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 2 Aspect E

Standard 2e: Program completers engage in professional practice in educational settings and show that they have the skills and abilities to do so in a variety of additional settings and community/cultural contexts. For example, candidates must have broad and general knowledge of the impact of culture and language on learning, yet they cannot, within the context of any given program, experience working with the entire diversity of student identities, or in all types of school environments. 

Candidate preparation includes first-hand professional experience accompanied by reflection that prepares candidates to engage effectively in different contexts they may encounter throughout their careers.


Data Sources & Analysis

Data Source 1

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

Description of Data Source:
The Teaching Sample Project is one of two tasks in the Fresno Assessment of Student Teachers (FAST) that collectively measure the pedagogical competence of teacher candidates and interns for Preliminary Teaching Credentials in California, and as information useful for determining program quality and effectiveness. To complete the TSP, candidates are required: (a) to identify the context of their classroom (i.e. students and classroom environment), (b) to plan and teach a series of at least five cohesive lessons (a unit of study) with a focus on content knowledge and literacy, (c) to assess students’ learning before, during, and after the unit, (d) to document their teaching and their students’ learning, and (e) reflect on the effectiveness of their teaching. 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:
For the reflection and self-evaluation section of the teaching sample project candidates are asked to reflect on their overall instruction of the unit. In doing so,  they are to identify and justify the alignment between assessment and learning outcomes. They also are asked to describe how their subject matter knowledge influenced their ability to teach the unit. Candidates are to reflect on “Professional Development and establish one professional learning goal that emerged from their insights and experiences with planning and teaching this unit. They are to identify two specific steps that they will take to improve their performance related to the goal they identified.

Specific Elements of Data Source:
Teaching Sample Project rubric for Reflection and Self-Evaluation (TPE 6.1, 6.3, 6.5)

Overall score for three areas:

  • Insights in Effective Instruction and Assessment
  • Implications for Future Teaching
  • Implications for Professional Development

Definition of Success for Each Element:
The university coaches encourage candidates to strive for a score of four on the scoring rubric and would like to see 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 design for the reflections and self-evaluation section of the project.

Displays of Analyzed Data:
Table 1: FAST Teaching Sample Project (TSP) Reflection/Self Evaluation

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 candidates’ average scores did not reach the goal of  a 2.5 or better, all candidates met the expectation for the reflection and self-evaluation section of the project by scoring a two or better (a two score is required to pass) using the TSP Developing as a Professional Educator scoring rubric

Data Source 2

California Agricultural Teachers’ Induction Program (CATIP) Individual Induction Plan (IDP) Self-Assessment

Description of Data Source:
The California Agricultural Teachers’ Induction Program (CATIP) sprang out of the need to induct new agriculture teachers into the dynamic field of agriculture education as identified by the Vision 2030 process of the California Agricultural Teachers’ Association (CATA) that began in 2013. CATIP is a consortium built for the purpose of providing accredited induction services meant to support early career California Agriculture Teachers in their first two years. CATIP provides contextualized mentoring and support for early career agriculture teachers with Single Subject—Agriculture and Agricultural Specialist credentials. The California Agricultural Teachers’ Induction Program is meant to be a two-year program for those electing to begin and complete induction services in CATIP. The general program structure follows this approximate timeline for new teachers, further referred to as Credential Candidates (CC). As our Ag. Specialist completers enter the CATIP program, they complete a self-assessment where they indicate their level of preparedness across various skills and responsibilities required of a secondary agricultural educator. Their results are analyzed and used to assist each new teacher and their mentor to formulate their Individual Induction Plan.

Perspective Captured from Data Source: Completers

Rationale for using Data Source: 
The CATIP self-assessment measures the level of preparedness of our completers who are entering their induction program. Participants indicated their perceived level of preparation for the 16 skills/responsibilities aligned with the CA Teaching Performance Expectations (TPEs) by selecting the appropriate number on a 5 point Likert-type scale: 1 = Not Prepared, 2 = Less than Adequately Prepared, 3 = Adequately Prepared, 4 = More than Adequately Prepared, and 5 = Well Prepared. 

After completing their self-assessments, Ag Educators enrolling in the CATIP Induction Program are asked to list three growth area goals they would like to focus on during their induction program.  

Specific Elements of Data Source:
TPE-aligned item Developing as a Professional Educator

Definition of Success for Each Element:
Overall mean scores of 3.00 or greater would indicate that our recent completers perceive that they are at least “Adequately Prepared” to teach the Agricultural Education Competencies included in the instrument.

Displays of Analyzed Data:  
Table 2: 2018-2020 Fresno State Calif. Ag Teachers Induction Program Participants

Self-Rated Teacher Performance Expectations Overall Mean Scores for Developing as a Professional Educator

Scale - 1 = Not Prepared to 5 = Well Prepared

Developing as a Professional Educator
Year N Mean Score
2018 4 3.50
2019 15 3.87
2020 12 3.50
Grand Mean   3.68

Link to Full Dataset:  CATIP Completer Data_Fresno State_2018-2021 Summary & Data Overall (Google spreadsheet)

Interpretation of Data:
Thirty-one of the completers who entered the CATIP teacher induction program rated their self-perceived ability to develop as a professional educator. Across the three different cohorts, means ranged from 3.50 to 3.87. An analysis of the data indicates that our completers perceive that they were at least “Adequately Prepared” in the “Developing as a Professional; Educator”competency area. Based on each individual's self-assessment and their identified needs, CATIP mentors and participants work together to formulate the participants’ professional development plan, including improving their ability to develop as a professional educator.

Moving forward, as a program we will reach out to our completers to learn more about what areas the program could have better supported them in developing so that they would feel more prepared for their careers as Agriculture Educators. Additionally, it may be worth examining the goals the new educators to develop for themselves to ensure they align with program faculty’s perceptions of completers’ individual strengths and weaknesses.

Data Source 3

Mid-Semester and Final Evaluations

Description of Data Source: 
In their second semester of their field experience, candidates receive two formal evaluations on their teaching from their university coach in collaboration with their mentor teacher. One of these is completed during the mid-semester and the other is completed at the end of the semester. Candidates are evaluated on five key areas: maintaining effective environments, monitoring student learning and making adjustments during lessons, addressing needs of all students, subject-specific pedagogy, and assessment.

Perspective Captured from Data Source: Mentor Teacher and University Coach

Rationale for Using Data Source:
The EHD 155B Mid-Semester and Final Evaluation rubric is completed by the mentor teacher and university coach collaboratively. The university coach and mentor teacher rate the candidates’ performance on a 4 point scale. In addition, on the evaluation form coaches and mentor teachers list candidate’s strengths, areas for growth, and other comments. Candidates are to include their comments on the form as well.

Specific Elements of Data Source:

Definition of Success for Each Element:
The university coaches encourage candidates to strive for a score of four on the scoring rubric and would like to see mean scores of 3.0 or better. Candidates must score a two or better on the scoring rubric to show they meet the expectation for the design for instruction section of the project.

Displays of Analyzed Data:
Table 3: EHD 155B Mid-Semester & End-of-Semester Evaluations:

Spring 2020
Evaluation Criteria Mid-Semester
N = 15
Final Eval
N = 15
Maintaining Effective Environments 2.93 3.29
Monitoring Student Learning and Making Adjustments During Lessons 2.71 3.21
Addressng Needs of All Students 2.64 3.14
Subject-Specific Pedagogy 2.86 3.07
Assessment 3.00 3.07
Fall 2020
Evaluation Criteria Mid-Semester
N = 17
Final Eval
N = 17
Maintaining Effective Environments 2.88 3.05
Monitoring Student Learning and Making Adjustments During Lessons 2.71 3.05
Addressng Needs of All Students 2.65 2.94
Subject-Specific Pedagogy 2.35 2.82
Assessment 2.65 2.82
Spring 2021  
Evaluation Criteria Mid-Semester
N = 24
Final Eval
N = 24
Maintaining Effective Environments 3.26 3.35
Monitoring Student Learning and Making Adjustments During Lessons 2.96 3.17
Addressng Needs of All Students 3.00 3.22
Subject-Specific Pedagogy 2.96 3.17
Assessment 2.78 3.47

Interpretation of Data:
Although the candidates average scores did not reach the goal of  a three or better for all areas in fall of 2020, all candidates met the expectation of 3.0 or better for spring 2020 and spring 2021.

Next Steps: 
In order to address what we found, we will explore options for collecting data from the “New Professionals Conference”. This conference is held each year and is open to all agriculture teachers with one to three years of teaching experience. The conference is funded by the California Department of Education.  We will also explore options for data collection from teachers in induction programs other than CATIP.  We will focus on data that indicates our completers set professional goals and reflect on their progress and ability to achieve the goals they set. 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.

Aspect F →