Adler, S. (1991). The Reflective Practitioner and the Curriculum of Teacher Education. Journal of Education for Teaching 17(2), 139-150.
Alabama State Department of Education. (1997). Alabama Administrative Code. Montgomery, AL: Author.
Alverno College. (1994). Student assessment-as-learning at Alverno College. Milwaukee, WI: Author.
American Association for Higher Education. (2003). Nine principles of good practice for assessing student learning. Washington, DC: Author.
Anderson, D. (1997, April 12). Same song, second verse. [On-line]. Available Internet: http://aacte.org/about/presb421.html#guidelines
Anderson, J., DuMez, J., & Peter, M. G. (1998). Portfolio presentations in teacher education: Rites of passage for the emerging professional In M. McLaughlin, M. E. Vogt, J. A. Anderson, J. DuMez, M.G. Peter, & A. Hunter (Eds.), Portfolio models: Reflections across the teaching profession (pp. 1-76).
Angelo, T. A. (1999). Doing assessment as if learning matters most. [On-line]. Available http://www.aahebulletin.com/public/archive/angelomay99.asp
Arvizu, S.F. (1994). Building bridges for the future: Anthropological contributions to diversity and classroom practices (pp. 75-97). In R.A. DeVillar, C.J. Faltis, and J.P. Cummins (Eds.), Cultural diversity in schools: From rhetoric to practice. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Baldridge, J.V. & Deal, T. ed. (1975). Managing Change in Educational Organizations. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Banks, J.A. & McGee Banks, C. (Eds.). (1993) Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives. (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Barth, R. (May 2002). The Culture Builder. Educational Leadership, 59(10), 6-11.
Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1992). Theory into Practice: How do we link? In T. M. Duffy & J. D. Perry (Eds), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 17-34). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Boger, C. (2000) Preservice teachers’explanations of their teacher behavior. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27(4) 217-224.
Business-Higher Education Forum. 2003. Building a nation of learners: The need for changes in teaching and learning to meet global challenges. Retrieved October 20, 2004 from http://www.acenet.edu/programs/bhef_publications.cmf?pubID=285.
Cochran-Smith, M. (1995). Color blindness and basket making are not the answers: Confronting the dilemmas of race, culture, and language diversity in teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 493-522.
Cooper, J. M. (1997, September 3). Tenure and teaching portfolios. Education Week on the Web. [On-line]. Available Internet: http://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-17/01cooper.h17
Cruickshank, D., Bainer, and Metcalf (1995). The act of teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cruickshank, D. (1985). Uses and benefits of reflective teaching. Phi Delta Kappan,
Darling-Hammond, L. & McLaughlin, M. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597-604.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The quiet revolution: Rethinking teacher development. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 4-10.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A.E., & Klein, S.P. (1997). A license to teach: Building a profession for 21st century schooling. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2003, March 12). Standards and assessment. [On-line]. Available Internet: http://www.interversity.org/lists/arn-1/archives/Mar2003/msg00290.html>.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers: Why it matters, what leaders can do. Educational Leadership, 60(8) 6-13.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York: MacMillan.
Dewey, J. (1964). John Dewey Selected Writings. New York: The Modern Library.
Earle, R., Seehafer, S., Ostlund, M. (2001). Systemic reform in teacher education: Quality teachers through partnering. In Diverse Perspectives in Theory and Practice, 28(2).
Eggen, P. & Kauchak, D. (2001). Educational psychology: Windows on classrooms (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Fairbanks, C.M., Freedman, D. & Kahn, C. (2000). The role of effective mentors in learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(2) 102-114.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). Helping novices learn to teach: lessons from an exemplary support teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1) 17-30.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2003). Preparation to Practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 10 (6), pp 1013-1055.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading In A Culture of Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fuller, F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 7(2), 171-179.
Goodlad, J. (1990). Teachers for our nation's schools. San Francisco: Jossey - Bass.
Grant, C. A. (1993). The multicultural preparation of U.S. teachers: Some hard truths. In G. Verma (Ed.), Inequality and teacher education (pp. 41-57). London: Falmer Press.
Grimmet, P.P. & Erickson, G.L. (eds.) (1988). Reflection in teacher education.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Hatton, N. and Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation.
Hill, P. & Bonan, J. (1991). Decentralization and Accountability in Public Education. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Holyer, R. (2003). The road not taken. [On-line]. Available Internet: http://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-17/01cooper.h17
Howey, K. (1996). Designing coherent and effective teacher education programs. In J. Sikula, T.J. Buttery, E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (2nd ed., pp. 143-170). New York: Macmillan.
Howey, K. & Zimpher, N. (1999). Pervasive problems and issues in teacher education. In G. Griffin (Ed.), The Education of Teachers. Ninety-eighth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 279-305.
Huberman, M. (1989). Teacher’s professional life cycle. Teachers College Record, 91(1).
Huebner, D. (1999). The art of teaching. In V. Hillis (Ed.) The Lure of the Transcendent: Collected Essays by Dwayne E. Huebner (pp. 23-35). Mahwah, N.J: Erlbaum. (Originally published, 1962).
Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. (2002). Standards for new beginning teacher licensing and development. [On-line]. Available Internet: http://www.teralink.com/-shar/Portfolio/INTASC.html>.
Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1989). Leading the Cooperative School. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnston, P. H. (1997). Knowing literacy: Constructive literacy assessment. York, ME: Stenhouse.
Kanter, R.M. (1983). The Change Masters. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Kanter, R.M. (1997). “Restoring People in the Heart of the Organization of the Future,” in Hesselbein, F. et al. ed., The Organization of the Future. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Katz, L. (1995). Talks with teachers of young children. A collection. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing Company.
Laczko-Kerr, I. & Berliner, D.C. (2003). In harm’s way: How undercertified teachers hurt their students. Educational Leadership, 60(8) 34-39.
Ladson-Billiings, G. (1995). Multicultural teacher education: Research, practice, and policy. In J.A. Banks & C.A.M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 747-759). New York: Macmillan.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Linn, R.L., Baker, E.L., & Betebenner, D.W. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 31(6), 3-16.
Lyons, C. A. & Pinnell, G. S. (2001). Systems for change. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Maki, P. (2002a). Using multiple assessment methods to explore student learning and development inside and outside the classroom. [On-line]. Available Internet: http://www.aahe.org/initiatives/assessment.html>.
Maki, P. (2002b). Moving from paperwork to pedagogy: Channeling intellectual curiosity into a commitment to assessment. [On-line]. Available Internet: http://www.aahebulletin.com/public/archive/paperwork.asp
March, J. & Olsen, J. (1976). Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Oslo, Norway: Universitesforlager.
Martin, D. B. (1999). The portfolio planner: Making professional portfolios work for you. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Marvin, Eric. Achieving 21st Century Skills – The Role of Today’s Schools. The CAN Corporation, Policy and Planning Series #107, Retrieved October 20, 2004 from www.The-ATEC.org.
McCutcheon, G., & Jung, B. (1990). Alternative perspectives on action research. Theory into Practice, 29, 144-151.
McKay, J.A. (1992). Professional development though action research. Journal of Staff Development, 13(1), 18-21.
McIntyre, D.J., Byrd, D.M., & Foxx, S.M. (1996). Field and laboratory experiences. In J. Sikula, T.J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education
(2nd ed., pp. 171-193). New York: Macmillan.
McNamara, D. (1990). Research on Teachers' Thinking: its contribution to educating student teachers to think critically. Journal of Education for Teaching. 16(2), 147-160.
Melnick, S.L., & Zeichner, K.M. (1997). Teacher education for cultural diversity: Enhancing the capacity of teacher education institutions to address diversity issues. In J. King, E. Hollins, & W. Hayman (Eds.), Meeting the challenge of diversity in teacher preparation (pp. 23-39). New York: Teachers College Press.
Mezirow, J., and Associates. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moir, E. & Gless, J. (2001) Quality induction: An investment in teachers. Santa Cruz, CA: New Teacher Center.
Moir, E., Gless, J., & Barron, W. (1999). A support program with heart: The Santa Cruz project. In M. Scherer (Ed.), A better beginning: Supporting and mentoring new teachers. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. 106-115.
Moore, R. (2003). Reexamining the field experiences of preservice teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1) 31-42.
National Academy Press. (1999). How people learn: Bridging research and practice. [On-line]. Available Internet: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/1019.html>.
National Academy Press. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. [On-line]. Available Internet: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10019.html>.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (1999). Professional teaching standards. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. New York: Author.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF). (2003). No dream denied: a pledge to America’s children. New York: Author.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2002). Professional standards for the accreditation of schools, colleges, and departments of education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
New Teacher Center. (2002). Continuum of teacher development. Santa Cruz, CA: Author.
Osborne, D. & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing Government. New York: Penguin Books.
Paige, R. (2002). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Palinscar, A. (1986). The Role of Dialogue in Providing Scaffolded Instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21(142), 73-98.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2003b. Learning for the 21st century: Milestones for improving learning and education. Retrieved Oct 19, 2004 from http:www.21stcenturyskills.org/downloads/P21_Report.pdf.
Price, J. & Valli, L. (1998) Institutional support for diversity in preservice teacher education. Theory into Practice, 37(2). 114-120.
Regan, H. B., Case, K., Case, C. W., & Frieberg, J. A. (1993). Reflecting on reflective practice: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 6, 263-277.
Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R.J. (2002, November). What large-scale survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the Prospects study of elementary schools. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education, Report Series RR-051. Available: www.cpre.org/Publications/rr51.pdf
Schlecty, P.C. (1990). Schools for the 21st Century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner, NY: Basic Books.
Schon, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schon, D. (2000). Reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Sergiovanni, T.J. 2000. The Lifeworld of Leadership: Creating Culture, Community, and Personal Meaning in Our Schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shaw, R. (1993). Teacher training in secondary schools. Kogan Page.
Shulman, L. (2002). National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (1997).
Suskie, L. (2000, May). Fair assessment practices. [On-line]. Available Internet: http://www.aahebulletin.com/public/archive/may2.asp
Taylor, G. R. (2002). Using human learning strategies in the classroom. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Thornburg, D. (2002). The new basics: Education and the future of work in the telematic age. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Twine, J., & Martinek, T.J. (1992). Teachers as researchers – An application of a collaborative action research model. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 63(9), 22-25.
Vgostsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Wandersman, A. et al (1996). Toward a social ecology of community coalitions. American Journal Health Promotion, 10(4), 299-307.
Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19.
Weiss, E. M., & Weiss, S. G. (1999). Beginning teacher induction. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No: ED436487
Commitment to Technology
Today’s society demands that K-12 schools produce students skilled in “communication, technology, leadership, teamwork, creativity, management, problem-solving, production, risk taking, and cultural awareness.” (Business Higher Education Forum, 2003; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2003b; Thornburg, 2002) if they are to be successful. In order to meet this challenge K-12 schools have moved to technology enhanced curriculum, changed how they assess teacher and student performance, and determined what knowledge and skills are now considered important in the workplace and for continuous learning (Merrill Lynch & Co., 2000).
The demand for knowledge-based K-12 graduates has resulted in new standards and expectations for both in-service and pre-service teachers a well as educational administrators.
In Alabama the need for knowledge-based professional education preparation programs and the projected growth in retirement of teachers over the next ten years prompted the Alabama Department of Education to apply for the Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology grant funding. Through this funding a consortium of fifteen universities, the Alabama Department of Education, and one business partner worked to research, develop, and implement P-20 technology standards designed to improve K-12 student achievement and meet the high standards that the governor, the state superintendent, and the state board of education have initiated. Utilizing the results of this work, ten technology standards, based on the ISTE standards for both initial and advanced professional teacher certification programs were developed and presented to the Alabama State Board of Education. The Board approved the new standards, March 2002. The UAB Professional Education Unit played a dominate role by: (1) assisting with the development of technology standards for Alabama’s Teacher Education Programs, (2) housing grant staff, and (3) providing evaluation services for the grant. These standards have been integrated into the professional education unit’s existing courses at the initial and advanced levels and implemented spring 2003.
Professional Commitments and Dispositions
In addition to assuring that graduates of initial and advanced certification programs have demonstrated sufficient knowledge and skills for their level of preparation, faculty within the professional education unit expect graduates to display dispositions that are important for professional practice and development. The unit has identified and adopted a common set of dispositions that apply to candidates across program areas and across levels of certification. Desired dispositions fall into the following categories:
Legal and Ethical Conduct: Behaves in a manner consistent with standards of legal and ethical conduct (e.g., professional conduct with students, parents, colleagues, professors, etc; academic conduct consistent with UAB code, protecting privacy and confidentiality)
Professional Conduct: Recognizes and fulfills professional responsibilities and habits of conduct (e.g., dress, language, preparedness, attendance, punctuality, composure, honesty).
Sensitivity to Diversity: Is sensitive to community and cultural norms and is responsive to and respectful of individual and cultural differences and experiences. Demonstrates the belief that all students can learn and a commitment to supporting the growth of all learners.
Safety and Well-being: Demonstrates concern for, and protection of, the safety and the well-being of self, students, parents, and colleagues.
Acceptance of Feedback: Is open and responsive to feedback from others.
Commitment to Effective Communication: Demonstrates thoughtful, effective verbal and non-verbal communication and listening.
Commitment to Collaboration: Demonstrates a willingness to collaborate with parents and others to improve student learning and development.
Commitment to Improving Teaching or Professional Practice: Demonstrates a commitment to continual improvement through reflection, inquiry, modifying instruction, and remaining current in knowledge and professional practice.
Commitment to the Profession: Demonstrates a positive attitude and commitment to the profession.This list of categories of dispositions and examples of behaviors that are evidence of deficiencies within each category are provided to all candidates. While candidates in some programs are evaluated on the presence of these dispositions prior to admission and again during the internship or student teaching experience, the primary mechanism for evaluating dispositions is the “Disposition Assessment Form” which is completed whenever there is an incident of deficiency within one or more dispositional categories. Faculty, staff, cooperating teachers, and supervisors are provided with these forms and encouraged to complete them on a candidate when appropriate. If a form must be completed, the candidate is asked to sign and receives a copy of the form. Details about the dispositional assessment system are provided elsewhere.
The System by which Candidate Performance is Regularly Assessed
The UAB programs for the preparation of teachers, school counselors, and educational administrators have employed a variety of techniques for the assessment of programs and candidates for many years. In 2003/2004 as part of efforts to improve unit cohesion and performance, the unit developed a comprehensive assessment system that was aligned with the unit’s new vision, mission, and conceptual framework. The system needed to be able to accommodate outcomes of diverse programs (initial and advanced teacher education, school counseling, educational administration) while still allowing for the ability to aggregate and communicate unit level progress and improvement in clear and consistent ways. Initial steps toward implementing the comprehensive new system began during the spring of 2004. The new system was fully implemented for students entering all initial programs during the fall of 2004 and will be fully implemented for all advanced programs by the fall of 2005.
The unit is committed to preparing teachers, school counselors, and school administrators to be successful in diverse contexts, such as those found in the Greater Birmingham Metropolitan Area. Specifically, the faculty is committed to preparing professionals who are focused on the needs of the learner, trained in accordance with state and national standards, engaged in reflection to advance their craft and inquiry to advance understanding and the knowledge base, and who understand that change in learners and in professionals is a developmental process. As a result, the assessment of candidates considers: (a) the degree to which the candidate is responsive to the needs of learners, (b) the degree to which the candidate has demonstrated critical knowledge, skills, and dispositions expected by state and national professional organizations, (c) the candidate’s use of reflection to improve their craft and/or their use of systematic inquiry to enhance personal or generalizable knowledge, and (d) the candidate’s awareness of the developmental status of learners and of their own position along a continuum of professional development. The degree to which the candidate is learner centered is evaluated by the candidate’s documentation of their impact on the learner and by evidence of their responsivity to the needs of diverse learners. The degree to which the candidate has demonstrated standards-based knowledge and skills is evaluated by their performance in courses and field experiences as well as by high-stakes course-embedded assessments which directly reflect critical state and national standards in the professions (e.g., assessments within the eleven outcome areas of the teacher education programs relate to INTASC and state standards for teachers). The degree to which the candidate demonstrates expected dispositions is evaluated through observations during coursework and fieldwork. A discussion of the dispositional assessment system is included in the discussion of Standard II. The extent to which the candidate is reflective and is aware of field-specific methods of inquiry is assessed as a part of coursework and high-stakes assessments embedded in courses and field experience. Furthermore, many candidates for advanced degrees must engage in systematic inquiry within their field in order to enhance their own professional development or to add to the knowledge base of the field. The candidate’s awareness of the development of learners and of themselves as professionals is evaluated as part of coursework and through high-stakes course embedded assessments and self-reflections during internship. The developmental continua of professionals and performance criteria at each level of the continua are explicitly represented in novice to expert progressions of knowledge and skills in each outcome area for each program. In order for candidates to complete their programs they must display performance level skills at criterion-levels in outcome areas.
The assessment system for candidates essentially provides information to facilitate decisions regarding admission, continuation, and recommendation for certification. Criteria and methods for admission to programs at initial and advanced levels are included in Section II and associated appendices. Once admitted to a program, professional education candidates are required to demonstrate knowledge, skills, and dispositions within program outcome areas. All programs use a rubric-based system for describing the various levels of professional progression of knowledge and skills from novice to expert levels within each outcome area. These rubrics convey the expectations of faculty and the professional community of teachers, administrators, and counselors as the candidate develops in various critical areas of the profession. The rubrics operationally define the most critical goals of the curricula. The rubrics for each outcome area for any program reflect the developmental continuum for knowledge or skill in that area ranging from unacceptable, to emerging initial (e.g., prerequisite mastery, readiness for field placement), proficient initial (e.g., basic mastery, readiness for initial certification), and one or more advanced levels (up to the equivalent of expert in the novice-expert continuum for that outcome area).
Professional education candidates are assessed on their mastery of knowledge and skills in all outcome areas within courses. All programs have mapped outcome areas onto courses. Instruction and assessments tied to outcome areas are conducted in specified courses. Some assessments of knowledge or skills within each outcome area have been determined to be of sufficient importance to be used for making high-stakes decisions about the candidate. These assessments have been labeled as “artifacts” within the unit assessment system. Within initial certification programs in teacher education and within the program in school counseling, a candidate must perform at “emerging initial” professional levels on course-embedded artifacts tied to every outcome area prior to being allowed to enter the internship experience. Candidates within the advanced certification programs in school administration are required by the state to take coursework simultaneously with internship. Therefore, these candidates must perform at emerging initial professional levels on course-embedded artifacts. Failure to “pass” the course-embedded artifact in any program prohibits the candidate from advancing in the program. Performance-based assessments by supervisors during internship experiences serve as the final set of artifacts for students receiving initial certification. Specifically, all initial certificate candidates in teacher education as well as advanced candidates in school counseling and educational administration must perform at the proficient initial professional level on all targeted outcome areas and demonstrate appropriate dispositions in order to pass the internship and be recommended for certification by the professional education unit.
Because of their high-stakes nature, a fundamental requirement of all artifacts is that the candidate has sufficient opportunity to remediate performance before the high-stakes judgment is made. Therefore, instructors and supervisors are required to evaluate preliminary submissions of artifacts and provide clear and direct feedback to promote remediation in a timely manner before the final submission is due. Midterm evaluation of the candidate is considered to provide this feedback during the internship.
The artifacts represent critical evidence of the candidate’s mastery of expectations of the profession. The unit has adopted Livetext as a mechanism for developing candidate portfolios consisting of artifacts and other supporting evidence within initial certification teacher education programs and for electronically storing and aggregating performance evaluations across candidates within initial certification programs.
Some programs also require candidates to pass formal examinations tied to outcome areas in order to be recommended for program admission or certification. These exams will be discussed in more detail in Section II and the appendices.
As indicated above, candidates in the initial preparation programs must demonstrate criterion-level performance in all outcome areas at two points in their program. Programs have adopted different expectations for candidate performance in advanced certification programs. The fundamental and common expectation of such programs is that candidate performance in at least fifty percent of the outcome areas will exceed the performance levels required for initial certification. As with the initial certification programs, course-embedded assessments (evidence and artifacts) reflecting the program’s outcome areas are mapped onto courses. Those assessments which are identified as artifacts are scored using the outcome rubric as well as whatever letter-based or percentage-based grading system that is traditionally used. Student performance on artifacts is electronically stored to assist with evaluations of the candidate and aggregated to inform program and unit evaluation.
In terms of assessment of unit performance, the assessment system is comprised of:
Data that we aggregate from candidate performance that provides information on the success of our programs and our school in critical outcome areas (e.g., percentage of candidates scoring at the proficient initial level on each outcome area during student teaching or internship, percentage of candidates identified as demonstrating inappropriate dispositions in courses prior to student teaching, percentage of students removed from TEP due to failure to demonstrate appropriate dispositions after remedial efforts)
Data that we gather and compile from other assessment sources that provides information on the success of our program and school within critical outcome areas (questions on alumni surveys that are directly tied to outcome areas, questions on employer surveys that are directly tied to outcome areas, candidate self-assessments on items that are directly tied to outcome areas, etc.)
Data that we gather and compile from other assessment sources that provides information about the general functioning and effectiveness of programs and the school (percentage of students passing the Alabama teacher test, percentage of students employed as teachers within 4 months of graduation, evaluations of faculty teaching performance, general analyses of strengths and weaknesses of candidate preparation provided by candidates, employers and alumni, Alabama higher education report card)
Data that we gather and compile concerning processes and progress relating to goals for scholarship, technology, diversity, faculty governance, and administration of the programs and school (e.g., minority faculty and student numbers and recruitment efforts, evidence of plans for technology and minority recruitment, evidence of faculty productivity in service and scholarship).
Data that we gather and compile that demonstrates we are making and monitoring informed improvements to our programs and school.
Data that we gather and compile that demonstrates that degree to which we are responsive to community stakeholders.
Data that we gather and compile that evaluates the degree of success of all programs in achieving the mission and vision of the school.
Data that we gather and compile that evaluates the degree of success of all programs in serving the conceptual framework.
Internal and external mechanisms are used to document and evaluate the success of programs and the unit personnel preparation program in general. Internal mechanisms include:
Aggregating artifact scores across candidates (within and across outcome areas) in order to determine strengths and needs of programs and candidates.
Examination of the relationship between course grades, artifact ratings prior to student teaching, and student teaching evaluations in order to assure the validity of judgments.
Candidate evaluations of courses
Exit surveys of candidates in initial certification teacher education programs
Documentation of faculty productivity regarding teaching, scholarship and service.
External mechanisms include:
Surveys of principals and employers
Surveys of alumni
State Department of Education evaluation of first-year teachers (PEPE and surveys)
Data from internal and external sources are collected, compiled, and reported to unit faculty and external stakeholders in order to monitor implementation of the themes and conceptual framework, evaluate candidate performance across outcome areas and faculty performance in teaching, research and service; and to facilitate program improvement. More detail about unit assessment and reporting are provided in Section II of the NCATE report.