Quicklinks
myMILLIKIN |
Search
Millikin Home
Big Blue RSS
Millikin University - Decatur, IL
a. Assessment 

2a. Assessment system


1. How is the unit assessment system evaluated and continuously improved? Who is involved and how?

The unit assessment system reflects the conceptual framework and the four indicators of excellence, the designated Candidate Assessments and Program Assessments, and the standards to which we hold ourselves accountable: Millikin and Illinois Professional Teaching standards, Core Language Arts Standards, Core Technology Standards, and the national standards for each discipline.

The unit assessment system is evaluated and refined annually at the DARE meeting held at the conclusion of the school year. Faculty analyze data and assessment tools to decide if any revisions are needed, based on the alignment of course objectives and performance requirements to the resulting teacher candidate outcomes. These changes are completed during summer work and presented at the second DARE meeting in August.

The Committee on Teacher Education Programs (CTEP) looks at state standardized test scores, the first two transition points, and any dispositional issues to see if any course curriculum needs adjusted. Individual CTEP members take this data back to the departments and review it alongside student test scores, gpa, and dispositional issues. Finally, the Field Placement coordinator, along with the Education department and Clinical Faculty review internship quality twice a year. These examinations of the data by various groups of people tell us when and if curriculum needs to be adjusted.

2. Table 6 Unit Assessment System: Transition Point Assessments

#

CANDIDATE ASSESSMENT TITLE

COURSE(S)

SYSTEM LEVEL

CA1

Professional Growth Narrative

ED120/ED130/ED 205

ASE

CA2

Disposition Assessment Self-Evaluation/Reflection

ED120/ED130/ED 205

ASE

CA3

Case Study

ED200/ED201

CP

CA4

Web Quest

ED218/ED219/ME251

CP

CA5

Classroom Management & Discipline Plan

ED310

CP

CA6

Philosophy of Teaching & Learning

ED310

CP

CA7

Long Range Instructional Plan

ED203/ED321/ME341/ED 336

CP

CA8

Functional Behavioral Analysis

ED320

CP

CA9

Comprehensive Literacy Plan

ED 424/ED305/ED435

CP

CA10
Teacher Work Sample
ED488/ME470/ME471
CP
CA11
Student Teaching Analysis
ED488/ME470/ME471
 

ADMISSION TO THE

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION (ASE)

ADMISSION TO

STUDENT TEACHING (AST)

COMPLETION OF

STUDENT TEACHING

COMPLETION OF

PROGRAM (CP)

Completion of 24 credit hours (12 for transfer students)

Admission/Retention to the School of Education (all criteria must still be met)

Admission/Retention to the School of Education (all criteria must still be met)

Admission/Retention to the School of Education (all criteria must still be met)

Satisfactory Education Internship Evaluation (ED170/172 or ME341)

Major G.P.A. as defined by department and professional education GPA of 2.7 or above

Successful Student Teaching Experience

(Grade of B- or better in ED476/477/478 or ME470/471, as evidenced through Student Teaching Evaluation criteria)

Passing Score on Assessment of Professional Teaching Test

Legal & Ethical Conduct Form and criminal background check

Passing Score on Content Area Test

Successful Completion of Candidate Portfolio (ED488/ME470/ME471)

 

Successful Completion of the following Candidate Assessments:  CA1, CA2

Successful Completion of the following Candidate Assessments:  CA3, CA4, CA5, CA6, CA7, CA8, CA9

Successful Completion of the following Candidate Assessments:  CA10 & CA 11

 

Cumulative G.P.A. of 2.7

100 Pre-Student Teaching Internship Hours (3/4 within certification level sought and at least one multicultural placement as defined on evaluation)

Completion of Program coursework

 

Passing Score on Illinois Basic Skills Test

Department and Director of SOE Approval

 

 

C or higher for IN150

C or higher for IN151

 

 

 

CAT1 Technology Certification (ED120/ED130/ED205)

 

 

 

Disposition Assessment (no more than one unremediated disposition deficiency on file)

 

 

 

Program, SLAD, and Director of SOE recommend.  

 

 

 

 

3. How is the unit assessment system evaluated? Who is involved and how?

The unit head ensures that faculty collect information on the candidate proficiencies outlined in the unit’s conceptual framework. This process is monitored through two different databases, Banner and LiveText. The Banner database stores state test scores, technology proficiency exams through CAT1, gpa, and course work grades. The data from ICTS merged into the Banner database directly from these testing companies. The office manager, in collaboration with the unit head, monitors this process.  LiveText is a data management system that stores candidate assessment data and program assessment data with faculty evaluation. Key assessments, both candidate and program, are administered at designated points in the programs and are used to monitor candidates’ demonstration of and performance on standards. All candidates must successfully complete each required candidate and program assessment and submit them to LiveText. Each candidate and program assessment is aligned with all Core, state, and applicable national standards. The Assessment Coordinator creates within LiveText the courses with accompanying candidate and/or program assessments, monitors completion of these student submissions and faculty evaluation, and creates data reports at the conclusion of each semester. These reports show candidate performance levels on the candidate and program assessments.

4. How does the unit ensure its assessment procedures are fair, accurate, consistent, and free of bias?

The unit has developed specific assessment procedures to ensure fairness, accuracy, and consistency. Whether in our traditional program or in one of our remote site PACE programs, our faculty use an official copy of the assignment description and rubric for any candidate or program assessment. Together, our faculty has developed the assignment descriptions and rubrics for each of our candidate and program assessments that are detailed and descriptive in each category of performance, and within each criteria of requirement. These rubrics were designed by small subcommittees within the education faculty teaching professional education coursework and then presented to educational department meetings or CTEP meetings for approval. The detailed rubrics are our starting point for consistent and fair assessment. New faculty receive samples of assessed assignments and/or individual meetings with a peer faculty or the Assessment Coordinator to review the candidate assessment required for their course.

Each year at our two annual DARE meetings, faculty look together at the data reports for each candidate and program assessment to compare programs and sites. Also at these meetings, unit faculty examine the data collected on internships, including student teaching, to find consistencies and inconsistencies, draw conclusions and make any necessary recommendations to programs/majors departments. All clinical faculty and professional faculty use the same forms for internship evaluation, feedback surveys, and student teaching. Whithin these full faculty DARE meetings and throughout the semester in department meetings, faculty engage in conversation regarding the candidate and program assessments and the evaluation forms to document observations, suggestions, and debate. Recommended changes are voted on in education department meetings. 

The Faculty themselves are evaluated by a standardized evaluation form (SIRS). These forms historically were distributed and collected in each faculty’s classroom at the end of each semester.  Beginning in Fall 2009, these evaluations will be conducted electronically using MUOnline.  The unit head also uses a standardized form when observing faculty teaching. The evaluation forms for evaluating faculty in their classrooms were designed from the unit’s conceptual framework and four organizing themes. The Education department faculty voted on the four themes, and want to be evaluated accordingly. The University’s Policies and Procedures handbook also specifies the criteria by which faculty are evaluated yearly.

The Unit is governed by the Committee on Teacher Education Programs (CTEP). This committee is comprised of one faculty representative from each of the teacher education programs, the Director of the School of Education, faculty members of the Department of Education, a representative from the Professional Adult Comprehensive Education (PACE) program, and Dean of the College of Professional Studies. The presidents of the Student Education Association and of the Music Educators Association are also members. The CTEP plans, approves and monitors the University’s teacher education programs in accordance with University, state, and national policies and guidelines. Implementation of these policies is delegated to the Director of Teacher Education. The Committee handles certification matters and periodic accreditation reviews. The representation across all programs, as well as the monthly collaboration between members is another way that we ensure that assessment procedures are fair, accurate, consistant, and free of bias. At CTEP meetings, teacher candidates are approved for admittance, content test scores are reviewed and petitions are dicussed democratically among all members.

5. What assessments and evaluations are used to manage and improve the operations and programs of the unit?

The unit manages and improves its operations and programs by implementing various assessments and evaluations. For example, all directors and chairs of university programs complete the “Quality, Potential and Cost” report. The report addresses six factors of quality: external validation, inputs, outputs, curriculum and program issues, local and national demand trend, and centrality to mission.

Twice per year, the Director of the School of Education provides a written report to the Dean of the College of Professional Studies on progress made toward yearly goals of the School of Education. The annual goals are aligned with the University’s Strategic Plan.

The Director of the School of Education submits an Annual Assessment Report of the Major to the Associate Dean of Teaching and Learning for the university. Each Director or Chair of a program reports on the administration, outcome and analysis of all their assessments in their major. The report also describes how the assessment data is being used.

The student teaching evaluation forms (self evaluation, evaluation of clinical faculty, and evaluation of school faculty) are opportunities for each senior student to provide the School of Education information about his/her student teaching experience. The evaluations of the school faculty inform our field placement coordinator whether student learning goals are being met satisfactorily with these school placements.

School faculty evaluate clinical faculty as well as the Teacher Education Program. The evaluation of the clinical faculty gives the school faculty an opportunity to tell us if he/she has been supported sufficiently through the semester in which a teacher candidate has been working with him/her. The evaluations by the school faculty also inform the field placement coordinator if more training is needed for the clinical faculty. They give us valuable information regarding what our teacher candidates are lacking or excelling, in terms of knowledge, skills and dispositions.

Teacher candidate’s self evaluation demonstrates personal reflection on the student teaching process. Through the alumni survey, graduates of the SoE can give feedback on areas of the program that need improvement.

Clinical Faculty also evaluate school faculty and the Teacher Education Program. These evaluations give the field placement coordinator a very accurate picture of how the school faculty may or may not be effectively mentoring the teacher candidates. Cllinical faculty can offer valuable insight into what kind of professional development our school faculty need, as well as feedback to the Education department on changes that may be required of our programs.

Another way that we elicit evaluative information from community constituents is through supervision workshops and the annual Community Advisory Committee meeting. The supervision workshops as well as the CAC afford an opportunity for school faculty, clinical faculty, principals, community college representatives, superintendents, and alumni to evaluate current practice and suggest changes.


Return to the Top of the Page

 
 
Millikin University - Decatur, IL
 
Millikin University - Decatur, IL
Guest