Teacher Education: Undergraduate

Results of Assessment

2006-2007 (submitted 04/25/08)

  1. Dispositional data from ALL levels reveal:
    1. Students typically receive lower dispositions in Level 1, however dispositional issues are resolved by the end of Level 2 E & S — this indicates that program work with dispositions is having a desired effect. Requiring such dispositions, requires student to go beyond their own personal abilities and stretch into professionals.
    2. The vast majority of our students meet defined dispositions. When students receive low dispositional rankings (generally in Level 1) they tend to be in the most crucial dispositional areas for teacher success: ethical/responsible, teachable, positive.
    3. The move to separate the ethical and responsible dispositions will lead to better dispositional data next year.
    4. There is a potential concern that Level 1 may be using different types of assessments from other levels, this may impact dispositional data.
  2. DATA from Elementary Levels indicate:
    1. Most elementary students are performing at desired levels on CPIs. When Level 2 E students perform less than desired on their CPIs, the following areas tend to be identified: reflection, media enhancement, and learning theory.
    2. Because some students are having difficulty reflecting, reflective activities need to be taught more explicitly.
    3. Data from Level 2 E seem to be incongruent with the rest of the program data assessment plan (students doing self-assessments); Level 2 faculty have noted this and will be working to identify areas that need to be fix to be more congruent with the assessment being done in other levels. This includes working with more thoroughly articulated rubrics.
    4. By Level 3 E, students are performing well. There are very few CPI or dispositional issues arising during this level. This indicates that students capabilities are increasing as they proceed through their licensure program.
  3. DATA from Secondary Levels indicate:
    1. The vast majority of secondary students are meeting both dispositional and CPI requirements. However, a few secondary students are scoring lower on ethical/responsible dispositions than their elementary education peers.
    2. As with dispositional data reporting, the move to separate ethical and responsible dispositions will be a positive thing.
    3. Some data concerning secondary CPIs were missing.
  4. Based on this year’s data collection and reporting, Teacher Education faculty see the following strengths/weakness of Teacher Education Licensure Programs:


    1. Teacher Education’s selective admissions process does produce better licensure candidates in all licensure areas. Those students with somewhat weaker professional dispositions have improved as a result of our accountability system.
    2. The NCATE/Unit assessment plan has enabled more systematic data collecting and provides for better monitoring of student progress through multiple data assessment points.
    3. The process of moving toward the demonstrated pedagogy paradigm has, in fact, enabled faculty to work closer together as we defined CPIs, rubrics, etc. The process has fostered greater collegiality.


    1. Level 2E — there needs to be rubrics for helping students create CPIs and for letting them know how they will be evaluated.
    2. The present data collection system does not provide a means for faculty to see students portfolios when viewing CPI & Dispositional data.
    3. The continued combining of Elementary and Secondary Level 1 is confounding data collected for this level. These two levels should be separated to insure better data collection.
    4. Students need to know and be taught explicitly the whys and hows of reflection.
  5. Based on this year’s data collection plan, the Department of Teacher Education will address the following issues next Academic Year:
    1. Evaluate the impact of separating the ethical & responsible dispositions.
    2. Look at ways to progress monitor candidates’ portfolios.
    3. Explore other options for displaying program data: histograms, pie graphs, etc.
    4. Separate Levels 1E & 1S for better data collection and student monitoring purposes.
    5. Explore TE’s admission protocols to see how predictive the current process is at attracting and identifying the best teacher candidates.