academic assessment report - ay 2015-2016ncate/caep accreditation 2017/slo...academic assessment...
TRANSCRIPT
Academic Assessment Report - AY 2015-2016 College of Education School for Global Education and Innovation Name of Program: K-12 Teacher Certification/Spanish Pre-service teachers in the Kean University Spanish/World Languages K-12 Teacher Certification Program will: 1) Speak, write, interpret and present a wide array of texts and communicative products at a minimum level of "Advanced Low" on the ACTFL Performance Descriptors. http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/PerformanceDescriptorsLanguageLearners.pdf (CAEP Principle B, ACTFL Standard 1, KU1, KU4; GE: K3, S1, S2, S4, S5, V2, V3, V4, V5) 2) Demonstrate l inguist ic and cul tural understandings while comparing language systems and cultures through the interdisciplinary perspectives, products, and practices they convey. (CAEP Principle B, ACTFL Standard 2, KU1, KU2; GE: K3, K4, S1, S2, S4, S5, V1, V2, V3, V4, V5) 3) Demonstrate an understanding of the methods of literary analysis as well as critical reading and writing in collaborative, project-based and technology-rich environments. (CAEP Principle B, ACTFL Standard 2, KU1, KU2; GE: K3, S1, S2, S4, S5, V1, V3, V4, V5) 4) Demonstrate an understanding of key principles of language acquisition, child and adolescent development while creating linguistically and culturally rich learning environments. (CAEP Principles A and C, ACTFL Standard 3, KU1, KU4; GE: K2, S1, S2, S4, S5, V3, V4, V5) 5) Integrate the goal areas of the ACTFL Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century and NJCC standards in classroom practices while integrating authentic texts, technology, and self-designed instructional materials. (CAEP Principles A and C, ACTFL Standard 4, KU1, KU4; GE: K2, S1, S2, S4, S5, V2, V3, V4, V5) 6) Design and use ongoing authentic performance assessments, analyze the results of student assessments and report on and use data to inform and strengthen subsequent instruction. (CAEP Principle C, ACTFL Standard 5, KU1, KU4; GE: K2, S1, S2, S4, S5, V3, V4, V5) 7) Engage in ongoing professional development opportunities that strengthen linguistic, cultural, technology and pedagogical competencies, while promoting reflection on instructional practice as well as interaction and collaboration with global, regional, and professional communities. (CAEP Principle D, ACTFL Standard 6, KU1, KU3, KU4; GE: K2, S1, S2, S4, S5, V1, V2, V3, V4, V5)
Program Level Student Learning
Outcomes
Assessment Measure(s)
Assessment Criteria (Describe how data is
collected--rubric, survey, etc.)
Results of Assessment (Specific to Data Collected)
Action Taken (Closing the Loop: New action or follow
up from last Assessment Report)
SLO #1: Speak, write,
interpret and present a
wide array of texts and
communicative products
at a minimum level of
"Advanced Low" on the
ACTFL Oral Proficiency
Direct #1: SPAN 4700: Capstone Seminar Course: Oral presentations, short reflective papers, formal research assignment of 8-10 pages, final exam.
Rubric-based evaluation of all measures by Capstone Instructor
Using the GE Writing and Presentation 21 Students (SP16). SP 16: Mean: 27.7/30 for Writing Mean: 46/50 for Speech. Improvements seen in students’ editing and argument development skills. (No Capstone offered
We are still midstream on the implementation of ACTFL-aligned rubrics for Civilization, Writing and Phonetics courses. Following on last year’s recommendations—foundations courses created and will go through approval process AY 16-17. Continue collecting data using existing and newly developed rubrics established to measure SLOs.
Interview (OPI). (CAEP
Principle B, ACTFL
Standard 1, KU1, KU4;
GE: K3, S1, S2, S4, S5,
V2, V3, V4, V5)
FA 15)
Direct #2: SPAN 3100: Advanced Spanish Composition: Writing Proficiency Exam and Writing Portfolio Evaluation to include writing samples from the following discourses: research, analysis and argumentation.
Rubric-based evaluation of writing samples; writing exam similar to Avant Stamp 4s appraising higher level writing proficiency
Using the GE Writing Presentation Rubric 6 criteria: FA15: 31 students Mean 19.1/30 and SP16: 39 students: Mean is 20.8/30.
Working on Inter-rater reliability with instructors of 3100 to accurately assess students writing.
Indirect: Graduating Student Survey (to be administered by GE) and Spring 2014 student survey (to be administered by SGEI)
Qualtrics survey to evaluate student perceptions of SLO achievement and quality for specific Spanish courses.
Data unavailable Continue to collect and analyze data from Graduating Student Survey. Inform students and teaching staff of program SLOs. Carry out Adjunct faculty training. Draft and deploy another SGEI student survey for Fall 2015 focused on SLOs of specific fundamental courses in Spanish Program.
SLO #2: Demonstrate l inguistic and cultura l understandings while comparing language systems and cultures through the interdisciplinary perspectives, products, and practices they convey. (CAEP Principle B, ACTFL Standard 2, KU1, KU2; GE: K3, K4, S1, S2, S4, S5, V1, V2, V3, V4, V5)
Direct #1: SPAN 4700: Capstone Seminar Course: group projects, short reflective papers, formal written assignments of 8-10 pages, final exam
Rubric-based evaluation of all measures by Capstone Instructor
Using the GE Writing and Presentation 21 Students (SP16). SP 16: Mean: 27.7/30 for Writing Mean: 46/50 for Speech. Improvements seen in students’ editing and argument development skills. (No Capstone offered FA 15)
We are still midstream on the implementation of ACTFL-aligned rubrics for Civilization, Writing and Phonetics courses. Following on last year’s recommendations—foundations courses created and will go through approval process AY 16-17. Continue collecting data using existing and newly developed rubrics established to measure SLOs.
Direct #2: SPAN 3100: Advanced Spanish Composition: Writing Proficiency Exam and Writing Portfolio Evaluation to include writing samples from the following discourses: research, analysis and argumentation.
Rubric-based evaluation of writing samples; writing exam similar to Avant Stamp 4s appraising higher level writing proficiency
Using the GE Writing Presentation Rubric 6 criteria: FA15: 31 students Mean 19.1/30 and SP16: 39 students: Mean is 20.8/30.
Working on Inter-rater reliability with instructors of 3100 to accurately assess students writing.
Indirect: Graduating Student Survey (to be administered by GE) and Spring 2014 student survey (to be administered by SGEI)
Qualtrics survey to evaluate student perceptions of SLO achievement and quality for specific Spanish courses.
Data unavailable Continue to collect and analyze data from Graduating Student Survey. Inform students and teaching staff of program SLOs. Carry out Adjunct faculty training. Draft and deploy another SGEI student survey for Fall 2015 focused on SLOs of specific fundamental courses in Spanish Program.
SLO #3: Demonstrate an
understanding of the
methods of literary
analysis as well as critical
reading and writing in
collaborative, project-
based and technology-
rich environments.
(CAEP Principle B, ACTFL
Standard 2, KU1, KU2;
GE: K3, S1, S2, S4, S5,
V1, V3, V4, V5)
Direct #1: SPAN 4700: Capstone Seminar Course: electronic assignments, group projects, oral presentations, short reflective papers, formal written research project of 8-10 pages, final exam
Rubric-based evaluation of all measures by Capstone Instructor
Using the GE Writing and Presentation 21 Students (SP16). SP 16: Mean: 27.7/30 for Writing Mean: 46/50 for Speech. Improvements seen in students’ editing and argument development skills. (No Capstone offered FA 15)
We are still midstream on the implementation of ACTFL-aligned rubrics for Civilization, Writing and Phonetics courses. Following on last year’s recommendations—foundations courses created and will go through approval process AY 16-17. Continue collecting data using existing and newly developed rubrics established to measure SLOs.
Direct #2: SPAN 3100: Advanced Spanish Composition: Writing Proficiency Exam and Writing Portfolio Evaluation to include writing samples from the following discourses: research, analysis and argumentation.
Rubric-based evaluation of writing samples; writing exam similar to Avant Stamp 4s appraising higher level writing proficiency
Using the GE Writing Presentation Rubric 6 criteria: FA15: 31 students Mean 19.1/30 and SP16: 39 students: Mean is 20.8/30.
Working on Inter-rater reliability with instructors of 3100 to accurately assess students writing.
Indirect: Graduating Student Survey (to be administered by GE) and Spring 2014 student survey (to be administered by SGEI)
Qualtrics survey to evaluate student perceptions of SLO achievement and quality for specific Spanish courses.
Data unavailable Continue to collect and analyze data from Graduating Student Survey. Inform students and teaching staff of program SLOs. Carry out Adjunct faculty training. Draft and deploy another SGEI student survey for Fall 2015 focused on SLOs of specific fundamental courses in Spanish Program.
SLO #4: Demonstrate an understanding of key principles of language acquisition, child and adolescent
Direct #1: EMSE 3250: METHODOLOGY: K-12 INSTRUCTION: Evaluation of Methods Final Project—Learning Goals
Rubric-based evaluation of all three measures using separate rubrics for each component.
ACTFL-aligned measures and rubrics produced the following data per category: FA15: Learning Goals Mean is 14.8/20, Assessment Mean
Additional methodology course (GLOB 3255) has been designed and approved and will be added to required courses for Certification AY 2016-17. There is a need to continue work with Understanding by
development while creating linguistically and culturally rich learning environments. (CAEP Principles A and C, ACTFL Standard 3, KU1, KU4; GE: K2, S1, S2, S4, S5, V3, V4, V5)
(4 characteristics—5 points each), Assessment Plan (5 characteristics—5 points each), and Design for Instruction (6 characteristics—5 points each),
is 15.8/25 and Design Mean is 24/30. SP16: Learning Goals Mean is 15.5/20, Assessment Mean is 17.9/25 and Design Mean is 25.7/30.
Design and Student-centered and Technology-based Instructional Models at an earlier stage in Teacher Preparation—we will identify courses in core EDUC courses to improve preparation for Design and Tech integration.
Direct #2: EMSE 3250: METHODOLOGY: K-12 INSTRUCTION: Evaluation of 10 categories (3=exceeds expectations, 2=meets expectations, 1=doesn’t meet expectations)—3 points each 30 total.
Rubric-based evaluation of modified TWS.
ACTFL-aligned measures and rubrics yielded: FA 15: 13 students: Mean 21.1/30 SP16: 18 students: Mean is 22.5/30
Understanding by Design and Student-
centered and Technology-based
Instructional Models at an earlier stage in
Teacher Preparation—we will identify
courses in core EDUC courses to improve
preparation for Design and Tech
integration.
SLO #5: Integrate the goal areas of the ACTFL Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century and NJCC standards in classroom practices while integrating authentic texts, technology, and self-designed instructional materials. (CAEP Principles A and C, ACTFL Standard 4, KU1, KU4; GE: K2, S1, S2, S4, S5, V2, V3, V4, V5)
Direct #1: EMSE 3250: METHODOLOGY: K-12 INSTRUCTION: Evaluation of Methods Final Project—Learning Goals (4 characteristics—5 points each), Assessment Plan (5 characteristics—5 points each), and Design for Instruction (6 characteristics—5 points each),
Rubric-based evaluation of all three measures using separate rubrics for each component.
ACTFL-aligned measures and rubrics produced the following data per category: FA15: Learning Goals Mean is 14.8/20, Assessment Mean is 15.8/25 and Design Mean is 24/30. SP16: Learning Goals Mean is 15.5/20, Assessment Mean is 17.9/25 and Design Mean is 25.7/30.
Additional methodology course (GLOB 3255) has been designed and approved and will be added to required courses for Certification AY 2016-17. There is a need to continue work with Understanding by Design and Student-centered and Technology-based Instructional Models at an earlier stage in Teacher Preparation—we will identify courses in core EDUC courses to improve preparation for Design and Tech integration.
Direct #2: EMSE 3250: METHODOLOGY: K-12 INSTRUCTION: Evaluation of 10 categories (3=exceeds expectations, 2=meets expectations, 1=doesn’t meet expectations)—3 points each 30 total.
Rubric-based evaluation of modified TWS.
ACTFL-aligned measures and rubrics yielded: FA 15: 13 students: Mean 21.1/30 SP16: 18 students: Mean is 22.5/30
Understanding by Design and Student-
centered and Technology-based
Instructional Models at an earlier stage in
Teacher Preparation—we will identify
courses in core EDUC courses to improve
preparation for Design and Tech
integration.
SLO #6: Design and use ongoing authentic performance assessments, analyze the results of student assessments and report on and use data to inform and strengthen subsequent instruction. (CAEP Principle C, ACTFL Standard 5, KU1, KU4; GE: K2, S1, S2, S4, S5, V3, V4, V5)
Direct #1: EMSE 3250: METHODOLOGY: K-12 INSTRUCTION: Evaluation of Methods Final Project—Learning Goals (4 characteristics—5 points each), Assessment Plan (5 characteristics—5 points each), and Design for Instruction (6 characteristics—5 points each),
Rubric-based evaluation of all three measures using separate rubrics for each component.
ACTFL-aligned measures and rubrics produced the following data per category: FA15: Learning Goals Mean is 14.8/20, Assessment Mean is 15.8/25 and Design Mean is 24/30. SP16: Learning Goals Mean is 15.5/20, Assessment Mean is 17.9/25 and Design Mean is 25.7/30.
Additional methodology course (GLOB 3255) has been designed and approved and will be added to required courses for Certification AY 2016-17. There is a need to continue work with Understanding by Design and Student-centered and Technology-based Instructional Models at an earlier stage in Teacher Preparation—we will identify courses in core EDUC courses to improve preparation for Design and Tech integration.
Direct #2: EMSE 3250: METHODOLOGY: K-12 INSTRUCTION: Evaluation of 10 categories (3=exceeds expectations, 2=meets expectations, 1=doesn’t meet expectations)—3 points each 30 total.
Rubric-based evaluation of modified TWS.
ACTFL-aligned measures and rubrics yielded: FA 15: 13 students: Mean 21.1/30 SP16: 18 students: Mean is 22.5/30
Understanding by Design and Student-
centered and Technology-based
Instructional Models at an earlier stage in
Teacher Preparation—we will identify
courses in core EDUC courses to improve
preparation for Design and Tech
integration.
SLO #7: Engage in
ongoing professional
development
opportunities that
strengthen linguistic,
cultural, technology and
pedagogical
competencies, while
promoting reflection on
instructional practice as
Direct #1: EMSE 3250: METHODOLOGY: K-12 INSTRUCTION: Evaluation of Methods Final Project—Learning Goals (4 characteristics—5 points each), Assessment Plan (5 characteristics—5 points each), and Design for Instruction (6 characteristics—5 points each),
Rubric-based evaluation of all three measures using separate rubrics for each component.
ACTFL-aligned measures and rubrics produced the following data per category: FA15: Learning Goals Mean is 14.8/20, Assessment Mean is 15.8/25 and Design Mean is 24/30. SP16: Learning Goals Mean is 15.5/20, Assessment Mean is 17.9/25 and Design Mean is 25.7/30.
Additional methodology course (GLOB 3255) has been designed and approved and will be added to required courses for Certification AY 2016-17. There is a need to continue work with Understanding by Design and Student-centered and Technology-based Instructional Models at an earlier stage in Teacher Preparation—we will identify courses in core EDUC courses to improve preparation for Design and Tech integration.
well as interaction and
collaboration with
global, regional, and
professional
communities. (CAEP
Principle D, ACTFL
Standard 6, KU1, KU3,
KU4; GE: K2, S1, S2, S4,
S5, V1, V2, V3, V4, V5)
Direct #2: EMSE 3250: METHODOLOGY: K-12 INSTRUCTION: Evaluation of 10 categories (3=exceeds expectations, 2=meets expectations, 1=doesn’t meet expectations)—3 points each 30 total.
Rubric-based evaluation of modified TWS.
ACTFL-aligned measures and rubrics yielded: FA 15: 13 students: Mean 21.1/30 SP16: 18 students: Mean is 22.5/30
Understanding by Design and Student-
centered and Technology-based
Instructional Models at an earlier stage in
Teacher Preparation—we will identify
courses in core EDUC courses to improve
preparation for Design and Tech
integration.
College of Education School for Global Education and Innovation Name of Program: Spanish Program SLOs: Students who graduate with a B.A. in Spanish will: 1) Speak, write, interpret and present a wide array of texts and communicative products at a minimum level of "Advanced Low" on the ACTFL Performance Descriptors. http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/PerformanceDescriptorsLanguageLearners.pdf (CAEP Principle B, ACTFL Standard 1, KU1, KU4; GE: K3, S1, S2, S4, S5, V2, V3, V4, V5) 2) Demonstrate linguistic and cultural un derstandings while comparing language systems and cultures through the interdisciplinary perspectives, products, and practices they convey. (CAEP Principle B, ACTFL Standard 2, KU1, KU2; GE: K3, K4, S1, S2, S4, S5, V1, V2, V3, V4, V5) 3) Demonstrate an understanding of the methods of literary analysis as well as critical reading and writing in collaborative, project-based and technology-rich environments. (CAEP Principle B, ACTFL Standard 2, KU1, KU2; GE: K3, S1, S2, S4, S5, V1, V3, V4, V5)
Program Level Student Learning
Outcomes
Assessment Measure(s)
Assessment Criteria (Describe how data is
collected--rubric, survey, etc.)
Results of Assessment (Specific to Data Collected)
Action Taken (Closing the Loop: New action or follow
up from last Assessment Report)
SLO #1: Speak, write,
interpret and present a
wide array of texts and
communicative products
at a minimum level of
"Advanced Low" on the
ACTFL Oral Proficiency
Direct #1: SPAN 4700: Capstone Seminar Course: Oral presentations, short reflective papers, formal research assignment of 8-10 pages, final exam.
Rubric-based evaluation of all measures by Capstone Instructor
Using the GE Writing and Presentation 21 Students (SP16). SP 16: Mean: 27.7/30 for Writing Mean: 46/50 for Speech. Improvements seen in students’ editing and argument development skills. (No Capstone offered
We are still midstream on the implementation of ACTFL-aligned rubrics for Civilization, Writing and Phonetics courses. Following on last year’s recommendations—foundations courses created and will go through approval process AY 16-17. Continue collecting data using existing and newly developed rubrics established to measure SLOs.
Interview (OPI). (CAEP
Principle B, ACTFL
Standard 1, KU1, KU4;
GE: K3, S1, S2, S4, S5,
V2, V3, V4, V5)
FA 15)
Direct #2: SPAN 3100: Advanced Spanish Composition: Writing Proficiency Exam and Writing Portfolio Evaluation to include writing samples from the following discourses: research, analysis and argumentation.
Rubric-based evaluation of writing samples; writing exam similar to Avent Stamp 4s appraising higher level writing proficiency
Using the GE Writing Presentation Rubric 6 criteria: FA15: 31 students Mean 19.1/30 and SP16: 39 students: Mean is 20.8/30.
Working on Inter-rater reliability with instructors of 3100 to accurately assess students writing.
Indirect: Graduating Student Survey (to be administered by GE) and Spring 2014 student survey (to be administered by SGEI)
Qualtrics survey to evaluate student perceptions of SLO achievement and quality for specific Spanish courses.
Data unavailable Continue to collect and analyze data from Graduating Student Survey. Inform students and teaching staff of program SLOs. Carry out Adjunct faculty training. Draft and deploy another SGEI student survey for Fall 2015 focused on SLOs of specific fundamental courses in Spanish Program.
SLO #2: Demonstrate l inguistic and cultura l understandings while comparing language systems and cultures through the interdisciplinary perspectives, products, and practices they convey. (CAEP Principle B, ACTFL Standard 2, KU1, KU2; GE: K3, K4, S1, S2, S4, S5, V1, V2, V3, V4, V5)
Direct #1: SPAN 4700: Capstone Seminar Course: group projects, short reflective papers, formal written assignments of 8-10 pages, final exam
Rubric-based evaluation of all measures by Capstone Instructor
Using the GE Writing and Presentation 21 Students (SP16). SP 16: Mean: 27.7/30 for Writing Mean: 46/50 for Speech. Improvements seen in students’ editing and argument development skills. (No Capstone offered FA 15)
We are still midstream on the implementation of ACTFL-aligned rubrics for Civilization, Writing and Phonetics courses. Following on last year’s recommendations—foundations courses created and will go through approval process AY 16-17. Continue collecting data using existing and newly developed rubrics established to measure SLOs.
Direct #2: SPAN 3100: Advanced Spanish Composition: Writing Proficiency Exam and Writing Portfolio Evaluation to include writing samples from the following discourses: research, analysis and argumentation.
Rubric-based evaluation of writing samples; writing exam similar to Avent Stamp 4s appraising higher level writing proficiency
Using the GE Writing Presentation Rubric 6 criteria: FA15: 31 students Mean 19.1/30 and SP16: 39 students: Mean is 20.8/30.
Working on Inter-rater reliability with instructors of 3100 to accurately assess students writing.
Indirect: Graduating Student Survey (to be administered by GE) and Spring 2014 student survey (to be administered by SGEI)
Qualtrics survey to evaluate student perceptions of SLO achievement and quality for specific Spanish courses.
Data unavailable Continue to collect and analyze data from Graduating Student Survey. Inform students and teaching staff of program SLOs. Carry out Adjunct faculty training. Draft and deploy another SGEI student survey for Fall 2015 focused on SLOs of specific fundamental courses in Spanish Program.
SLO #3: Demonstrate an
understanding of the
methods of literary
analysis as well as critical
reading and writing in
collaborative, project-
based and technology-
rich environments.
(CAEP Principle B, ACTFL
Standard 2, KU1, KU2;
GE: K3, S1, S2, S4, S5,
V1, V3, V4, V5)
Direct #1: SPAN 4700: Capstone Seminar Course: electronic assignments, group projects, oral presentations, short reflective papers, formal written research project of 8-10 pages, final exam
Rubric-based evaluation of all measures by Capstone Instructor
Using the GE Writing and Presentation 21 Students (SP16). SP 16: Mean: 27.7/30 for Writing Mean: 46/50 for Speech. Improvements seen in students’ editing and argument development skills. (No Capstone offered FA 15)
We are still midstream on the implementation of ACTFL-aligned rubrics for Civilization, Writing and Phonetics courses. Following on last year’s recommendations—foundations courses were created and will go through approval process AY 16-17. Continue collecting data using existing and newly developed rubrics established to measure SLOs.
Direct #2: SPAN 3100: Advanced Spanish Composition: Writing Proficiency Exam and Writing Portfolio Evaluation to include writing samples from the following discourses: research, analysis and argumentation.
Rubric-based evaluation of writing samples; writing exam similar to Avent Stamp 4s appraising higher level writing proficiency
Using the GE Writing Presentation Rubric 6 criteria: FA15: 31 students Mean 19.1/30 and SP16: 39 students: Mean is 20.8/30.
Working on Inter-rater reliability with instructors of 3100 to accurately assess students writing.
Indirect: Graduating Student Survey (to be administered by GE) and Spring 2014 student survey (to be administered by SGEI)
Qualtrics survey to evaluate student perceptions of SLO achievement and quality for specific Spanish courses.
Data unavailable Continue to collect and analyze data from Graduating Student Survey. Inform students and teaching staff of program SLOs. Carry out Adjunct faculty training. Draft and deploy another SGEI student survey for Fall 2015 focused on SLOs of specific fundamental courses in Spanish Program.
Learning Goals
Rubric
TWS Standard: The teacher sets significant, challenging, varied and appropriate learning goals.
Rating →
Indicator ↓
1
Unacceptable
2
Beginning
3
Developing
4
Capable
5
Accomplished Score
Significance, Challenge and
Variety
Goals are not in evidence. Goals reflect only one type or
level of learning Goals reflect several types or
levels of learning but lack
significance or challenge
Goals reflect several types or
levels of learning and are
significant and challenging.
Goals are significant and
challenge thought and
expectations including three or
more levels and types.
Clarity Goals are vague or not in
evidence. Goals are not stated clearly
and are activities rather than
learning outcomes.
Some of the goals are clearly
stated as learning outcomes. Most of the goals are clearly
stated as learning outcomes Goals are clearly stated in
behavioral terms.
Appropriateness for
Students
Goals presented are
inappropriate for the class or
set unrealistic expectations
for students.
Goals are not developmentally
appropriate; nor address pre-
requisite knowledge, skills,
experiences, or other student
needs.
Some goals are
developmentally appropriate
and address some pre-
requisite knowledge, skills,
experiences, and other student
needs.
Most goals are
developmentally appropriate;
addresses pre-requisite
knowledge, skills, experiences
and other student needs are
considered.
Goals demonstrates realistic
expectations for all students in
addition to providing for
students’ critical thinking and
reflection.
Alignment with National,
State or Local Standards
Fails to develop goals aligned
with national, state and
ACTFL standards
Goals are not aligned with
national, NJ standards or
ACTFL standards.
Some goals are aligned with
national, state or ACTFL
standards.
Most of the goals are
explicitly aligned with
national, state and ACTFL
standards.
Goals are aligned with national,
state, ACTFL standards and are
articulated through the lesson
presentations. Alignments are
explained.
Assessment Plan
Rubric
TWS Standard: The teacher designs and uses assessment tools that are technically and methodologically sound, aligned with national and state standards, and employ multiple modes.
Rating →
Indicator ↓
1
Unacceptable
2
Beginning
3
Developing
4
Capable
5
Accomplished Score
Alignment with
Learning Goals and
Instruction
Minimal plans for pre and
post assessments are
provided; assessments do not
measure learning goals.
Content and methods of
assessment lack congruence with
learning goals or lack cognitive
complexity.
Some of the learning goals are assess through
the assessment plan, but many are not
congruent with learning goals in content and
cognitive complexity.
Each of the learning goals is assessed
through the assessment plan;
assessments are congruent with the
learning goals in content and cognitive
complexity.
All learning goals are assessed
by the assessment plan, and
provide students with
constructive feedback on their
learning.
Clarity of Criteria and
Standards for
Performance
The assessments contain no
criteria for measuring
student performance relative
to the learning goals.
Assessments contain poorly stated
criteria for measuring student
performance leading to student
confusion.
Assessment criteria have been developed, but
they are not clear or are not explicitly linked
to the learning goals.
Assessment criteria are clear and are
explicitly linked to the learning goals. Assessment criteria are linked
to learning goals; accurately
documenting student learning.
Multiple Modes and
Approaches The assessment plan fails to
demonstrate evidence of
The assessment plan includes only
one assessment mode and does not
The assessment plan includes multiple modes
but all are either pencil/paper based (i.e., they
The assessment plan includes multiple
assessment modes (including
The assessment plan uses
formal/informal assessments
student assessment other
than after
instructions. Limited
knowledge of
formal/informal assessments
assess students before, during, and
after instruction. are not performance assessments) and/or do
not require the integration of knowledge,
skills and critical thinking.
performance assessments, lab reports,
research projects, etc.) and assesses
student performance throughout the
instructional sequence.
and student’s self-assessments
to assess student performance
and effectiveness of the
instructional sequence.
Technical Soundness
Assessments are not
designed to measure lessons goals and objectives; scoring
procedures are inaccurate.
Assessments are not valid; scoring
procedures are inaccurate; items or prompts are poorly written;
directions and procedures are
confusing to students.
Assessments appear to have some
validity. Some scoring procedures are explained; some items or prompts are clearly
written; some directions and procedures are
clear to students
Assessments appear to be valid;
scoring procedures are explained; most items or prompts are clearly written;
directions and procedures are clear to
students.
Assessments appear to be valid
and clearly written. Assessments data used
to document students’ strengths
as well as opportunities for
learning.
Adaptations Based on
the Individual Needs of
Students
Teacher does not address or
link assessments to identified
contextual factors.
Teacher does not adapt
assessments to meet the individual
needs of students or these
assessments are inappropriate.
Teacher makes adaptations to assessments
that are appropriate to meet the individual
needs of some students.
Teacher makes adaptations to
assessments that are appropriate to
meet the individual needs of most
students.
Teacher’s adaptations of
assessments for all students
needs to be met. Adaptations
are creative and show evidence
of outstanding problem-solving
skills by teacher candidate.
Design for Instruction
Rubric
TWS Standard: The teacher designs instruction for specific learning goals, student characteristics and needs, and learning contexts.
Rating →
Indicator ↓
1
Unacceptable
2
Beginning
3
Developing
4
Capable
5
Accomplished Score
Alignment with
Learning Goals
No lesson is linked to
learning goal. No
learning activities are
aligned to learning
goals.
Few lessons are explicitly linked to
learning goals. Few learning
activities, assignments and resources
are aligned with learning goals. Not
all learning goals are covered in the
design.
Most lessons are explicitly linked
to learning goals. Most learning
activities, assignments and
resources are aligned with
learning goals. Most learning
goals are covered in the design.
All lessons are explicitly linked to
learning goals. All learning
activities, assignments and
resources are aligned with
learning goals. All learning goals
are covered in the design.
All lessons are explicitly
linked to learning goals,
demonstrating critical
thinking and reflection in
activities and assignments.
Accurate
Representation of
Content
Teacher does not
demonstrate purpose
and relevancy of
content.
Teacher’s use of content appears to
contain numerous
inaccuracies. Content seems to be
viewed more as isolated skills and facts rather than as part of a larger
conceptual structure.
Teacher’s use of content appears
to be mostly accurate. Shows
some awareness of the big ideas
or structure of the discipline.
Teacher’s use of content appears
to be accurate. Focus of the
content is congruent with the big
ideas or structure of the discipline.
Teacher provides cross-
content approach to student
learning, stressing depth and
breadth of content.
Lesson and Unit
Structure
The lessons within the
unit do not demonstrate
knowledge of how
content is created and
developed.
The lessons within the unit are not
logically organized
(e.g., sequenced).
The lessons within the unit have
some logical organization and
appear to be somewhat useful in
moving students toward achieving
the learning goals.
Most lessons within the unit are
logically organized and appear to
be useful in moving students
toward achieving the learning
goals.
All lessons within the unit
demonstrate how knowledge
of content is created and
organized and integrates
knowledge from other fields
of content.
Use of a Variety of
Instruction,
Activities,
Assignments and
Resources
A single, instructional
modality is used with
textbook as only
reference.
Little variety of instruction, activities,
assignments, and resources. Heavy
reliance on textbook or single
resource (e.g., work sheets).
Some variety in instruction,
activities, assignments, or
resources but with limited
contribution to learning.
Significant variety across
instruction, activities,
assignments, and/or
resources. This variety makes a
clear contribution to learning.
Instructional strategic
assignments are varied to
accommodate individual
learners and to achieve lesson
goals.
Use of Contextual
Information and Data
to Select Appropriate
and Relevant
Activities,
Assignments and
Resources
Instruction has not been
based upon knowledge
of subject matter,
students or pre-
assessment data.
Instruction has been designed with
very limited reference to contextual
factors and pre-assessment
data. Activities and assignments do
not appear productive and
appropriate for each student.
Some instruction has been
designed with reference to
contextual factors and pre-
assessment data. Some activities
and assignments appear
productive and appropriate for
each student.
Most instruction has been
designed with reference to
contextual factors and pre-
assessment data. Most activities
and assignments appear
productive and appropriate for
each student.
All instruction addresses the
diverse needs of individual
students and contextual
factors of community, school
and class.
Use of Technology
Teacher does not use
technology during
instruction.
Technology is inappropriately used
and inappropriate rationale is
provided.
Teacher uses technology but it
does not make a significant
contribution to teaching and
learning or teacher provides
limited rationale for not using
technology.
Teacher integrates appropriate
technology that makes a
significant contribution to
teaching and learning or provides
a strong rationale for not using
technology.
Teacher integrates a variety of
media and technology into
instruction and relates both
directly to lesson goals.
STUDENT TEACHING--TWS
Teacher Work Sample
Target
3
Acceptable
2
Unacceptable
1
Description of Learning
Environment/Inclusive
Context
Description consists of a full, detailed
description of the school site and
student body.
Description includes relevant
information about the school site and
students.
Description is incomplete and/or missing
key information.
Planning for Instruction in
Inclusive Settings: Unit Plan
Unit plan follows required format.
Unit plan addresses required subject-
specific P-12 student standards—may
address more than 3 goal areas of FL
student standards. Interdisciplinary
connections and technology are the
focus of much of the unit. Critical
thinking plays a key role in the unit.
Unit plan follows required format. Unit
plan addresses required subject-
specific P-12 student standards;
addresses 3 goal areas of FL student
standards. Interdisciplinary
connections and technology are
addressed in the unit. Critical thinking
is evident.
Unit plan does not follow required
format and may not address required
subject-specific P-12 student standards;
may address fewer than 3 goal areas of
FL student standards. Interdisciplinary
connections and technology are minimal.
Critical thinking skills are not evident.
Planning for Instruction in
Inclusive Settings: Selected
Lesson Plans
Lesson plans follow required format
and effectively address required
subject-specific P-12 student
standards; may address more than 2
goal areas of FL student standards.
All lesson objectives are learner-
centered and measurable. Critical
Lesson plans follow required format
and address required subject-specific
P-12 student standards; address 2 goal
areas of FL student standards. All
lesson objectives are learner centered
and measurable. Some attention is
given to critical thinking skills. All
Lesson plans do not follow required
format and may not address required
subject-specific P-12 student standards;
may address fewer than 2 goal areas of
FL student standards. Some lesson
objectives may not be learner-centered
and measurable. Critical thinking skills
thinking skills are integrated. All
lesson activities address objectives
appropriate to all learners in inclusive
settings. There is evidence of a
variety of instructional activities.
lesson activities address objectives that
are appropriate to all learners in
inclusive settings.
are not addressed. Some lesson activities
may not address objectives, may not be
learner-centered and may not be
appropriate to all learners in inclusive
settings. Instructional materials may be
inadequate to meet the needs of all
learners in inclusive setting.
Implementing Instruction:
Evaluation by Supervisors
Observations by cooperating teacher
and university supervisor indicate
that the candidate exceededs student
teaching expectations (see evaluation
form).
Observations by cooperating teacher
and university supervisor indicate that
the candidate met the majority of the
student teaching expectations (see
evaluation form).
Observations by cooperating teacher and
university supervisor indicate that the
candidate did not meet several student
teaching expectations (see evaluation
form).
Implementing Instruction:
Self-Evaluations on Lesson
Plans
Self-evaluations present a thorough
analysis of the lesson, link learning
theories to practice, and offer a
systematic approach to
improvement.
Self-evaluations are reflective, link
some learning theories to practice,
analyze positive and negative aspects
of lesson, and include ideas for
improvement.
Self-evaluations lack depth and detail.
They are superficial and may attribute
lesson results to factors such as those
perceived to be caused by students
and/or cooperating teacher, and fail to
link learning theories and practice.
Assessment of Student
Learning in Inclusive
Settings: Design of
Assessments
Highly effective design of pre- and
post-assessments is evident.
Assessments are standards-based
and effectively assess targeted
objectives. All assessments are
contextualized, meaningful, and
learner-centered. Grading system
and rubrics are effectively designed.
Samples of student work are
included.
The design of pre- and post-
assessments is satisfactory.
Assessments effectively assess
targeted objectives. Assessments are
mostly contextualized, meaningful, and
learner-centered. Grading system and
rubrics are satisfactory. Samples of
student work are included.
Ineffective design of pre- and/or post-
assessments. Assessments fail to assess
targeted objectives and/or are not
contextualized, meaningful, or learner-
centered. Rubrics are either not included
or are ineffective. Grading system is
unsatisfactory. Samples of student work
may not be included.
Assessment of Student
Learning in Inclusive
Settings: Impact on Student
Learning
Pre-/Post-assessment results provide
convincing evidence of student
learning. Data confirm that all
students learned as a result of
instruction. Student surveys indicate
Pre-/Post-assessment results provide
evidence of student learning. Data
confirm that the majority of students
learned as a result of instruction.
Student surveys indicate a satisfactory
Pre-/Post-assessment results do not
provide evidence of student learning.
Data do not confirm that the majority of
students learned as a result of
instruction. Student surveys may indicate
a high level of satisfaction with
instruction.
level of student learning and general
satisfaction with instruction.
a low level of student learning and/or
dissatisfaction with instruction.
Analysis of Student
Learning: Formative and
Alternative Assessments
A thorough, detailed analysis of data.
Comparison of pre- and post- test
performance is detailed and
reflection on student performance is
thorough and insightful.
Analysis of data is complete and
effectively presented. Compares pre-
and post-test performance and offers a
rationale for the quality of student
performance.
Analysis of data may lack details and/or
may not be effectively presented.
Comparison of pre- and post-test
performance may be incomplete.
Reflection may fail to justify the quality
of student performance.
Reflection on Teaching
Effectiveness
Reflection on teaching effectiveness
is detailed and includes connections
to the Danielson framework.
Commentary is based on learning
theories and how they relate to and
inform classroom practice. Candidate
proposes a systematic, effective plan
for improving each student’s
performance based on results of this
work sample.
Reflection on teaching effectiveness is
satisfactory and includes connections
to the Danielson framework.
Commentary links learning theories to
practice. Candidate offers several
effective ideas for improving each
student’s performance based on
results of this work sample.
Reflection on teaching effectiveness is
superficial and/or does not relate to the
Danielson framework. Commentary does
not adequately analyze teaching
practices and /or link learning theories to
practice. The ideas offered by candidate
for improving each student’s
performance are inadequate and/or
ineffective and may not be based on the
results of the work sample.
Reflection on Professional
Growth
Candidate provides a comprehensive
plan for professional growth and
improvement in teaching.
Candidate identifies several aspects of
professional growth needed and sets
several goals for improvement.
Candidate is unable to plan effectively for
future professional growth.
SPANISH 3210, 3215, 3225, 3230: All Civilization Courses
Final Project: Cultural Investigation
Rubric for Research Paper Part of Project
Criteria 4=Exemplary (TARGET) 3=Accomplished (ACCEPTABLE 2=Developing (ACCEPTABLE 1=Beginning
HIGH) LOW) (UNACCEPTABLE)
Quality of thesis
statement
Score=
Thesis is student’s own
original idea, and clearly
states the main point of the
paper. Thesis is neither too
general nor too obvious.
Thesis is of appropriate
scope for the length of the
paper.
Thesis is student’s own original
idea and clearly states the
main idea of the paper. Thesis
is neither too general nor too
obvious. BUT thesis is NOT of
an appropriate scope for the
length of the paper.
Thesis is student’s own
original idea, BUT does not
clearly state the main idea of
the paper AND/OR is not of
an appropriate scope for the
length of the paper.
Thesis is not student’s
original idea, OR thesis is
too general or obvious.
Originality and
quality of
Ideas (cultural
products,
practices,
perspectives)
Score=
Thorough and accurate
analysis of cultural products,
practices, perspectives as
they relate to one another.
Ideas throughout the paper
(from title through
conclusion) show evidence of
original, creative, and critical
thinking (such as analysis,
interpretation, comparison,
synthesis, and evaluation).
The paper arrives at sound
conclusions.
Good discussion of products,
practices, perspectives, but
paper needs to relate the three
to one another more closely.
Most of the ideas in the paper
show evidence of original,
creative, and critical thinking.
Most of the conclusions are
sound.
Some discussion of products,
practices, perspectives; may
focus on only one of these
areas. Some of the ideas in
the paper show evidence of
original, creative, and critical
thinking. Some of the
conclusions are sound.
Little discussion of cultural
products, practices,
perspectives, OR analysis is
faulty. Very few of the
ideas in the paper show
evidence of original,
creative, or critical
thinking. Few of the
conclusions are sound.
Organization
and
expression of
ideas
Score=
All ideas support the thesis
statement. Ideas are
consistently organized in a
logical order. Paper avoids
excessive direct quoting.
Most ideas support the thesis
statement. Ideas are mostly
organized in a logical order.
Paper avoids excessive direct
quoting.
Ideas often do not support
the thesis statement. In
several instances, the ideas
are not logically organized,
OR in several instances, there
is excessive direct quoting.
Very few of the ideas
support the thesis
statement. Ideas often are
not organized in a logical
order, OR paper relies too
much on direct quoting.
Use of sources
Score=
Paper shows evidence of the
student’s having considered
appropriate types and
numbers of sources. Student
carefully distinguishes
between his/her own ideas
and those of others. Paper
provides the target reader
with appropriate amount of
background and contextual
information.
Paper shows evidence of the
student’s having considered
appropriate types and numbers
of sources. Student carefully
distinguishes between his/her
own ideas and those of others,
BUT paper provides in
inappropriate amount of
background and contextual
information.
Paper shows evidence of
student’s having considered
appropriate types and
quantities of sources. Paper
is inconsistent in
distinguishing between
student’s ideas and those of
others, OR is inconsistent in
providing appropriate
amounts of background
information.
Paper shows NO evidence
of student’s having
considered appropriate
types and quantities of
sources, OR paper does not
distinguish between
student’s ideas and those
of others, OR paper gives
too much or too little
background information.
Mechanics of
the
essay
Score=
Paper consistently uses
correct grammatical
structures and vocabulary, as
well as correct spelling,
capitalization, accentuation,
underlining, and
punctuation. Sentence
structure is varied. Essay is
fully comprehensible and
easy to read.
Paper has a few errors in
grammatical structures,
vocabulary, spelling,
capitalization, accentuation,
underlining, and/or
punctuation. Sentence
structures is generally varied,
and essay is mostly
comprehensible and easy to
read.
Paper has many errors in
spelling, capitalization,
underlining, accentuation,
and/or punctuation. BUT
paper has FEW errors in
grammatical structures or
vocabulary; sentence
structure is generally varied,
and essay is generally
comprehensible.
Paper has many errors in
grammatical structures
and/or in vocabulary.
Paper is often difficult to
comprehend because of
these errors. Paper also
has many errors in spelling,
capitalization, underlining,
accentuation, and/or
punctuation.
Mechanics of
MLA
format
Score=
Paper consistently adheres to
MLA rules for format, page
numbering, citations,
footnotes/endnotes, and
bibliography/ list of works
cited.
Paper deviates in a few areas
from the MLA rules for format,
page numbering, citations,
footnotes/endnotes, and/or
bibliography/list of works
cited.
Paper often deviates from
MLA rules for format, page
numbering, citations,
footnotes/endnotes, and/or
bibliography/list of works
cited.
Paper shows little evidence
that student consulted
MLA rules for writing of
research papers.
*If the instructor determines that inappropriate copying of materials from sources (i.e., plagiarism) is apparent in the paper, the student will
receive a grade of “0” as a final grade on the paper.
SPANISH 3115 and 3105: Phonetics & Phonemics
Linguistic Analysis of a Speech Sample: Spanish
Target
3
Acceptable
2
Unacceptable
1
Description of dialectical
features
Provides a full
description of the
phonological and
morphological rules,
how they operate
within the dialect, and
how they compare to
other dialects of
Spanish.
Describes accurately at
least three dialectical
features of the speech
sample in terms of
phonological and
morphological aspects.
Description either lacks
sufficient detail or is at
least partly inaccurate.
Or fewer than three
features are described.
Description of
phonemes/allophones
Gives the linguistic rules
plus a detailed written
explanation of the
distribution of the
phonemes, with
supporting examples,
and comparisons to
other dialects of
Spanish and to English.
Analyzes accurately the
four phonemes /
allophones selected and
makes appropriate
comparisons to English.
Analysis either lacks
sufficient detail or is at
least partly inaccurate.
Or fewer than four
phonemes are
described.
Description of syntactic
or intonation patterns
Provides a detailed
analysis of the syntactic
or intonation patterns,
with examples, and
comparisons to other
dialects of Spanish and
to English.
Analyzes accurately the
two syntactic or
intonation patterns
selected and makes
appropriate
comparisons to English.
Analysis either lacks
sufficient detail or is at
least partly inaccurate.
Or only one pattern is
described.
Description of
pragmatic/sociolinguistic
features
Provides a detailed
analysis of the
pragmatic /
sociolinguistic features,
with examples, and
Analyzes accurately the
two pragmatic /
sociolinguistic features
selected and makes
appropriate
Analysis either lacks
sufficient detail or is at
least partly inaccurate.
Or only one pattern is
described.
comparisons to other
dialects of Spanish and
to English.
comparisons to English.
Description of additional
features
Provides a detailed
analysis of the
additional features with
examples, and
comparisons to other
dialects of Spanish and
to English.
Identifies and analyzes
accurately two
additional features of
the speech sample.
Analysis either lacks
sufficient detail or is at
least partly inaccurate.
Or only one feature is
described.
Use of Spanish and
citations in paper
May have a few minor
errors. Citations
included and adhere to
proper format.
May be some errors but
no major patterns of
errors to interfere with
comprehensibility.
Citations included and
mostly follow proper
format.
Errors are so serious as
to make paper difficult
to follow. And/or no
citations and/or
citations do not follow
proper format.
Quality of interpersonal
communication in
interview
Interview is of an
appropriate length and
conducted
appropriately. No major
patterns of errors; may
be some minor errors. Is
an active conversational
partner. Negotiates
meaning in order to
clarify message.
Interview is of an
appropriate length and
conducted
appropriately. Message
is comprehensible
although there may be a
few patterns of errors.
Responds to some of
what informant says.
May ask for clarification
in the face of
misunderstanding.
Interview is too short
and/or not conducted
professionally. And/or
errors in Spanish often
make message difficult
to understand. May be
little evidence of
negotiation of meaning.
SCORING RUBRIC
Professional Involvement Log
Target
3
Acceptable
2
Unacceptable
1
Efforts to Improve
Spanish Outside of
Class
Has worked on language
proficiency outside of coursework
by participating in TWO or more
activities throughout a semester.
One activity may be a second
study abroad experience.
Has worked on language proficiency outside of
coursework and the required study abroad
experience by participating in at least ONE activity
throughout a semester. Acceptable activities
include conversing with a conversation partner,
participating in local events, and working in an
environment where Spanish is spoken.
Demonstrated little to no evidence
of working on language
proficiency outside of coursework
and the required study abroad
experience.
Attendance at
Professional
Development Events
Has documented evidence of
attending more than 3
professional development events.
Documented evidence includes
both proof of attendance and a
description of what was learned
at these events.
Has documented evidence of attendance at 1-3
professional development Documented evidence
includes both proof of attendance and a
description of what was learned at these events.
Has no documented evidence of
attendance at any professional
development events and/or has
documented evidence of
attendance at 1-3 events but is
unable to describe what was
learned at these events.
Familiarity With and
Membership in
Foreign Language
Professional
Organizations
In addition to describing the
missions of at least TWO foreign
language professional
organizations and evaluating
opportunities for professional
development offered by these
organizations, the teacher
candidate has joined at least ONE
organization as a student
member.
Describes the missions of at least TWO foreign
language professional organizations (e.g., ACTFL,
PSMLA, AATSP); may include one regional
conference such as ACTFL. Lists examples of several
opportunities for professional development
offered by these organizations.
May identify the names of one or
two foreign language professional
organizations but is unable to
provide additional information
regarding either mission or the
opportunities for professional
growth offered by these
organizations. No participation in
FL organizations.
Future Plans for
Professional
Involvement
Explains a clear vision of his/her
role as an active participant in the
profession.
Identifies several ideas for ways to become
involved actively in the profession.
Relates no immediate plans for
becoming involved in the
profession.