Logo

Site Map


STANDARD 1:   CANDIDATE KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND DISPOSITIONS

Candidates preparing to work in schools as teachers or other professional school personnel know and demonstrate the content, pedagogical content knowledge, pedagogical, and professional knowledge and skills, and professional dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Assessments indicate that candidates meet professional, state, and institutional standards.

As noted in our Conceptual Framework, the goals of the Teacher Education at the University of North Dakota are to prepare educators and other school personnel who are committed to the continuing process of learning; take an active role in promoting the learning of all students; can envision alternative solutions to the challenges posed in schools; embrace diversity and support pluralistic views; and thoughtfully examine the role of technology and apply it effectively (Conceptual Framework, 2007, p.2).  To address these goals and ensure that candidates acquire the knowledge, skills and dispositions to help all children learn as well as meet professional, state, and institutional standards, we provide quality instruction, on-going advisement, structured field experiences, and routine assessment of candidates’ progress.

The assessment data that informs Standard 1 include:
For Initial Programs:

For Advanced Programs

1a.    Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates

The development of the candidate in the role of Teacher as Learner is accomplished through coursework that builds an in-depth understanding of content. Candidates in our programs know the content they plan to teach.

1a.1 Content Knowledge Tests

Praxis II tests of content knowledge are used for the purpose of initial state licensure and/or program completion in all but the following program areas Physical Education, Business Education and Industrial Technology. Pass rates for particular programs are presented in Table 1a.1.

Many of our programs are small, fewer than 10 students, and it is not possible to draw general conclusions related to quality within programs with such small numbers. We can see however, that overall 88% of the teacher candidates who have taken the Praxis II meet or exceed North Dakota cut scores. Also, results for those programs where 10 or more students have taken the exam demonstrate an overall pass rate of 96% far exceeding the 80% required. If we compare the state cut score with the averages of our candidates, in 17 of the 18 test areas UND candidates exceed state requirements.  In general then, results of Praxis II tests indicate that our candidates are able to demonstrate content knowledge sufficient to teach in their chosen fields.

1a.2  Other Key Assessments

1a.2.1 Initial Programs

Institutional and Program Specific GPA. The GPA is an indicator of candidates’ content knowledge gained through coursework taken to meet the following requirements:

  1. General Education requirements of the University (E-exhibit 1a.2.1.1)
  2. Majors completed within the colleges of Arts & Sciences and Business seeking secondary and K-12 certification
  3. Majors completed in education (Early Childhood, Elementary, Middle Level, Composite Majors in Science and Social Studies, and Physical Education).

Candidates in the Elementary Education program must also complete at least 20 credits in a specialty area of study (e.g. Anthropology, Art, Bilingual Education, Economics, Psychology, Reading) and those in the Middle Level program must complete a minimum of 24 units in any two core content areas normally included in the middle school curriculum (English, Social Studies, Mathematics, Science, Art, Foreign Language, Industrial Technology, and Health).

Table 1a.2.1.1 provides information related to candidates’ GPA at admission and upon application to student teaching disaggregated by program area. Over the last three years, candidates exceeded the GPA admission requirements (2.75) and maintained or improved their overall GPA during their time in the program.

Critical Task Assessments. Candidates in the initial programs at the University of North Dakota are required to complete a series of critical tasks that are reviewed by university faculty, supervisors and cooperating teachers (E-exhibit 1a.2.1.2). For the majority of the required tasks, our candidates submit their materials in LiveText and faculty score them using an assessment rubric. All critical tasks are aligned with our Conceptual Framework as well as INTASC, Teaching & Learning Program Standards and North Dakota Education Practices Board Standards. As such, we are able draw from particular tasks and their scoring rubrics to tease out candidates’ content knowledge.

Because of the changes to the undergraduate assessment system’s critical tasks and rubrics in the last two years, we present data in separate tables. We also separate out the results of student teaching evaluations because they were not fully incorporated into the LiveText system until the fall of 2007. The critical tasks that provide data that align with element 1a are: Peer Teaching, Lesson Plan, and Mid-term and Final Student Teaching Evaluations. Tables 1a.2.1.2-1a.2.1.9 provide aggregated and disaggregated information relevant to element 1a. Tables 1a.2.1.2 and 1a.2.1.3 present the aggregated results of the tasks related to the assessment of candidates’ content knowledge for the fall of 2006 and Tables 1a.2.1.4 and 1a.2.1.5 present spring 2007 results. Tables 1a.2.1.6, 1a.2.1.7, 1a.2.1.8 and 1a.2.1.9 present the disaggregated results of three critical tasks listed above for fall 2006 and spring of 2007.  Peer Teaching is not included since the data is the same as that listed in Tables 1a.2.1.2 and 1a.2.1.4.

The following themes and standards apply:

Aggregated data indicates that faculty, cooperating teachers and supervisors believe that candidates meet or exceed standards for content knowledge.  In the fall of 2006, 97%-100% of candidates met or exceeded rubric criteria for program standards 1.1 and 1.2. In the spring of 2007, 94%-100% did so. By the end of the fall 2006 student teaching semester, 80% of candidates scored in the area of proficient with supervisors and cooperating teachers indicating that they had not observed 14% of candidate’ performance related to content knowledge standards during the time period. By the end of the spring 2007 semester, 79% of candidates were scored as proficient with supervisors and cooperating teachers indicating that they had not observed 13% of candidate’ performance related to content knowledge standards during the time period. 

Under the old student teaching evaluation tool, all candidates are expected to receive developing or proficient in all categories by the completion of student teaching. We further expect the percent of candidates to increase from the “developing” to “proficient” categories, and in both semesters this proved to be the case (63%-80% in 2006 and 68%-79% in 2007). There was a concern about the percent scored in “not observed” category. We are hopeful that the newly revised student teaching evaluation tool which is more closely aligned with program standards and provides more detail will result in fewer supervisors and cooperating teachers selecting this response category (E-exhibit 1a.2.1.3)

In the fall of 2006, disaggregated numbers for secondary/K-12 programs for standards related to element 1awere too small to make reliable assertions related to candidates’ content knowledge although we were pleased to see that all three candidates met criteria. The small numbers is related to the fact that faculty in Arts and Sciences are responsible for scoring the lesson plan developed and implemented during candidates’ methods’ courses. The majority of these courses are offered in the fall and in 2006 we were just beginning to provide in-service related to LiveText for faculty. We expect fall 2007 data to be more complete.  

Early Childhood, Elementary Education and Middle Level majors develop and implement the lesson plan each semester within the block of methods courses taken by all majors. Lesson plans in the core areas of math, science, social studies and language arts are submitted to faculty via LiveText. Results in the fall of 2006 indicated that 96-100% of these majors met or exceeded criteria related to content knowledge.

A revision in the way rubrics were labeled allowed us to more finely disaggregate data in the spring of 2007.  No data was available for secondary programs since this critical task is assessed in those programs only in the fall semester. Results for other programs indicate that candidates in Early Childhood Education scored somewhat better than those in Elementary Education or Middle Level. Elementary Education candidates scored better than Middle Level.  Overall, percentages of 84%-97% provide support that most candidates meet program and INTASC standards related to content knowledge.

Results of disaggregated data related to content knowledge during the student teaching semester indicate that all candidates with the exception of 1 secondary candidate in the spring of 2007 were considered developing or proficient in the area of content knowledge. As noted above, we anticipate an increase in percent of candidates in the proficient category as they move from mid to end semester. This was the case in all programs with the exception of Early Childhood in the fall of 2006. This was not repeated in spring of 2007. 

Electronic examples of candidates’ work can be found in specific program area reports under ESPB Program Reports on our webpage. Hard copy examples can be found in program area files and in candidate portfolios under Standard 1.1 in the Hard Copy Exhibit Room.

The K-12 programs in art and music area accredited by NASAD and NASM respectively and so limited student work samples are provided. It is important to note however that candidates in these programs are assessed, at a minimum, through the disposition evaluation and student teaching evaluation forms and are included in follow-up surveys. The secondary program area advises and monitors candidates in music and art in collaboration with faculty in the Music and Art Departments. Results of critical tasks for this population of candidates are presented in the disaggregated tables under secondary and K-12 programs. Results for student teaching are further disaggregated within the ESPB program reports on our webpage. Student teaching evaluations and the 100% pass rate for Praxis II provide evidence that these candidates meet element 1a.

Return to Top

1a.2.2 Advanced Programs for Teachers

Candidates enter our advanced programs for teachers with the foundations of their respective fields in place. As life-long learners, they continue to build their knowledge of subject matter throughout their graduate programs. Advanced programs for Teachers at the University of North Dakota include: Early Childhood Education; Elementary Education; General Studies and Special Education and are offered within the Department of Teaching & Learning. The Reading Education Program is included in this section rather than under “other professionals” because the assessment of candidates who become reading specialists parallels that of advanced programs. Candidates are encouraged to build a course of study which responds to their perceived needs as practicing teachers. All advanced programs have adopted the five core propositions of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.

Three additional programs of study are available: The Elementary Education Resident Teacher Program within the Elementary Education degree program, the Resident Teacher Program in Middle Level Education within the General Studies degree program and the Resident Teacher Program within the Special Education program. They offer candidates a richly mentored experience in the schools in which they work and at the university during their first year of teaching (E-exhibits 1a.2.2.1, 1a.2.2.2, 1a.2.2.3).

The Ed.D. and Ph.D. in Teaching and Learning is offered through the Department of Teaching and Learning and candidates may elect an emphasis in Higher Education, Research Methodologies or Teacher Education. These programs are not designed to prepare candidates to work in P-12 settings; and so they are not included in this report.

During the 2006-2007 academic year faculty in the Department of Teaching and Learning completed a draft of a revised assessment plan that aligns with National Board propositions, program goals and our conceptual framework themes (E-exhibit 1a.2.2.4). The revised plan will undergo discussion, piloting, and final revision during the 2007-2008 academic year, and it is anticipated that data related to the performance assessments in the revised assessment plan will be fully implemented by fall 2008.  For this report, evidence of candidate’s content knowledge is presented through overall GPA at admission and prior to completion, specific course grades, action research project scores, and the final/culminating project rubric scores. Because faculty have been piloting new assessments, it is possible to view some results based upon the new advanced program system in specific program area reports under ESPB Program Reports on our webpage.

The following theme and standards related to Element 1a are addressed in the assessment data presented here:

GPA. GPA is employed as a measure of candidates’ content knowledge. To qualify for admission, candidates must have a GPA of 2.75 for all undergraduate work or at minimum a 3.0 for all undergraduate work completed during the junior and senior years. Candidates must maintain a 3.0 GPA to successfully move through their graduate programs. Tables 1a.2.2.1 and 1a.2.2.2 provide summary data on candidates’ GPA at entry and at the point of completing the final project disaggregated by program area for those graduating in the fall of 2006 through the summer of 2007. Table 1a.2.2.1 is aggregated data for all programs and 1a.2.2.1 is disaggregated for the distance cohorts in Bismarck, North Dakota (the Reading Education masters was not offered to this cohort). Candidates in our advanced programs are able to demonstrate content knowledge through GPA at entrance and in all cases, GPA increases as they move through the program.

Course Grades. Coursework in each of the advanced programs deepens candidates’ content knowledge. Tables 1a.2.2.3 and 1a.2.2.4 present candidates’ grades in courses that explicitly address content knowledge aggregated and then disaggregated for the distance cohorts in Bismarck, North Dakota from the summer of 2006 through the summer of 2007(the Reading Education masters was not offered to this cohort). For a description of each of the courses refer to pages 257-258 in the 2007-2009 Undergraduate and Graduate Academic Catalog located under Standard 1.2 in the Hard Copy Exhibits Room.

Culminating/Final Project. Content knowledge is assessed one final time during the review of each candidate’s culminating project. While both a thesis and non-thesis option is available to candidates, only rarely do they select the thesis option, none have within the last 3 years, and so only data related to the non-thesis option is presented here. This final project, while varied within and across programs, is assessed using a rubric that aligns with our Conceptual Framework and section III.5 “Significance” addresses the NBPTS Core Proposition related to Element 1a: NBPTS Proposition 2: Teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students.

For a description of the final project see page pages 8-9 in the Master Degrees Student Handbook E-exhibit 1a.2.2.5, and to view the scoring rubric see and E-exhibit 1a.2.2.6. In addition, a random sample of projects completed in 2006-2007 can be found in the Hard Copy Exhibit Room under Standard 1a.2.2.1. Data related to the final projects scored from the summer of 2006 through the summer of 2007 is presented in Tables 1a.2.2.5-1a.2.2.6. Information is disaggregated for the Early Childhood distance program in Table 1a.2.2.6.

The data in the assessment areas presented in the tables provides evidence that candidates in our graduate programs have an in-depth knowledge of their content. Across all programs our candidates maintain higher GPA’s than the 3.0 required by the graduate school; receive course grades in the A and B range and meet or exceed criteria for culminating/final projects at a rate of 98%-100%.

The Special Education Program is nationally recognized by CEC and so data for that program are not provided here. Faculty are currently responding to the most recent review of their program. For detailed information please refer to the CEC report. In addition to the data reported above, North Dakota Education Standards and Practices Board re-approval reports for our initial and advanced programs provide further evidence of candidates’ content knowledge. Some results of the newly developed advanced program assessment system will be available in the state program reports for elementary and reading education. To view reports look in ESPB Program Reports on our webpage.

1a.3.    Follow-up Surveys of Graduates & Employers

Survey of Graduates
An annual survey of our completers provides data relating candidates’ self-perceptions across a variety of items (E-Exhibit 1a.3.1). Generally each fall, two mailings are sent a month apart to candidates who graduated one and four years before. The 2006 report process was an anomaly. Due to a failure in the collection procedures in 2004, graduates from 1999, 2000, 2003, and 2004 were surveyed in 2005. 197 responses were received representing a 32% return rate (Hard Copy Exhibit 1a.3.1). The 2007 report surveyed graduates from 2001 and 2005. 96 responses were returned representing a 35% return rate (E-Exhibit 1a.3.2). Because of the low rate of return this assessment may not represent the population of completers as a whole. Still, when viewed as one of multiple assessments, the information lends support to the results of other measures.

Graduates were asked to consider a number of items indicating the degree to which they felt they were prepared as a result of their experiences in the UND Teacher Education Program and to complete a Likert scale for each item with 5 = very much, 4 = much, 3 = some, 2 = a little, and 1 = almost not at all. Table 1a.3.1 reports the aggregated and disaggregated data for items related to Element 1a.

77%-91% of candidates graduating from 1999-2005 indicated that they felt at least somewhat prepared to teach their content and understood and could apply curriculum standards.
The results of the report of 2001 & 2005 graduates noted that 83% felt well to very well prepared to teach their content. Percentages were lower in the areas of knowledge of local and established curriculum standards but did increase slightly from the first to the second report.  The results are similar for disaggregated data with the exception of the middle level program. All five of the candidates completing the survey felt well prepared in their content fields. Faculty have recognized the need to attend more closely to curriculum standards and the implementation of LiveText has helped us to do that. As candidates prepare lesson plans they are required to select local and national standards for their content lessons. We expect to see an increase in the percentages of candidates’ positive perceptions for those graduating after 2005.

Principal Surveys.  The Principal and Curriculum Leader Survey (E-exhibit 1a.3.4) is to be sent biennially to school leaders in eastern North Dakota and western Minnesota. In 2005, 282 surveys were sent to leaders in eastern North Dakota only. Surveys were sent again in 2006 to 548 leaders across all North Dakota schools. The confusion around the data collection procedures for this survey has since been clarified, and it will be sent again in the fall of 2008 to leaders in eastern North Dakota and western Minnesota. The return rate in 2005 was 47.5% and in 2006, 36%.  Of the 47.5% responding in 2005, 59.1% had hired one or more UND graduates within the last two years. Of the 36 % responding in 2006, 15.1 % had hired one or more UND graduates. The 2006 summary report of the survey can be found in the Hard Copy Exhibit Room under 1a.3.2. The 2007 summary report is located in E-exhibits 1a.3.5. Because of the low rate of return, this assessment may not represent the population of our completers as a whole. Still, when viewed as one of multiple assessments, the information provides support to the results of other measures.

Section C of the survey was aligned with the INTASC principles and school leaders were asked to complete a Likert scale for each item with 5 = very well prepared, 4 = well prepared, 3 = neither well nor poorly prepared, 2 = poorly prepared, and 1 = very poorly prepared. The data for the 2005 and 2006 surveys for items related to Element 1a is reported in Table 1a.3.2.  Because the reports do not disaggregate by program area, only aggregated data is presented here. The 2005 and 2006 surveys show that 98% or more of responders believed that our candidates were adequately to very well-prepared to teach the content of the discipline. Results indicate that school leaders in North Dakota who have hired UND graduates are satisfied that they know their content and the standards of their discipline.

Exit surveys for candidates in advanced programs have not been conducted to date. The graduate directors for those programs recognize the importance of gaining program completers perspectives and intend to initiate development of an exit survey tool during the 2007-2008 academic year.

In addition to the data reported above, North Dakota Education Standards and Practices Board re-approval reports for our initial and advanced programs provide further evidence of candidates’ content knowledge. Reports can be found on our webpage under ESPB Program Reports.

1b.    Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teachers  

1b.1-2 Key Assessments

Return to Top

1b.1-2.1 Initial Programs

Praxis II:  Principles of Learning and Teaching: Grades K-6. Teacher Candidates, Early Childhood Education and Elementary Education are required to take the Praxis II Elementary Education: Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment exam. In addition, the majority of our Middle Level candidates also major in Elementary Education and must take the exam. This test provides us with insight as to our candidates’ pedagogical content knowledge and skills, and so it is logical to consider candidates’ scores presented in Table 1b.1-2.1.1 as evidence of meeting Element 1b.

Results of the Praxis II exam demonstrates that our candidates consistently score well above the state cut score (175.7 vs. 162). Those candidates in the Early Childhood, Elementary and many in Middle Level Education possess the pedagogical content knowledge to effectively teach their subject matter to students.

Critical Task Assessments. As noted in section 1a, candidates are required to complete a series of critical tasks that are reviewed by university faculty, supervisors and cooperating teachers. All critical tasks are aligned with our Conceptual Framework as well as INTASC, Teaching & Learning Program Standards and North Dakota Education Practices Board Standards. As such, we are able draw from particular tasks to tease out candidates’ pedagogical content knowledge. Also noted in section 1a, our assessment rubric and tasks were revised and so we present the data from critical tasks in separate tables.

Tables 1b.1-2.1.2-1b.1-2.1.9  present the results of the tasks related to the assessment of candidates’ pedagogical content knowledge for the fall of 2006 and spring of 2007. Tables 1b.1-2.1.2-1b.1-2.1.5 present aggregated data and 1b.1-2.1.6-1b.1-2.1.9 present disaggregated results. Peer Teaching is not included since the data is the same as that listed in Tables 1b.1-2.1.2 and 1b.1-2.1.4.

The critical tasks that provide data that align with NCATE Standard 1b are Peer Teaching, Lesson Plan, and Mid-term and Final Student Teaching Evaluations. The following themes and standards apply:

Aggregated data indicates that faculty, cooperating teachers and supervisors believe that a large majority of our candidates meet or exceed standards for pedagogical content knowledge.  In the fall of 2006, 89%-100% of candidates met or exceeded rubric criteria for program standards 7.1 and 7.2. In the spring of 2007, 94%-100% did so. By the end of the fall 2006 student teaching semester, 69% of candidates scored in the area of proficient with supervisors and cooperating teachers indicating that they had not observed 22% of candidates’ performance related to targeted standards during the time period. By the end of the spring 2007 semester, 73% of candidates were scored as proficient with supervisors and cooperating teachers indicating that they had not observed 21% of candidates’ performance related to standards during the time period.

Under the old student teaching evaluation tool, all candidates were expected to receive developing or proficient in all categories by the completion of student teaching. We further expect the percent of candidates to increase from the “developing” to “proficient” categories and in both semesters this proved to be the case (59%-69% in 2006 and 61%-73% in 2007). We are concerned about the percent of candidates being scored in “not observed” category since this constitutes about 1/4 of the candidates. It is difficult to target these standards as weak areas with such results. As noted in 1a, we are hopeful that the newly revised student teaching evaluation tool which is more closely aligned with program standards and provides more detail will result in fewer supervisors and cooperating teachers selecting this response category.

In the fall of 2006, disaggregated numbers for secondary/K-12 programs for standards related to element 1b were too small to make reliable assertions related to candidates’ pedagogical content knowledge although we were pleased to see that all the candidates met criteria. The small number is related to the fact that faculty in Arts and Sciences are responsible for scoring the lesson plan developed and implemented during candidates’ methods’ courses. The majority of these courses are offered in the fall and in 2006 we were just beginning to provide in-service related to LiveText for faculty. We expect fall 2007 data to be more complete.  

Early Childhood, Elementary Education and Middle Level majors develop and implement the lesson plan each semester within the block of methods courses taken by all the candidates in the majors. Lesson plans in the core areas of math, science, social studies and language arts are submitted to faculty via LiveText. Results in the fall of 2006 indicated that only 2% (1 candidate) did not met or exceeded criteria related to pedagogical content knowledge standards.

A revision in the way rubrics were labeled allowed us to more finely disaggregate data in the spring of 2007.  No data was available for secondary programs since this critical task is assessed in those programs only in the fall semester. Results for other programs indicate that candidates in Early Childhood Education scored somewhat better than those in Elementary Education or Middle Level. Elementary Education candidates scored better than Middle Level.  Still, percentages of 80%-100% provide support that most candidates meet program and INTASC standards related to pedagogical content knowledge.

Results of disaggregated data related to targeted program standards during the student teaching semester of 2006 indicate that candidates in all programs were considered developing or proficient in the area of pedagogical content knowledge. The same was true for spring 2007. As noted previously, we anticipate an increase in percent of candidates in the proficient category as they move from mid to end semester. This was the case for groups in all programs. 

Electronic examples of candidates’ work can be found in specific program area reports under ESPB Program Reports on our webpage. Hard copy examples can be found in program area report files and in candidate portfolios under Standard 1.1 in the Hard Copy Exhibit Room.

The K-12 programs in art and music area accredited by NASAD and NASM respectively and so limited student work samples are provided. It is important to note however that candidates in these programs are assessed, at a minimum, through the disposition evaluation and student teaching evaluation forms and are included in follow-up surveys. The secondary program area advises and monitors candidates in music and art in collaboration with faculty in the Music and Art Departments. Results of critical tasks for this population of candidates are presented in the disaggregated tables under secondary and K-12 programs. Results for student teaching are further disaggregated within the ESPB program reports on our webpage. Student teaching evaluations provide evidence that these candidates meet element 1b.

1b.1-2.2 Advanced Program for Teachers:

Candidates in our advanced programs for teachers deepen their understanding of ways to effectively teach content to help their students meet standards for P-12 education as they engage in coursework and inquiry throughout their graduate programs. At the time this report is being prepared, candidate’s pedagogical content knowledge and skills are assessed through specific coursework reflected in the grades from those courses, action research projects, and culminating projects. The following themes and standards related to Element 1b are addressed in the assessment data presented here:

Range of course grades. A number of courses in each of our advanced programs guide our candidates in the continuing development of pedagogical content knowledge. Tables 1b.1-2.2.1 and 1b.1-2.2.2 provide the range of grades in courses that address the effective teaching of content aggregated and then disaggregated for the Bismarck, ND cohort of candidates (the Reading Education masters was not offered to this cohort).

Action research projects. T&L 569: Action Research is offered every spring semester. It is required in the Early Childhood Education  Program and is strongly recommended in the others and thus is taken by the majority of candidates in the advanced programs. There is a focus on “the analysis of and reflection on one’s teaching for the purpose of improvements in student learning” (2007-2009 Undergraduate and Graduate Academic Catalog 2005-2007, pg 246). Candidates are required to complete an action research project in their own classrooms. Those not currently teaching are encouraged to seek out an appropriate instructional setting in which to conduct their research. Table 1b.1-2.2.3 provides the averages of project scores for candidates taking the course in the spring of 2006 and the spring of 2007. For information related to the project see E-exhibit 1b.1-2.2.1. Samples of completed projects can be found under 1b.2.2.2 in the Hard Copy Exhibit Room.

 Culminating projects. Pedagogical content knowledge is assessed one final time during the review of each candidate’s culminating project. This final project, while varied within and across programs, is assessed using the same rubric that aligns with our Conceptual Framework. Section III.5 “Significance” addresses the NBPTS Core Propositions related to Element 1b.

For a description of the final project see page pages 8-9 in the Master Degrees Student Handbook E-exhibit 1a.2.2.5, and to view the scoring rubric see and E-exhibit 1a.2.2.6. In addition, a random sampling of projects completed in 2006-2007 can be found in the Hard Copy Exhibit Room under Standard 1a.2.2.1. Data related to the final projects of graduates from the summer of 2006 through the summer of 2007 is presented in Tables 1a.1-2.2.5 and 1a.1-2.2.6.  Information is disaggregated for the Early Childhood distance program in Table 1a.1-2.2.6

The data in the assessment areas presented in the tables provides evidence that candidates in our graduate programs know how to teach their content. Across all programs our candidates maintain higher GPA’s than the 3.0 required by the graduate school; receive course grades in the A and B range, receive action research projects scores in the A and B range and meet or exceed criteria for culminating/final projects at a rate of 98%-100%.

For information related to the Special Education Program, please refer to the CEC report.
In addition to the data reported above, North Dakota Education Standards and Practices Board re-approval reports for our initial and advanced programs provide further evidence of candidates’ pedagogical content knowledge. Some results of the newly developed advanced program assessment system will be available in the state program reports for elementary and reading education. To view reports look in ESPB Program Reports on our webpage.

1b.3.    Follow-up Surveys of Graduates & Employers

Survey of Graduates
An annual survey of our completers provides data revealing candidates’ self-perceptions across a
variety of items (see 1a.3.1 in E-Exhibit Room). Graduates were asked to consider a number of items indicating the degree to which they felt they were prepared as a result of their experiences in the UND Teacher Education Program and to complete a Likert scale for each item with 5 = very much, 4 = much, 3 = some, 2 = a little, and 1 = almost not at all. Table 1b.3.1 reports the aggregated and disaggregated data for items related to Element 1b. The items for analysis are the same as those reported for 1a Content Knowledge for Teachers with the addition of item 15 which targets teaching strategies.

77%-100% of candidates graduating from 1999-2005 indicated that they felt at least somewhat prepared to teach their subject matter content. Lower percentages were reported in the areas of knowledge of local and established curriculum standards. The results for disaggregated data indicate that candidates in early childhood, elementary and middle level programs felt better prepared to develop materials and teaching strategies than those in secondary programs. Still, over 80% of the secondary group indicated they felt at somewhat prepared. As noted in 1a, we expect to see an increase in the percentages of candidates’ positive perceptions related to curriculum standards for those graduating after 2005. As candidates prepare lesson plans in LiveText, they are required to select local and national standards for their content lessons.

Principal Surveys. Section C of the Principal and Curriculum Leader Survey was aligned with the INTASC principles and school leaders were asked to complete a Likert scale for each item with 5 = very well prepared, 4 = well prepared, 3 = neither well nor poorly prepared, 2 = poorly prepared, and 1 = very poorly prepared. The data for the 2005 and 2006 surveys for items related to Element 1b is reported in Table 1b.3.2.  Because the reports do not disaggregate by program area, only aggregated data is presented here.

Principals’ responses were positive, ranging from 78-86% in the “well prepared” to “very well prepared” categories.  In the 2006 survey were even stronger with 25.8-29.9% of respondents selecting the highest category, “very well prepared”.  It appears that overall, principals are satisfied to very satisfied with our candidates’ pedagogical content knowledge.

Exit surveys for candidates in advanced programs have not been conducted to date. The graduate directors for those programs recognize the importance of gaining program completers perspectives and intend to initiate development of an exit survey tool during the 2007-2008 academic year.

1c.    Professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills for teachers

1c. Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teachers

Return to Top

1c.1 Initial Programs

Teacher candidates in their roles as Learners and Active Agents of Learning acquire the professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills necessary to provide rich learning opportunities for all students through our professional education core which includes foundations, multicultural education, child and adolescent development, classroom management and methods courses. Candidates apply this knowledge and gain skills through field experiences and during student teaching.

Praxis II:  Principles of Learning and Teaching: Grades K-6. Teacher Candidates in two major areas, Early Childhood Education and Elementary Education are required to take the Praxis II PLT, K-6 exam. In addition, the majority of our Middle Level Education candidates also major in Elementary Education and must take the exam. This test provides us with some insight as to our candidates’ professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills, and so it is logical to consider candidates’ scores presented in Table 1c.1.1 as evidence of meeting Element 1c.

Results of the Praxis II PLT, K-6 demonstrate that our candidates, with few exceptions, do very well and consistently score above the state cut score. We are pleased to report that, 18 of 132 test takers received ETS recognition of excellence. Those candidates in the Early Childhood, Elementary and Middle Level Education possess the professional and pedagogical knowledge to effectively teach their students.

Critical Task Assessments.  All critical tasks are aligned with our Conceptual Framework as well as INTASC, Teaching & Learning Program Standards and North Dakota Education Practices Board Standards; thus, we are able draw from particular tasks and their scoring rubrics to tease out candidates’ professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills. 

Tables 1c.1.2-1c.1.1.9  present the results of the tasks related to the assessment of candidates’ professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills for the fall of 2006 and the spring of 2007. Tables 1c.1.2-1c.1.5 present aggregated data and 1c.1.1.6-1c.1.1.9 present disaggregated results. Peer Teaching is not included here since the data is the same as that listed in Tables 1c.1.1.2 and 1c.1.1.4.

Candidates in Early Childhood, Elementary Education and Middle Level programs are assessed through the Critical Task, The Lesson Plan during their methods semester in the same roster of courses, and so the data for the lesson plan is not disaggregated for these programs.

The critical tasks that provide data that align with NCATE Standard 1c are Peer Teaching, Child Study, Lesson Plan, Beliefs and Practices and Mid-term and Final Student Teaching Evaluations. The following themes and standards apply:

Aggregated data indicates that faculty, cooperating teachers and supervisors believe that a majority of candidates can successfully meet standards for professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills.In fall 2006, 100% of candidates completing the Peer Teaching andChild Study tasks met or exceeded standards while over 90% completing the Lesson Plan and Beliefs and Practices tasks did so. A similar pattern held true in the spring of 2007 with two notable exceptions. 13% of candidates completing the lesson plan task did not meet standard 3.2: Teacher candidate plans and adapts instruction of individual needs. This was an area targeted for discussion and action in the assessment retreat in May of 2007 and will be revisited in the next retreat scheduled for February of 2008. 28% of candidates did not meet standard 6.1: Teacher candidate’s oral and written and written language is effective.For this task candidates produce an essay and weaknesses in formal writing style have been noted by the faculty.

By the end of the fall 2006 student teaching semester, 68%-80% of candidates scored in the area of proficient with supervisors and cooperating teachers indicating that they had not observed up to 22% of candidates’ performance related to targeted standards during the time period. In the  spring 2007 semester, 67%-83%% of candidates were scored as proficient with supervisors and cooperating teachers indicating that they had not observed up to 27% of candidates’ performance related to standards during the time period. The standard most likely to be unobserved was 10.2: Teacher candidate fosters relationships with school colleagues, parents, and agencies in the larger community to support students’ learning and well being.

As noted in the reporting of data for previous elements, we expect the percent of candidates to increase from the “developing” to “proficient” categories and in both semesters this proved to be the case for all standards. We remain concerned about the percent of candidates being scored in “not observed” category since this constitutes about 1/4 of the candidates. It is difficult to target these standards as especially weak or strong with such results. As noted in the discussion in element1a, we are hopeful that the newly revised student teaching evaluation tool which is more closely aligned with program standards and provides more detail will result in fewer supervisors and cooperating teachers selecting this response category.

In the fall of 2006, disaggregated numbers for secondary (including K-12) programs for standards related to element 1c were too small to make reliable assertions related to candidates’ professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills although we were pleased to see that all the candidates met criteria for Standards 1.3: Teacher candidate selects content to encourage diverse perspectives and 3.2: Teacher candidate plans and adapts instruction of individual needs. The small numbers are a result of two different issues. For the Lesson Plan, the Arts and Sciences faculty responsible for scoring the lesson were in the beginning stages of in-service related to LiveText the tool they were to use for assessment. We expect fall 2007 data to be more complete.

For the child study, there has been a good deal of confusion as to what task actually constitutes the child study in the secondary program area. The Undergraduate Assessment Committee is working with faculty to clarify this assignment. Early Childhood, Elementary Education and Middle Level majors’ assessment results for the Child Study task were very positive. 100% met or exceeded targeted standards. In addition, over 90% met or exceeded standards targeted in the Lesson Plan critical task.

A revision in the way rubrics were labeled allowed us to more finely disaggregate data in the spring of 2007.  Results for Standards 1.3: Teacher candidate selects content to encourage diverse perspectives and 3.1: Teacher candidate possesses expectations for learning and achievement indicate that candidates are not as strong as in other areas across all programs. Results for Standard 3: Teacher candidate plans and adapts instruction of individual needs is weaker for Middle Level and Standards 2.1: Teacher candidate possesses knowledge of developmental characteristics of learners and 6.1: Teacher candidate’s oral and written and written language is effective is weaker for secondary (including K-12). Caution is warranted since the numbers assessed is small with the exception of elementary education candidates. Still, as noted earlier faculty have addressed concerns related to candidates’ knowledge and skill in the area of meeting the needs of all learners and are aware of the need to address issues related to writing.

Results of disaggregated data related to targeted program standards during the student teaching semester of 2007 indicate that candidates in all programs were considered developing or proficient in the area of professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills. With the exception of program standard 6.1 which was not assessed in the student teaching semester, it is important to note that cooperating teachers and supervisors indicate that our candidates are able to successfully meet program standards that were cited as weaker areas in earlier critical tasks.  As noted previously, we anticipate an increase in percent of candidates in the proficient category as they move from mid to end semester. There was the case for secondary program candidates. There was a 2% drop in elementary and middle level for Standards 5.1 and 5.3 representing 2 candidates who were, at the final evaluation, considered to be in the “developing” category. A small percentage of Early Childhood candidates, 1-2 in number, were scored lower for Standard 9.1 and 10.2 at the end of the semester, but met the unit’s criteria which was to be scored no lower than “developing”.

Electronic examples of candidates’ work can be found in specific program area reports under ESPB Program Reports on our webpage. Hard copy examples can be found in program area files and in candidate portfolios under Standard 1.1 in the Hard Copy Exhibit Room.

The K-12 programs in art and music area accredited by NASAD and NASM respectively and so limited student work samples are provided. It is important to note however that candidates in these programs are assessed, at a minimum, through the disposition evaluation and student teaching evaluation forms and are included in follow-up surveys. The secondary program area advises and monitors candidates in music and art in collaboration with faculty in the Music and Art Departments. Results of critical tasks for this population of candidates are presented in the disaggregated tables under secondary and K-12 programs. Results for student teaching are further disaggregated within the ESPB program reports on our webpage. Student teaching evaluations provide evidence that these candidates meet element 1c.

1c.2.2 Advanced Programs

Candidates enter our advanced programs for teachers with an understanding of the professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills necessary to provide rich learning opportunities for all students in P-12 education. They deepen their knowledge as they engage in coursework and inquiry throughout their graduate programs. At the time this report is being prepared, candidate’s professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills are assessed through specific coursework reflected in the grades from those courses, action research projects, and culminating projects. The following themes and standards related to Element 1c are addressed in the assessment data presented here:

Range of course grades. A number of courses in each of our advanced programs guide our candidates in the continuing development of professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills. Tables 1c.2.2.1-1c.2.2.2 provides the range of grades in courses that address the effective teaching of content. Table 1c.2.2.2 data is related to the Bismarck, ND cohort of candidates (the Reading Education masters was not offered to this cohort).

Action research projects. T&L 569: Action Research is offered every spring semester. It is required in the Early Childhood Education Program and is strongly recommended in the others and thus is taken by the majority of candidates in the advanced programs. There is a focus on “the analysis of and reflection on one’s teaching for the purpose of improvements in student learning” (2007-2009 Undergraduate and Graduate Academic Catalog 2005-2007, pg 246). Candidates are required to complete an action research project in their own classrooms. Those not currently teaching are encouraged to seek out an appropriate instructional setting in which to conduct their research. Table 1b.1-2.2.3 provides the averages of project scores for candidates taking the course in the spring of 2006 and the spring of 2007. For information related to the project see E-exhibit 1b.1-2.2.1. Samples of completed exhibits can be found under 1b.2.2.2 Hard Copy Exhibit room.

Culminating projects. Professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills is assessed one final time during the review of each candidate’s culminating project. This final project, while varied within and across programs, is assessed using the same rubric that aligns with our Conceptual Framework. Section III.5 “Significance” addresses the NBPTS Core Propositions related to Element 1c. For a description of the final project see page pages 8-9 in the Master Degrees Student Handbook E-exhibit 1a.2.2.5, and to view the scoring rubric see and E-exhibit 1a.2.2.6. In addition, a random sampling of projects completed in 2006-2007 can be found in the Hard Copy Room under 1a.2.2.1. Data related to the final projects of graduates from the summer of 2006 through the summer of 2007 is presented in Tables 1a.2.2.5 and 1a.2.2.6. The second table presents disaggregated for the Early Childhood distance program.

The data in the assessment areas presented in the tables provides evidence that candidates in our graduate programs know how to teach their content. Across all programs our candidates maintain higher GPA’s than the 3.0 required by the graduate school; receive course grades in the A and B range, receive action research projects scores in the A and B range and meet or exceed criteria for culminating/final projects at a rate of 98%-100%.

For information related to the Special Education Program, please refer to the CEC report.
In addition to the data reported above, North Dakota Education Standards and Practices Board re-approval reports for our initial and advanced programs provide further evidence of candidates’ pedagogical content knowledge.  Some results of the newly developed advanced program assessment system will be available in the state program reports for elementary and reading education. To view reports look in ESPB Program Reports on our webpage.

1c.3 Follow-up Surveys of Graduates & Employers

Survey of Graduates
An annual survey of our completers provides data relating candidates’ self-perceptions across a variety of items. Table 1c.3.1 reports the aggregated and disaggregated data for items related to Element 1c. Statements 15, 17, 24, 25, and 26 provide insight into our candidates’ perceptions related to knowing how students learn; knowing how to organize the learning environment, so that meaningful learning experiences occur; and understanding school, family, and community contexts. 87.9% to 97.5% of all program completers indicated that they felt somewhat to very much prepared to promote the learning of all their students. They were not as confident about working with families (81.1%-84%) or community agencies (54.4% to 64.6%). Disaggregated percentages were similar; however, two items of interest emerged from the data. First completers in the middle level program were very confident about working with families (100%). Second, completers in the secondary and K-12 area were not as confident about classroom management in the most recent survey (68.9%). Still, completers’ perceptions were generally positive while directing us to attend to ways we might improve candidates’ understandings about families and community agencies’ and their affect on student learning.

Principal Surveys.  Section C of the Principal and Curriculum Leader Survey was aligned with the INTASC principles and school leaders were asked to complete a Likert scale for each item with 5 = very well prepared, 4 = well prepared, 3 = neither well nor poorly prepared, 2 = poorly prepared, and 1 = very poorly prepared. The data for the 2005 and 2006 surveys for items related to Element 1c is reported in Table 1c.3.2.  Because the reports do not disaggregate by program area, only aggregated data is presented here.

The survey results for both 2005 and 2006 show that administrators believed that our candidates know their students and can create positive learning environments that ensure learning; that they reflect upon and look for ways to improve their practice and they can work well with families and other professionals. 71%-88.5% of administrators’ responses fell into the
“well prepared” category in 2005. The range of positive responses was similar in 2006; however, 25%-41% of the responses were in the “very well” prepared category.  It appears that administrators are pleased with the quality of our candidates.

Exit surveys for candidates in advanced programs have not been conducted to date. The graduate directors for those programs recognize the importance of gaining program completers perspectives and intend to initiate development of an exit survey tool during the 2007-2008 academic year.

Element 1d. Student Learning for Teacher Candidates

Return to Top

1d.1 Initial Programs

In the role of Teacher as Active Agent of Learning, our candidates are focused on student learning. They are able to assess and analyze student learning, monitor student progress, and adjust instruction appropriately. Evidence in support of Element 1d is presented below.

Praxis II:  Principles of Learning and Teaching: Grades K-6. Teacher Candidates in two major areas, Early Childhood Education and Elementary Education are required to take the Praxis II PLT, K-6 exam. In addition, the majority of our Middle Level candidates also major in Elementary Education and must take the exam. This test provides us with some insight as to our candidates’ ability to assess and analyze student learning, so it is logical to consider candidates’ scores presented in Table 1d.1.1 as evidence of meeting Element 1d. Results of the Praxis II PLT, K-6 demonstrate that our candidates, with few exceptions, do very well and consistently score above the state cut score.

Critical Task Assessments.  All critical tasks are aligned with our Conceptual Framework as well as INTASC, Teaching & Learning Program Standards and North Dakota Education Practices Board Standards; thus, we are able draw from particular tasks and their scoring rubrics to tease out candidates’ ability to focus on and influence student learning.  The critical tasks that provide data that align with NCATE Standard 1d are:  Child Study and Mid-term and Final Student Teaching Evaluations. The following themes and standards apply:

Tables 1d.1.2-1d.1.9 provide evidence of candidates performance related to element 1d. 1d.1.2 and 1d.1.3 present the aggregated results of tasks related to student learning for the fall of 2006 and tables 1d.1.4 and 1d.1.5 present aggregated data for the spring of 2007. Tables 1d.1.6 and 1d.1.7 present the disaggregated results of tasks related to student learning for the fall of 2006 and tables 1d.1.8 and 1d.1.9 present disaggregated data for the spring of 2007. As noted in the previous sections, because different rubrics were used, the data are separated out by semester and tasks. In addition, secondary programs (including K-12) are not represented in the child study data base. As explained under element 1c, there was confusion as to the faculty’s responsibility for assessing this critical task which is being addressed by the Undergraduate Assessment Committee.

Aggregated data indicates that faculty, cooperating teachers and supervisors believe that a large majority of our candidates meet or exceed standards related to student learning.  In the fall of 2006, 100% of candidates met or exceeded rubric criteria for program standards 8.1 and 8.4. In the spring of 2007, 97%-100% did so. By the end of the fall 2006 student teaching semester, 71% of candidates scored in the area of proficient with supervisors and cooperating teachers indicating that they had not observed 17% of candidates’ performance related to targeted standards during the time period. By the end of the spring 2007 semester, 75% of candidates were scored as proficient with supervisors and cooperating teachers indicating that they had not observed 17% of candidates’ performance related to standards during the time period.

Under the old student teaching evaluation tool, all candidates are expected to receive developing or proficient in all categories by the completion of student teaching. We further expect the percent of candidates to increase from the “developing” to “proficient” categories and in both semesters this proved to be the case (51-71% in 2006 and 54% 71% in 2007). We are concerned about the percent of candidates being scored in “not observed” category since this constitutes about 20% of the candidates. It is difficult to determine whether these standards constitute weak areas with such results. As noted in 1a, we are hopeful that the newly revised student teaching evaluation tool which is more closely aligned with program standards and provides more detail will result in fewer supervisors and cooperating teachers selecting this response category.

100 % of the Elementary Education and double major candidates completing the Child Study Critical Task in fall of 2006 met standards while 94% of Early Childhood Education candidates exceeded them. The spring 2007 Early Childhood candidates again met or exceeded criteria related to the assessment of student learning. Elementary Education candidates did not fare as well with 5% not meeting Standard 81. Teacher candidate possesses knowledge of tools for assessment and 10% not meeting Standard 8.4: Teacher candidate documents and monitors assessment results. The percentage represented 1-3 candidates, still faculty have discussed the need to increase candidates’ understanding of assessment tools and processes. We have also considered adding a stand alone course related to assessment.

Results of disaggregated data related to targeted program standards during the student teaching semester of 2006 indicate that candidates in all programs were considered “developing” or “proficient” in the area of assessment for student learning. There were no deficiencies noted in spring 2007 either. In fall 2006 candidates in Secondary Education, Elementary Education and Middle Level scored higher in meeting standards 81.and 8.4 in the final evaluation as determined by the percent of candidates moving from developing to proficient: Secondary + 27% and Elementary/Middle +12%. Early Childhood candidates did not experience the same increase, but this may have been due to their performance not be observed as indicated by increase from 4% to 14% in the “Not Observed” category. In the spring of 2007, all candidates scored measurably higher in meeting standards 81.and 8.4 in the final evaluation as determined by the percent of candidates moving from developing to proficient: Early Childhood + 26%, Secondary + 24% and Elementary/Middle +18%.

Electronic examples of candidates’ work can be found in specific program area reports under ESPB Program Reports on our webpage. Hard copy examples can be found in program area files and in candidate portfolios under Standard 1.1 in the Hard Copy Exhibit Room.

The K-12 programs in art and music area accredited by NASAD and NASM respectively and so limited student work samples are provided. It is important to note however that candidates in these programs are assessed, at a minimum, through the disposition evaluation and student teaching evaluation forms. The secondary program area advises and monitors candidates in music and art in collaboration with faculty in the Music and Art Departments. Results of critical tasks for this population of candidates are presented in the disaggregated tables under secondary and K-12 programs. Results for student teaching are further disaggregated within the ESPB program reports on our webpage. Student teaching evaluations provide evidence that these candidates meet element 1d.

One final task to address Standard 1, Element d was established in the fall of 2007 as an assignment in the Student Teaching Seminar. The purpose was to explore the possibility of requiring a modified Teacher Work Sample task during the student teaching semester. For a description of the task see E-exhibit 1d.1.1. Early results indicate that while candidates initially viewed the task as too labor intensive, upon completion they gained valuable knowledge about their students and many referred to this assignment in their final portfolio reviews. A few examples will be available in the Hard Copy Exhibit Room under Standard 1d.1. Beginning in the spring of 2008, this assignment will be a required artifact in the capstone portfolio

1d.2 Advanced Programs

Candidates entering our advanced programs have had opportunities in classroom settings to develop and implement assessments and instructional experiences to address and monitor the varied needs and abilities of learners.  Some of those experiences were limited to student teaching, but a number of candidates had been teaching for 2 or more years when they began graduate study. They expand their knowledge and abilities as they engage in coursework and inquiry throughout their graduate programs.

At the time this report is being prepared, candidate’s ability to assess and analyze student learning is assessed through specific coursework in the practicum course in the reading program (a majority of candidates in Elementary Education take this course) and reflected in the grades from those courses and action research projects. We have recognized a weakness in assessing for this standard and the revised plan includes Internship Practicum Tool for Advanced Programs to monitor candidates’ ability to affect student learning and will use the (E-exhibit1d.2.1). The following theme and standards related to Element 1d are addressed in the assessment data presented here:

Range of course grades. Table 1d.2.1 provides the range of grades in the course in our Reading Education program that address student learning.

Action research projects. T&L 569: Action Research is offered every spring semester. It is required in the Early Childhood Education Program and is strongly recommended in the others and thus is taken by the majority of candidates in the advanced programs. There is a focus on “the analysis of and reflection on one’s teaching for the purpose of improvements in student learning” (2007-2009 Undergraduate and Graduate Academic Catalog 2005-2007, pg 246). Candidates are required to complete an action research project in their own classrooms. Those not currently teaching are encouraged to seek out an appropriate instructional setting in which to conduct their research. Table 1b.1-2.2.3 provides the averages of project scores for candidates taking the course in the spring of 2006 and the spring of 2007. For information related to the project see E-exhibit 1b.1-2.2.1. Samples of completed projects can be found under 1b.2.2.2 in the Hard Copy Exhibit Room.

In addition to the data reported above, approval of our advanced programs by the North Dakota Education Standards and Practices Board provides further evidence of initial and advanced candidate knowledge and skill in the area of student learning. Some results of the newly developed advanced program assessment system will be available in the state program reports for elementary and reading education.  To view these reports go to ESPB Reports on our webpage.

1d.3  Completer Surveys

Graduates were asked to consider a number of items indicating the degree to which they felt they were prepared as a result of their experiences in the UND Teacher Education Program and complete a Likert scale for each item with 5 = very much, 4 = much, 3 = some, 2 = a little, and 1 = almost not at all. Table 1d.3.1 reports the aggregated and disaggregated data for items related to Element 1d.

Statements 15 and 24 provide insight into our candidates’ perceptions related to a focus on student learning. 89%% to 97.5% of all program completers indicated that they felt somewhat to very much prepared to assess and address the learning needs of all their students. Over 60 % of respondents indicated the felt “much” to “very much” prepared. Disaggregated percentages were similar; however, two items of interest emerged from the data. First completers in the middle level program were very confident that they had been well prepared to affect students’ learning (100%). Second, 1999, 2000, 2003, and 2005 graduates in the secondary and K-12 area did not feel as well prepared as those in the 2001 and 2005 survey. The secondary have faculty decided to use “Understanding by Design” (Wiggins and McTighe) beginning in the 2005-06 academic year as a uniform practice for the development of curriculum, unit plans, lesson plans and assessments.  It is hoped that candidates will realize increased skill with lesson and unit plan design, greater awareness of the necessity for formative assessment, and greater connections between standards and diverse teaching practices.  Subsequent surveys should aid us in determining whether the implementation of UbD has positive results.

Principal Surveys.  Section C of the Principal and Curriculum Leader Survey was aligned with the INTASC principles and school leaders were asked to complete a Likert scale for each item with 5 = very well prepared, 4 = well prepared, 3 = neither well nor poorly prepared, 2 = poorly prepared, and 1 = very poorly prepared. The data for the 2005 and 2006 surveys for items related to Element 1d is reported in Table 1d.3.2.  Because the reports do not disaggregate by program area, only aggregated data is presented here.

The 2005 survey shows that 95% -100% of responders believed that our candidates were adequately to well-prepared to instruct and assess their learners. 2006 results were even more positive with 97-98.6% of responders noting that candidates were adequately to well-prepared although graduates instructional knowledge and ability appears to be stronger than assessment. Programs in their analysis of data during the 2007 Assessment Retreat noted the need to attend more directly to assessment.

Exit surveys for candidates in advanced programs have not been conducted to date. The graduate directors for those programs recognize the importance of gaining program completers perspectives and intend to initiate development of an exit survey tool during the 2007-2008 academic year.

1e. Knowledge and Skill for Other School Professionals

Candidates in our professional programs prepare for roles as administrators, school counselors, instructional design and technology specialists and speech and language pathologists. The programs in Educational Leadership and School Counseling assess and document candidate’s knowledge and skills in response to requirements of the North Dakota Education Standards and Practices Board. To view the current program re-approval reports for Educational Leaders and School Counselors go to ESPB Program Reports on our webpage.

The program in Instructional Design and Technology uses the AECT (Association for Educational Communications and Technology) Standards and reporting format to provide evidence of knowledge and skills appropriate to their field. For a copy of that report, see E-exhibit 1e.1.

The program for preparing speech and language pathologist is accredited by the American Speech and Hearing Association (ASHA). The program is mandated to meet the ASHA standards for critical knowledge and skills necessary for the practice of speech-language pathology. See documents related to this program’s accreditation under 1e.2 in the Hard Copy Exhibit Room.

1f. Student Learning for Other School Professionals

Our candidates preparing for the roles of administrators, school counselors, instructional design and technology specialists and speech and language pathologists are able to create positive environments for student learning. As noted in 1e above, our programs for other school professionals respond to either the North Dakota Education Standards and Practices Boards Standards or the standards of the related professional association. To view the current program re-approval reports for Educational Leaders and School Counselors and for accreditation related documents for the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders go to ESPB Program Reports on our webpage. For the program report for Instructional Design and Technology see E-exhibit 1e.1.

Return to Top

1g. Professional Dispositions for Candidates

1g.1.1-4 Initial Programs

Candidates in all of our initial programs develop and model the dispositions expected of beginning teachers. In 2002, a committee was formed to review the process of assessing dispositions and recommend revisions. As a result of that committee’s work, a new dispositions’ assessment form was developed that we believed aligned more closely with the INTASC principles (E-exhibit 1g.1-4.1.1). This form was used from 2002 through the spring of 2007.Candidates’ dispositions were assessed during field experiences at three points in the program: at entrance during the introduction to education courses, at mid-point during methods courses, and at end-point during student teaching.

Only those INTASC principles and descriptors we have identified as dispositional in nature are reported here. The standards targeted for assessment are as follows:

The individual descriptive statements detailing expected dispositions are provided in the tables. Table 1g.1.1 provides aggregated data from all dispositions’ reports of candidates who completed their student teaching experiences in the fall of 2006. Table 1g.1.2 provides aggregated data from all dispositions’ reports of candidates who completed their student teaching experiences in the spring of 2007. The number in each cell represents the percent of respondents who checked the box on the form related to that particular descriptive statement. Hard copy examples of completed disposition forms are available in the Hard Copy Exhibit Room under 1g.1.1.

An analysis of the data indicates that our candidates are able to display to a high degree the dispositions expected and in a manner that improves as they move from introductory through methods field experiences and onto student teaching since the percent of respondents selecting the more positive disposition descriptors increased. An area of particular concern across the 2006 & 2007 reports emerged and was supported by results in critical tasks. Candidates understanding of IEPs and an ability to differentiate for instruction was markedly low.

In the May 2007 Assessment Retreat, elementary education faculty targeted the issue of  diverse students needs in response to the dispositions reports as well as surveys and results of critical tasks. They decided to develop virtual cases of students that candidates would use as they developed lesson plans in their methods courses prior to the attached field experience. In the fall of 2007, Nathan was created in collaboration with special education faculty to build students awareness of IEPs and strengthen their ability to differentiate instruction (see 1g.1-4.1.2 in E-exhibits).

During 2005-2006 academic year, the Associate Dean for Teacher Education and the Director of Field Placement again reviewed the dispositions form with cooperating teacher and supervisors. Three concerns were raised. First, although the form seemed to capture candidates’ abilities related to the INTASC principles, it did not target dispositions we wished our candidates to display clearly enough. Second, teachers completing the form for candidates in their early field experiences were checking “NA” (indicating not observed) or leaving boxes blank in a number of categories, noting that they felt unable to fairly assess candidates’ abilities. Third, many were checking only one box per category even though for some items, they were asked to check all that might apply within that category.  Because of this we were not satisfied that our data could yield the information we desired.

Over the course of that year, we worked with our school partners and faculty members to revise the document and further codify the assessment process. In the spring of 2007, the new form and revised assessment process was approved by the Teacher Education Committee and the new form was first used in the summer of 2007. An additional point of assessment was added so that faculty in addition to teachers in the field had an opportunity to consider candidates’ dispositions. For an explanation of the process see E-exhibit 1g.1-4.3. To view a copy of the current assessment form, see E-Exhibit 1g.1-4.4. The form is now submitted electronically within LiveText which allows us to use an Excel database to display results. Data and samples related to fall 2007 dispositions will be available in spring, 2008. 

Principal Surveys.  Section C of the Principal and Curriculum Leader Survey was aligned with the INTASC principles and school leaders were asked to complete a Likert scale for each item with 5 = very well prepared, 4 = well prepared, 3 = neither well nor poorly prepared, 2 = poorly prepared, and 1 = very poorly prepared. The data for the 2005 and 2006 surveys for items related to Element 1g is reported in Table 1g.1.3.  Because the reports do not disaggregate by program area, only aggregated data is presented here.  92%-100% of administrators responding to the surveys believed that our candidates were adequately to well-prepared and reflected dispositions that provide a positive learning environment that promotes fairness and a belief that all students can learn. As well, candidates interact professionally with administrators, teachers and parents. 2006 results were even more positive with 83%-94% of responders noting that candidates were well-prepared to very-well prepared.

In sum, candidates in our initial programs overwhelmingly demonstrate the dispositions delineated in professional and program standards. They are articulate communicators who strive to provide appropriate and meaningful learning experiences for all children. Demonstration of positive professional behaviors, as we would expect, grow over time and candidates improve their abilities and understandings as they move through the Teacher Education program.

1g.2.1-4 Advanced Programs

As noted in the college catalog (pg 252), applicants admitted to the advanced programs are expected to display dispositions of reflective practice, scholarly inquiry, and collaboration. In addition, practices promote a constructivist approach to teaching and learning are also valued.

At the time this report is being prepared, evidence of dispositions noted above is determined at entrance through the applicants’ personal statement and recommendations. As the candidate proceeds through the graduate program, dispositions are further assessed through specific coursework, action research projects and the culminating research project.

The revised assessment plan slated to be implemented in 2008 includes an assessment of candidates in the areas of professional and personal qualities, educational environment, and partnership through the Internship Practicum Tool for Advanced Programs (E-exhibit1d.2.1).

The following National Board propositions and program goals related to the qualities outlined above and Element 1g are addressed in the assessment data presented in this section:

Admission. Applicants are required to provide a personal statement and recommendations which are reviewed by at least two faculty who teach in the Elementary Education masters program.  The admissions review forms for advanced programs allow faculty to comment on candidates’ goals, dispositions, communication effectiveness and potential for success in the graduate program (see E-exhibit1g.1-4.2.1). In general, applicants are successful in demonstrating the qualities and abilities required of graduate study.

Action research projects. T&L 569: Action Research is offered every spring semester. It is required in the Early Childhood Education Program and is strongly recommended in the others and thus is taken by the majority of candidates in the advanced programs. There is a focus on demonstrating the disposition of reflective practice primarily; however affirming diversity and promoting constructivist practices can also be informally determined through a review of the written project. Candidates are required to complete an action research project in their own classrooms. Those not currently teaching are encouraged to seek out an appropriate instructional setting in which to conduct their research.

Table 1b.1-2.2.3 provides the averages of project scores for candidates taking the course in the spring of 2006 and the spring of 2007. For information related to the project see E-exhibit 1b.1-2.2.1.  Samples of completed exhibits can be found under 1.2.2.2 in the Hard Copy Exhibit Room. Scores consistently in the A and B range provide evidence that candidates in advanced programs for teachers reflect on their practice, identify areas for improvement and systematically employ strategies that lead to improvement.

Culminating projects. Candidate’s dispositions related to reflective practice and scholarly inquiry are assessed through the culminating project. This final project, while varied within and across programs, is assessed using the same rubric that aligns with our Conceptual Framework. Section III.9 “Dispositions” addresses the NBPTS Core Propositions related to Element 1g.

For a description of the final project see page pages 8-9 in the Master Degrees Student Handbook E-exhibit 1a.2.2.5, and to view the scoring rubric see and E-exhibit 1a.2.2.6. In addition, a random sampling of projects completed in 2006-2007 can be found in the Hard Copy Exhibit Room under 1a.2.2.1. Data related to the final projects of graduates from the summer of 2006 through the summer of 2007 is presented in Tables 1g.2.1-4.1 and 1g.2.1-4.2. the second table presents the same information disaggregated for the Early Childhood distance program.

The data presented in the tables provides evidence that candidates in our graduate programs possess the dispositions delineated in the National Board Standards related to reflective practice, scholarly inquiry and a commitment to students. 100% of candidates met or exceed the program standard for dispositions.

1g.3.1-4 Other Professional Programs

Programs in Communications Science and Disorders, Educational Leadership and School Counseling support the dispositions expected of their professions. The Communications Sciences and Disorders program is accredited by ASHA. The North Dakota Education Standards and Practices Board reports for the programs in Educational Leadership and School Counseling contain standards that include the study and application of ethical practices. For the program in School Counseling, standard 50020.3 requires the study of professional, legal, and ethical issues in school counseling programs. Candidates’ focus is on the Code of Ethics and Standard of Practice of the American Counseling Association and corresponding ethics codes within the counseling profession. Candidates learn to interpret these codes and apply them to their professional practice. They are assessed through course grades, the Professional Orientation and Ethics Subtest scores on the Counselor Preparation Comprehensive Examination (CPCE) and relevant items on internship evaluation form. The report for School Counselors is available under ESPB Program Reports on our webpage and details the results of those assessments.

For the program in Educational Leadership, standards 50045.7 Interpersonal Relationships:
the study of interpersonal relationships, communications, and issues related to diversity in a multicultural society and 50045.10 Community and Media Relations: the study of ethical implications of policy initiatives and political actions, schools as political systems, effective communications and public relations programs, and appropriate roles of citizens in the educational process among other, address dispositional issues. The report for Educational Leaders is available under ESPB Program Reports on our webpage.

Hard Copy Exhibits in Support of Standard 1
1.1: Samples of Candidates’ Final Portfolios
1.2: 2007-2009 Undergraduate and Graduate Academic Catalog
1.3: ESPB Program Report CDs and Accompanying Hard Copy Exhibits
1a.2.2.1: Advanced Programs: Samples of Final/Independent Projects
1b.2.2.2: Samples of Action Research Projects
1a.3.1: 2006 Summary Report of the Survey of Teacher Education Graduates
1a.3.2: 2006 Principal and Curriculum Leadership Survey Summary Report
1d.1.1: Samples of Candidates Work Related to Assignment on Student Learning
1g.1.1: Examples of Candidate Professional Disposition Evaluations

 

Return to Top