AAQEP Accreditation 2022
Standard 1 Aspect E
Standard 1e: 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: Creation and development of positive learning and work environments
Data Sources & Analysis:
Data Source 1
LEE 213 Theory to Practice Inquiry
Perspective Captured from Data Source:
Instructor
Rationale for using Data Source:
LEE 213, Teaching the Language Arts K-12, is a course our candidates take during their
first semester in the Reading/Literacy program. The course focuses on developing candidates’
knowledge about integrating the language arts, reading-writing connections, and using
language arts in literature-based reading programs.
A key assignment in the course--and of the program as a whole--is a Theory to Practice Inquiry the candidates conduct. Students select a topic of inquiry driven by their professional experiences teaching language arts.
The overall assignment is scored using a rubric. For the purposes of determining whether or not our candidates have the necessary content knowledge relevant to their degree, we chose to focus on the rubric dimension “Inquiry Focus & Rationale,” which assesses their ability to determine a clear area of focus based on their professional experiences and use data to support their selected area of inquiry.
Specific Elements of Data Source:
LEE 213 Theory to Practice Inquiry Rubric Item: Inquiry Focus & Rationale
| Inquiry Focus & Rationale (3 points) | • Provides a specific definition of inquiry focus • Clearly articulates rationale for inquiry focus • Cites specific data to support rationale • Uses charts, tables, and/or graphs to help illustrate points and cites graphics within narrative |
• Provides a general definition of inquiry focus • Articulates general rationale for inquiry focus • Refers generally data to support rationale • Uses charts, tables, and/or graphs to help illustrate points, connection between graphics and narrative may not be clear |
• Missing definition of inquiry focus • Missing rationale for inquiry focus • Missing reference to data • Uses no charts, tables, and/or graphs to help illustrate points; connection between graphics and narrative not explained |
|---|
Definition of Success for Each Element:
As a program, our goal is for candidates to score at least at the Developing level,
which equates to a score of 2, as this demonstrates that candidates exhibit at least
general ability to determine an area of focus based on their professional experiences
and use data to support their selected area of inquiry.
Displays of Analyzed Data:
| Inquiry Focus & Rational (out of 3) | % of students meeting outcome goal | |
|---|---|---|
| 2018 (24 students) | 3 | 100% (24/24) |
| 2019 (17 students) | 3 | 100% (17/17) |
| 2020 (15 students) | 2.9 | 100% (15/15) |
Link to Full Dataset:
Interpretation of Data:
Data collected from the past three years indicates that program candidates have provided
a specific definition of inquiry focus, articulate clear and cogent rationales for
their inquiry focus, cite specific data to support those rationales, and use charts,
tables, and/or graphs to help illustrate points and cite graphics within narrative.
Over the three years of data analyzed, mean scores for the “Inquiry Focus and Rationale”
rubric component consistently exceeded the program goal of 2.0.
Data Source 2
LEE 254 Program Evaluation Report
Perspective Captured from Data Source: Instructor
Rationale for using Data Source:
LEE 254, Supervised Field Experiences in Reading, is a course our candidates take
during their final semester in the Reading/Literacy program. This course uses field-based
experiences to examine the multiple roles, duties, and expectations of reading professionals
across K-12 settings.
Within this course, candidates complete a Program Evaluation Report where candidates use evaluation tools and school data to construct an evaluation report of their school sites’ literacy program. Candidates provide analysis of data regarding school instructional procedures and curriculum materials, the strengths and weaknesses of these elements, and conclusions regarding program enhancements and professional development.
The overall assignment is scored using a rubric. For the purposes of determining whether or not our candidates have the necessary abilities to support developing positive learning and work environments, we chose to focus on the rubric dimension “Professional Development (PD).”
This rubric component assesses candidates’ ability to analyze the data collected from the report and current research to identify areas of need for future professional development.
Specific Elements of Data Source:
LEE 254 Program Evaluation Report Rubric Item: Professional Development
| Components | Excellent (10) | Fair (7) | Poor (6) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Professional Development | Clearly identifies areas of need for future PD. Content of PD is strongly supported by evidence in the report and formats for PD are supported by at least 4 research references from PD literature and Adult Learning Theory literature. | Report identifies most areas of need for future professional development. Some content of PD is not supported by evidence in the report and recommended processes/formats for PD are supported by less than 4 research references from PD literature and Adult Learning Theory literature. | Report does not identify a need for future professional development. Many PD recommendations not supported by report or 4 research references from PD literature and Adult Learning Theory literature. |
Definition of Success for Each Element:
As a program, our goal is for candidates to score at least to a score of 8 out of
10, as this demonstrates that candidates exhibit at least general ability to identify
areas of need for future professional development based on the findings from the program
evaluation. 75% of students are expected to meet the learning outcome.
Displays of Analyzed Data:
| Professional Development Recommendations (average out of 10) | % of students meeting goal | |
|---|---|---|
| 2017 (13 students) | 9.38 | 84.62% (11/13) |
| 2019 (12 students) | 8.67 | 66.7% (8/12) |
| 2020 (15 students) | 9.27 | 86.6% (13/15) |
Link to Full Dataset:
Interpretation of Data:
In 2017, 84.62% of students were assigned a rubric score of 80% or higher. The data
from 2018 is missing due to a change in LMS. The instructor for this course changed
in 2019 and in 2019, 66.7% of students were assigned a rubric score of 80% or higher.
After analyzing this data, the instructor tailored their feedback to facilitate research-
and evidence-based professional development. In 2020, 86% of students were assigned
a rubric score of 80% or higher, indicating that a majority of students in the program
clearly identified areas of need for future PD. For these students, content of PD
is strongly supported by evidence in the report and formats for PD are supported by
at least 4 research references from PD literature and Adult Learning Theory literature.
Next Steps:
Overall findings from all data sources indicated that program completers are somewhat
prepared to create and develop positive learning and work environments. However, through
this process we realized that the rubric assessment measure may need to be more nuanced
to capture how candidates’ discuss their work environments. we realize that both data
sources come from the perspective of the program faculty. We see this as a flaw in
our ability to get a full picture of completers’ preparation.
Moving forward, we will revise the LEE 213 Theory to Practice Inquiry Rubric and LEE 254 Program Evaluation Report Rubric to better capture these practices. Our goal will be to pilot the revised rubrics in the 2021-2022 academic year. Additionally, we added a question to the new program completer survey asking students if the program prepares completers who can create and maintain positive work environments.