universidad del turabo school of education educational ......ut soed elp caep/teac annual report...

Universidad del Turabo

School of Education

Educational Leadership Program

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation

CAEP/TEAC Annual Report 2017

Submitted by

Dr. Rafael Cartagena-Rodríguez

SOED CAEP/TEAC Accreditation Committee Chair

Prof. Israel Rodriguez-Rivera

SOED Dean

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Introduction

SOED Enrollment and Graduation Data 1

Assessment Results

Claim 1 1

Claim 2 6

Claim 3 7

Claim 4 9

Claim 5 10

Inventory of evidence 12

UT SOED ELP CAEP/TEAC Annual Report 2017 1

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation

CAEP/TEAC Annual Report 2015

Educational Leadership Program

Introduction

The School of Education (SOED) Educational Leadership Program (ELP) is comprised of two degrees: Master in Education (MEd) with specialization in Educational Administration and Doctorate in Educational

Leadership (EdD). The SOED Educational Leadership Program did not suffer changes during the report period:

academic year 2015-16. This annual report will include data analysis for both degrees.

SOED Enrollment and Graduation Data

The number of enrolled students in SOED Educational Leadership Program decreased from a combined

number of 132 students in both degrees to 129 students in the last academic year. The MEd program enrollment

decreased from 63 students (2014-2015) to 55 (2015-16). The changes in regulations regarding the requirements for

becoming a school director, thus, the number of students seeking for a School Director Certification and the

availability of those positions in the Puerto Rico Department of Education (PRDE) has been identified as the main

reasons for such a lower number of enrolled students. Also, mobility and demographic changes due economic

recession in Puerto Rico has had an impact on education programs. EdD program had a small increase from 69 students (2014-15) to 74 (2015-16).

Table 1: Enrollment in the ELP for Academic Years: 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-16

Degree 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

MEd Educational Administration 58 63 55

Ed D Educational Leadership 68 69 74

Total 126 132 129

The number of students who completed the SOED Educational Leadership Program did not change from 2014-15 to

2015-16: 16 students. In the MEd degree, there were two less graduates from 7 (2014-15) to 5 (2015-16); in the

EdD degree graduates increased in the same amount, from 9 (2014-15) to 11 (2015-16).

Table 2: Graduation Data of ELP Students for Academic Years: 2012-13 and 2013-2014

Degree 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

MEd Educational Administration 15 7 5

Ed D Educational Leadership 5 9 11

Total 20 16 16

Assessment Results

Claim 1 Professional Knowledge: The faculty claims that the graduates of the MA degree in Educational

Administration and the graduates of the Ed. D. in Educational Leadership understand the political, social, economic and cultural complexity of educational enterprises, and can use that understanding to solve problems and create a

school environment that enhances learning.

Grade Distributions

Students in the master and doctoral level must approve their courses with a minimum grade of C and must

have a GPA of 3.00 as stated in the academic norm. The ABC rate in the grade distributions in the MEd professional

courses achieved the expected 80% in all the professional courses.


Table 3: Grade Distribution in the MEd Professional Courses: 2015-16

Course A % B % C % ABC % D % F % Total

Educ 503 19 95.0 19 95.0 1 5.0 20

Educ 504 15 75.0 2 10.0 17 85.0 3 15 20

Educ 506 21 95.5 1 4.5 22 100.0 22

Educ 510 28 87.5 4 12.5 32 100.0 32

Educ 519 24 68.6 9 25.7 1 2.9 34 97.1 1 2.9 35

Educ 520 27 93.1 2 6.9 29 100.0 29

Educ 702 17 70.8 7 29.2 24 100.0 24

Educ 705 26 96.3 1 3.7 27 100.0

Practicum

Educ 515 29 93.5 29 93.5 2 6.5 31

The percentage of students enrolled in the MEd professional courses during the academic year 2015-16 that

comply with the expected minimum GPA of 3.00 is 93.75% (60/64 students).

Table 4: Descriptive Statistics for GPA in Professional Courses of the MEd Degree

Statistics Value

No students 64

Mean 3.68

Median 4.00*

Mode 4.00

Standard Deviation 0.79

Range 4.00

Maximum 4.00

Minimum 0.00

Number of Students GPA > 3.00 60

% Students GPA > 3.00 93.75

* Median is 4.00 because of the large amount of students with a GPA of 4.00 (39/64 students)

The ABC-Grade rate in the grade distributions in the EdD professional courses achieved the expected 80% in all the professional courses.

Table 5: Grade Distribution in the EdD Professional Courses: 2015-16

Course A % B % C % ABC % D % F % Total

Educ 801 12 85.7 1 7.1 13 92.8 1 7.1 14

Educ 802 3 37.5 5 62.5 8 100 8

Educ 803 5 100.0 5 100.0 5

Educ 804 11 52.4 8 38.1 19 90.5 2 9.5 21

Educ 805 20 100.0 20 100.0 20

Educ 806

Educ 807 12 92.3 1 7.7 13 100.0 13

Educ 806 was not offered during the academic year 2015-16.

The percentage of students enrolled in the EdD professional courses during the academic year 2015-16 that

comply with the expected minimum GPA of 3.00 is 88.24% (30/34 students).


Table 6: Descriptive Statistics for GPA in Professional Courses of the MEd Degree

Statistics Value

No students 34

Mean 3.50

Median 3.88

Mode 4.00

Standard Deviation 0.89

Range 3.00

Maximum 4.00

Minimum 1.00

Number of Students GPA > 3.00 30

% Students GPA > 3.00 88.24

MEd Comprehensive examinations/Professional Portfolio

Students at the MEd have the choice to take the comprehensive exam or approve the course Educ 604:

Knowledge Integration Seminar. In the MEd program, no students have taken the comprehensive exam during the

past three academic years. Instead, they completed the course Educ 604. The approval of course Educ 604 requires the design of an electronic portfolio that compiles previous tasks from their courses and practicum, and the completion

of the following tasks: Reflection Paper (using the Curere strategy), Service Learning Plan, Specialized Topic Paper,

and a Professional Dispositions Paper. Rubrics for each task were developed and are used as a homogeneous method

to evaluate them.

Only one student did not complete the required tasks in course Educ 604; 11 out of 12 students (91.7%)

students approved the course in 2015-16. The student will get an IP grade (In Progress) in the course and will receive

additional support to complete the course requirements.

EdD Comprehensive examinations/Professional Portfolio

The comprehensive exam includes a Social Context and a Leadership Component. Students are presented

with two questions in each component and must select one to answer. Experts of each area carefully construct the questions; experts who have taught the courses to the students that will be examined. Then, they revised the questions

in a teamwork session under the direction of the Doctoral Program Coordinator. Validity of the questions relies on

the expert’s judgment and ability to align the main topics in the courses with the questions.

Final approval of the test requires the approval of both components. In 2015-2016, 80.0% (8/10 students)

approved the exam. One student had the leadership component approved from the previous academic year and got

the final approval after repeating the social context component.

In 2015-16, test scores reliability was strong with a Cronbach alpha = 0.820. Results from 2014-15 and 2015-

16 comprehensive exam components were compared. For the Social Context component, there was significant

variability (F=5.660, p= 0.028) and no significant difference in the t-test for independent samples (t= -0.751, df=19,

Sig 2-tailed =0.462). For the Leadership component, there was no significant variability (F= 2.399, p= 0.137) and no

significant difference in the t-test for independent samples (t= -1.081, df=20, Sig 2-tailed =0.293).

Table 7: Descriptive Statistics for the EdD Comprehensive Exam: 2014-2015 and 2015-16

Exam Social Context Leadership

Statistics 2014-15 2015-16 2014-15 2015-16

N 12 13 9 13 9

2 1 1 1 1

Mean 81.08 84.67 80.08 83.44

Median 85.00 85.00 82.00 84.00

Mode 85 85 80a 78b

Std. Deviation 13.433 5.454 8.827 3.504

Range 38 18 32 10

Minimum 57 74 61 78

Maximum 95 92 93 88


Table 8: Results of the Independent Samples t-Test for the Comprehensive Exam’s Social Context and

Leadership Components (2014-15; 2015-16)

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference

SContext Equal variances

assumed

5.660 .028 -.751 19 .462 -3.583

Equal variances

not assumed

-.837 15.348 .416 -3.583

Leadership Equal variances

assumed

2.399 .137 -1.081 20 .293 -3.368

Equal variances

not assumed

-1.242 16.781 .231 -3.368

Dissertation Courses

MEd students can use EDUC 617 as an integration seminar in substitution of a thesis. The student will

complete a non-interactive research project in educational administration. This course gives the student a synthesis

of program course content with a research based focus. In the academic year 2015-16, 9 out of 12 students (75%)

completed the research project and approved the Educ 617 seminar. The students will get an IP grade (In Progress)

in the course and will receive additional support to complete the research project. Seven (7) doctoral students were immersed in the final phase of their thesis dissertation process. Four (4)

students completed the process, and approved satisfactorily their thesis defense and became graduates at the academic

year 2015-16.

Pre and Posttest using ISLLC Standards for Educational Leaders

The ISLLC Standards for Educational Leaders were used as guidelines in the development of twenty (20)

items in the pre and post-test administered to all candidates in the MEd Practicum. The pre and post-test Cronbach’s

alpha was 0.691, implying moderate data consistency.

Table 9: Descriptive Data for Pre-Test Items

Item01 Item02 Item03 Item04 Item05 Item06 Item07

N Valid 32 32 32 32 32 32 32

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 3.91 4.09 3.75 3.66 3.66 3.94 3.91

Median 4.00 4.00 3.50 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00

Mode 4 5 3 3 3 3 3

Std. Deviation .777 .893 .842 .827 .865 .840 .818

Range 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Minimum 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Maximum 5 5 5 5 5 5 5


N Valid 32 32 32 32 32 32 32

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 3.56 3.91 3.94 3.94 3.75 4.16 3.75

Median 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

Mode 3 3 3 3 3 5 4

Std. Deviation .669 .856 .878 .840 .762 .847 .718

Range 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Minimum 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Maximum 5 5 5 5 5 5 5


Item15 Item16 Item17 Item18 Item19 Item20

N Valid 32 32 32 32 32 32

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 3.72 3.94 3.94 3.91 4.09 3.91

Median 3.50 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

Mode 3 3 3 3 5 4

Std. Deviation .813 .914 .840 .856 .856 .777

Range 2 2 2 2 2 2

Minimum 3 3 3 3 3 3

Maximum 5 5 5 5 5 5

Table 10: Descriptive Data for Post-Test Items


N Valid 32 32 32 32 32 32 32

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 4.22 4.53 4.41 4.19 4.16 4.34 4.34

Median 4.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

Mode 4 5 4b 4 4 4 4

Std. Deviation .659 .671 .615 .644 .677 .653 .653

Range 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Minimum 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Maximum 5 5 5 5 5 5 5


N Valid 32 32 32 32 32 32 32

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 4.09 4.41 4.34 4.50 4.22 4.63 4.28

Median 4.00 4.50 4.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 4.00

Mode 4 5 4 5 4 5 4

Std. Deviation .530 .665 .602 .568 .608 .554 .581

Range 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Minimum 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Maximum 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Item15 Item16 Item17 Item18 Item19 Item20

N Valid 32 32 32 32 32 32

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 4.19 4.41 4.34 4.31 4.50 4.38

Median 4.00 4.50 4.00 4.00 5.00 4.00

Mode 4 5 4 4 5 4

Std. Deviation .535 .665 .653 .535 .672 .609

Range 2 2 2 2 2 2

Minimum 3 3 3 3 3 3

Maximum 5 5 5 5 5 5


A Paired Samples t-Test showed statically significant differences between the pre and post mean scores

(t=16.949, df=31, sig(2 tailed)=0.000).

Table 11: Paired Sample Statistics for the Post/Pre Means of ISLLC Items

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 POSTMean 4.3391 32 .11411 .02017

PREMean 3.87 32 .214 .038

Table 12: Paired Sample Correlations for the Post/Pre Means of ISLLC Items

Paired Samples Correlations N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 POSTMean & PREMean 32 .703 .000

Table 13: Paired Sample Test for the Post/Pre Means of ISLLC Items

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 1 POSTMean -

PREMean

.46875 .15645 .02766 .41234 .52516 16.949 31 .000

MEd Course EDUC 515 - Practicum

Students enrolled in the practicum experience complete the following tasks: Reflective dairies, Pre/Post-Test

based on the ISLLC Standards and the Final Report. Rubrics for the reflective diaries and the final Report were

developed and implemented at the beginning of the academic year 2014-2015. Data on the Pre/Post ISLLC was shown

in the previous section. The University Supervisor and the Cooperative Director evaluate the student based on his/her

performance during the process through a collaborative discussion.

Table 14: Grade Distribution in the MEd Practicum – Educ 515

Year A % B % C % ABC % D % F % Total

2013-14 26 100.0 26 100.0 26

2014-15 19 100.0 19 100.0 19

2015-16 29 93.5 29 93.5 2 6.5 31

Total 74 97.4 74 97.4 2 2.6 76

Claim 2 Strategic Decision Making. The faculty claims that the graduates understand educational structures and

processes use this understanding to promote the success of every student, and gather data to measure the

effectiveness of these efforts.

Evidence for claim 2 is based on previous data analysis of

Comprehensive Examinations/Portfolios


In the MEd program, no students took the comprehensive exam during the past three academic years. Instead,

they completed the course Educ 604. Only one student did not complete the required tasks in course Educ 604; 11

out of 12 students (91.7%) students approved the course in 2015-16. The student will get an IP grade (In Progress) in

the course and will receive additional support to complete the course requirements.



In 2015-2016, 80.0% (8/10 students) approved the exam. One student had the leadership component

approved from the previous academic year and got the final approval after repeating the social context component.



variability (F=5.660, p= 0.028) and no significant difference in the t-test for independent samples (t= -0.751, df=19, Sig 2-tailed =0.462). For the Leadership component, there was no significant variability (F= 2.399, p= 0.137) and no


Practicum Evaluations Students enrolled in the practicum experience complete the following tasks: Reflective dairies, Pre/Post-Test




performance during the process through a collaborative discussion. (See Table 14)

Dissertation Courses MEd - In the academic year 2015-16, 9 out of 12 students (75%) completed the research project and approved

the Educ 617 seminar. The students will get an IP grade (In Progress) in the course and will receive additional support

to complete the research project.

EdD - Seven (7) doctoral students were immersed in the final phase of their thesis dissertation process. Four

(4) students completed the process, and approved satisfactorily their thesis defense and became graduates at the

academic year 2015-16.

Pre and Posttest using ISLLA Test

The ISLLC Standards for Educational Leaders were used as guidelines in the development of twenty (20)

items in the pre and post-test administered to all candidates in the MEd Practicum. The pre and post-test Cronbach’s

alpha was 0.691, implying moderate data consistency. A Paired Samples t-Test showed statically significant

differences between the pre and post mean scores (t=16.949, df=31, sig(2 tailed)=0.000). (See Tables 9-13)

Claim 3: Caring Leadership Skills and Multicultural Perspectives and Accuracy: The faculty claims that the

program prepares educational leaders who will act in an ethical, fair and trustworthy manner to promote success of

every student and are understanding and sensible to parents’, students’ and teachers’ cultural, racial, gender and

individual differences.

Evidence for claim 3 is based on:

Professional Portfolio



out of 12 students (91.7%) students approved the course in 2015-16. The student will get an IP grade (In Progress) in the course and will receive additional support to complete the course requirements.

MEd Practicum






Grades Distributions

MEd Courses Educ 504 – Leadership, Communication and Teamwork, and Educ 515 – Practicum (See Table 14)


A C grade is the minimum grade required to approve the course. In the past three years, grade distributions

of the course surpassed the expected 80% rate in ABC grades. minimum grades required to approve the course.

Table 15: Grade Distribution in the MEd Course Educ 504


2013-14 26 100.0 26 100.0 26

2014-15 16 10.0 16 100.0 16

2015-16 15 75.0 2 10.0 17 85.0 3 15 20

Total 57 91.9 2 3.2 59 95.2 3 4.8 62

EdD Courses

Educ 714: Historic and Phisolophical Perspectives on Education; Educ 715 – Social, Cultural and Political

Dimensions of Educational Organization; Educ 717: Legal Aspects on Education: Educ 718 – Ethics and Education; and Educ 807 – Leadership, Community Relations and Partnerships. A C grade is the minimum grade required to

approve each course.

In the past three years, all students enrolled in the course Educ 714 approved with at least the minimum grade

required.

Table 16: Grade Distribution in the EdD Course Educ 714


2013-14 3 60.00 2 40.00 5 100.0 5

2014-15 10 100.0 10 100.0 10

2015-16 2 66.67 1 33.33 3 100.0 3

Total 15 83.33 3 16.67 18 100.0 18

In 2013-14 and 2015-16, all students enrolled in the course Educ 715 approved with at least the minimum

grade required. There were no students enrolled in the course in 2014-15.



2013-14 3 100.0 3 100.0 3

2014-15 0

2015-16 1 100.0 1 100.0 1

Total 4 100.0 4 100.0 4

In the past three years, all students enrolled in the course Educ 716 approved with at least the minimum grade required.



2013-14 1 33.33 1 33.33 1 33.33 3 100.0 3

2014-15 2 20.00 6 60.00 2 20.00 10 100.0 10

2015-16 5 38.46 7 53.85 1 7.69 13 100.0 13

Total 8 30.77 14 53.85 4 15.38 26 100.0 26



required.



2013-14 1 100.0 1 100.0 1

2014-15 12 92.3 1 7.7 13 100.0 13

2015-16 4 100.0 4 100.0 4

Total 17 94.44 1 5.56 18 100.0 18

In the past three years, 13 out of 16 (81.25%) of the students enrolled in the course Educ 718 approved with

at least the minimum grade required.



2013-14 3 27.27 5 45.45 2 18.18 10 90.91 1 9.09 11

2014-15 1 33.33 1 33.33 1 3.33 1 33.33 3

2015-16 2 100.0 2 100 2

Total 6 37.50 5 31.25 2 12.50 13 81.25 2 12.50 1 6.25 16

In the past three years, 30 out of 31 (96.77%) of the students enrolled in the course Educ 807 approved with

at least the minimum grade required.



2013-14 8 100.0 8 100.0 8

2014-15 10 100.0 10 100.0 10

2015-16 12 92.31 12 92.31 1 7.69 13

Total 30 96.77 30 96.77 1 3.23 31

Claim 4: Learning How to Learn: The faculty claims that the constructivist learning philosophy

enhances students’ abilities to continue learning after completion of programs.


Work Samples from courses Educ 604 – Knowledge Integration Seminar and Educ 617 – Classroom

Research Seminar and Clinical Experiences Educ 515 – Practicum






MEd Educ 617

MEd - In the academic year 2015-16, 9 out of 12 students (75%) completed the research project and approved

the Educ 617 seminar. The students will get an IP grade (In Progress) in the course and will receive additional support

to complete the research project.

MEd Course EDUC 515 - Practicum







Comprehensive examinations/Professional Portfolios







In 2015-2016, 80.0% (8/10 students) approved the exam. One student had the leadership component

approved from the previous academic year and got the final approval after repeating the social context component.



variability (F=5.660, p= 0.028) and no significant difference in the t-test for independent samples (t= -0.751, df=19, Sig 2-tailed =0.462). For the Leadership component, there was no significant variability (F= 2.399, p= 0.137) and no


Claim 5 Technology: The faculty claims that students use instructional technology throughout

coursework as an integral part of the program.


Grades Distributions

MEd Courses Educ 501: Curriculum Principles

In 2013-14 and 2015-16, 29 out of 31 students enrolled in the course Educ 501 approved with at least the

minimum grade required. There were no students enrolled in the course in 2014-15.

Table 22: Grade Distribution in the MEd Course Educ 501


2013-14 14 73.68 4 21.05 18 94.73 1 5.27 19

2014-15 0

2015-16 7 53.85 4 30.77 11 84.64 1 7.69 1 7.69 13

Total 21 67.74 8 25.81 29 93.55 1 3.23 1 3.23 31

EdD Courses Educ 808: Educational Computing, Educ 809: Instructional Design, Educ 810: Technology Media in Education and

Training, and Educ 811: Theory and Practice of Distance Education

There were no students enrolled in course Educ 808 in 2015-16.



2013-14 0

2014-15 1 50.0 1 50.0 2 100.0 2

2015-16 0

Total 1 50.0 1 50.0 2 100.0 2



required.



2013-14 5 83.3 1 16.7 6 100.0 6

2014-15 8 80.0 2 20.0 10 100.0 10

2015-16 4 100 4 100.0 4

Total 17 85.00 3 15.00 20 100.0 20





2013-14 3 75.0 1 25.0 4 100.0 4

2014-15 4 100.0 4 100.0 4

2015-16 0

Total 7 87.5 1 12.5 8 100.0 8





2013-14 5 100.0 5 100.0 5

2014-15 4 80.0 1 20.0 5 100.0 5

2015-16 0

Total 13 92.86 1 7.14 14 100.0 14

UT SOED CAEP/TEAC ELP Annual Report 2015 12

Inventory of evidence

Table 18: General Description of the Evidence to Support the Claims

Evidence Relevance Verifiable Representative Cumulative Actionable

Grade

distributions

With added confidence by

using in combination with

other evidence give clear

picture of student achievement.

Easy to verify electronically

as it is certified by the

Registrar.

All students receive grades in

their courses.

Provide a consistent history of

student achievement over time

Yield information for

curriculum and academic

regulations revision; provide

information on faculty development needs.

Comprehensive

examinations or

EDUC 604

Students’ demonstrate

knowledge and skills.

Scores and test guidelines are

available to review

MA students take

comprehensive examination or

EDUC 604; all doctoral

students are required to take

The Comprehensive

Examination.

Provide a historical record of

mastery of content and skills.

Allows faculty to calibrate

students’ strengths and

weaknesses and take action in

program revision.

Capstone projects

and Professional

Portfolios

Reinforce grades and

comprehensive examination in

understanding students’

acquisition of skills and

knowledge.

Portfolios are easily verifiable

by independent evaluators.

All MA and Doctoral

students’ are required to

complete a Capstone Project

and Portfolio.MA students

start a portfolio in EDUC 504,

doctoral program start in EDUC 716.

Allow students to create a

reflective history of academic

life in the program from

beginning to end.

Allows for students

recommendations for revising

courses and processes.

Dissertation

Courses

Students demonstrate mastery

of the process of acquiring,

processing and creating new

knowledge

The document is published

and presented to the

educational community.

All doctoral students complete

a dissertation.

Students have to accumulate

different skills and knowledge

to write a dissertation.

Dissertations’

recommendations are

actionable. Quality of

document reflects quality of

program and provides new

knowledge and

recommendations for action.

End-of-program

survey

Information is essential for

understanding students’ self-

assessment of knowledge and

quality od program.

Results are presented for

faculty to discuss and take

action.

All students complete the end

of program survey.

Accumulated and discussed

results over the years reinforce

or contradict evidence of

student achievement.

Information is used to revise

and improve programs.

Pre and Posttest

using ISLLC

Standards for Educational

Leaders

SLLA Test is used to measure

ISLLC 2008 Standards that

provide adequate profile of needed skills for educational

leaders.

Scores and correction criteria are available for review.

All MA and Doctoral students

will take the PRE and Post SLLA test.

Comparison from PRE to

POST provides progress achieved.

Results show areas where

faculty action could be necessary.

MA Internship’

Results

Theory is put into practice.

Educational output is seen in

All evaluations instruments

produced during internship are

All MA students complete the

internship.

The internship scheduled at

the end of MA program

Students’ strengths and

weakness are shown in


real time in a real educational

setting.

kept in SOED and are

available for examination.

provides a comprehensive

view of the candidates

capabilities developed over

time in program.

internship evaluations reports

indicating faculty the direction

of program adjustments.

Work samples

MA Students have to

demonstrate skills by

producing specific products in

selected courses.

Work samples are kept by

faculty members and are

available for examination.

All MA students have to take

EDUC 604, 617 and 515.

All these courses required

acquired knowledge and skills

during program in order to

produce three different work samples.

Evaluation documents of

courses provide information

for program revision.

Table 19: Inventory of evidence

Inventory: Status of Evidence from measures and indicators for TEAC Quality Principle I

Type of Evidence Available and in the Brief Not Available and Not in the Brief

Note: items under each category are examples. Program may have more or

different evidence

Relied on Reasons for including the results in the

Brief

Location in Brief

Not Relied on

Reasons for not relying on this

efficiency

Location in Brief

For future use Reasons for including in

future Briefs

Not for future use Reasons for not including in future

Briefs

Grades

1. Student grades and grade point average It is a solid evidence of

acquired knowledge

2, 6, 8,

10, 11

Scores on standardized tests

2. Student scores on standardized license or

board examinations

Supports our claim of

acquired professional

knowledge

3. Student scores on undergraduate and/or

graduate admission tests of subject

matter knowledge and aptitude.

4. Standardized scores and gains of the

program graduates’ own pupils.

Very difficult to obtain data

especially when graduates are in

power positions.

Ratings

5. Ratings of portfolios of academic and

clinical accomplishments

Students can demonstrate

knowledge and professional skills

3, 6, 7

6. Third-party rating of program’s students

7. Ratings of in-service, clinical, and PDS

teaching




Note: items under each category are

examples. Program may have more or

different evidence

Relied on

Reasons for including the results in the

Brief

Location in Brief

Not Relied on

Reasons for not

relying on this

efficiency

Location in Brief

For future use

Reasons for including in

future Briefs

Not for future use

Reasons for not including in future

Briefs

8. Ratings, by cooperating teacher and

college/university supervisors, of

practice teachers’ work samples.

Rates

9. Rating of completion of courses and

program

Support professional

knowledge

1, 3, 4,

7, 9

10. Graduates’ career retention rates

Most of our graduates’ occupy

leadership positions before entering the program; consequently is not a

good measure of program

accomplishments.

11. Graduates’ job placement rates See above

12. Rates of graduates professional advanced

study

13. Rates of graduates’ leadership roles

Emphasis is placed in

developing job abilities and

skills in program SOED

graduates are expected to

make contributions as

educational leaders. Some

kind of follow up will be

included in future surveys.

14. Rates of graduates’ professional service activities

Service is one of the

cornerstones of SOED graduates. Data regarding

service will be included in

future surveys

Case Studies and alumni competence




Note: items under each category are

examples. Program may have more or

different evidence

Relied on

Reasons for including the results in the

Brief

Location in Brief

Not Relied on

Reasons for not

relying on this

efficiency

Location in Brief

For future use

Reasons for including in

future Briefs

Not for future use

Reasons for not including in future

Briefs

15. Evaluations of graduates by their own

pupils

Graduates occupy leadership roles;

consequently it is very difficult to

obtain reliable data.

16. Alumni self-assessment of their

accomplishments

Graduate over perceptions

are essential for program

improvement

4, 6, 7

17. Third party professional recognition of

graduates (e.g., NBPTS)

Efforts in follow up surveys will be made to obtain this

data but it has proven to be

very difficult to obtain in the

past.

18. Employers’ evaluation of the program’s

graduates

Necessary for program

improvement. Must be

incorporated in future

surveys.

19. Graduate’s authoring of textbooks,

curriculum materials, etc.

Data will be collected in

future surveys

20. Case studies of graduates’ own pupils’

learning and accomplishments

Useful for program

improvement. Will be

included in EDUC 604

Comprehensive exams

21. EdD comprehensive exams

Demonstrate a

comprehensive perspective of knowledge and skills

acquisition

3, 6, 7, 10

universidad del turabo school of education educational ......ut soed elp caep/teac annual report...

Documents