Standard 2.1

The College of Education (COE) faculty values assessment as an essential component of teaching and learning. Assessment is a critical element in the unit's continuous efforts to improve candidate performance and academic programs. In collaboration with representatives from the university and from the external professional community, the unit faculty has developed and implemented an assessment system that integrates the conceptual framework, “Educator as Decision Maker,” and reflects state and professional standards. This system is designed to address the assessment needs of initial and advanced programs of study within the unit. The system and its processes and procedures are described in detail in the document The Educator as Decision Maker Performance-Based Assessment System .

Relationship of the Assessment System to the Conceptual Framework

The college faculty believes in systematic and ongoing assessment of candidates, programs, and the professional education unit. The assessment system describes the systematic approach employed by the college in collecting, analyzing, and using data in these three major areas. The college's assessment system is driven by and fully integrates the conceptual framework, “Educator as Decision Maker.” The levels of assessment coincide with the components of the conceptual framework model and encompass the transition points for assessment of candidate proficiencies.

Tables 2.1 and 2.2 describe the assessment levels for professional education candidates. Critical transition points for assessment are identified at each level. The major assessments are indicated at each transition point for determining candidates' readiness for proceeding to the next level. Table 1 presents the information for initial certification candidates (Class B and Alternative A Masters), and Table 2 for candidates in advanced programs (traditional Master's, Ed.S., and Ed. D.). For candidates whose assessments show that they are not ready to proceed to the next level, a plan of action is developed which includes diagnostic measures, remediation, and re-taking of assessments and/or re-evaluation of criteria. This plan of action is developed and implemented by the relevant department chair, faculty, advisor, candidate, and the director of the Teacher Education Center.

Key Unit Assessments
Key assessments employed by the college target candidate qualifications and performance and unit programs and operations. Multiple forms of assessment are used, including both externally and internally developed instruments. The assessments are comprehensive measures and are well-integrated throughout the unit's professional education program. Table 2.3 lists the key internal and external unit assessments for initial and advanced programs. Table 2.4 identifies the assessments used by the unit for candidate performance and for programs/unit. Detailed descriptions of the assessments are provided in the Educator as Decision Maker Performance-Based Assessment System document .

Assessments as Predictors of Candidate Success
Assessments at each transition point in the COE assessment system are designed to serve as predictors of candidate success in the professional education program. Assessments required for admission to the program areas serve as screening tools to assure entry of candidates who possess certain levels of knowledge and skills and represent promise as professional educators. Data from multiple assessments across courses and programs are collected and analyzed over a period of time at the points of continuation and program completion. The data results reflect increases in average score ratings across all assessments and thereby indicate that assessments are viable measures of candidate success. Supporting this contention also are the results from follow-up assessments. Data results are presented in exhibit room documents.

Fairness, Accuracy, and Consistency of Assessment Procedures

The first phase in establishing accuracy, consistency, and fairness of assessment procedures is to ensure that assessments are aligned with curriculum, instruction, and standards. Such alignment means that these elements work together to establish common learning for all candidates, to provide consistent implications for improving instruction, and to assure use of assessment practices that are consistent and fair to all candidates. The quality assurance process employed by the university's Instructional Development Center (IDC) assists the unit in this first phase. The IDC follows designated guidelines in reviewing and approving all syllabi to verify that certain components are included and are in alignment.

Secondly, key assessments of candidate performance are grounded in state standards which have been aligned with the unit's conceptual framework proficiencies. The standards-based aspect and the manner in which these ALSDE derived assessments are used decrease opportunities for bias and promote fairness and consistency. T he ALSDE's standards-based Professional Education Personnel Evaluation (PEPE) is the assessment for performance in the teacher education internship. Competencies for this evaluation are accessible to candidates in courses, in the internship handbook, and are reviewed with candidates in workshops and seminars. Thus, in addition to being standards-based, the assessment is done on knowledge and skills that candidates are aware of and have an opportunity to learn. This assessment also has a formative and a summative feature and is completed and reviewed with the candidate by the cooperating teacher and the university supervisor. Sessions are held to acquaint these evaluators with the content and procedures for this assessment.

The ALSDE's professional studies standards have been formatted as an assessment on the ACE Database and used by course instructors to evaluate candidate performance on common and program specific standards addressed in their courses  (Using the Professional Studies Standards Evaluation System ). A standard may be taught and assessed in more than one course; therefore, a candidate's performance on a standard is evaluated more than once by more than one instructor. Studies are planned to evaluate the consistency of ratings for a candidate across several courses taught by different instructors. Future studies will also establish comparative data for looking at the consistency of candidate performance on similar proficiencies measured by this and other assessment instruments.

For assessments that are rated by faculty teams, inter-rater reliability workshops are conducted to prepare faculty. The portfolio, COE Exit Exam, and the Graduate Comprehensive Examination are examples. In addition to the general workshop, raters engage in a brief training prior to each grading session to standardize the process for that session. Training involves review of the rubric, the rating scale, and the procedure to assure a consensus of understanding. It also involves a short trial-run as a test of rater agreement for the session.

Unit faculty and assessment staff are still developing and conducting thorough studies to establish absence of bias and to assure fairness, accuracy, and consistency of the performance assessment procedures. This is an ever-evolving, continuous process for the unit.

General University and Other Assessment Measures
In addition to the assessments described above, the College of Education, like all other units within the university, participates in general university evaluation plans and procedures. For the academic units, a university-wide quality assurance procedure exists which includes a system for reviewing and approving course syllabi. This system is managed by the Instructional Development Center (IDC). Syllabi review and approval guidelines are described in the document, ASU Quality Assurance Plan: Requirements for Course Syllabi . The quality assurance procedure also embraces the faculty evaluation plan, A System of Faculty Evaluation for the Improvement of Faculty Performance (available in the exhibit room). This plan is designed to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of individual faculty members through an annual performance review. At the beginning of the academic year, each faculty member submits a plan for evaluation of professional activities in four areas: teaching, academic citizenship, research and creativity, and community service. Faculty performance in these areas is assessed by department chair observations, peer evaluations, student evaluation, and the documentation of activities by the faculty member. At the end of the year, the department chair conducts the annual review and presents an appraisal of actual performance as measured against the agreed-upon plan proposed by the faculty member. The faculty evaluation plan also includes criteria, guidelines, and procedures for tenure and promotion. The annual performance review is central to the tenure and promotion process, which also involves evaluations and recommendations by departmental faculty committees.

The  university  has a  campus-wide  planning and  evaluation  system  encompassing  all  education and administrative functions. The university's “Strategic Plan and Vision for the years 2000-2010 " and the “Annual Five-Year Planning Document” enumerate the institution's broad planning goals and objectives. Based on these, unit managers set forth their objectives, activities to achieve the objectives, methods of evaluating outcomes, and the means of using evaluation results to improve unit operations. Each summer, the board of trustees, president, vice presidents, deans, directors, department chairs, and other university leaders and concerned parties participate in an off-campus retreat in which evaluation data are reviewed and incorporated into the strategic planning process for both educational and administrative functions.

In addition to internal college and university assessments, external agencies and associations review and approve COE programs. The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE) conducts an annual comprehensive review of teacher education and instructional support programs. Along with the NCATE continuing accreditation review, the ALSDE evaluates programs every five years. The state's approval of ASU teacher education programs has been acceptable in lieu of the specialized professional associations' (SPA) evaluations. In addition, the Alabama Commission on Higher Education (ACHE) reviews and recommends approval decisions for new programs and evaluates existing programs for continuation according to established viability criteria. Every ten years, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) evaluates all university programs for reaffirmation of accreditation.

• Standard  2
   
• Standard 2.1
  • Supporting Artifacts
     
• Standard 2.2
  • Supporting Artifacts
     
• Standard 2.3
  • Supporting Artifacts