Standard 1 Aspect B

Standard 1b: 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: Learners; learning theory, including social, emotional, and academic dimensions; and application of learning theory

---

Data Sources & Analysis

Data Source 1

Midterm & Final Fieldwork Evaluation (CREATe Rubric used formatively)

Description of Data Source:
The first measure is the Continuum of Reflective, Engaging, and Accessible Teaching (CREATe) Rubric Midterm and Final Fieldwork Evaluation used by coaches to evaluate candidates in their field work preparation at two intervals. CREATe integrates equity and culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogy into the clinical practice feedback cycle, measuring candidate development in 14 areas. This locally developed observation tool provides a common language for preservice teachers, coaches, faculty, mentors, and district administrators to orient their feedback in an actionable manner. Through synthesis of existing district observation tools, and by aligning this synthesis to the new Teacher Performance Expectations (2016 California Commission on Teacher Credentialing/ CCTC adopted Teaching Performance Standards/TPEs), the CREATe Rubric consists of 14 items organized within the following four domains:  1) Positive Environment, 2) Instructional Design and Implementation, 3) Rigorous and Appropriate Content, and 4) Reflection-In-Action. Each of the 14 items is rated along a seven-point developmental continuum with the following rating categories: Unobserved, Attempting, Exploring, Emerging, Developing, Skillful, and Masterful. Each rating category has an anchor descriptor that operationalizes each of the 14 items with action-oriented, observable “look-fors.”

Perspective Captured from Data Source: University Coach

Rationale for Using Data Source:
The rubric scores notwithstanding, the program strives to instill in our candidates the notion that professional competence grows incrementally through a combination of professional knowledge, experience, and reflection-on and -in action. This growth is mediated by the qualities our teacher candidates possess as they develop their unique and individual teaching styles. This internal measure is particularly important as our coaches, (who are former experienced public-school educators/administrators) have the opportunity to provide ongoing actionable feedback in a collaborative and consultative environment. Ultimately, the coaches evaluate our candidates’ ability to apply the pedagogical content knowledge they receive in our program in their student teaching field placement. This connection to the field is an important bridge to the teacher induction efforts of the districts that hire our candidates. In the Multiple Subject Program, we want to instill the norm in our teacher candidates that learning and improving the teaching craft is an ongoing and lifelong endeavor.

Specific Elements of Data Source:
On this internal measure, two evaluated areas directly address candidate skills in supporting learners social, emotional, and academic growth:

• Item 7: Student Motivation, Engagement, and Active Learning
  Aligned to TPE 1.3 - Connect subject matter to real-life contexts and provide active learning experiences to engage student interest, support student motivation, and allow students to extend their learning.
• Item 8: Varied Strategies
  Aligned to TPE 1.4 - Use a variety of developmentally and ability-appropriate instructional strategies, resources, and assistive technology, including principles of Universal Design of Learning (UDL) and Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) to support access to the curriculum for a wide range of learners within the general education classroom and environment. 
   

The Midterm/Final Fieldwork Evaluation instrument rubric consists of the following five (5) levels of performance: 1. Unobserved: Not yet evident, 2. Attempting: Aware, may not be effective, 3. Exploring: Attempting, minimally effective, 4. Emerging: Consistently attempting, limited effectiveness, and 5. Developing: Consistently attempting, somewhat effective.  Our hope is to see positive growth in these areas by the teacher candidates by comparing their placement on the rubric at the Midterm interval and in their Final Fieldwork Evaluation.

Definition of Success for Each Element:
The Multiple Subject Program goals are that 75% or more of our teacher candidates score at the Emerging (4) and Developing (5) levels of the rubric in the Final Fieldwork Evaluation. 

Displays of Analyzed Data

Table 1: Student Motivation, Engagement, and Active Learning (Item 7), CREATe/Fieldwork Rubric, Mid and Final Semester, 2020-2021

Table 2: Varied Strategies (Item 8), CREATe/Fieldwork Rubric, Mid and Final Semester, 2020-2021 

Link to Full Dataset: All CREATe PivotTables MS Field Placement

Interpretation of Data:
Tables 1 and 2 indicate that teacher candidates engaged in initial student teaching during the three time points did not meet the program of 75% or higher scoring a 4 of 5. These tables also indicate that teacher candidates engaged in final student teaching experience did meet the program goal as measured by items 7 and 8. This is a positive indicator of the expected progression for a teacher candidate during a clinical practice apprenticeship model. This is especially true as item 7 asks teacher candidates to make regular connections between the curriculum and life outside of the classroom, which requires time for teacher candidates to develop an understanding of real-life contexts that are of interest to the Tk-6 students. Similarly, the skill of consistently using a variety of instructional strategies and learning how to differentiate instruction as observed for in item 8 also takes time for students to be introduced to new strategies during coursework and clinical experience while also learning about the individual Tk-6 learners’ needs. Acquiring knowledge in the coursework, gaining classroom experience under the daily direction of a mentor teacher, and getting valuable input throughout student teaching from experienced coaches is an approach that is designed to enhance the abilities of our candidates to excel in skill development over time. 

Although the data point to a positive program outcome when comparing initial to final student teaching performance as measured by items 7 and 8, another trend was noticed from mid-semester two final semester evaluations. We noticed a slideback in teacher candidate ratings for the majority of cohorts for both items. One plausible explanation for the decrease may be related to the gradual release plan and how as time progresses in the semester, the role of the teacher candidate becomes more complex as they take on additional and oftentimes newer responsibilities in the classroom.     

It is also important to note the time period that this data reports. Any growth and progress our candidates made during this period has to be considered remarkable in the context of the circumstances under which our teacher candidates were asked to perform. Student teaching during much of Spring 2020 and throughout the three semesters has mostly been accomplished in a virtual environment. COVID 19 has dramatically affected everything in our personal and professional lives and this needs to be considered in this evaluation. 

Data Source 2

CSU Educator Quality Center Completer Survey

Description of Data Source: 
Every year the CSU Educator Quality Center administers a survey to CSU teacher preparation program completers at the time they complete their program. The routine, annual collection of these data offer the program to look at Multiple Subject Program Completer perceptions of preparedness longitudinally. Overall this survey tool aims to capture their perceptions of preparation, and to measure their confidence in career placement and success. The survey is aligned with the California Teaching

Performance Expectations, serving as a guide to the curriculum and clinical experiences of the Multiple Subject Credential Program. This survey reports important insight into how our graduates’ perceive their level of preparedness resulting from completing our program.

Perspective Captured from Data Source: Completer

Rationale for Using Data Source:
The second measure we used to evaluate candidates’ ability to create and develop positive learning and work environments include six (6) items from the CSU Educator Quality Center’s Program Completer Survey. We appreciated the way this measure complemented the Fieldwork Evaluation score because it provides candidates’ perspectives on their preparation. 

Specific Elements of Data Source:
The items we selected to analyze include candidate responses for how well did your program prepare you:

• To plan instruction based on students' prior knowledge, academic readiness, language proficiency, cultural background, and individual development.
• To select, adapt, and develop materials, resources, and technologies to make subject matter accessible to all students.
• To differentiate instruction in the classroom
• To use knowledge of child development and human learning to inform your instruction.
• To develop social and emotional competencies in children (e.g., empathy, motivation, self-regulation).
• To identify and address special learning needs with appropriate teaching strategies.

Definition of Success for Each Element: 
On each item, candidates have the following five Likert-response options: 1 -Not at all Prepared, 2 -Poorly Prepared, 3 -Adequately Prepared, 4 -Well Prepared, 5 -Very Well Prepared, in order to indicate their perception of their preparation.

It is our program's goal to have 85% or more of candidates indicate positive preparedness perceptions within the 3 - 5 range or from “Adequately Prepared” to “Well Prepared” to “Very Well Prepared.” 

Displays of Analyzed Data:
We chose to analyze disaggregated data from the past three cohorts of candidates in order to determine if there were any trends in responses.

Figure 1: 2017-2018 Multiple Subject Program Completers (N 179)

Figure 2: 2018-2019 Multiple Subject Program Completers (N 243)

Figure 3: 2019-2020 Multiple Subject Program Completers (N 230)

Link to Full Dataset: The link to the full dataset is unavailable. However, if reviewers would like to view the CSU Educator Quality Center Data Dashboards, we are happy to set up a time to provide them access by sharing screens in a Zoom session.

Interpretation of Data:
Multiple Subject Program Completers’ (MSPC) perceptions of how well the program prepared them related to planning instruction based on students' prior knowledge, academic readiness, language proficiency, cultural background, and individual development; differentiate instruction in the classroom; use knowledge of child development and human learning to inform their instruction; develop social and emotional competencies in children (e.g., empathy, motivation, self-regulation); and identify and address special learning needs with appropriate teaching strategies was overwhelmingly positive across all three years. No items fell below 85% in positive perception thereby meeting the program’s goal. The program’s ability to prepare candidates to develop social and emotional competencies in children (e.g., empathy, motivation, self-regulation), to identify and address special learning needs with appropriate teaching strategies, and to use knowledge of child development and human learning to inform your instruction consisted of the least positive perception of preparedness across all three years. Upon exiting our credential program, Multiple Subject Credential candidates overall feel well prepared to design and implement instructional experiences through the application of learning theories for student social, emotional, and academic development. 

Data Source 3

Course grades/Candidate Performance in Courses (CI 162 Theories in Practice Rubric )

Perspective Captured from Data Source: Program Faculty

Description of Data Source:
All candidates enrolled in the Multiple Subject credential program take CI 162: Understanding Children, Learning, and Development in TK-8 Classrooms in their first semester. This course focuses on the principles of educational psychology and their relations with recent research and school practice. The course covers theories (e.g., Piaget, Vygotsky, and Erikson) that are related to different domains of development including cognitive development, personal and social-emotional development, as well as moral development. It also links theories to current practices (e.g., Second Step Program and Positive Behavior Intervention Support, and Service Learning) in schools. The goal of the course is to help candidates understand the characteristics and needs of TK-8 students in learning and development, supporting high-quality instruction and the creation of an effective learning environment. 

Rationale for Using Data Source:
Two of the signature assignments for the course invites candidates working in groups to observe the implementation of a curricular program in an elementary school setting and then critique the program’s implementation in light of the learning theories the candidates have learned in the course.

CI 162 Understanding Children, Learning, and Development in TK-8 Classrooms is a required course for all Multiple Subject Credential Program teacher candidates. It is the focal course that provides them with the learning theories needed to design and implement developmentally appropriate learning experiences. The signature assignments and corresponding rubrics provide insight into the teacher candidate's application of learning theory to practice.  

Specific Elements of Data Source:

1. Theories in Practice (A): Diverse Programs in Schools - we specifically would like to look at the item score for "Comment on the program and its appropriateness in the implementation in relation to the theories you have learned" 
2. Theories in Practice (B): - we specifically would like to look at the item score for Learning Environment and Teaching - "Highlight the text & write the concepts" and "Analysis of the lesson."

Definition of Success for Each Element:
80% or more of the teacher candidates score a 2 or higher on the analysis of the appropriateness of the implementation in relation to the theories they have learned. 80% or more of the teacher candidates score a 12 or higher on their analysis of the lesson. 

Displays of Analyzed Data:
Table 3: Diverse Programs in Schools Rubric Percent of Scores

Table 4: Analysis of the Lesson Rubric Percent of Scores

Link to Full Dataset: MS Learners and Learning Theory

Interpretation of Data:
The program goal was met for both items that demonstrate the teacher candidates knowledge of learning theory and how to apply these ideas to practice such as through lesson planning and observations of a program’s implementation of learning theory related to the social, emotional, and academic development of Tk-8 students.  

Next Steps Narrative:
In order to address what we found, we will work collaboratively as program faculty to increase the percentages of completers indicating that they felt well or very well prepared to identify and address special learning needs with appropriate teaching strategies as well as the use of child development and learning theory to develop social and emotional competencies in children. In particular, we should review the syllabus for CI 162: Understanding Children, Learning, And Development In Tk-8 Classrooms to make sure all course instructors are using the new master as it integrates developmental theory with a Universal Design for Learning framework. In this process, we can Include more faculty who teach CI 162 in reviewing the theories to practice signature assignment rubric, and to encourage the faculty to establish improved goals for the course. To evaluate our efforts in the area we will work on building the Canvas Learning Management System for CI 162 to improve the efficiency of pulling data for the CI 162 theories to practice signature assignment so we can more closely monitor the student progress. We will also develop data systems to accurately disaggregate the teacher candidate data by pathway to assess if there are differences in student preparation based on pathway model.   

Aspect C →