Skip to contentSkip to navigation

Get the latest information about Fall 2021 Repopulation and COVID-19. Before coming to campus, take the COVID-19 Daily Screening.

Standard 1 Aspect C

Standard 1c: Evidence shows that, by the time of program completion, candidates exhibit knowledge, skills, and abilities of professional educators appropriate to their target credential or degree, including: Culturally responsive practice, including intersectionality of race, ethnicity, class, gender identity and expression, sexual identity, and the impact of language acquisition and literacy development on learning


Data Sources & Analysis

Data Source 1

Fresno Assessment of Student Teachers (FAST) Site Visitation Project (SVP) 

Description of Data Source: 
The Site Visitation Project portion of the FAST requires candidates to plan and deliver a lesson that is consistent with the current methods recommended for teaching the subject and designed to encourage the acquisition and use of academic language in the subject area. The lesson is to be designed to be relevant to the students prior experiences, interests, and backgrounds. Activities/strategies are to be designed to encourage active participation and communication by all students with opportunities for inquiry and reflection. Candidates are to determine the learning needs, backgrounds, and interests of their students and select one focus student. They are required to video the delivery of the lesson. They are to effectively implement and monitor their instruction consistent with subject specific pedagogy to teach the identified academic content standards. The assessment is scored using specific, task-focused rubrics. All coaches in the Ag Specialist program are calibrated to score the assessment.

Perspective Captured from Data Source: University Coach

Rationale for using Data Source:
The SVP Planning Section requires candidates enrolled in initial student teaching to collect information about their students and consider this information as they plan their lesson and instructional methods. This information includes: (a) English proficiency levels, (b) identified needs (IEP, 504, behavior plans), (c) ethnicity, and (d) reading/writing proficiency (with the source of their information)

Specific Elements of Data Source:
Site Visitation Project Planning Rubric: Applying Knowledge of Students 

Definition of Success for Each Element:
Although the agriculture university coaches encourage candidates to strive for a score of four on the scoring rubric, we would like to see average scores of 2.5 or better. Candidates must score a two or better on the scoring rubric to show they meet the expectation for the site visitation project. To score a two, the rubric calls for candidates to effectively implement instruction consistent with subject-specific pedagogy.

Displays of Analyzed Data:

Table 1: Site Visitation Project Data Summary Fall 2018 - Spring 2020

Semester N SVP Planning SVP Implementation SVP Reflection
Fall 2018 14 2.14 2.14 2.07
Spring 2019 14 2.00 2.07 2.07
Fall 2019 15 2.27 2.27 2.07
Spring 2019 16 2.13 2.31 2.25

Link to Full Dataset: FAST Scores SVP F18 - Sp20 Ag_Students Summary & Data

Interpretation of Data:
Although the candidates average scores did not reach the goal of  2.5 or better, all candidates met the expectation for the Planning portion by scoring 2.0 or better (a 2.0 score is required to pass) using the SVP scoring rubric. One reason for the low scores may be that the agriculture coaches tend to be consertative in their approach to scoring. They are most concerned about students failing to score a 2 and not concerned as much about students scoring higher. Still, this is something the program may want to look into further to ensure that candidates are developing the necessary knowledge of culturally relevant pedagogy to be able to engage and support learners from all backgrounds.

Data Source 2

Fresno Assessment of Student Teachers (FAST) Teaching Sample Project (TSP) 

Description of Data Source: 
The Teaching Sample Project of the Fresno Assessment of Student Teachers, the performance-based assessment all candidates are required to pass in their second semester of their field placement, is scored using specific rubrics. There is a rubric for each of the seven sections of the teaching sample project. The agriculture university coaches have all been calibrated to score the teaching sample project.

Perspective Captured from Data Source: University Coach

Rationale for using Data Source:
The students in context section of the TSP requires candidates to collect data about students enrolled in the class they are teaching. They are then directed to describe the learning needs of three groups of students: (1) English learners, (2) students with identified special needs, and (3) students with different instructional needs. Candidates then identify how their instruction will meet the learning needs of these students. They also develop a classroom management plan appropriate for their students and the classroom context. Candidates are also scored on their expectations and responses to behavior related to (a) individual responsibility, (b) intolerance, and (c) an inclusive climate. 

Specific Elements of Data Source:
Teaching Sample Project Students in Context section scoring rubric TPE 1.6, 2.1, 2.3, 2.6, 4.1, 5.8  (See rubric in FAST Manual page 33).

Definition of Success for Each Element:
Although the agriculture university coaches encourage candidates to strive for a score of four on the scoring rubric, we would like to see average scores of 2.5 or better. Candidates must score a two or better on the scoring rubric to show they meet the expectation for the site visitation project. To score a two, the rubric calls for candidates to effectively implement instruction consistent with subject-specific pedagogy.

Displays of Analyzed Data:
Table 2: FAST Teaching Sample Project (TSP) Students in Context

Teaching Sample Project Data Summary Fall 2018 - Spring 2020

Semester Fall 2018
N=11
Spring 2019
N=14
Fall 2019
N=13
Spring 2020
N=15
Students in Context 2.27 2.07 2.27 2.33
Learning Outcomes 2.09 2.04 2.31 2.20
Assessment Plan 2.09 2.07 2.08 2.07
Design for Instruction 2.18 2.07 2.19 2.20
Instructional Decision Making 2.18 2.21 2.31 2.07
Analysis of Student Learning 2.09 2.00 2.19 2.00
Reflection and Self-
Evaluation
2.27 2.11 2.23 2.07

Link to Full Dataset: FAST TSP F18 Sp20 Ag Students Summary and Data

Interpretation of Data:  
Although the agriculture university coaches encourage candidates to strive for a score of four on the scoring rubric, we would like to see scores that average 2.5 or better. Candidates must score a two or better on the scoring rubric to show they meet the expectation for the “students in context” section of the project. For the semesters listed in the table above the students all scored a two or better on this section of the TSP. Although they failed to reach the goal of an average score of 2.5, all students passed this section of the TSP.

Like with the scores on the SVP, one reason scores are not higher may be that the agriculture coaches tend to be consertative in their approach to scoring. They are most concerned about students failing to score a 2 and not concerned as much about students scoring higher. Still, this is something the program may want to look into further to ensure that candidates are developing the necessary knowledge of culturally relevant pedagogy to be able to engage and support learners from all backgrounds.

Data Source 3

Exit Evaluation of Professional Objectives 

Description of Data Source: 
During their second semester of their field placement (EHD 155B), candidates are expected to complete professional objectives in six key areas as a way of developing the knowledge and expertise needed to be a successful Ag Educator. Their progress gets monitored on the Exit Evaluation of Professional Objectives. Each time the candidate accomplishes one of the stated objectives, their mentor teacher initials the checklist near the date to verify that the objective was accomplished. Mentor teachers provide university coaches with feedback on each candidate’s performance in regard to meeting expectations for the exit objectives.

Perspective Captured from Data Source: Candidate and Mentor Teacher

Rationale for using Data Source: 
The Guidance objectives call for the candidates to (1) obtain background information on their students, (2) develop constructive interrelationships with students, (3) counsel students, (4) involve resource persons/agencies in assisting students, and (5) assist students in planning postsecondary education and/or employment. Candidates list the date they completed each of these objectives and their mentor teacher initials each objective to verify that it has been completed. 

Specific Elements of Data Source: Scores on Guidance Objectives.

Definition of Success for Each Element:
Candidates are asked to complete as many of the guidance objectives as they can. The expectation is that candidates will complete all six of the guidance objectives. Some candidates may not complete all items due to various circumstances.  Mentor teachers provide university coaches with feedback on each candidate’s performance in regard to meeting expectations for exit objectives.

Displays of Analyzed Data: 

Table 3: Cohort Mean Scores for EHD 155B Exit Evaluation of Professional Objectives -- for Guidance Objectives

Semester N Curriculum/
Instruction
Manage-
ment
Guidance Public Relations FFA Coordination
Fall 2019 13 14 5 5.85 4.92 2.85 4.77
Spring 2020 15 13.64 5.86 5.86 4.64 2.86 4.64
Fall 2020 17 13.94 5.82 6 5 2.88 4.59
Spring 2021 24 13.96 5.96 6 5 2.96 5

Link to Full Dataset: EHD 155B Exit Evaluation of Professional Objectives

Interpretation of Data:
During the last four semesters, all but two candidates completed all of the guidance objectives. One of these students only completed three of the objectives. This student did not successfully complete final student teaching. The other candidate only completed four of the objectives due to complications created by the cooperating schools’ restrictions due to COVID 19.

Next Steps:
In order to address what we found, we will continue to seek high quality university coaches to supervise our student teachers. All coaches will be calibrated to utilize the FAST scoring rubrics. For our EHD 155B Exit Evaluation of Competencies, we will continue to review all the objectives and make changes if needed. To evaluate our efforts in this area, we will continue to analyze the data we collect each year and discuss as program faculty how we might improve the scores of our candidates. For the planning section of the SVP, we will encourage mentor teachers to emphasize lesson planning at the beginning of the student teaching experience. Currently we recommend our mentor teachers allow student teachers to use the mentor teacher’s lesson plans at the beginning of student teaching. This may need to change. We will also focus more on lesson planning early in the EHD 154A Seminar. Classroom management is a major concern of student teachers and it is a focus area for our AGRI 280 Seminar. To try to improve student scores on “students in context” we will explore placing more emphasis on culturally responsive teaching and check our student scores on the scoring rubrics for the SVP and TSP to determine the areas of weakness.

Aspect D →