant data emerge as an indication that program improvement in this area is needed is in the CSU Exit and Follow-up
surveys. Only 50% of candidates responded that they were well-prepared to meet the instructional needs of students who are English learners
and/or from diverse cultural backgrounds. Furthermore, just two-thirds of the employers of beginning teachers responded in the Follow-up
survey that they were well or adequately prepared to meet the needs of English learners. The beginning teachers rated themselves somewhat
higher in this area.
In evaluating assessment data from transition points 4, 5 and 6, it is clear that often, teacher candidates are rated higher as teacher
candidates than they rate their preparation and abilities as they leave the program as beginning teachers. Consistent with the idea that one’s
perception is his or her reality, we have to give attention to the CSU Exit and Follow-up survey data in constructing an action plan to remedy
such matters.
7. Meeting the Needs of Students with Special Learning Needs (NCATE Standard 1.b., TPE 8). The subject of students with special needs is
given attention in the Classroom Teaching Profile only as part of other elements related to this TPE 8. Therefore, it does not stand out as an
area of weakness in evaluations of teacher candidates. It does emerge as a significant area of concern in the CSU Exit and Follow-up surveys,
however. Of all the items in the Exit Survey related to NCATE Standard 1.b., providing for the needs of students with special learning needs
received to lowest ratings: just 30% of all graduates feel well-prepared in this regard. Furthermore, of all the items within the realm of
Standard 1.b., employers gave beginning teachers the lowest ratings (55% Well/Adequately Prepared) in meeting the needs of students with
special needs. Beginning teachers also give low ratings in their preparation in this area.
It has only been since 2002 and program approval under SB2042 that Preliminary Multiple Subject Credential candidates have had a
course in Special Education. Prior to that, under the Ryan Program, teachers took a course as a requirement for the Clear Credential. The
Department has been exploring avenues for faculty professional development on the specific strategies for working with students with special
needs in the general education setting, but is abundantly clear that we have to continue to strive to better prepare candidates (and faculty) to
meet the needs of students with special needs.
8. Using Technology in Teaching and Managing the Classroom (NCATE Standards 1.b., TPEs 4 & 5). Still a third element of NCATE Standard
1.b. requiring attention is preparation of teacher candidates to use technology. There is but one item in the CTP that addresses candidates’
abilities to use technology in teaching and therefore, the CTP ratings for candidates do not point to his as a specific area of weakness. This is
not the case, however, when one examines candidates’ responses in the Exit or Follow-up Surveys. Across all program pathways, fewer than
50% of graduates felt well-prepared to use technology in helping students learn the curriculum and use technology in instruction. Similar
findings emerge from the CSU Follow-up Study in which, while 74% of employers rated their beginning teachers as well or adequately
prepared in educational technology, only 59% and 48% of beginning teachers felt well to adequately prepared to use technology in exploring
the curriculum and use technology in instruction, respectively. Ratings were somewhat lower for the ITEP pathways that do not have a standalone technology course. Post-baccalaureate candidates for the Preliminary Credential do take a 2-unit course in educational technology, it is
clear that Program faculty must devote time to examining the technology course for the extent to which it provides foundational content in
educational technology and work across methods courses to ensure that faculty are addressing the potential for technology to enhance pupil
access to the core curriculum and instruction in the different subject area disciplines.
13
9. Managing the Classroom and Student Behavior (NCATE Standard 1.c., TPE 5). While CTP ratings of teacher candidates’ ability to manage
the classroom environment and student behavior are respectable, data from the CSU Exit and Follow-up Surveys indicate that there is room in
the program for improving candidates’ abilities in classroom management, handling student disciplines and addressing problem behavior.
The survey indicates relative weaknesses in preparing candidates to organize the classroom environment for student learning and managing
student behavior. Data from the CSU Follow-up Survey are consistent with trends that emerged from Exit Survey data. Graduates and their
employers give lower ratings to beginning teachers’ ability to organize and manage student behavior. Moreover, in response to survey
questions related to the value of program instruction in methods of classroom management, beginning teachers gave relatively low ratings.
10. Knowing About Resources for At-Risk Youth (NCATE Standard 1.c.). There are no items in the CTP that specifically address teacher
candidate competency in this area. However, both the Exit (Transition 5) and Follow-up surveys (Transition 6) do ask beginning teachers to
rate their preparation in this regard as they leave the program and at the end of their first year of teaching. In fact, of all the Exit Survey items
related to NCATE Standard 1.c., graduates gave their knowledge of resources for at-risk students and their families as lowest, with only 37%
(post-baccalaureate) - 41% (ITEP) of graduates responding that they felt well-prepared in this area. Consistent with these data, only 42% of
beginning teachers at the end of their first year responded that they felt well/adequately prepared in their knowledge of resources for at-risk
youth and their families. Similarly, employers of our graduates gave low ratings to beginning teachers’ knowledge of resources to address the
needs of at-risk youth, with only 64% responding that their teachers were well/adequately prepared to do so. This was the lowest rating for
items that fall under NCATE Standard 1.c.
All candidates across all pathways are required to take a course that addresses the needs of diverse students (ELPS 203 Urban
Education in American Society in ITEP; ELPS/CHS/PAS/AAS/ARMN 417 in Traditional and Intern pathways; and ELPS 541A/ELPS 542A
in ACT) and the content and experiences in this course are likely responsible for high ratings of their preparation in diversity and
multicultural education. Those courses will likely serve as an appropriate platform for addressing candidate knowledge of resources for atrisk youth.
Action Plan for Program Improvement
In light of the strengths and identified areas for candidate and program improvement, faculty of the Department of Elementary Education will
engage in the following activities:
Focus Area
1.
Pedagogical Content
Knowledge SLO 1
2.
3.
4.
Activities
Continue to develop field materials to support University Supervisor’s and Supervising Teachers’
assessment of candidates’ PCK and to promote more focused attention on subject specific pedagogy in
lesson planning and post-observation conferences.
Train Supervising teachers on the use of field observational materials
Roll materials out into all program pathways
Engage literacy faculty in developing similar materials for University Supervisors and Supervising
Teachers as they observe reading/language arts lessons
14
Classroom
Organization and
Management and
Student Discipline
SLO 3, 4,5
Pupil Assessment
and Using
Assessment Data
SLO 2
Dispositions
SLO 6
English Learners
SLO 3 - 5
Students with
Special Needs
SLO 3-5
1. Meet with faculty who teach EPC 315 and EPC/EED 500 to discuss how those courses address general
principles of classroom management and student discipline. Gauge the extent to which these courses
provide foundational content in these areas. Discuss changes to those courses that may lay a more solid
foundation in management and student discipline.
2. Meet with faculty who teach SPED 401C to discuss matters of discipline for students with special needs
and how course addresses that topic. Adapt basic content from the SPED 401C course (e.g., positive
behavioral supports) to teaching the different areas of the elementary curriculum.
3. Meet with department faculty by specialization to review content from courses that addresses classroom
organization and management through curriculum design and instruction. Enhance content of those
courses as appropriate.
1. Convene department faculty by specialization to review course content and linkages between pupil
assessment data (pre- and post-), planning for instruction, and the instructional process.
2. Work with faculty to strengthen the context-planning-instruction-assessment-refection cycle in all
methods courses.
1. Convene members of the EED Assessment Committee to review existing dispositional instrument for
their value in reliably and validly measuring student dispositions and alignment with COE Conceptual
Framework
2. As appropriate, revise instrument to measure dispositions. For example, the current instrument includes
“qualities thought to be important to the teaching profession” and a scale for self-ratings. New
instrument would include statements or scenarios to which candidates would respond.
1. Convene recent graduates of the program (1 and 2 years out) for focus group discussions about the
challenges of teachers to meet the needs of English learners (see also Students with Special needs (1)
and Using Technology (1), below).
2. Graduates reflect on their preparation through the program and the dissonance between their preparation
and the realities of teaching a linguistically diverse population of students
3. Meet with program faculty to discuss results of focus group sessions and their implications for the
courses they teach
4. Provide professional development for faculty in response to gaps in program courses in meeting the
subject specific needs of English learners
5. Use information to make program and course changes to course syllabi and instruction
1. Convene recent graduates of the program (1 and 2 years out) for focus group discussions about the
challenges of teachers to meet the needs of students with special needs.
2. Meet with the Chair of Special Education and SPED faculty who teach SPED 401C to review course
content for its ability to prepare beginning teachers in meeting the emotional, social, and academic
needs of students with special needs
3. Review EED methods courses for content , activities, and assignments related to addressing academic
achievement of students with special needs in the different content areas
15
Using Technology
SLO 3-5
Resources for AtRisk Youth and
Their Families
SLO 5
4. Explore classroom management issues more specific to teaching pupils with special needs
1. Convene recent graduates of the program (1 and 2 years out) for focus group discussions about the
knowledge and skills teachers need to make effective use of technology in the classroom
2. Review National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS•T) and the NETS for Students
(NETS•S). Review course content for EED 515 Basic Technology Methods for the ability of this course
to meet those standards and practical needs of beginning teachers as determined through focus groups.
Revise course accordingly.
3. Meet with EED technology faculty to review assessment and focus group discussion data and determine
the benefits of an educational technology course to the ITEP pathways. As appropriate, propose
program change to add technology course to program curriculum.
4. Meet with methods course faculty to discuss how courses other than EED 515 might be
revised/enhanced to address beginning teachers’ use of technology in teaching across the content areas
of the elementary curriculum.
5. Explore different means to ensure that all candidates have an opportunity to use technology in student
teaching (e.g., department laptops)
1. Meet with faculty teaching the ELPS/CHS/PAS/AAS/ARMN 417, EPC 315, and EPC/EED 500 courses
to explore how those courses specifically address resources for addressing the needs of at-risk youth
2. Review course content and suggest strengthening content, activities and assignments related to the topic
3. Continue to develop Early Field Experience activities that will promote candidate exploration of student
demographics, language needs, community resources (more general and those related to students at
risk), and parent connections with the school community
16
SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES
Make subject matter comprehensible to students
Assess student learning
Engage and support students in learning
Plan instruction and design learning experiences for students
Create and maintain effective environments for student learning
Develop as a professional educator
CONTEXT
The Single Subject Program at California State University, Northridge offers Single Subject Credentials in the following subject areas: Art;
Business; English Language Arts; Foreign (World) Languages, including American Sign Language; Health Science; Home Economics; Music;
Physical Education; Mathematics/Foundational Mathematics; Physical Education; Science (General/Specialization in Biology, Chemistry, Physical
Science, Geosciences/Foundational); Social Science. Five Single Subject Credential Program pathways - three post-baccalaureate pathways for all of
the above subject areas and two blended undergraduate pathways in English and mathematics - are based on theoretical and scholarly understandings
of teacher preparation and are aligned with the Unit’s Conceptual Framework [www.csun.edu/coe]. Each pathway is structured to meet the varying
needs of our credential candidates. In addition, candidates in the Traditional and Intern pathways have the option of earning a BCLAD (Bilingual
Cross-Cultural Language and Academic Development) Credential. The five pathways are briefly described below. For additional information, please
refer to the 2008 program documents in the Electronic Exhibit Room materials. [http://edutech.csun.edu/mdecoe]
Single Subject Program Pathways
1. Traditional Single Subject Credential Program (31 semester units)
The Traditional Single Subject Credential Program is a post-baccalaureate program for full-time or part-time pre-service candidates.
Qualified, full-time candidates may complete the program in two semesters, while many others will elect to complete the program in two or more
years. Traditional BCLAD Candidates are fluent in Spanish, Armenian, or Korean, as well as the cultures associated with the language of emphasis.
2. Accelerated Collaborative Teacher (ACT) Preparation Program (31 semester units)
The ACT Program is a one-year field-based program for single subject, multiple subject, and education specialist credential candidates that is
offered at the Professional Development Center at Francis Polytechnic High School (LAUSD). This post-baccalaureate, fifth-year program is offered
in collaboration with Local District 2 of the Los Angeles Unified School District. Single Subject ACT candidates enroll in the same SED Methods
and field experience courses and some of the foundation classes as candidates in other pathways, but they are in “cored” Special Education and
Equity/Diversity classes with multiple subject and special education ACT candidates.
3. Single Subject University Intern Program (31 semester units)
17
The Single Subject University Intern Program is a post-baccalaureate program for candidates hired and teaching full-time in public middle
schools and high schools who have met subject competency and other requirements. Candidates in the two-year partially cohorted Intern Program
have Intern Credentials and proceed through a structured program of courses. CSUN has Intern Programs in cooperation with Los Angeles Unified
School District and numbers of other districts in the area. Several Intern classes meet off campus. BCLAD Intern candidates are fluent in Spanish,
Armenian, or Korean, as well as the cultures associated with the language of emphasis. In the past several years, numbers of Traditional candidates
have transferred to the Intern Pathway after completing one or more semesters of coursework, sometimes including the initial field experience, SED
554.
4. Four-Year Integrated (FYI) Teacher Credential Program (120-121 semester units)
The Four-Year Integrated Teacher Credential Program in English and Mathematics (FYI-English/FYI-Mathematics) is an undergraduate
program of teacher preparation designed for university freshmen who are prepared to enter college-level mathematics and writing classes. The
program makes it possible for a student to earn a Bachelor of Arts Degree and a Preliminary Single Subject Credential in English or Mathematics in
four years.
5. Junior-Year Entry Integrated (JYI) Teacher Credential Program (Mathematics - 69 semester units, English - 73 semester units following GE/lower
division course completion)
The Junior-Year Entry Integrated Teacher Credential Program in English and Mathematics (JYI-English/JYI-Mathematics) is an integrated
undergraduate program of teacher preparation designed for university juniors who are CSUN students or community college transfers. Entering
students have completed all General Education requirements and the lower-division English or Mathematics courses that are part of the major. The
program makes it possible for a student to earn a Bachelor of Arts Degree and a Preliminary Single Subject Credential in English or Mathematics in
two to three years.
18
Transition Point Matrix for All Single Subject Credential Program Pathways (Initial)
Department of Secondary Education Fall 2007-Fall 2008
Transition Point 1
Entry to Program
NCATE Standard
1.a
Content
Knowledge
(1) Undergrad GPA
of 2.67 overall or
2.75 in last 60 units
(2) Subject matter
competency (CSET
exam or Subject
Matter Program)
Transition Point 2
Entry to Clinical
Practice
(1) GPA of 3.0 or
higher in credential
program courses,
with no grade
below C
Transition Point 3
Transition Point 4
Exit from First
Exit from Clinical
Clinical Experience
Practice
(1) Student /Intern
(1) Student/Intern
Teaching Progress
Teaching Evaluation
Report
(2) Professional
Teaching Portfolio or
PACT Teaching
Event
Transition Point 5
Exit from Program
(1) GPA of at least
3.0 in program
courses
(2) GPA of 2.75 in
all post-BA courses
(3) CSU Exit
Survey
(Completers’
Perceptions)
(3) Exceptional
admission data
Transition Point 6
Follow-Up to the
Program
(1) CSU Follow-Up
Survey
(Completers’
Perceptions)
(2) CSU Follow-Up
Survey
(Employers’
Perceptions)
(4) Admissions
Interview Verbal
Skills Item
NCATE Standard
1.b
Pedagogical
Content
Knowledge and
Skills
(1) GPA of 3.0 or
higher in credential
program courses,
with no grade
below C
(1) Student
Teaching Progress
Report
(1) Student
Teaching Evaluation
(2) Professional
Teaching Portfolio or
PACT Teaching
Event
(1) GPA of at least
3.0 in program
courses
(2) GPA of 2.75 in
all post-BA courses
(3) CSU Exit
Survey
(Completers’
Perceptions)
(1) CSU Follow-Up
Survey
(Completers’
Perceptions)
(2) CSU Follow-Up
Survey
(Employers’
Perceptions)
19
NCATE Standard
1.c
Professional and
Pedagogical
Knowledge and
Skills
Basic Skills
(CBEST)
attempted; see data
at Transition
Point 2
(1) Basic Skills
(CBEST) Passed
Student Learning
NCATE Standard
1.g
(1) Applicant
Interview
Professional
Dispositions
(2) Dispositions
Survey at Program
Beginning
(1) Student/Intern
Teaching Evaluation
(2) Professional
Teaching Portfolio or
PACT Teaching
Event
(2) GPA of 3.0 or
higher in credential
program courses,
with no grade
below C
(3) Writing
Proficiency
(UDWPE score of
10 or higher, or
passing Grade in
composition
course, or score of
41or higher on
CBEST)
(1) GPA of 3.0 or
higher in credential
program courses,
with no grade
below C
NCATE
Standard 1.d
(1) Student/Intern
Teaching Progress
Report
(1) GPA of at least
3.0 in program
courses
(2) GPA of 2.75 in
all post-BA courses
(3) CSU Exit
Survey
(Completers’
Perceptions)
(1) Student /Intern
Teaching Progress
Report
(1) Student/Intern
Teaching Evaluation
(2) Professional
Teaching Portfolio or
PACT Teaching
Event
(1) Student/Intern
Teaching Progress
Report
(1) Student/Intern
Teaching Evaluation
(2) Professional
Teaching Portfolio or
PACT Teaching
Event
(3) Dispositions Self
Survey at Program
Conclusion
(1) GPA of at least
3.0 in program
courses
(2) GPA of 2.75 in
all post-BA courses
(3) CSU Exit
Survey
(Completers’
Perceptions)
(1) CSU Exit
Survey
(Completers’
Perceptions)
(1) CSU Follow-Up
Survey
(Completers’
Perceptions)
(2) CSU Follow-Up
Survey
(Employers’
Perceptions)
(1) CSU Follow-Up
Survey
(Completers’
Perceptions)
(2) CSU Follow-Up
Survey
(Employers’
Perceptions)
(1) CSU Follow-Up
Survey
(Completers’
Perceptions)
(2) CSU Follow-Up
Survey
(Completers’
Perceptions)
20
Conclusion: Candidate Strengths, Areas for Program/Candidate Improvement, and Action Plan
Secondary Education faculty meet for a full-day retreat each fall to analyze different types of program evidence, participate in professional
development, and determine and plan for annual strategic goals. In January 2009, faculty met in a half-day retreat to consider the most recently
available assessment data – the data that has been provided in this report – and to examine sample several of our candidates’ completed PACT
Teaching Events. Faculty then identified program strengths and discussed potential modifications of courses and course/fieldwork activities to
improve the performance of our candidates and to better support their preparation for the PACT TE. These are described below.
Candidate Strengths
1. Content Knowledge (NCATE Standard 1.a). Across all Transition Points, the data demonstrates candidates’ strong understanding of content,
including their understanding of the single subject content area (Art, English Language Arts, Mathematics, etc.), as well as verbal language and
knowledge of written language as they enter and begin the program. At Transition Point 4, ‘Knows subject matter’ is one of the higher means on the
candidate Student/Intern Teaching Evaluation, and the content knowledge rubric means for the PACT Teaching Event are among the highest received
by candidates. Similarly, at Transition Points 5 and 6, the CSU Exit Survey and CSU Follow-Up Survey responses of well or adequately prepared in
content knowledge are the highest provided by candidates/Beginning Teachers, and the CSU Follow-Up Survey responses of well or adequately
prepared are among the highest provided by Employers.
At the same time, Single Subject Program faculty are interested in knowing more about the content knowledge of candidates at Program Entry,
and will seek ways to learn more specific information about CSET (California Subject Examination for Teachers) scores. Some faculty have also
raised concerns about the quality of candidate writing knowledge, based on their reading and scoring the Professional Teaching Portfolio and the
Preliminary and PACT Teaching Events. As a result, it is likely a writing sample will be incorporated into a revised Credential Applicant Interview.
Finally, it is important that faculty have feedback on candidate knowledge of content on the Progress Report at Transition Point 3, which is presently
lacking. Please see the Action Plan below.
2. Dispositions (NCATE Standard 1.g; TPEs 12,13). Again, across Transition Points where there is data concerning candidates’ Dispositions,
a pattern of strength emerges. Apart from the strong ratings candidates give themselves at the beginning and the conclusion of the program, ratings
on the Progress Report and Student/Intern Teaching Evaluations are high for TPEs 12 and 13: ‘Professional, legal, and ethical obligations’ and
‘Professional growth.’ Faculty work diligently to model, encourage, and expect strong dispositions, as reflected in the language of the Conceptual
Framework. (http://edutech.csun.edu/mdecoe Conceptual Framework)
3. Single Subject Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills: Lesson planning, use of effective activities for single subject learning, and teaching to
State Academic Content Standards (NCATE Standard 1.b; TPEs 1, 4, 5, 9). Assessments across Transition Points indicate that candidates develop
strong abilities to teach in the single subject area, a substantial part of NCATE Standard 1.b. GPAs at Transition Points 2 and 4, Progress Report
outcomes at Transition Point 3, Student/Intern Teaching Evaluations and the Professional Teaching Portfolio/PACT Teaching Event scores at
Transition Point 4, and the Exit and Follow-Up Survey results from candidates and Employers at Transition Points 5 and/or 6 reveal this area of
strength. Areas with satisfactory though somewhat lower assessments in this area, ‘Teaching English language learners’ and ‘Teaching content
literacy,’ are discussed below.
21
4. General Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills: Using instructional time, class management and routines, making connections to
students’ interests, motivation, reflecting on teaching (NCATE Standard 1.c; TPEs 6, 8, 10, 11). Again, data from the Progress Reports at Transition
Point 3, Student/Intern Teaching Evaluations and TPAs at Transition Point 4, CSU Exit Surveys at Transition Point 5, and CSU Follow-Up Surveys
at Transition Point 6 indicate that candidates have strong performance in this area. Related items with somewhat lower assessments, ‘Know
school/community resources for at-risk students’ and ‘Anticipate and address the needs of students at risk of dropping out;’ are addressed below.
5. Student Learning: Creating and using assessments to monitor student learning, analyzing student, and making instructional decisions based on
assessment results (NCATE Standard 1.d; TPEs 2, 3). Candidates’ knowledge and skills in this aspect of teaching build over the course of the
program. In the Progress Reports at Transition Point 3, candidates’ mean scores range on these items from about 3.5 to 3.8 (1 – initial competency
through 5 –advanced competency) , although Intern candidates’ means are slightly higher. By Transition Point 4’s Student/Intern Teaching
Evaluations, the means on the student learning items range from about 3.9 to 4.10 (1- unsatisfactory through 5 – outstanding). Again, Intern
candidates’ means are slightly higher at around 4.10 – 4.40. Additionally, the last two semesters for which data is available on the PACT Teaching
Event (Transition Point 4) indicate satisfactory to strong means, and the PTP means at Transition Point 4 are around 4.0, indicating strong outcomes.
The CSU Exit Survey responses from candidates at Transition Point 5 are among the highest submitted, ranging from 87-100% well or adequately
prepared across pathways, and while these decrease somewhat for the CSU Beginning Teacher responses at Transition Point 6, unlike many others,
they are just below or meet the 80% benchmark in 2006-2007. Employers’ responses are higher, ranging from 88%-90% well or adequately prepared
in 2006-2007. Methods coursework provides a foundation, and student/intern teaching experiences allow for application and extension in classrooms.
Also, faculty have already made a number of modifications to activities in SED 525xx, the single subject methods courses, as well as the SED
554S and SED 555S seminars, because the PACT TE calls for more sophisticated knowledge and skills in assessment than was previously required.
Faculty are sharing information on assessment activities; for example, they participated in a presentation at a Secondary Education Department
meeting focused on a strategy for analyzing assessments for a whole class in spring 2009. As is true for all the program strengths here, faculty will
continue to strive for excellence in their own knowledge of research-based secondary instruction and assessment for use in their teaching.
Program Areas with Mixed Outcomes for Further Consideration
6. Computer Technology in Teaching Content (NCATE 1.b, TPEs 4, 5). An interesting area to consider is candidates’ competence in
integrating technology for student learning. According to candidates’ grades for the SED 514 course, their successful selections of an artifact for the
Professional Teaching Portfolio at Transition Point 4, and the high Employers’ responses to the Follow-Up Survey at Transition Point 6 concerning
this area (88%-91% well or adequately prepared), candidates’ ability to integrate computer technology in their teaching would be considered a
strength. Additionally, many faculty report that they model the teaching of content with technology in their classes and that candidates use
technology in their lesson assignments. However, outcomes are more complex, based on examination of the specific item on the Student/Intern
Teaching Evaluation at Transition Point 4. For example, the mean for the second item below at 3.92 is slightly below other TPE 4/5 items, but
important information to note is the change in the N, the number of responses. Receiving responses from 20 instead of 33, 68 instead of 82, and 56
instead of 73 means that numerous supervisors rated this item ‘No Opportunity to Observe.’ For the University Supervisors, but not Master Teachers,
this could simply suggest that visits did not coincide with the candidate’s use of technology. But it might also mean that some candidates either chose
not to use technology or did not have access to technology in the student/intern teaching assignment. While these are not
Evaluation Item
NCATE
Standard(s)
Spring
2008
Fall 2007
Mean
N
Mean
Spring
2008
Fall 2007
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
22
Encourages application of knowledge (TPE 4)
1.b
4.21
28
3.82
33
4.20
82
4.05
73
Integrates computer technology into instruction (TPE 4)
1.b
3.92
26
3.80
20
4.21
68
4.02
56
Notes: 3=Satisfactory, 4=Strong, 5 = Outstanding; N=Number of master teacher and university supervisor responses
_____________________________________
the same candidates, the Exit Survey means for ‘Use computer-based applications to help students learn curriculum subjects’ and ‘Use computerbased applications in class activities…’ were similar to many other responses, but like other items for the Follow-Up Survey, Beginning Teacher
ratings were lower at 71% and 75% well or adequately prepared and also substantially less that those for Employers. Even taking into account the
small percentage of responses by first year teachers in the CSU Follow-Up Survey, this is an area SED faculty will review further.
7. Literacy and Academic Language Instruction in Content Teaching. Another area that is not a clear-cut strength is literacy instruction.
Candidates all enroll in SED 521 – Literacy, Language, and Learning in Multiethnic Secondary Schools – and SED 521 course grades that become
part of the GPA are strong. At Transition Point 3 there is no specific data on this area: the Progress Report does not include an item that directly
assesses candidates’ ability to integrate content literacy instruction in their teaching. Additionally, readers provide substantial feedback on the
Preliminary Teaching Event in the SED 554S or SED 594S Seminar, but the Preliminary Teaching Event is not scored and no scores are recorded in
the Data Warehouse. However, specific items on the Student/Intern Teaching Evaluation at Transition Point 4 do address content literacy instruction,
as below.
Fall 2007 and Spring 2008
Evaluation Item
Prepares complete and sequential lesson plans (TPE 9)
Incorporates reading/literacy instruction in content classrooms (TPE 9)
NCATE
Standard(s)
1.b
1.b, 1.c
Master teacher
Mean
N
3.88
4.00
26
23
Fall 2007
University supervisor
Mean
N
4.09
3.87
33
30
Spring 2008
Master teacher
University supervisor
Mean
N
Mean
N
4.32
4.14
82
69
4.21
4.03
73
60
Notes: 3=Satisfactory, 4=Strong, 5 = Outstanding; N=Number of master teacher and university supervisor responses
The 3.87-4.14 means are strong, although the N’s decrease, indicating that as above for computer technology, numbers of master teachers and
university supervisors are rating the literacy item as ‘No Opportunity to Observe.’ At Transition Point 4, the Professional Teaching Portfolio does
not address literacy teaching abilities explicitly, but the PACT Teaching Event addresses aspects of literacy instruction, with rubrics for
‘Understanding language demands’ and ‘Supporting academic language development.’ Table 28 above shows that these two rubrics in the 1.b area
had the lowest mean scores for candidates in Spring 2008 and Fall 2008. These means are also lower than other PACT TE rubrics for 1.a, 1.c, or 1.d.
Tables 42A and 42B above show that 98% of Traditional candidates said in the Exit Survey at Transition Point 5 that they were well or adequately
prepared to ‘Contribute to students’ reading skills including vocabulary and comprehension in their subject area.’ But that rating drops to 68% (20052006) and 61% (2006-2007) for Beginning Teachers on the CSU Follow-Up Survey at Transition Point 6, and this item rated was rated lower than
most others by Employers, though at 79% (2005-2006) and 80% (2006-2007), they rated these Beginning Teachers as well or adequately prepared.
Faculty have given much attention to content literacy instruction in the past four or five years, and the CSU Employer Survey results have
improved as a result of these efforts. Activities and assignments in SED 521 have been revised and faculty in science, mathematics, and world
23
languages have participated in CSU-wide content-based literacy projects for infusing literacy in content methods courses. CSUN has provided
successful RIAP (Reading Institute for Academic Preparation) professional development for area teachers and the director has provided professional
development for SED faculty at Department meetings. University supervisors have received professional development in supporting field experience
candidates in the integration of literacy instruction in subject classes, and area districts have provided substantial development in content area literacy
to all teachers, including master teachers. Additionally, SED 521 instructors meet on at least an annual basis to share successful lessons, ask and
address questions, and, recently, to help address the response to the revisions of Standard 7B on Content Literacy of the Standards of Quality and
Effectiveness for Professional Teacher Preparation Programs. We will continue these efforts and consider others so that literacy instruction support
in the program and literacy instruction performance by candidates can continue to improve. Please see the Action Plan below.
Areas for Improvement
8. English Language Learners. As can be seen in Table 19 at Transition Point 3; Tables 27, 28, and 29 at Transition Point 4; Tables 42A and
42B at Transition Point 5; and Tables 49A and 49B at Transition Point 6; and in examining data from previous years’
(http://edutech.csun.edu/mdecoe Unit Assessment System – data tables - SED)
assessments, there has been improvement in candidates’ competencies in teaching English language learners, but this continues to be an area
where further growth is desired. Means for TPE 7, ‘Teaching English learners,’ are among the lowest for the Progress Reports, and this outcome may
be explained by the fact that numbers of candidates have not yet completed SED 521 – Literacy, Language, and Learning in Multiethnic Secondary
Schools – at that point of the program. However, TPE 7 means remain somewhat lower in the Student/Intern Evaluations at a time when candidates
are concurrently enrolled or have completed SED 521. Table 28 above shows the lowest PACT Teaching Event scores in ‘Understanding language
demands’ and ‘Supporting academic language development,’ areas central to teaching English learners, while the Professional Teaching Portfolio
scores for TPE 7 are mixed.
This is another area that faculty have given attention in the past several years, although English learner content and instruction continue to be
somewhat challenging for faculty. With the 2001 creation and 2002 implementation of the SB 2042 Credential Program that included CLAD
competencies, content and skills for both literacy instruction and instruction for English learners were merged into the new SED 521 course, Literacy,
Language, and Learning in Multiethnic Secondary Schools. Previously, candidates requesting the CLAD or BCLAD Credentials had enrolled in two
previous courses, SED 520, Fundamentals of Reading Instruction in Multiethnic Multilingual Schools, and SED 525ESL, Methods of Teaching
English as a Second Language. While there have been improvements in candidate competencies in teaching English learners in the past several years,
and while Employers in the most recent data rated ‘Meet the instruction needs of students who are English language learners’ at 84% well or
adequately prepared, the candidates responding to the Follow-Up Survey have much less confidence in their abilities and rate their preparation in this
area at 62% well or adequately prepared, a gap of 22%. The Program will address this area so that candidates can be better prepared to teach English
learners, a significant population in the Los Angeles area. See the Action Plan below.
9. Teaching students with special needs. There is no data from either Transition Point 3 or 4 that specifically addresses ‘Teaching students
with special needs,’ although the items below (Transition Point 4) could be considered related measures. Additionally, no items in the Professional
Teaching Portfolio or PACT Teaching Event Assessments directly assess this program area.
Evaluation Item: Traditional
Ensures participation of all students (TPE 5)
NCATE
Standard(s)
1.c
Fall 2007
Master teacher
University supervisor
Mean
N
Mean
N
Spring 2008
Master teacher
University supervisor
Mean
N
Mean
N
3.93
4.24
28
3.82
33
82
4.12
73
24
Adapts instruction and materials for diverse needs (TPE 7)
Evaluation Item: Intern
4.00
1.b
NCATE
Standard(s)
28
3.77
31
4.03
79
3.92
66
Fall 2007
Master teacher
University supervisor
Mean
N
Mean
N
Spring 2008
Master teacher
University supervisor
Mean
N
Mean
N
Ensures participation of all students (TPE 5)
1.c
4.36
11
4.32
19
4.46
28
4.25
72
Adapts instruction and materials for diverse needs (TPE 7)
1.b
4.18
11
3.95
19
4.50
28
4.10
68
Evaluation Item: ACT
NCATE
Standard(s)
Spring 2008
Master teacher
University supervisor
Mean
N
Mean
N
Ensures participation of all students (TPE 5)
1.c
3.93
15
3.77
13
Adapts instruction and materials for diverse needs (TPE 7)
1.b
4.00
14
3.67
12
Notes: 1=Unsatisfactory, 2=Marginal, 3=Satisfactory, 4=Strong, 5=Outstanding
___________________
However, in the CSU Exit Survey at Transition Point 5 and in the CSU Beginning Teacher/Employer Follow-Up Survey at Transition Point 6 (Tables
41A, 41B, 49A, and 49B above) there is direct evidence that this is an area of concern. In the CSU Exit Survey, candidates rate themselves 78%
(Traditional), 85% (Intern), 50% (ACT), and 100% (FYI) well or adequately prepared to meet the instructional needs of students with special
learning needs, among the lower ratings for this survey. The ratings by candidates who completed the CSU Beginning Teacher/Employer Follow-Up
Survey drop to 68% and 65%. Further, Employers’ lowest ratings are reserved for this area, with 78% and 80% considered well/adequately prepared.
Prior to the implementation of the new Single Subject Credential Program in 2002, there was no preliminary credential program standard for
teaching students with special needs; instead, clear credential candidates at CSUN learned about teaching students with special needs in a four-unit
course, SPED 508. In the new program, preliminary credential candidates in the Traditional, Intern, FYI and JYI Pathways learn this information in
a two-unit course, SPED 401C, with additional attention to students with special needs in a district-based BTSA or other clear credential program.
ACT candidates enroll in the ACT ELPS/SPED core courses with elementary and special education candidates. SED faculty and university
supervisors have indicated in retreats or workshops that they are less certain how to teach students with special needs, and faculty and supervisors
would benefit from professional development in this area so that stronger understandings might be infused in methods courses, field experiences,
and field experience seminars. Master teachers, on the other hand, have received professional development in this area and often teach in schools
with inclusive settings. Please see the Action Plan below.
10. School and community resources for at-risk students and their families, and addressing the needs of students at risk of dropping out of school.
Data from Transition Points 1-4 do not directly address this program area. However, in the CSU Exit survey at Transition Point 5 and in the CSU
Beginning Teacher/Employer Survey at Transition Point 6, there is evidence that raises concern regarding the program’s preparation of
candidates in ‘Know about resources in the school and community for at-risk students/families’ and ‘Anticipate and address the needs of students
who are at-risk of dropping out.’ In the 2007-2008 Exit Survey, candidates rate themselves as 74% (Traditional), 76% (Intern), 50% (ACT), and
25
100% (FYI) well/adequately prepared for the first of these, and as 82% (Traditional), 82% (Intern), 63% (ACT), and 100% (FYI) well/adequately
prepared for the latter item. A year later, responses by Beginning Teachers responding to the Follow-Up Study on these two items are 52% and
55% well/adequately prepared. Employers rate Beginning Teachers well/adequately prepared on ‘Resources for at-risk students/families’ at 82%
and on ‘Address the needs of students at-risk of dropping out’ at 77%, the lowest ratings on the survey.
While candidates may not fully grasp what is meant by ‘resources’ for at-risk students or how they might help prevent a student from
dropping out, explicit, direct explanations and experiences are clearly needed. These issues are introduced in
SED 511 (Fundamentals of Secondary Education in Multiethnic Secondary Schools) and addressed more fully in EPC 420 (Educational
Psychology of Adolescence), HSCI 496ADO (Health Concerns of Adolescents), and AAS/CHS/ELPS/PAS 417 (Equity and Diversity in
Schools). One change already in place is that ACT candidates now complete the EPC 420 class, a course not required for earlier cohorts. It is not
clear why ACT Exit Survey ratings vary so greatly, particularly with that pathway’s emphasis on meeting the needs of students in urban schools.
CSU Follow-Up Survey outcomes by pathway would be valuable so that specific comparisons could be made in future years. See the Action Plan
below.
Action Plan
Given the above strengths and areas for program/candidate improvement, Secondary Education and other program faculty will
engage in the following activities.
1. Meet with focus groups of credential program completers and employers to learn more about new teachers’ challenges with teaching
English language learners, teaching students with special needs, meeting the needs of students at-risk of failure or dropping out, teaching
content literacy, and teaching content with technology. This information will be used to inform decisions about program modifications
and faculty professional development.
2. Review the course content of SED 521 to determine if assignments and activities are sufficient for candidate learning of knowledge and
skills for teaching English language learners and for teaching content literacy. Consider assignment/activity modifications for SED 521,
including the present field-based assignments, and other needed to recent changes in
Standard 7B. Consider a course modification for SED 521 to focus on literacy instruction and assessment, and the
development of a new 3-unit methods course for teaching English language learners in content area classrooms, different
than the current SED 525ESL.
3. Review the course content of SPED 401C with colleagues from Special Education and consider a course modification that would add one
unit of content, activities, and assignments to increase candidates’ knowledge of teaching students with special needs.
4. Review the course content and feedback from a focus group of seminar instructors and consider modifying SED 554S and SED 555S to
include an additional one or two units. Seminar instructors note that time has dwindled for addressing teaching and assessment issues
being experienced by candidates in their fieldwork assignments as much more time is required for Preliminary and PACT Teaching Event
preparation support. With additional time, “advanced methods” could address, among other issues, teaching English learners in subjectspecific areas, teaching students with special needs in subject-specific courses, teaching subject-specific content literacy, and meeting the
needs of students at-risk.
5. Review the course content, activities, and assignments in SED 511, EPC 420, HSCI 496ADO, and AAS/CHS/ELPS/PAS 417 so that
course faculty can consider assignment and activity modifications. Faculty will come to an agreement about how to provide specific and
26
detailed information regarding the needs of students at-risk of failure/dropping out and distribute the information and activities in a
systematic and recursive manner across these courses.
6. Participate in professional development (full- and part-time faculty and university supervisors) in three areas:
A. Teaching English language learners. Invite faculty, particularly SED 525xx and fieldwork seminar instructors, to share successful
assignments and activities and to find ways to infuse new understandings in their teaching. As part of this professional
development, include subject-specific academic language information and activities.
B. Teaching students with special needs in inclusive secondary classes. Because of recent revisions to Standard 7B and 8B(d) in the
Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Professional Teacher Preparation Programs, particularly related to differentiated
instruction, invite course faculty to share teaching assignments and activities that include differentiated instruction for students
with special needs in SED 521, SED 525xx, and the student teaching seminars.
C. Meeting the needs of students at-risk of failure/dropping out. Full time faculty will review the recommendations from 5. above,
and supervisors will develop ways to include this information in the student/intern teaching supervision and seminars.
7. Review the Progress Report and Student/Intern Teaching Evaluation forms, and modify to include or clarify items specifically addressing
content knowledge, academic language, teaching English learners, teaching students with special needs, resources and strategies for
meeting the needs of at-risk students, content literacy instruction, and assessment of student learning.
8. Develop and hold workshops for master teachers to provide professional development on supporting field experience candidates in their
teaching of English learners, teaching of students with special needs, meeting the needs of students at risk of failure/dropping out,
teaching of subject-specific content literacy, and/or use of assessments. Provide engaging opportunities for teachers to share their
understandings for use with CSUN faculty and supervisors.
9. Review and revise the Credential Applicant Interview protocol and process to more meaningfully gather information at Transition Point 1
and to allow full-time faculty interviewers to provide general program advisement. Consider the inclusion and scoring of a writing
sample.
10. Determine how CSU Beginning Teacher/Employer Follow-Up Survey data could be provided by pathways for future years. Explore ways
to increase the response rate so that faculty can have increased confidence in the outcomes.
11. Continue to teach to areas of identified strength, updating knowledge of research-based subject specific and general teaching and
assessment.
27
SPECIAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES AND EQUIVALENT STANDARDS
The assessment system used by the Department of Special Education was designed to meet the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing
(CCTC) and National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) assessment standards, providing comprehensive and integrated
assessment and evaluation measures to monitor candidate performance and to improve programs. As recommended by NCATE, the assessment
system was developed to address professional, state, and institutional standards. First, the professional standards of the Council for Exceptional
Children (What Every Special Educator Must Know: Ethics, Standards, and Guidelines for Special Educators, 2003) were reviewed and aligned with
the state licensing standards of the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) and the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP).
Second, courses were designed to develop candidate knowledge and skills that reflected CEC and CTC standards. Finally, key candidate
performance measures (teaching evaluations and portfolios) were developed to address CSTP standards that were adapted to incorporate items
specific to special education. Table 8 shows alignment of the CEC, CTC, and CSTP standards. The CSTP standards are the department SLOs.
SLOs
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Engage and support all students in learning.
Create and maintain effective environments for student learning.
Make subject matter comprehensible for student learning.
Plan instruction and design learning experiences for all students.
Assess student learning.
Develop as a professional educator.
28
Alignment of CEC, CTC and CSTP/SLO Standards
CEC Standards
Standard 1: Foundations
Standard 2: Development and characteristics of
learners
Standard 3: Individual learning differences
Standard 4: Instructional strategies
Standard 5: Learning environments and social
interactions
Standard 6: Communication
Standard 10:
Standard 12:
Standard 25:
Disabilities
Standard 12:
Standard 23:
Standard 20:
Standard 15:
Standard 25:
Standard 16:
CTC
Professional Legal and Ethical Practices
Educating Diverse Learners with Disabilities
Characteristics and Needs of Individuals with Mild/Moderate
Educating Diverse Learners with Disabilities
Planning and Implementing Curriculum and Instruction
Curricular and Instructional Skills in General Education
Managing Learning Environments
Positive Behavior Support
Effective Communication and Collaborative Partnerships
Standard 7: Instructional planning
Standard 20: Curricular and Instructional Skills in General Education
Standard 23: Planning and Implementing Curriculum and Instruction
Standard 8: Assessment
Standard 17:
Standard 19:
Standard 22:
Standard 10:
Standard 16:
Standard 9: Professional and ethical practice
Standard 10: Collaboration
Assessment, Curriculum and Instruction
Knowledge and Skills Of Assessment in General Education
Assessment and Evaluation of Students
Professional Legal and Ethical Practices
Effective Communication and Collaborative Partnerships
CSTP
Standard 1: Engaging and Supporting All Students in Learning
Standard 1: Engaging and Supporting All Students in Learning
Standard 2: Creating and Maintaining an Effective
Environment for Students
Standard 3: Understanding and Organizing Subject Matter
Knowledge for Student Learning
Standard 1: Engaging and Supporting all Students In Learning
Standard 3: Understanding and Organizing Subject Matter
Knowledge for Student Learning
Standard 4: Planning Instruction and Designing Experiences for
All Students
Standard 5: Assessing Student Learning
Standard 6: Developing as a Professional Educator
Standard 6: Developing as a Professional Educator
EDUCATION SPECIALIST CREDENTIAL LEVEL I
As required by CTC and NCATE, candidate performance is based on multiple assessments at admission into programs, appropriate transition
points, and program completion. Table 9 provides the assessment measures used at each transition point for data collected on credential
candidates’ content knowledge (a), pedagogical content knowledge and skills (b), professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills (c), student
learning (d), and professional dispositions (g).
TRANSITION POINTS MATRIX
Transition
Points
Transition
Point 1:
Entry to
Program
Content
Knowledge
•
•
Undergrad GPA of 2.67
overall or 2.75 in last 60
units
Subject Matter Met
Pedagogical Content
Knowledge and Skills
Professional &
Pedagogical Knowledge &
Skills
•
Applicant Interview
Student Learning
Professional Dispositions
•
•
Applicant Interview
Recommendations
29
EntryAdmission
Transition
Point 2:
Entry to
Student
Teaching
•
•
•
Transition
Point 3:
Exit from
Student
Teaching
•
Transition
Point 4:
Exit from
Program
•
Transition
Point 5:
Follow-Up
•
•
•
•
(CSET exam or Subject
Matter Program)
Required for ITEP in
TP2).
GPA of 3.0 or higher in
credential courses
Early Field Experience
Evaluation or first
student teaching (ECSE)
Portfolio Evaluation
(MM, MS)
•
•
•
Student Teaching or
Practicum Evaluation
(3rd/4th semester SPED
506)
Portfolio Evaluation
•
GPA of 3.0 or higher in
credential program
courses with no grade
lower than “C”
CSU Exit Survey
CSU Follow-up Survey
(Candidates)
CSU Follow-up Survey
(Employers)
•
•
•
•
•
GPA of 3.0 or higher in
credential courses
Early Field Experience
Evaluation or first
student teaching (ECSE)
Portfolio Evaluation
(MM, MS)
•
•
GPA of 3.0 or higher in
credential courses
Early Field Experience
Evaluation or first student
teaching (ECSE)
Portfolio Evaluation (MM,
MS)
•
•
•
Student Teaching or
Practicum Evaluation (3rd/4th
semester SPED 506)
Portfolio Evaluation
Student Teaching or
Practicum Evaluation
(3rd/4th semester SPED
506)
Portfolio Evaluation
•
•
GPA of 3.0 or higher
in credential courses
Writing proficiency
Early Field Experience
or first student
teaching (ECSE)
Portfolio Evaluation
(MM, MS)
Student Teaching or
Practicum Evaluation
(3rd/4th semester SPED
506)
Portfolio Evaluation
GPA of 3.0 or higher in
credential program
courses with no grade
lower than “C”
CSU Exit Survey
CSU Follow-up Survey
(Candidates)
CSU Follow-up Survey
(Employers)
•
CSU Exit Survey
•
CSU Exit Survey
•
CSU Exit Survey
•
CSU Follow-up
Survey (Candidates)
CSU Follow-up
Survey (Employers)
•
CSU Follow-up Survey
(Candidates)
CSU Follow-up Survey
(Employers)
•
CSU Follow-up Survey
(Candidates)
CSU Follow-up Survey
(Employers)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
GPA of 3.0 or higher in credential
courses
University Supervisor Disposition
Survey
Early Field Experience Evaluation
or first student teaching (ECSE)
Portfolio Evaluation (MM, MS)
Student Teaching or Practicum
Evaluation (3rd/4th semester SPED
506)
Portfolio Evaluation
University Supervisor Disposition
Survey
Candidate Strengths, Areas for Program/Candidate Improvement, and Action Plan
Candidate and program assessment have become an integral part of faculty work, facilitating the analysis of program effectiveness and
informing program practices. Assessment activities are systematically embedded in committees at the department, specialization, College, and
community levels. First, the Department Assessment Committee, comprised of a representative from each specialization (MM, MS, DHH, ECSE),
has led the Department in developing assessment measures, analyzing data, and summarizing findings for faculty. This committee, meeting monthly,
has facilitated consistency in the development and analysis of program assessment across specializations (MM, MS, DHH, ECSE), pathways
(traditional, intern, ACT, ITEP) and programs (Level I, II, and the MA). At monthly Department meetings, members of the Assessment Committee
share overall assessment activities and findings with the faculty. At monthly specialization meetings (MM, MS, DHH, ECSE), the findings for
specific specializations are examined, implications for program practices are discussed and recommendations made for program revision.
30
Department full-time and part-time faculty members meet at the beginning of each semester for a 3-hour retreat with assessment findings and
program revisions discussed. At the College level, the Unit Assessment Committee meets monthly to discuss assessment procedures and consistency
across the Unit. Finally, the Department meets each semester with the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) that includes school district
personnel, program graduates, parents of students with disabilities and other community members; assessment results are discussed and
recommendations made by the CAC for program improvement. As a result of these ongoing assessment activities that involve full-time and parttime faculty in the Department of Special Education, the College of Education, and the CAC, candidate/program strengths and areas of improvement
have been identified for potential program improvement. These are described below.
Candidate Strengths
• Content Knowledge (NCATE Standard 1.a). Across all Transition Points, the data demonstrate candidates’ strong understanding of content
knowledge. First, admission data (Transition Point 1) indicate that candidates have strong undergraduate GPAs (over 3.0) and candidates meet the
subject matter requirement unless accepted under exceptional admission. The percentage of candidates with exceptional admits decreased, and the
application of any candidate who does not meet full admission criteria is reviewed by the Director of the Credential Office and the Chair of the
Department who examine GPA, passage of examinations, and experience in special education. Candidate knowledge is monitored as candidates
enter and exit field experience/student teaching (Transition Points 2 and 3) through GPA in credential courses, the teaching evaluation (an item from
CSTP 3, demonstrates knowledge of subject matter content and student development) and portfolio evaluation (CSTP Domain 3, Understanding and
Organizing Subject Matter). The data indicate strong performance in all three of these measures. Finally, knowledge is evaluated as candidates exit
the program through GPA in credential program courses and through an exit and follow-up survey (Transition Points 4 and 5). GPA is high (above
3.0) in credential program courses. Moreover, candidates and their employers rate knowledge of content knowledge consistently high over two to
three years as shown in Table 138. Findings for content knowledge are consistent across specialization areas and pathways.
Table 133
Exit and Follow-Up Survey: Content Knowledge
Content Knowledge: % Well or Adequately Prepared
05-06
06-07
07-08
CSU Exit Survey by Candidates Exiting Program
89%
89%
90%
Follow-Up Survey by Employers
88%
85%
31
EDUCATION SPECIALIST CREDENTIAL LEVEL II
CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION
California State University, Northridge (CSUN) offers Education Specialist Credential Level II programs in the areas of mild/moderate (MM)
disabilities, moderate/severe (MS) disabilities, deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) and early childhood special education (ECSE). Level II is designed
for candidates who hold a valid Preliminary Level I Education Specialist Credential and are employed as teachers in the specialization area of their
credential. A Professional Clear Level II Education Specialist Credential program includes a two-year induction period and must be completed within
five years of the date of issuance of the Preliminary Level I Credential. The emphasis of this professional preparation program is to move special
educators beyond the functional aspects of teaching to more advanced knowledge and reflective thinking about their role in providing effective
instruction and an environment for student success. In accordance with the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC), the Level II
program includes academic requirements, an individualized induction plan within a support component, and an option to allow some requirements to
be met with non-university activities. Table 1 shows program requirements for each specialization area.
• Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Skills (NCATE Standard 1.b). Across all Transition Points, the data demonstrates candidates’ strong
pedagogical content knowledge and skills which is monitored as candidates enter and exit field experience/student teaching (Transition Points 2 and
3) through GPA in credential courses, the teaching evaluation (Items on CSTP 1, Engaging and Supporting All Students in Learning and CSTP 3,
Understanding and Organizing Subject Matter Knowledge for Student Learning) and portfolio evaluation (CSTP Domains 1 and 3). The data indicate
strong performance in all three of these measures. Candidate pedagogical content knowledge and skills are evaluated as they exit the program
through GPA in credential program courses and an exit and follow-up survey (Transition Points 4 and 5). Findings indicate GPA is high (above 3.0)
in program courses. Moreover, candidates and their employers rate pedagogical content knowledge and skills high, with graduate ratings particularly
strong in 07-08 as shown in Table 139. Findings for pedagogical content knowledge and skills are consistent across specialization areas and
pathways.
Table 134
Exit and Follow-Up Survey: Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Skills
Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Skills: % Well or Adequately Prepared
05-06
06-07
07-08
CSU Exit Survey by Candidates Exiting Program
81%
78%
89%
Follow-Up Survey by Employers
86%
80%
• Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills (NCATE Standard 1.c). Across all Transition Points, the data demonstrates candidates’
strong professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills. First, candidates are evaluated on their verbal skills during the admission interview
(Transition Point 1) and on writing proficiency (Transition Point 2); ratings are strong on verbal skills (above 2.0 on a 3-point scale) and on the
CBEST writing section (passage is 41 and the mean score is 45) or writing course (GPA above 3.0). Candidate professional and pedagogical
32
knowledge and skills are monitored as candidates enter and exit field experience/student teaching (Transition Points 2 and 3) through GPA in
credential courses, the teaching evaluation (items from CSTP 1, Engaging and Supporting All Students in Learning CSTP 2, Creating and
Maintaining an Effective Environment for Students; CSTP 4, Planning Instruction and Designing Learning Experiences for Students; and CSTP 6,
Developing as a Professional Educator) and portfolio evaluation (CSTP Domains 1, 2, and 4). The data indicate strong performance in all three of
these measures. Finally, professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills are evaluated as candidates exit the program through GPA in credential
program courses and an exit and follow-up survey (Transition Points 4 and 5). Findings indicate GPA is high (above 3.0) in program courses.
Moreover, candidates and their employers rate professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills consistently high over two to three years as shown
in Table 140. Findings for professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills are consistent across specialization areas and pathways.
Table 135
Exit and Follow-Up Survey: Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills
05-06
06-07
07-08
CSU Exit Survey by Candidates Exiting Program
92%
92%
95%
Follow-Up Survey by Employers
90%
84%
Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills: % Well or Adequately Prepared
• Student Learning (NCATE Standard 1.d). Across all Transition Points, the data demonstrates candidates’ strong performance in student learning
which is assessed as candidates enter and exit field experience/student teaching (Transition Points 2 and 3) through GPA in credential courses, the
teaching evaluation and portfolio evaluation (CSTP Domain 5: Assessing Student Learning). The data indicate strong performance in all three of
these measures. Student learning is evaluated as candidates exit the program through GPA in credential program courses and through an exit and
follow-up survey (Transition Points 4 and 5). Findings indicate that GPA is high (above 3.0) in credential program courses. Moreover, candidates
and their employers rate student learning consistently high over two to three years as shown in Table 141. Findings for student learning are consistent
across specialization areas and pathways.
Table 136
Exit and Follow-Up Survey: Student Learning
Student Learning: % Well or Adequately Prepared
05-06
06-07
07-08
CSU Exit Survey by Candidates Exiting Program
89%
91%
92%
Follow-Up Survey by Employers
88%
85%
• Dispositions (NCATE Standard 1.g). Across all Transition Points, candidates are rated consistently high on dispositions. First, candidates are
assessed on professional dispositions for admission (Transition Point 1) through the admission interview and recommendations; ratings are high,
above 2.0 (on a 3-point scale) on the interview and above 4.5 (on a 5-point scale) by recommenders. Candidate dispositions are monitored as
33
candidates enter and exit field experience/student teaching (Transition Points 2 and 3) through GPA in credential courses, a disposition survey, the
teaching evaluation (Items on CSTP 6), and portfolio evaluation (CSTP Domain 6: Developing as a Professional Educator). The data indicate strong
performance in all four of these measures. Finally, student learning is evaluated as candidates exit the program through GPA in credential program
courses and through an exit and follow-up survey (Transition Points 4 and 5). Findings indicate GPA is high (above 3.0) in credential program
courses. Moreover, candidates and their employers rate dispositions consistently high over two to three years as shown in Table 142. Findings for
student dispositions are consistent across specialization areas and pathways.
Table 137
Exit and Follow-Up Survey: Dispositions
Dispositions: % Well or Adequately Prepared
05-06
06-07
07-08
CSU Exit Survey by Candidates Exiting Program
91%
93%
94%
Follow-Up Survey by Employers
88%
82%
Areas for Improvement
• Screening of applicants for admission. There have been several concerns about the screening process for admission related to the admission
interview. Applicants for the elementary, secondary, and special education programs have traditionally been interviewed together in large groups
with interviewers lacking knowledge about special education programs, specializations and pathways. Moreover, ratings on the interviews have been
high, with little variation among candidates. The Department reviewed interview procedures and approved a policy to interview special education
applicants either in small groups or individually by a faculty member in the appropriate specialization. We have revised the interview questions and
rubric with elementary and secondary departments and are piloting the new interview. Another concern of faculty has been candidates’ writing
ability. Therefore, we are also piloting a writing requirement that is completed at the time of the interview. We anticipate that these revisions of the
interview process will facilitate the recruitment, advisement, and screening of applicants.
• Subject matter competency. Verification of subject matter competency is an admission requirement for the Education Specialist Credential in
MM, MS, and DHH. Admission data on subject matter indicates that candidates meet this requirement through the CSET exam or an approved
academic program (see Transition Point 1). However, the data do not specify the number of applicants who complete the CSET Multiple Subject or
the Single Subject exam, important information given NCLB legislation that requires special educators to verify subject matter in the subjects they
will teach. A survey of our special education interns has found that few interns who teach at the secondary level are subject matter competent. To
address this concern, support has been provided to interns participating in the TEC federal grant program to facilitate passage of the CSET single
subject exam; 100% of the first cohort has been successful in passing this exam. Data need to be collected that identifies the type of CSET exam
completed and monitors that number of candidates who pass the appropriate CSET exam.
34
• Evaluation of teaching performance. Findings on teaching evaluations (Transition Points 2 and 3) indicate missing data from cooperating
teachers and some inconsistency in ratings by the university supervisor and cooperating teacher within and across pathways. There is a need to work
more closely with cooperating teachers to facilitate collection of evaluations online and enhance consistency in ratings. A second concern is the
portfolio evaluation. While faculty members have scored portfolios together to facilitate consistency in ratings, a more rigorous and standardized
procedure is needed. The Department will be moving toward using the Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT), a standardized
performance measure to evaluate teacher performance.
• Preparation Needs. The following areas in Table 143 were the lowest rated items on the CSU exit survey by exiting candidates. While the
ratings are above 80% for 07-08 with most increasing from 06-07, faculty will examine whether these areas need increased emphasis in the Level I
Program; currently transition planning and computer technology are standards required for Level II which will be eliminated in the new Education
Specialist credential structure. Employers’ ratings on the follow-up survey are consistent with candidates’ ratings related to use of technology.
Otherwise, their ratings differ for the two years of data reported, and given the small numbers of employer data, items are not reported here. When
comparisons are made between exit and follow-up surveys for the same group of graduates, the ratings are considerably different and much lower for
the follow-up survey (mean range 60-73%) than the exit survey (mean range 81-92%). It is not clear why graduates one year after completing the
preliminary credential rate their preparation lower than when they exit the program. Since the response rate is low on follow-up surveys, the data
may not be representative of graduates who completed the exit survey and are therefore not included here. It may also be that ratings are more
reflective of graduates’ first year teaching experiences than their preparation in the program.
Table 138
Preparation Areas of Need as Indicated on the CSU Exit Survey
CSU Exit Survey Items
05-06
06-07
07-08
Meet instructional needs of EL learners
82% (N=95)
77% (N=83)
81% (N=120)
Know about resources in school/community for at-risk students and families
78% (N=96)
84% (N=85)
82% (N=120)
Teach mathematics according to California Content Standards in math
80% (N=91)
70% (N=82)
87% (N=111)
Use computer-based technology to help learn subjects of the curriculum
76% (N=95)
73% (N=85)
81% (N=120)
Use computer-based technology for instruction, research, record keeping
77% (N=96)
78% (N=85)
83% (N=120)
Develop and implement transition plans for sped students
80% (N=96)
82% (N=82)
83% (N=113)
Action Plan
Given the above strengths and areas for program/candidate improvement, the Department of Special Education will engage in the following
activities.
35
•
Revise interview procedures. The Department of Special Education will work with the elementary and secondary departments to review
procedures piloted for the admission interview, finalize procedures and scoring rubrics, and implement them on a consistent basis.
•
Facilitate recruitment. The number of Education Specialist candidates has been declining. Faculty will meet all applicants during the interview
process, providing program information related to the appropriate specialization. It is anticipated that this personal contact will facilitate
recruitment.
•
Address NCLB subject matter requirement for secondary special educators. There is an acute shortage of secondary special educators that are
qualified in the subject area they teach. To address this concern, data needs to be collected on the type of CSET exam special education
candidates complete. Further, findings will be shared on passage of the single subject CSET exam for TEC grant participants, to determine if the
activities are effective in facilitating subject matter competent secondary teachers.
•
Teaching performance. The Department of Special Education is developing new programs and assessment measures to meet new Education
Specialist Preliminary Credential standards. The new standards require assessment through Teacher Performance Expectations (TPEs).
Therefore, teaching evaluations will be developed to reflect the TPEs. Moreover, the Department will discuss using the PACT as the culminating
assessment measure. The Department Assessment and Curriculum Committees, with representatives from each specialization, will meet to
develop instruments to measure teacher performance that are valid and reliable. Support for many of these activities including professional
development and calibration for faculty, university supervisors, and cooperating teachers, will be provided by a College of Education Earmark
Grant.
•
Addressing preparation to serve English learners. Faculty members are developing a course, based on the new Education Specialist standards
(Standard 3, Educating Diverse Learners with Disabilities and Standard 10, Preparation to Teach English Language Learners) to prepare special
educators in educating English learners with special needs. In addition, content related to teaching English learners will be infused throughout the
program.
•
Addressing the use of technology. The new Education Specialist standards have added a technology standard (Standard 6: Using Educational &
Assistive Technology), therefore increasing its emphasis for the preliminary credential. Faculty will be meeting to discuss the incorporation of
this standard in the program and developing course outlines.
•
Addressing preparation in transition plans. The new Education Specialist standards have added standards on transition planning (Standard 7:
Transition & Transitional Planning, Standard 8: Participating in ISFP/IEPs & Post-Secondary Transition Planning), therefore increasing its
emphasis for the preliminary credential. Faculty will be meeting to discuss the incorporation of this standard in the program and developing
course outlines.
•
Knowledge of resources in school/community for at-risk students and families. As faculty develop the new program, the course content will be
reviewed to determine where candidates will learn about resources in the school/community. An assignment will be developed to facilitate the
identification and sharing of resources.
36
•
Increasing knowledge of program effectiveness for graduates. The Department will work with the Dean’s Office and the CSU to determine
how the CSU Beginning Teacher/Employer Follow-Up Survey data can identify pathways and specializations. We will also explore ways to
increase the response rate so that faculty can have increased confidence in the outcomes.
37
Transition Point Matrix for Education Specialist Programs: Level II
Transition Points
Transition Point 1:
Entry to Program
Entry- Admission
1a:
Content Knowledge
•
•
Transition Point 2:
Completion of SPED
628: Induction and
Support
•
Undergrad GPA of 2.67
overall or 2.75 in last 60
units
Preliminary Level I
Education Specialist
Credential granted upon
verification of
employment
Level II SPED 628
Portfolio Evaluation based
on advanced specialization
standards
•
•
•
1b:
Pedagogical Content
Knowledge
and Skills
Undergrad GPA of 2.67
overall or 2.75 in last 60
units
Preliminary Level I
Education Specialist
Credential granted upon
verification of
employment
Level II SPED 628
Portfolio Evaluation based
on advanced specialization
standards
1c:
Professional & Pedagogical
Knowledge & Skills
•
•
•
Undergrad GPA of 2.67
overall or 2.75 in last 60
units
Preliminary Level I
Education Specialist
Credential granted upon
verification of
employment
Level II SPED 628
Portfolio Evaluation based
on advanced specialization
standards
1d:
Student Learning
•
•
•
Undergrad GPA of 2.67
overall or 2.75 in last 60
units
Preliminary Level I
Education Specialist
Credential granted upon
verification of
employment
Level II SPED 628
Portfolio Evaluation based
on advanced specialization
standards
1g:
Professional Dispositions
•
•
•
•
Transition Point 3:
Completion of SPED
629: Assessment of
Competence
Transition Point 4:
Completion of
Program
Transition Point 5:
Follow-Up
•
•
•
•
•
Level II SPED 629
Portfolio Evaluation based
on advanced specialization
standards
•
GPA of 3.0 or higher in
credential program courses
with no grade lower than
“C”
Level II Exit Survey
Follow-up Survey
(Candidates)
Follow-up Survey
(Employers)
•
•
•
•
Level II SPED 629
Portfolio Evaluation based
on advanced specialization
standards
•
GPA of 3.0 or higher in
credential program courses
with no grade lower than
“C”
Level II Exit Survey
Follow-up Survey
(Candidates)
Follow-up Survey
(Employers)
•
•
•
•
Level II SPED 629
Portfolio Evaluation based
on advanced specialization
standards
•
GPA of 3.0 or higher in
credential program courses
with no grade lower than
“C”
Level II Exit Survey
Follow-up Survey
(Candidates)
Follow-up Survey
(Employers)
•
•
•
•
Level II SPED 629
Portfolio Evaluation based
on advanced specialization
standards
•
GPA of 3.0 or higher in
credential program courses
with no grade lower than
“C”
Level II Exit Survey
Follow-up Survey
(Candidates)
Follow-up Survey
(Employers)
•
•
•
•
•
Undergrad GPA of 2.67
overall or 2.75 in last 60
units
Preliminary Level I
Education Specialist
Credential granted upon
verification of
employment
Level II SPED 628
Portfolio Evaluation based
on advanced specialization
standards
Level II Disposition
Survey
Level II SPED 629
Portfolio Evaluation based
on advanced specialization
standards
Level II Disposition
Survey
GPA of 3.0 or higher in
credential program courses
with no grade lower than
“C”
Level II Exit Survey
Follow-up Survey
(Candidates)
Follow-up Survey
(Employers)
Each specialization differs regarding specific course requirements. This chart displays the overall assessment measures used to evaluate student performance and program effectiveness.
38
We view the transition points as developmental in nature. For example, measures at Transition Point 1 (GPA and a Level I credential) provide
baseline information regarding candidates’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions upon entering a Level II program. Performance measures in
Transition Point 2 and 3 assess development of advanced specialization standards required for Level II. We would expect GPA upon exiting the
program to reflect competency in advanced specialization skills (TP4). Key measures used in the program are shown in Table 9 for knowledge, skills,
and dispositions and described below.
Candidate Strengths, Areas for Program/Candidate Improvement, and Action Plan
Candidate and program assessment have become an integral part of faculty work, facilitating the analysis of program effectiveness and
informing program practices. Assessment activities are systematically embedded in committees at the department, specialization, College, and
community levels. First, the Department Assessment Committee, comprised of a representative from each specialization (MM, MS, DHH, ECSE),
has led the Department in developing assessment measures, analyzing data, and summarizing findings for faculty. This committee, meeting monthly,
has facilitated consistency in the development and analysis of program assessment across specializations (MM, MS, DHH, ECSE) and programs
(Level I, II, and the MA). At monthly Department meetings, members of the Assessment Committee share overall assessment activities and findings
with the faculty. At monthly specialization meetings (MM, MS, DHH, ECSE), the findings for specific specializations are examined, implications
for program practices are discussed and recommendations made for program revision.
Department full-time and part-time faculty members meet at the beginning of each semester for a 3-hour retreat with assessment findings and
program revisions discussed. At the College level, the Unit Assessment Committee meets monthly to discuss assessment procedures and consistency
across the Unit. Finally, the Department meets each semester with the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) that includes school district
personnel, program graduates, parents of students with disabilities and other community members; assessment results are discussed and
recommendations made by the CAC for program improvement. As a result of these ongoing assessment activities that involve full-time and parttime faculty in the Department of Special Education, the College of Education, and the CAC, candidate/program strengths and areas of improvement
have been identified for potential program improvement. These are described below.
Candidate Strengths
SLO 1 – 6/NCATE Standards 1a-d and g. Across all Transition Points, the data demonstrate candidates’ strong performance in Standard 1a-d
and g. First, admission data (Transition Point 1) indicate that candidates have strong GPAs (over 3.0) and a Level I credential with verification of
employment as a special educator. Candidate knowledge is monitored as candidates complete SPED 628 Induction and Support and SPED 629
Assessment of Competence (Transition Points 2 and 3) through GPA in credential courses, a disposition survey, and a portfolio evaluation. The data
indicate strong performance in these measures. Finally, Standard 1a-d and g is evaluated as candidates exit the program through GPA in Level II
credential program courses and through an exit and follow-up survey (Transition Points 4 and 5). The follow-up survey by graduates is consistently
high for the two years reported (graduates of 2005-06 and 2006-07) with the mean ratings above 4.0 for Standard 1a, b, c, d, and g as shown in Table
29.
Areas for Improvement
39
• Evaluation of performance. Limited data are available for Level II across specializations and years. If Level II were to be continued, data
collection and calibration of data would be emphasized. However, with the elimination of Level II, faculty activities will focus on incorporating
Level II content, as identified in new standards, in the Preliminary Credential Program.
• Preparation Needs. On the Follow-Up Survey all items were rated above a 4.0 (competent to very competent) except for using technology
proficiently for graduates of 2005-06 and 2006-07. A similar item was rated low in Level I. Clearly, the use of technology will need to be an
emphasis in the new Preliminary Credential Program.
Action Plan
•
Move Level II content into the Preliminary Credential Programs. With the elimination of Level II, several of its standards have been
incorporated into the new common standards for the Education Specialist Preliminary Credential including:
o Standard 4: Effective Communication and Collaboration Partnerships
o Standard 6: Using Educational and Assistive Technology
o Standard 7: Transition and Transitional Planning
o Standard 14: Creating Healthy Learning Environments
Faculty will review Level II courses and assignments and move appropriate content into the Preliminary Credential program.
•
Development of a Clear Credential Program. Standards have been established for a clear credential in special education and many of the
standards reflect the CSUN Level II Program. Faculty will review the standards and discuss the development of a clear credential program.
•
New assessment measures. The Department of Special Education is developing new programs and assessment measures will need to be
developed to incorporate standards formerly in Level II.
•
Addressing the use of technology. The new Education Specialist standards have added a technology standard (Standard 6: Using Educational &
Assistive Technology), therefore increasing its emphasis for the preliminary credential. Faculty will be meeting to discuss the incorporation of
this standard in the program and developing course outlines.
•
Addressing preparation in transition plans. The new Education Specialist standards have added standards on transition planning (Standard 7:
Transition & Transitional Planning, Standard 8: Participating in ISFP/IEPs & Post-Secondary Transition Planning), therefore increasing its
emphasis for the preliminary credential. Faculty will be meeting to discuss the incorporation of this standard in the program and developing
course outlines.
40
EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND POLICY STUDDIES
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES (SLOs)
Each candidate is able to:
1. promote the success of all students by facilitating the development, articulation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and
supported by the school community,
2. promote the success of all students by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student
learning and staff professional growth,
3. promotes the success of all students by ensuring management of the organization, operations and resources for a safe, efficient and effective
learning environment,
4. promotes the success of all students by collaborating with families and community members, responding to diverse community interests and
needs, and mobilizing community resources,
5. promotes the success of all students by modeling a personal code of ethics and developing professional leadership capacity,
6. promotes the success of all students by understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal and cultural
context.
41
42
Analysis of Candidate Assessment Data
Tier 1 Preliminary Administrative Services Credential:
43
Candidate Competence
Strengths Data from several assessments (Fieldwork Evaluations, Portfolio Rubric ratings, EPC 675 CTC standards Assessment) show that over 85% of
the ratings of candidate competence are above average (4’s and 5’s on a 5 point scale) and the remaining are well above average (3.5 and above). These are
ratings across several classes and multiple professors and field site supervisors.
Areas for Improvement: Clearly the pass rate on the ELPS Comprehensive exam has improved from Fall 2007 to Fall 2008, but improvements are still
needed. For example 15.5% (9) students failed the Curriculum, Instruction, and Supervision portion of the Fall 2008 exam and 20.7% (12) failed the overall
Fall 2008 exam. This exam is taken for the Tier 1 credential as well as the master’s. These issues relate to Candidate knowledge and skills, and student
learning.
Program Effectiveness
Strengths Data from the ELPS 675 Exit Survey on Course Value, Candidate Fieldwork Experience Evaluation, and Graduate Follow-Up Survey of the
Preliminary Administrative Services Credential yielded higher than average ratings (4.0 – 5.0) on nearly all items
Improvement The ELPS 675 Exit Survey on Experiences yielded ratings of 1.80 – 2.19 on a 3 point scale when candidates were asked whether the courses
provided adequate experiences in hands-on experiences, student presentations, research, technology, and writing. Experiences in technology and writing
were the lowest. The same survey asked for ratings on the adequacy of advisement. As the program has increased in number (from 33 in Fall 2007 to 123 in
Fall 2008) so has the proportion of dissatisfaction (from 10.8% Fall 2007 up to 21.7% in Fall 2008). Although the majority of students are satisfied.
Respondents to the Graduate Follow-up Survey for Spring 2007 and 2008 gave high ratings (4.0 and above) on all 19 items (n ranged from 72 to 133). The
were also asked to rate various components and offices within the college and university. Ratings of 4.0 and above (5 point scale) went to the Information
from the Department office, Advisement from Graduate advisor, Department materials, Overall Department quality of service, and overall service from the
credentials office. In Spring 2007 Lower marks (3.31 to 3.99) went to several aspects of the Credential Office (informational materials, advisement,
website) but these all increased to 4.0 and above in Spring 2008. The only consistently lower marks went to the Admissions and Records office (a university
office) in regard to their processing of applications and overall quality of service.
Tier 2 Professional Administrative Services Credential
Strengths The Supervisor Assessment of CTC Standards for the Professional Clear Credential (Fall 07 – 08) and the Portfolio Rubric Scores (Fall 2007 –
2008) and Reflective Journals and Case Studies (Fall 2007 – 2008) all yielded high final means ranging from 8 – 9.40 on a 10 point scale. Supervisor
Assessment of Dispositions and the Graduate Follow-Up survey on Candidates Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions all yielded means above 4.0 on all
items. The Graduate Follow Up Survey on various offices and components in the College and University yielded a majority of means 4.0 and above. The
Graduate Follow Up Survey on graduates’ perceptions of the program also yielded means of 4.0 and above on all but one item.
Improvement The 2006-2007 mean ratings of the Follow Up survey indicate a need for improving the department and credential office websites.
However, those websites have been changed and hopefully improved since then. Graduates’ perception of the tier II program yielded only one item below a
mean rating of 4.0 or above, and that is “ensuring management of the organization, operations and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning
environment, the rating was 3.91.
44
Candidate Strengths, Areas for Program/Candidate Improvement, and Action Plan
Candidate Performance
Preliminary Credential: The department has instituted a procedure for identifying candidates who have areas of concern at an earlier stage in
the program. Candidates who fail a portion of the exam or the entire exam do receive extra support from a designated faculty. The department will
further investigate why the Curriculum, Instruction, and Supervision portion of the Fall 2008 exam is problematic, and whether it relates to preparatory
coursework or other issues. Also, the department will seek ways to enhance candidates’ opportunities to participate in hands-on experiences, student presentations,
research, technology, and writing.
Professional Credential: The mean ratings did not indicate a need for improving candidate performance in any specific area. As always, however, the
department will continue to enhance monitoring and support of candidates.
Program Effectiveness – Preliminary and Professional Administrative Credential
As to Quality of Student Services the ELPS Department will respond to those areas that are the direct responsibility of the ELPS Department:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Information from Department Office:
4.50
Website from Department Office:
3.89
Advisement from Graduate Advisor/Coordinator: 4.33
Materials to explain Department Program:
4.45
Overall quality of services from Department:
4.64
This year the ELPS Department has assigned a faculty liaison to communicate with the COE webmaster and work on updating the ELPS webpage on
a regular basis. As a result the ELPS Department has developed procedures wherein faculty and staff members can submit recommended changes
and/or additions to the ELPS webpage and the liaison then submits them to the webmaster for inclusion on the ELPS webpage once the
recommended changes have been approved by both the faculty and the Department Chair.
The ELPS Department has shared the results with the Credential and Admission & Records Offices. Additionally representatives from these offices
have been invited to an ELPS Department meeting in an attempt to address, discuss and resolve the concerns that were raised in the Quality of
Student Services section. The College of Education also addresses these issues with the Admissions and Records and the Credential Office.
45
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND COUNSELING (EPC)
Student Learning Outcomes
To fulfill the department mission, faculty engage in university and professional activities to develop and provide undergraduate and graduate programs for
the preparation of students to:
1. Develop and apply expertise in their fields of study.
2. Think critically and engage in reflective, ethical, and legal practice throughout their education and professional lives.
3. Develop empathic, respectful, and congruent interpersonal skills and abilities to work successfully with groups and individuals from diverse
backgrounds in educational, community, and mental health settings.
4. Communicate effectively using oral, written, listening, and non-verbal attending and observational skills.
5. Become information competent scholars and researchers through engaging in and disseminating creative, empirical, and applied studies and
program evaluations.
6. Collaborate skillfully and respectfully as leaders, consultants, and team members in a variety of settings.
7. Develop skills necessary to assess and evaluate individuals and groups, and to utilize current technology in work environments.
8. Maintain an inclusive, multicultural, and global perspective, emphasizing social justice and educational equity, access, and support.
9. View their roles as preventative, educative, and therapeutic in promoting well-being, healthy relationships, academic success, and career
mastery.
10. Provide service through a wide variety of field-based partnerships informed by theory and practice.
11. Act as advocates with initiative, perception, and vision to lead and transform the practices and policies of those who provide services to
individuals, families, schools, organizations, community, and policy makers.
12. Pursue lifelong professional and personal development through such mediums as continuing education, information access via technology,
psychological counseling, active participation and leadership in professional organizations, and doctoral study.
46
DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATIONAL
PSYCHOLOGY AND
COUNSELING
PROGRAM TITLE:
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY
NASP
CTC STANDARDS
NCATE
STANDARDS
STANDARDS
1. Develop and apply expertise Domain II: 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 17,18,19,20,21,22,23,25,26,27
2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9,
in their fields of study.
2.10
2. Think critically and engage Domain II: 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27
in reflective, ethical, and legal 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9,
2.10
practice throughout their
education and professional
lives.
Domain II: 2.1, 2.2 2.4, 18,19,20,21,25,26,27
3. Develop empathic,
2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8
respectful, and congruent
Domain III
interpersonal skills and
abilities to work successfully
with groups and individuals
from diverse backgrounds in
educational,
community, and mental health
settings.
Domain II: 2.1, 2.2, 2.8, 18,20,21,22,25,26,27
4. Communicate effectively
Domain III
using oral, written, and
observational skills.
SLO’s for WASC
47
5. Become information
competent scholars and
researchers capable of
utilizing current technology in
work environments while
engaging in and disseminating
creative, empirical, and
applied research studies
and/or program evaluations.
6. Collaborate skillfully and
respectfully as leaders,
consultants, and team
members in a variety of
settings.
DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATIONAL
PSYCHOLOGY AND
COUNSELING
PROGRAM TITLE:
Domain II: 2.1, 2.9, 2.11 22,23,25,26,27
Domain III
SLO’s for WASC
CACREP STANDARDS CTC STANDARDS
7. Develop skills necessary to
assess and evaluate
individuals and groups.
8. Maintain an inclusive
multicultural and global
perspective, emphasizing
social justice, gender and
educational equity, access, and
support.
Domain II: 2.1, 2.3, 2.4,
2.5, 2.10
Domain III
Domain II: 2.2, 2.4, 2.5,
2.8, 2.10
Domain III
Domain II: 2.1, 2.2, 2.6,
2.7, 2.8, 2.10
Domain III
10,12,13, 18,20,21,22,23,
25,26,27
NCATE
STANDARDS
4, 20,21,22,25,26,27
2,3,7,11, 18,
20,21,22,25,26,27
48
9. View their roles as
preventative, educative, and
therapeutic in promoting wellbeing, healthy relationships,
academic success, and career
mastery.
10. Act as advocates with
initiative, perception, and
vision to lead the transform
the practices and policies of
those who provide services to
individuals, families, schools,
organizations, community,
and policymakers.
11. Provide service through a
wide variety of field-based
partnerships informed by
theory, research, practice.
12. Pursue lifelong
professional and personal
development through such
mediums as continuing
education, informational
technology, psychological
counseling, participation and
leadership in professional
organizations, and doctoral
study.
Domain II: 2.1, 2.2, 2.3,
2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.8, 2.10
Domain III
8,9, 20,21,22,23,25,26,27
Domain II: 2.2, 2.6, 2.8,
2.10
Domain III
12,13,18, 20,21,23,25,26,27
Domain II: 2.2, 2.8,
2.10
Domain III
7,13, 18, 20,21,22,23,25,26,27
Domain II: 2.10
Domain III
25, 26, 27
49
CANDIDATE ASSESSMENT/PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
Context of the School Psychology Program
The School Psychology program is located in the Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling in the Michael D. Eisner College of
Education and is one of six departments in the Michael D. Eisner College of Education The department has the largest on-campus program graduate
enrollment in the college and in the university. Since l979, programs in the Department of Educational Psychology and Psychology have been
granted specialized accreditation by the Council for Accreditation of Psychology and Related Education Programs (CACREP). Current accredited
programs are: Career Counseling, College Counseling and Student Services, Marriage and Family Therapy, and School Counseling.
The Michael D. Eisner College of Education is accredited by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), which
includes programs in school psychology and School Psychology. In l997, the department received the Innovative Program Award from the Western
Association of Psychologist Education and Supervision (WACES) in recognition of its program that pairs graduate student mentors with at-risk
CSUN freshman.
50
School Psychology Credential and Masters
Transition Point 1
Entry to Program
Knowledge
Skills
(1) Graduate Record
Examination (GRE)
(2) GPA of 2.5 or higher
in last 60 units
(3) Grade of “B-“ or
higher in all prerequisite
courses
(1) CBEST attempted
(2) Writing Proficiency
Exam score of 8 or higher
Transition Point 2
Entry to Clinical Practice
(1) GPA of 3.00 or higher
in program courses
(2) Grade of “B” or higher
in EPC 643, EPC 655,
EPC 661, EPC 664, and
EPC 667
(1) Grade of “B” or higher
in EPC 659A and EPC
659B
(2) Student Advancement
Evaluation Form
Dispositions
(1) Disposition
Assessment for New
Candidates
Transition Point 3
Exit from Clinical
Practice
(1) 659E/F and 659G/H
Fieldwork Evaluations
(2) “Credit” or grade of
“B” or higher in the
following EPC courses:
601, 602, 611, 647, 659E,
659F, 659G, 659H, 663A,
663AL, 663B, 663BL,
665, 680, 684, and SPED
610.
Transition Point 4
Exit from Program
(1) Grade of B or higher in all
program courses
(2) Credit in either EPC 697 or
EPC 698C.
(3) Comprehensive
Exam Rubric
or Thesis Rubric
or Project Rubric
(4) PRAXIS passed
(1) 659E/F and 659G/H
Fieldwork Evaluations
(1) Grade of B or higher in all
program courses
(2) “Credit” or grade of
“B” or higher in the
following EPC courses:
601, 602, 611, 647, 659E,
659F, 659G, 659H, 663A,
663AL, 663B, 663BL,
665, 680, 684, and SPED
610.
(2) Comprehensive
Exam Rubric
or Thesis Rubric
or Project Rubric
(1) 659E/F and 659G/H
Fieldwork Evaluations
(1) Disposition Assessment for
Graduating Candidates
(2) Comprehensive
Exam Rubric
or Thesis Rubric
or Project Rubric
(3) Candidate Self Evaluation
(3) PRAXIS passed
(4) 659E/F and 659G/H
Fieldwork Evaluations
Transition Point 5
Follow-Up
(1) Program
Follow-Up
Survey
(Candidate
Perceptions)
(2) Program
Follow-Up
Survey
(Employers
Perceptions)
(1) Program
Follow-Up
Survey
(Candidate
Perceptions)
(2) Program
Follow-Up
Survey
(Employers
Perceptions)
51
Analysis of Candidate Assessment Data
Candidate Competence
1e. Knowledge and Skills for Other School Professionals were measured primarily in transition points 3 and 4.
Table 3
Areas rated higher (more than adequate to excellent) were in the role of the school psychologist, individual and group counseling,
multicultural differences, and ethics. Areas rated as lower, but still in the adequate knowledge category, were in human learning, law, behavioral
assessment, empirically based interventions, academic interventions, and program evaluation.
Table 4
Areas rated higher: working with students, parents, and other professionals from different cultural backgrounds (knowing about
acculturation, assimilation, being respectful of differences, knowing about cultural issues). An area that was rated lower, but still within the adequate
competence range, was in interpreting psychometric data and integrating other information to conceptualize a case and derive at a good working
hypothesis, but was still in the more than adequate range.
Table 5
Increase in ratings from Fall to Spring semester and a higher ratings in individual and group counseling. Counseling and conducting
in-services were rated higher. Lower means, although still above adequate competence) were in describing reading, math, and written language
interventions.
Table 6
Higher ratings: ability to seek assistance from supervisor, ability to receive criticism. Lower rating, although still in the above
average range was in supervising other less trained fieldwork candidates.
Table 10
Pass rate for PRAXIS increased from 86% in 2007 to 100% in 2008, and 2009.
1f. Student Learning for Other School Professionals
Tables 7 & 8 Indicate that candidates exhibit higher-than average to excellent skills in creating a positive environment and relationship for the
pupils they serve.
Table 15, Graduate Follow-Up Survey: Out of the first 17 items, only three received a rating less than 4.0, Quality of instruction (3.75), Overall
satisfaction with the program (3.63), and the culminating experience (3.75). Curiously many of the items that were rated highly comprise part of
instruction. Candidates also rated 16 items related to different program components and university services (several that are outside of the college
and over which we have no influence). In relation to the program and within the College, the highest ratings went to information from the credential
office and processing of applications by the credential office. Lowest ratings went to advisement from graduate advisor and overall quality of service
from department office.
Action Plan:
52
1) The School Psychology Coordinator and faculty will meet to plan ways to improve the following elements of the curriculum: human
learning, law, behavioral assessment, empirically based interventions, academic interventions, program evaluation, describing reading, math,
and written language interventions. This involves working with some faculty who are not in the School Psychology program as well.
2) Collect data from candidates to explore how we can improve the quality of instruction (is it specific to certain courses?), overall satisfaction
with the program, and advisement and overall quality from the department office.
SCHOOL COUNSELING
The School Counseling Assessment Plan (see below) lists all of the data that are collected and aggregated for analysis at each of five transition points
in candidates’ progress through the School Counseling masters and PPS credential program. Instruments used in the PPS Credential program are
highlighted. Below is a list of instruments that are administrated electronically. For your convenience passwords for accessing these forms are also
provided. The only form that is not accessible electronically to CTC reviewers is the Student Fieldwork Evaluation form, however a copy is
provided as an ADOBE attachment. The reason this particular form is not accessible to CTC reviewers is that the Fieldwork Evaluation forms are
protected by two passwords, one for the student being evaluated, the other for each field site supervisor who completes the evaluation. All other
evaluations require only one password. Copies of these instruments are also included. Please note that because the instruments were developed
electronically, the formatting represents what would be seen on a computer screen.
It should be noted that course grades are included in these data because all of the courses in the program have been aligned with the CTC Standards
(see Matrix of Courses and Standards). As course titles indicate, each course is designed to provide candidates with the opportunity to learn and
practice knowledge, skills and dispositions that are targeted toward specific standards. In certain courses, such as the practica and fieldwork courses,
fieldwork evaluations are submitted by students’ field site supervisors. These evaluations form a significant portion of the course grade. Students who
do not perform in their practica or fieldwork are referred to the department Student Affairs Committee and evaluated for recommendations for
remediation.
School Counseling Assessment Plan
53
Transition Point 1
Entry to Program
Content
Skills
Transition Point 2
Transition to Field
Practice
Transition Point 3
Exit from Clinical
Practice
(1) Undergrad GPA
of 3.00 overall or 2.5
in last 60 units
(2) Grade of “B-“ or
higher in all
prerequisite courses
(3) Score at or above
50th percentile on:
(a) one of the three
GRE sections or (b)
Miller Analogies
Test
(1) GPA of 3.00 or
higher in program
courses
(2) Grade of “B” or
higher in EPC 643
and EPC 655
(1) Fieldwork
Evaluation Form
FWEPCSC
(1) CBEST
attempted
(1) Grade of “B” or
higher in EPC 659A
and EPC 659B
(1) Fieldwork
Evaluation Form
FWEPCSC
(2) Student
Advancement
Evaluation Form
(2) Grade of “B” or
higher in the
following EPC
courses: 602, 648,
658, 658L, 659C,
659D and 689.
(2) Interview
Summary Score
(3) Writing
Proficiency Exam
score of 8 or higher
(2) Grade of “B” or
higher in the
following EPC
courses: 602, 648,
658, 658L, 659C,
659D and 689.
(4) EPC Writing
Assessment
Dispositions
(1) Disposition
Assessment for New
Candidates
QEPDISPS
(1) Fieldwork
Evaluation Form
FWEPCSC
Transition Point 4
Exit from Program
Transition Point 5
Follow-Up
(1) GPA of 3.00 or
higher in all
program courses
For the Masters
Degree: (2) Credit in
either EPC 697 or
698C.
(3) Comprehensive
Exam Rubric QEPMC
or Thesis Rubric
QEPMT or Project
Rubric QEPMP
(1) GPA of 3.00 or
higher in all
program courses
(2) CBEST passed
(3) PPS Credential
Recommendation
For the Masters
Degree
(4) Comprehensive
Exam Rubric QEPMC
or Thesis Rubric
QEPMT or Project
Rubric QEPMP
(1) Disposition
Assessment for
Graduating
Candidates
QEPDISPF
(1) Program FollowUp Survey
(Candidate
Perceptions)
(2) Program FollowUp Survey
(Employers
Perceptions)
(1) Program FollowUp Survey
(Candidate
Perceptions)
(2) Program FollowUp Survey
(Employers
Perceptions)
54
Candidate and Program Strengths, Areas for Improvement, and Action Plan
Strengths: Candidate Competence
1. Strong academic skills at entry to program (87.5% or more with
GPA of 3.0 or above). This includes strong writing skills for most
candidates as evidenced by the writing assignments that are part of
the application and interview.
2. Candidates enter with strong ratings in Leadership Ability, Cross
Cultural Awareness, Social and Interpersonal Skill, Flexibility
/Adaptability and Sense of Purpose as identified in scores on the
Selection Interview. The program is attracting the kind of
candidates anticipated to be successful in a program focused on
social justice and educational equity.
3. Candidates enter the program with strong dispositions for the
profession of school counseling (as identified in Tables 5A and 5B)
and they strengthen these dispositions at the transition to fieldwork
(as identified in Table 6). Dispositions are rated high for candidates
completing the practicum experience in schools (as seen in Table
7). Dispositions remain strong and grow through the fieldwork
experience (Tables 8A, 8B, and 8C) and remain strong when
candidates graduate and enter the field (See Tables 10A and 10B
and 12A). Employers validate this perception of candidates rating
them strong on several dispositions (See Table 14).
4. The Student Advancement Evaluation shows that candidates are
highly evaluated in knowledge, skills and dispositions by university
instructors and faculty (Table 6). There is a small trend that would
indicate candidates increasing over three years, but the final year
has limited data. Typically, all candidates are viewed as wellprepared to go on to fieldwork in the second year.
5. Candidates show strong development of the knowledge, skills
and dispositions to help students learn. Candidates indicate that
their learning and fieldwork experience provides development in
these areas (See Tables 9A and 9B) and field supervisors also note
candidate strengths in helping students learn (Table 11). Candidates
further indicated on follow-up after graduation notable
development in their ability to help students learn (See Table 12A).
Areas of Improvement: Candidate Competence
1. Follow-up with/monitor the few candidates who have lower than
acceptable writing skills as evidenced in the Writing Assignment and
grades in EPC 682 (Foundations of School Counseling) to ensure
they have obtained help with writing and this is impacting their
academic work in first semester courses.
2. Showcase 2nd year candidate work on using data to demonstrate
the impact of their work in improving student learning and
achievement at Town Hall meetings as incentive and models for first
year students.
3. Provide timely and thorough assistance to field supervisors when
they experience challenges in supporting a candidate (See Table 11).
Challenges posed by candidates should be dealt with by the
candidate's practicum or fieldwork course instructor. The situation
should also be brought to the attention of a School Counseling
Program Coordinator who will follow-up with whatever support
procedures and assistance was provided.
4. Use multiple assessments and data to inform and improve practice
and enhance pupil academic learning (items 4 and 5 in Table 12A)
and promote continuous improvement through program evaluation
(item 7). Mean ratings of candidates in these areas showed they
perceived themselves as somewhat competent to competent.
Nevertheless, the ratings here were among the lower ones for items
on the assessment instrument. This would suggest that the program
could do more to tie assessments and data in with candidate practice.
This will be an item of discussion with all faculty who teach in the
program to see how each course can enhance candidate learning and
growth in these areas. These areas are particularly relevant to the
practicum courses (EPC 659A & B), the research (EPC 602 and
program evaluation (EPC 684) courses and the leadership course
(EPC 689) so discussions will be particularly focused with instructors
of these courses.
55
Strengths: Program Effectiveness
1. Diversity of applicants that includes diversity within ethnic
groups provides for strong learning in cross cultural issues, values
and development of cultural sensitivity and cross cultural
competency.
2. Candidates enter with strong ratings in Leadership Ability, Cross
Cultural
Awareness,
Social
and
Interpersonal
Skill,
Flexibility/Adaptability and Sense of Purpose as identified in scores
on the Selection Interview.
3. Most candidates complete the program with a recommendation
for the PPS Credential in School Counseling.
4. The Mentor Program appears to be working well in providing
information and follow-up advisement for some candidates.
5. Electronic assessment of fieldwork experience by field
supervisors shows candidates are developing the knowledge, skills
and dispositions needed for the profession of school counseling as
seen in Table 7, 8A, 8B and 8C
6. Field supervisors evaluate the CSUN program highly in preparing
candidates for the knowledge, skills and dispositions they need for
the school counseling profession (See Table 11). Anecdotal
information from the field supports that CSUN graduates are held in
high regard for entering the profession.
7. Candidates evaluate services provided by the department, the
Graduate Advisor and the University office of Admission and
Records and the Graduate Division highly. The Credential Office
receives somewhat lower, but still strong ratings.
Areas of Improvement: Program Effectiveness
1. Gather and tabulate all data pertaining to program entrance for all
candidates including ratings of writing assignments: (a) Personal
Statement and (b) Interview Writing Assignment
2. Low number of male candidates. Develop and implement
strategies for recruiting more male candidates to the program.
3. A small but notable number of candidates either delay in
completing the Masters degree in School Counseling or fail to
complete the degree program. We need to determine the reasons
candidates delay and fail to complete the Masters degree and
determine the support they need for timely and successful
completion.
4. Develop and implement an assessment of the Mentor Program to
identify strengths and weaknesses. Gather and tabulate program data.
5. While no categories in fieldwork assessed candidates as low or
even satisfactory, the areas of Technology and Use of Data had
somewhat lower ratings than other areas. In field site visits,
practicum and fieldwork instructors will explore with supervisors the
need to ensure that candidates are getting the experience they need
with technology and improve their experience with the use of data to
show the impact of their work.
6. Clarify candidate expectations for fieldwork. This area was rated
somewhat lower than others on the Fieldwork Experience Evaluation
completed by 2007-08 candidates. We need to ascertain the need that
candidates have in this area through discussions in practicum and
fieldwork courses and at Town Hall Meetings.
7. Guidance and support for development of field supervisors. The
program needs to provide more organized guidance and support for
field supervisors. Sections of the Student Handbook and Fieldwork
Manual have been prepared for field supervisors, but have not been
distributed to all supervisors. A meeting of field supervisors early in
the fall semester will likely help in providing guidance and
professional development.
8. Follow through with department, college and university
56
procedures for changing course titles, content areas and sequencing
for EPC 687 (Career Guidance, College Selection and Technology in
School Settings) to become (College Counseling in Schools) and
(EPC 688 (Measurement and Assessment in School Settings) to
become (Career Counseling in Schools).
9. We need to be more consistent in recording data on the Student
Advancement Evaluation each year. Delays in submitting the data to
the Information and Data Specialist have resulted in limited data for
spring, 2008. However, data from 2007 - particularly faculty who
teach the practicum courses - comprised only about 25% of those
who were in fact evaluated. Not all faculty who evaluate candidates
can complete ratings of counseling skills, but we need to do a better
job of recording the data on all candidates.
Data Source Supporting
Program Change
Standard 2c
Table 2, Gender
Standard 2c
Tables 1, 4, and 6
Standard 3b
Table 11, item 6
Standard 1e, 3b
Table 11, item 1
Standard 1e
Table 9A and 9B
Standard 3b
Proposed Program Change
1. Develop and implement strategies to increase the number of male applicants and candidates to the
program. School Counseling Program Coordinators will discuss with the Advisory Board members
strategies for drawing males to the program. Selection procedures will be reviewed to determine how the
applications and selection of males is made. Variable criteria for male applicants will be considered.
2. Gather and tabulate all data pertaining to program entrance for all candidates including ratings of
writing assignments: (a) Personal Statement and (b) Interview Writing Assignment; and the Student
Advancement Evaluation. Establish and implement procedures of getting data to the department office and
entering increased numbers of current and new data into the data fields.
3. Provide timely and thorough assistance to field supervisors when they experience challenges in
supporting a candidate. Challenges posed by candidates should be dealt with by the candidate's practicum
or fieldwork course instructor. The situation should also be brought to the attention of a School Counseling
Program Coordinator who will follow-up with whatever support procedures and assistance was provided.
4. Guidance and support for development of field supervisors. The program will provide more organized
guidance and support for field supervisors. Sections of the Student Handbook and Fieldwork Manual have
been prepared for field supervisors, but have not been distributed to all supervisors. This will be done in
Fall 2009. A meeting of field supervisors early in the fall semester will likely help in providing guidance
and professional development. Suggestions for professional development of field supervisors will be
gathered from supervisors by practicum and fieldwork course instructors and the Advisory Board in Fall
2009. Implementation of professional development will be made in Spring 2010.
5. Practicum and fieldwork instructors will explore with supervisors the need to ensure that candidates are
getting the experience they need with technology and improve their experience with the use of data to
show the impact of their work.
6. Clarify candidate expectations for fieldwork. School Counseling Program Coordinators will ascertain
57
Standard 1e
Table 12A
Items 4, 5 and 7
Standard 2c
Table 2
(1-3 dropouts per year)
Standard 2c
Informal feedback from
Advisory Board members
Standard 2c
Interest of Program
Coordinators
the need that candidates have in this area through discussions in practicum and fieldwork courses and at
Town Hall Meetings. They will also make sure that all candidates receive an electronic copy of the
Handbook and Fieldwork Manual for School Counseling Students by September 15, 2009.
7. The program will do more to tie assessments and data in with candidate practice so candidates have
knowledge and increased skill in using multiple assessments and data to inform and improve practice and
enhance pupil academic learning and promote continuous improvement through program evaluation. This
will be an item of discussion with all faculty who teach in the program to see how each course can enhance
candidate learning and growth in these areas. These areas are particularly relevant to the practicum courses
(EPC 659A & B), the research (EPC 602 and program evaluation (EPC 684) courses and the leadership
course (EPC 689) so discussions will be particularly focused with instructors of these courses. Suggestions
for improving instruction and field experience in these areas will be delineated with plans for
implementation.
8. Candidate Attrition. School Counseling Program Coordinators will develop a form for gathering
information about candidates who exit the program before completion. Such candidates will be
interviewed, the form completed and a new data field entered to capture and report this information. Ideas
for supporting candidates in completing the program and completing the Masters degree will be discussed
and implemented where pertinent.
9. Follow through with department, college and university procedures for changing course titles, content
areas and sequencing for EPC 687 (Career Guidance, College Selection and Technology in School
Settings) to become (College Counseling in Schools) and (EPC 688 (Measurement and Assessment in
School Settings) to become (Career Counseling in Schools).
10. Develop and implement an assessment of the Mentor Program to identify strengths and weaknesses.
Gather and tabulate program data. Implement changes suggested.
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION MASTERS
58
Knowledge
Transition Point 1
Entry to Program
(1) Undergrad GPA
of 3.00 overall or
score at or above
50th percentile on:
(a) one of the three
GRE sections or (b)
Miller Analogies
Test
Transition Point 2
Full Classification
(1) 639C Final Fieldwork
Evaluation
Transition Point 3
Exit from Program
(1) GPA of 3.00 or higher
in all program courses
(2) Grade of “B” or higher in
EPC 632,- Issues and
Theories
(2) Credit in either EPC
697 or EPC 698C.
(3) Comprehensive
Exam Rubric
or Thesis Rubric
or Project Rubric
(2) GPA of 2.5 or
higher in last 60
units
Transition Point 4
Follow-Up
(1) Program Follow-Up
Survey (Candidate
Perceptions)
(2) Program Follow-Up
Survey (Employers
Perceptions)
(3) Grade of “B-“ or
higher in all
prerequisite courses
Skills
Dispositions
(1) Interview
Summary Score
(1) 639C Final Fieldwork
Evaluation
(1) GPA of 3.00 or higher
in all program courses
(2) Writing
Proficiency Exam
score of 8 or higher
(2) Grade of “B” or higher in
EPC 632, Issues and
Theories
(3) Comprehensive
Exam Rubric
or Thesis Rubric
or Project Rubric
(1) Disposition
Assessment for
New Candidates
(1) 639C Final Fieldwork
Evaluation
(1) Disposition
Assessment for
Graduating Candidates
(2) Philosophy paper that
draws on theory and practice
(1) Program Follow-Up
Survey (Candidate
Perceptions)
(2) Program Follow-Up
Survey (Employers
Perceptions)
(3) Comprehensive
Exam Rubric
or Thesis Rubric
or Project Rubric
Discussion of Results
Website
59
Almost immediately upon undertaking the work of this report was the overt discovery that the ECE program lacks it’s own dedicated website.
Although program information is contained in the on-line catalog, a variety of helpful resources could be contained in a website devoted to Early
Childhood at CSUN. As a benefit of preparing this report, many of the links and resources cited can be utilized for our future website! In addition to
program-specific information, we might want to include: more (and current photos) detail in faculty profiles, links to our research (such as the
Bridging Cultures Project, Faculty Initiative Project, Partnerships for Excellence), resources for the Masters Association, professional organizations,
and a photo gallery of students engaged in leadership and advocacy work, such as those from the Faculty Initiative Project Seminar on the Early
Learning Foundations of Math and Social-Emotional development.
Improvements in Data Collection
Our use of the data warehouse has been characterized by a slow start, but we are definitely picking up traction. For example, problems were
encountered with the fieldwork forms as mentioned earlier. Fieldwork supervisors needed time to become familiar with the data reporting system and
this was often new and cumbersome for them. In addition, the system itself had glitches that made reporting nearly impossible. This continues to be
an area where improvements are needed and the human power behind doing this, particularly when professionals in education are shouldering more
and more responsibilities.
Comparability of Instruments
The leadership of the Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling has been very wise in crafting the majority of assessment tools to be
general enough to encompass both the Educational Psychology programs (ECE and Development, Learning and Instruction) as well as the five
programs in counseling. However, some items might be improved in their specificity to various programs. For example, in the interview rating form,
we have found that knowledge of the field is confounded with readiness to learn (item 2). In addition, one important marker for potential students is
their respectfulness of others as demonstrated in the group interview. Nevertheless, for the sake of common reporting, the current version is fine,
particularly given the rating by consensus of the admission team including faculty and current students.
Revamping EPC 642 – Assessment and Evaluation in Early Childhood Education
Next steps hover around two things that can be improved: a website and data reporting.
Website
We would like to start a website, modest in its beginning, but a start nonetheless. We will engage our new students to help with this and hopefully
find a core group of graduate students who can help. Emphasizing the role of the students who can help with the website construction seems wise: it
allows student to become more familiar with the content of their program, increases their experience with technology, develops their communication,
leadership and advocacy skills. It also reflects the faculty shortage we are experiencing!
DEVELOPMENTAL LEARNING AND INSTRUCTION MASTERS
60
Transition Point 1
Entry to Program
Knowledge
(1) Undergrad GPA of
3.00 overall or score at or
above 50th percentile on:
(a) one of the three GRE
sections or (b) Miller
Analogies Test
Transition Point 2
Full Classification
Transition Point 3
Exit from Program
(1) Grade of “B” or higher
in EPC 602, EPC 605,
EPC 607, EPC 609, EPC
615, EPC 695D
(1) Overall GPA of 3.00 or
higher
(2) Overall GPA of 3.00 or
higher
(3) Grade of “B-“ or
higher in all prerequisite
courses
(1) Interview Summary
Score
(2) Writing Proficiency
Exam score of 8 or higher
Dispositions
(1) Program Follow-Up
Survey (Candidate
Perceptions)
(2) Program Follow-Up
Survey (Employers
Perceptions)
(3) Comprehensive
Exam Rubric
or Thesis Rubric
or Project Rubric
(2) GPA of 2.5 or higher
in last 60 units
Skills
(2) Credit in either EPC 697
or EPC 698C.
Transition Point 4
Follow-Up
(1) Grade of “B” or higher
in EPC 602, EPC 605,
EPC 607, EPC 609, EPC
615, EPC 695D
(1) Disposition
Assessment for New
Candidates
(1) Overall GPA of 3.00 or
higher
(2) Comprehensive
Exam Rubric
or Thesis Rubric
or Project Rubric
(1) Program Follow-Up
Survey (Candidate
Perceptions)
(2) Program Follow-Up
Survey (Employers
Perceptions)
(1) Disposition Assessment
for Graduating Candidates
(2) Comprehensive
Exam Rubric
or Thesis Rubric
or Project Rubric
Based on the data presented in Tables attached, strengths include the following:
61
1. The evaluations all are rated from 3 to 5, i.e, from good to exemplary, with almost all being above 3 and in the 4+ range. Hence, the DLI
program is favorably viewed by the students and graduates across all criteria.
2. In examining the Table of ratings before and after the program, all evaluations increased, revealing that students viewed themselves as having
had acquired the standards assessed.
3. The most notable and highest ratings are in the categories of acquiring in-depth knowledge and skills in the field, using multiple assessments
and data to improve practice and student learning, focus on pluralism and diversity, analysis and synthesis, ethics, developing professional
attitudes, relevance, and developing and applying expertise in the field. These fit well with institutional and professional goals and standards.
Overall, knowledge acquisition, application, research, ethics and diversity are clearly strengths of the DLI program.
4. These data verify that the assessments of students at each of our transition points are successful. Students enter the program prepared to
engage in learning, they proceed to full classification based on successful accomplishment of the core courses, and they graduate based on
their culminating project which in virtually all cases is an empirical thesis or graduate project.
5. Regarding the make-up of incoming classes, the data in the pertinent Table indicates students are highly prepared academically and over the
past 3 years have been quite diverse in their demographics particularly ethnicity and age.
6. Another strength of the program is the ability of students to find successful careers upon graduation.
Part Weaknesses and Program Improvements
1. Given the relatively small size of the DLI program, it is difficult to start new specialties within the program, an example being program
evaluation. This is attributable to the budget restrictions inasmuch as courses need a higher number of students which is likely larger than an
initial offering for a new program track.
2. Because of the small size of the program, new student recruitment is an issue because there are fewer graduates going forth who would
ordinarily form the basis for the word of mouth support that many programs often receive. Hence, it is incumbent upon DLI faculty to put in
extra effort to recruit students individually more than a larger and more visible program.
3. As is true of almost all Education programs, the student body is largely female, although there are currently males in the 2009 class, and have
been in the past.
4. The relatively small number of respondents in the Tables may be due to the small number of students in the program initially as a baserate.
However, we will continue to encourage students to respond to the surveys.
5. The overall need of the DLI program is with regard to growth and recruitment. It is clear that it is a high quality program, and there are plans
underway for diversification of the program offerings of DLI. In particular, a strand in Applied Research and Program Evaluation, has been
planned. However, progress has been slowed in the current economic crisis.
62