California State University s1

The California State University Systemwide EXIT Evaluation of Professional Teacher Preparation An Initiative of the CSU Deans of Education

Preliminary Work-Product of Item-Specific Findings for The Dean of Education California State University, Channel Islands 2008

Not a Public Document. Please See Release Schedule on the Next Page.

Prepared by: Center for Teacher Quality Office of the Chancellor

Directed by: Deans of Education Committee on Systemwide Evaluation The California State University

The California State University Systemwide Exit Evaluation of Professional Teacher Preparation (2008) An Initiative of the CSU Deans of Education

Preliminary Work-Product of Item-Specific Findings for The Dean of Education California State University, Channel Islands 2008

Not an Official Report of the California State University.

i Systemwide Exit Evaluation of Professional Teacher Preparation (2007-08)

CSU Deans Committee on Academic Evaluation Officers Systemwide Evaluation Office of the CSU Chancellor ______

♦ Dr. Bonnie Konopak, Committee Chair ♦ Dr. Gary Reichard College of Education Executive Vice-Chancellor California Polytechnic State University Office of the Chancellor, Academic Affairs San Luis Obispo The California State University System

♦ Dr. Paul Beare, Dean ♦ Dr. Keith Boyum Kremen School of Education & Human Dev. Associate Vice-Chancellor California State University Office of the Chancellor, Academic Affairs Fresno The California State University System

♦ Dr. Mary Gendernalik-Cooper, Dean ♦ Dr. Beverly Young School of Education Assistant Vice-Chancellor Sonoma State University Office of the Chancellor, Academic Affairs Sonoma The California State University System

♦ Dr. Joan Karp, Dean ♦ Dr. David Wright, Director School of Education CSU Center for Teacher Quality California State University The California State University System Channel Islands ♦ Dr. Nohoon Kwak, Statistician ♦ Dr. Steve Turley, Associate Dean CSU Center for Teacher Quality College of Education The California State University System California State University Long Beach ♦ Rachelle Smith, Evaluation Data Manager Wes Bonifay, Graduate Student Assistant Jennifer Anhar, Graduate Student Assistant CSU Center for Teacher Quality

ii The California State University Systemwide Exit Evaluation of Professional Teacher Preparation (2008)

Preliminary Item-Specific Findings for the Dean of Education California State University, Channel Islands

Overview of the Dean’s Preliminary Work-Product

Part A About the CSU Systemwide Exit Evaluation of Teacher Preparation Page 1 ● Background and Methodology of the CSU Systemwide Exit Evaluation: 2007-08 2 ● Important Characteristics of Statistical Data in this Preliminary Work-Product 3

Part B Descriptive Information about the Evaluation Participants and Their Schools 4

Part C Evaluation of Teacher Education Program Effectiveness: General Teaching Practices 13

Part D Evaluation of Teacher Education Program Effectiveness: Specific Teaching Practices 25

Part E Evaluation of the Value and Helpfulness of Pedagogy, Subjects, Program Support, and Fieldwork Activities 35

Part F Evaluation of Teacher Education Program Quality: Qualities Sought in Professional Accreditation Standards 45

Part G Evaluation of Teacher Education Program Quality: Overall Assessment 51

iii Part A

About the CSU Systemwide Evaluation of Teacher Preparation

A-1 Background and Methodology of the CSU Systemwide Evaluation: 2007-08 Page 1

A-2 Important Characteristics of Statistical Data in This Preliminary Work-Product 3

iv Section A-1 Background and Methodology of the CSU Systemwide Exit Evaluation 2007-08

CSU Systemwide Exit Evaluation--Background In 2001 the CSU Deans of Education initiated the first Systemwide Evaluation of Teacher Education Programs in the University’s history. The purpose of the evaluation has been to provide information that the Deans, other CSU leaders, and faculties could use in making improvements in teacher education programs. From 2002 through 2008 the Deans continued the study to see whether the programs grew more or less effective over time. Rather than viewing evaluation as a one-time activity, the Deans plan to compile and use new and updated evaluation data in the future.

To date, participants in the evaluation have included large samples of individuals who graduated from CSU teacher education programs and who have been teaching for one year. In four evaluations, the Chancellor’s Office drew stratified random samples of these graduates and asked them to answer questions about the quality and effectiveness of their CSU preparation. Most recently, the participants included all teaching graduates whom the CO could locate. Each year the CSU also invited the school-site principals of these teachers to evaluate the teachers’ preparation.

To date, the evaluation findings reflect the experiences of over 40,000 CSU graduates of teacher preparation programs since 1999-2000.

Expansion of the Evaluation Currently, the CSU annually recommends more than 11,000 teaching graduates of its teacher education programs for state teaching credentials. Most campuses have conducted an exit evaluation of their programs, but because the evaluation instruments were developed independently at each campus, the content and form of the questions have varied from one instrument to another. This makes it difficult to interpret the experiences of new program graduates in a meaningful, systemwide context.

In the winter of 2003, the Deans of Education requested implementation of a campus exit evaluation. The Deans agreed that the initial exit evaluation would be conducted in 2004 as a pilot, and that participation by individual CSU campuses for one year would be voluntary. The Deans agreed that all campuses would participate in the exit evaluation starting in the spring, 2005.

Items included in the Exit Evaluation In the fall of 2003, requests were made for copies of exit evaluations used by each CSU campus. Eleven were received and then analyzed to determine the degree of consistency with each other and with the systemwide instrument that was being administered to recent program completers. While consistency was high, a small number of items appeared on campus instruments that did not appear in any form on the systemwide instrument. Some of these focused on detailed aspects of the teacher education program that one would not expect graduates one or more years later to recall vividly. Many of these items were included in the systemwide exit evaluation.

Still other items were unique to a single campus. To accommodate these items, program officials from each campus were given the ability to add and maintain a separate set of campus items on a password protected website. After responding to the core set of items presented to all respondents, a separate set of questions appear (if any existed) based on a completer’s campus affiliation.

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 1 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands A small number of items on the current systemwide evaluation focus on the experiences CSU graduates have had as beginning teachers. These, of course, are not included in the exit evaluation.

Respondents to the exit evaluation are required to enter their names and social security numbers. This allows program officials at each campus to see, online, which students have completed the survey. Respondents are assured that their responses to the evaluation will be forwarded only to the CSU Chancellor’s Office and that their name and SSN are used only to verify completion of the evaluation to program officials on their campus.

Benefits of an Exit Evaluation 1. Increased participation. The exit evaluation allows data collection from virtually all program completers. After program completers leave the CSU, it becomes increasingly difficult to locate them. 2. Longitudinal. The exit evaluation allows comparison of early perceptions with data collected one or more years after employment commences. 3. Comparability. A standardized instrument allows campus officials to compare evaluations of their program completers with those from the system as a whole. 4. Cost and time savings. The Chancellor’s Office and individual campuses receive aggregated data electronically preformatted with statistical computations complete. This will eliminate need for staff to collect, collate and transfer data from paper forms to computer. 5. Flexibility. The exit evaluation allows campus officials to include campus-specific items that do not appear in systemwide set.

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 2 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands A-2: Important Characteristics of Statistical Data in the Preliminary Work-Product

(1) Throughout this preliminary work-product, statistical data describe the professional preparation of the cohort of CSU teacher candidates who completed (or were about to complete) their credential preparation during the 2007-08 academic year.

(2) The data in this year’s report includes responses obtained from September 26, 2007 to July 30, 2008.

(3) Statistics in this work-product (including Part B) are unadjusted summaries of the actual responses of participating students.

(4) In cases where there was little or no response to a participation question (i.e., when N < 10), statistical summaries, which are likely to be unreliable representations of larger student populations, are not provided in this work-product.

(5) Systemwide statistics are included throughout this work-product to serve as benchmarks for interpreting campus-specific findings.

(6) The great majority of the evaluation questions were common questions addressed to program completers of Multiple Subject Credential Programs, program completers of Single Subject Credential Programs, and program completers of Education Specialist Credential Programs. Part C of the work-product is a comprehensive summary of responses to these common questions. For each group of program completers, the evaluation also included a smaller number of credential-specific questions, which are summarized in Part D.

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 3 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Part B

Descriptive Information About CSU Program Completers:

Contents of Part B Table 1 Participation in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation (2007-08) Page 5

Table 2 Race and Ethnicity of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation 5

Table 3 Gender of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation 6

Table 4 Age of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation 6

Table 5 Time to Complete Program (in months) of Participants in CSU 6 Teacher Education Exit Evaluation (2007-08)

Table 6 Type of Credential Earned of Participants in CSU Teacher Education 7 Exit Evaluation

Table 7 How Subject Matter Requirement Was Met of Participants in CSU Teacher 7 Education Exit Evaluation

Table 8 Salary Status During Credential Program of Participants in CSU Teacher 8 Education Exit Evaluation

Table 9 When Salary First Earned of Participants in CSU Teacher 8 Education Exit Evaluation

Table 10 Subject Matter Preparation Prior to Credential Program of Participants 9 in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation

Table 11 Employment Experience Prior to Credential Program of Participants 9 in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation

Table 12 Current Employment Status and Plans for Coming Year of Participants 10 in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation

Table 13 Types of Student Teaching Assignments of Participants 10 in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation

Table 14 Employment Preferences of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation 11

Table 15 Percentage of K-12 Students who were English Learners during 12 Student Teaching of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 4 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 1 Participation in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation Spring 2007-08

This CSU Campus The CSU System

Program Completers who participated in the exit 75 7667 evaluation in 2007-08.

Table 2 Race and Ethnicity of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation 2007-08

N % N % American Indian or Alaska Native 1 1.5% 134 1.8% Chinese 1 1.5% 250 3.4% Japanese 0 .0% 98 1.3% Korean 1 1.5% 129 1.7% Vietnamese 0 .0% 103 1.4% Asian Indian 0 .0% 62 .8% Laotian 0 .0% 10 .1% Cambodian 0 .0% 30 .4% Other Asian 0 .0% 79 1.1% Hawaiian 0 .0% 28 .4% Guamanian 0 .0% 9 .1% Samoan 0 .0% 6 .1% Other Pacific Islander 0 .0% 13 .2% Filipino 2 2.9% 183 2.5% Hispanic or Latino 19 27.9% 1877 25.5% African American, not of Hispanic Origin 0 .0% 216 2.9% White, not of Hispanic Origin 49 72.1% 4629 62.8% Special Note for Table 2 (1) Participants were allowed to select multiple race/ethnicity options.

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 5 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 3 Gender of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation 2007-08

N % N % Female 60 83.3% 5861 77.8% Male 12 16.7% 1668 22.2%

Table 4 Age of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation 2007-08

N % N % < 21 1 1.6% 355 5.2% 22 - 24 24 37.5% 2584 37.6% 25 - 30 22 34.4% 2429 35.3% 31 - 40 13 20.3% 1242 18.1% 41 - 50 -- -- 264 3.8% > 50 4 6.3% 355 5.2%

Table 5 Time to Complete Program (in months) Of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation 2007-08

N % N % < 12 30 41.7% 3187 44.0% 12 - 18 26 36.1% 2274 31.4% 19 - 24 12 16.7% 1264 17.4% 25 - 36 4 5.6% 526 7.3% > 36 ------

Table 6 Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 6 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Type of Credential Earned Of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation 2007-08

N % N % Multiple Subject 55 73.3% 4557 59.8% Education Specialist 2 2.7% 793 10.4% Single Subject 19 25.3% 2491 32.7%

Table 7 How Subject Matter Requirement was Met Of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation 2007-08

N % N % Exam (e.g., MSAT, CSET) 41 54.7% 4305 56.1% Subject matter program at same CSU campus 30 40.0% 2803 36.6% Subject matter program at different CSU 1 1.3% 211 2.8% Subject matter program at a non-CSU campus 1 1.3% 122 1.6% Credit for Coursework Completed Elsewhere 1 1.3% 115 1.5%

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 7 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 8 Salary Status During Credential Program Of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation 2007-08

N % N % Earned Salary with Emergency Permit 3 4.0% 346 4.5% Earned Salary through Internship 9 12.0% 1651 21.5% Did Not Earn a Salary (worked with coop. teacher) 62 82.7% 5564 72.6%

Table 9 When Salary First Earned Of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation Who were Emergency Permit Holders 2007-08

N % N % Before acceptance into CSU credential program -- -- 144 1.9% After enrollment in ed. courses, but before student 1 1.3% 114 1.5% teaching After starting, but before completing student teaching 1 1.3% 73 1.0%

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 8 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 10 Subject Matter Preparation Prior to Credential Program Of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation 2007-08 This CSU Campus The CSU System

N % N % Most of first year courses at a two-year community college 30 20.7% 2110 17.1% Most of second year courses at a two-year community college 22 15.2% 1867 15.1% Attended more than one four-year institution for bachelor's degree 9 6.2% 752 6.1% Attended more than one CSU campus for bachelor's degree 6 4.1% 304 2.5% Earned bachelor's degree at same CSU campus as credential 33 22.8% 4115 33.3% Earned bachelor's degree at different CSU campus from credential 29 20.0% 1913 15.5% Earned bachelor's degree outside of CSU system 16 11.0% 1314 10.6% Note: The percentages in Table 10 exceed 100% because respondents were allowed to select more than one option.

Table 11 Employment Experience Prior to Credential Program Of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation 2007-08 This CSU The CSU Campus System N % N % Worked as classroom teacher in K-12 private school 2 2.3% 284 3.2% Worked w/ emergency permit in K-12 public school 3 3.4% 319 3.6% Worked as intern in K-12 public school 0 .0% 197 2.2% Worked as teacher-assistant or sub. in K-12 school 18 20.7% 1619 18.4% Worked as fully certified teacher in K-12 public school 0 .0% 98 1.1% Outside of education worked in professional position related to 25 28.7% 1950 22.2% college education Outside of education worked in professional position not related to 34 39.1% 3111 35.4% college education No employment experience 5 5.7% 1202 13.7%

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 9 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 12 Current Employment Status and Plans for Coming Year Of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation 2007-08 This CSU Campus The CSU System

N % N % Currently employed at a school and expect to teach there. 11 14.7% 2026 26.4% Currently employed at a school. Expect to teach elsewhere. 4 5.3% 545 7.1% Currently employed at a school. Will not seek employment. -- -- 57 .7% Not employed. Will seek employment. 58 77.3% 4744 61.9% Not employed. Will not seek employment next year. -- -- 166 2.2%

Table 13 Types of Student Teaching Assignments Of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation 2007-08 This CSU The CSU Campus System N % N % Self contained classroom. I taught one classroom of students. I taught 54 65.1% 4385 54.9% all or most of their subjects. Core classroom teacher. I taught 2 or 3 classes of students. I teach 2 9 10.8% 1129 14.1% core subjects in each class. Dept. based teacher. I taught 3 to 7 classes of students. I taught one 13 15.7% 1362 17.1% subject in each class. Special Ed. teacher. The majority of my students are identified as 1 1.2% 609 7.6% Special Education students Other teaching position 6 7.2% 498 6.2%

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 10 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 14 Employment Preferences Of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation 2007-08

This CSU Campus: CSU System: All Programs Combined All Programs Combined Does Not Does Not Not at All A Little Somewhat Very Not at All A Little Somewhat Very Apply Apply How important are the following with respect to your employment preferences? N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % A school that is close to 13 17.8% 0 .0% 10 13.7% 23 31.5% 27 37.0% 2390 31.5% 170 2.2% 574 7.6% 2256 29.7% 2205 29.0% my home. A school in which I have 13 18.3% 27 38.0% 13 18.3% 12 16.9% 6 8.5% 2392 33.8% 2042 28.8% 1105 15.6% 1124 15.9% 419 5.9% previously taught A school that is ethnically 13 18.1% 10 13.9% 9 12.5% 27 37.5% 13 18.1% 2392 32.5% 825 11.2% 933 12.7% 1932 26.3% 1272 17.3% diverse A school where most students are from high 13 18.3% 43 60.6% 9 12.7% 6 8.5% 0 .0% 2392 33.8% 2976 42.0% 1104 15.6% 517 7.3% 93 1.3% socio-economic families A school where most students are from low 13 18.3% 22 31.0% 14 19.7% 12 16.9% 10 14.1% 2393 33.8% 2062 29.2% 1272 18.0% 962 13.6% 381 5.4% socio-economic families A school where many students are English 13 18.3% 21 29.6% 11 15.5% 16 22.5% 10 14.1% 2393 33.6% 1789 25.1% 1402 19.7% 1091 15.3% 454 6.4% Language learners A school where few students are English 13 18.6% 33 47.1% 17 24.3% 4 5.7% 3 4.3% 2394 34.2% 2378 34.0% 1336 19.1% 748 10.7% 140 2.0% Language learners A low performing school 13 18.6% 22 31.4% 14 20.0% 11 15.7% 10 14.3% 2393 34.1% 1797 25.6% 1397 19.9% 1079 15.4% 361 5.1% A high performing school 13 19.1% 24 35.3% 17 25.0% 7 10.3% 7 10.3% 2392 34.0% 1698 24.1% 1348 19.1% 1238 17.6% 367 5.2% A public school 13 18.8% 4 5.8% 5 7.2% 14 20.3% 33 47.8% 2390 32.8% 572 7.9% 424 5.8% 1387 19.0% 2513 34.5% A private school 13 19.1% 25 36.8% 19 27.9% 7 10.3% 4 5.9% 2394 35.7% 2241 33.4% 1125 16.8% 744 11.1% 203 3.0% A district that offers an attractive salary and 13 18.3% 1 1.4% 8 11.3% 23 32.4% 26 36.6% 2389 32.1% 164 2.2% 532 7.1% 1818 24.4% 2543 34.2% benefits package

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 11 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 15 Percentage of K-12 Students who were English Learners during Student Teaching Of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation 2007-08

This CSU The CSU System Campus N % N % None 5 6.8% 818 10.9% 1% - 20% 22 30.1% 2356 31.3% 21% - 40% 16 21.9% 1580 21.0% 41% - 60% 14 19.2% 1145 15.2% 61% - 80% 9 12.3% 817 10.9% 81% - 99% 7 9.6% 700 9.3% 100% -- -- 102 1.4%

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 12 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Part C Evaluation Construct: Teacher Education Program Effectiveness Evaluation Sources: Program Completers Evaluation Focus: General Concepts and Practices of Teaching

Teacher Education Program Effectiveness as an Evaluation Construct

What does it mean to say the CSU Systemwide Evaluation of Teacher Preparation measures program effectiveness? What concept of "program effectiveness" underlies the evaluation questions and the respondents' answers to those questions?

Program effectiveness is conceptualized in relation to the professional practices and understandings that are integral to a K-12 teacher's work. CSU assumes that all teaching positions and assignments include a core body of pedagogical practices and concepts. Another assumption is that the profession's core practices and principles are complex, subtle and challenging for first-year teachers to implement in their day-to-day work. When teachers confront these challenges during the initial years of certificated teaching, the effectiveness of their preparation is the extent to which their prior coursework and fieldwork enable them to incorporate the profession's core practices and concepts into their work at levels of proficiency and understanding that are appropriate and realistic for first-year certificated teachers. Parts C and D of this evaluation work-product focus on the extent to which the program completers of specific programs and particular universities are ready to assume the responsibilities of first-year certificated teachers at initial levels of understanding and skill.

Based on this definition of program effectiveness, the evaluation asks how well each teaching graduate was prepared and ready to fulfill a teacher's core responsibilities at entry levels of proficiency. CSU does not assume that this concept of effectiveness is the only important outcome of teacher preparation programs. Among a program's important outcomes, however, this construct of effectiveness is considered to be significant and appropriate as one basis for assessing programs of professional preparation for teacher certification.

Program Completers as Sources of Effectiveness Data

The proficiencies of beginning teachers are affected by school conditions as well as their prior preparation. When novice teachers transition into the role of "instructor of record," many will find it difficult to translate their collegiate preparation into effective practice and professional understanding. Newly-certificated teachers need to confer and collaborate with supportive mentors who are carefully selected and well trained for the mentor's important role. CSU supported the inception and expansion of California's Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 13 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands (BTSA) Program as a thoroughly field-tested and evaluated induction program for first-year and second-year teachers who have earned initial credentials. California annually appropriates funds for all first- and second-year certificated teachers (K-12) to participate in BTSA, the great majority of whom do so. Consequently, there are no longer systemic, structural reasons to suppose that the effectiveness of teacher preparation cannot be assessed feasibly and validly by compiling evidence of the readiness and proficiencies of first-year teachers.

In the design of the exit evaluation, CSU has taken steps to ensure that program completers judge the effectiveness of teacher preparation on the basis of expectations that are realistic and reasonable. Before CSU's teaching program completers answer any evaluation questions, they read the following statement by the CSU:

Your CSU campus designed your initial teaching credential program to prepare you to start working as a new teacher in a school where your preparation would continue. In your credential program, the CSU wanted you to learn basic teaching skills and educational ideas at an initial level. Your campus expects that you will have a mentor in your school to assist you in learning how to use your teaching skills in your class with your students. CSU expected that you will also have chances to develop your teaching skills and ideas with a mentor’s help. Important aspects of a teacher’s job are listed below. At the CSU, how well prepared were you to begin each aspect of a teacher’s job while you extend your initial skills with a mentor’s help? Please finish each statement below by selecting an option that best represents the level of your preparation. (Select “x” on the right side of the page if you have not been responsible for a particular item since you finished your CSU preparation.)

At some CSU campuses, large numbers of credential candidates hold emergency teaching permits or internship credentials. These individuals serve as full-time teachers concurrently with their enrollment in CSU credential programs. The evaluation does not assess the effectiveness of their preparation at the end of their first year of teaching because they have not completed CSU preparation at that time. The exit evaluation examines CSU's effectiveness at the completion of CSU credential programs. Regardless of which "route" teachers have pursued for state certification, the exit evaluation compiles data after (or just as) they finish CSU programs of professional teacher preparation. This evaluation design ensures that all programs are assessed at the same point in time following the completion of CSU preparation. In this preliminary work- product, the term "program completers" refers to those CSU students who respond to program effectiveness questions as they finish CSU credential programs.

Preparation for General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Focus of Part C

Each program completer’s responsibilities will include some duties that are unique to a school district, some that are unique to a school, and others that are unique to the teacher's specific class(es). Common responsibilities are widely associated with teaching positions regardless of the districts, schools and classrooms where teachers are employed. Some of these common responsibilities are associated with distinct types of teaching positions in elementary schools, secondary schools and special education programs, which are the subject of Part D beginning on page 25. In Part C, the focus is on the effectiveness of CSU preparation in relation to pedagogical concepts and skills that are generally applicable to all teaching positions.

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 14 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Questions about Program Effectiveness Addressed in Part C

(1) How well were the program completers of this CSU campus prepared for 23 important responsibilities of teachers, according to the program completer’s own judgments after they completed the campus’ programs in 2007-08? How do their assessments of their own readiness compare with evaluations by program completers from all CSU campuses in 2006-2008? Within Part C, Tables 16-A and 16- B focus on these campus-wide questions. (2) After examining evaluations by all program completers from this campus, how similar or dissimilar are program completers’ assessments when we focus specifically on the effectiveness of Multiple Subject Credential Programs, of Single Subject Credential Programs and of Education Specialist Level I Credential Programs? Among these distinct credential programs, are the similarities and dissimilarities at this CSU campus also true for the CSU system overall?

Contents of Part C

Table 16-A General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of All Types of CSU Teaching Page 17 Credential Programs According to Program Completers (General Concepts and Practices 1-10)

Table 16-B General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of All Types of CSU Teaching Page 18 Credential Programs According to Program Completers (General Concepts and Practices 11-23)

Table 17-A General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Multiple Subject Teaching Page 19 Credential Programs According to Program Completers (General Concepts and Practices 1-10)

Table 17-B General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Multiple Subject Teaching Page 20 Credential Programs According to Program Completers (General Concepts and Practices 11-23)

Table 18-A General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Single Subject Teaching Page 21 Credential Programs According to Program Completers (General Concepts and Practices 1-10)

Table 17-B General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Single Subject Teaching Page 22 Credential Programs According to Program Completers (General Concepts and Practices 11-23)

Table 19-A General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Education Specialist Level I Page 23 Credential Programs According to Program Completers (General Concepts and Practices 1-10)

Table 19-B General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Education Specialist Level I Page 24 Credential Programs According to Program Completers (General Concepts and Practices 11-23)

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 15 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Important Characteristics of Data in Part C

Important characteristics of statistical data throughout this preliminary work-product are described on page 3. Additionally, the statistics in Part C have the following important properties.

(1) For program completers, the response options for the questions in Part C (Tables 16-19) are shown below with the coded value of each response. Evaluation participants were encouraged to mark “x” (“Don’t Know”) if they did not have a sufficient basis for selecting a response from zero to three. Response Options in Tables 16-19 Response Options in Tables 16-19 Well Prepared = 3 Somewhat Prepared = 1 Adequately Prepared = 2 Not At All Prepared = 0 I Don’t Know = x

(2) In each data table, Columns (2) and (7) show the percentages of respondents who gave either of the two favorable responses (“3” or “2”) to each evaluation question. Columns (3) and (8) show the percentages who gave either of the two unfavorable responses (“1” or “0”) to each question. Percentages are rounded to nearest integers so they may not add exactly to 100 percent.

(3) Means and standard deviations in Columns (4), (5), (9) and (10) are based on the numeric scale shown above. Mean values range from a minimum of zero to a maximum of 3.00, and are substantially but not entirely correlated with percentage values in Columns (2), (3), (7) and (8).

(4) Program completers who indicated they “Don’t Know” about an aspect of their preparation (“x”) are not included in any column of statistical data because their responses did not describe the effectiveness of the program completer’s preparation.

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 16 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 16-A General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of All Types of CSU Teaching Credential Programs During 2007-08, as Evaluated in 2007-08 by Graduates Exiting these Programs

Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates This CSU Campus: CSU System: Exiting All Credential Programs in the CSU All Credential Programs All Credential Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Well or Somewhat Well or Somewhat As a new teacher, I am … N Adequately Or Not Mean SD N Adequately Or Not Mean SD Prepared Prepared Prepared Prepared 1 ...to prepare lesson plans and make prior 72 94.4% 5.6% 1.94 .231 7425 96.8% 3.2% 1.97 .176 arrangements for students' class activities. 2 ...to organize and manage a class or a group of students for instructional 72 93.1% 6.9% 1.93 .256 7412 95.5% 4.5% 1.95 .208 activities. 3 ...to organize and manage student 72 83.3% 16.7% 1.83 .375 7402 90.8% 9.2% 1.91 .289 behavior and discipline satisfactorily. 4 ...to use an effective mix of teaching 71 91.5% 8.5% 1.92 .280 7379 94.8% 5.2% 1.95 .222 strategies and instructional activities. 5 ...to meet the instructional needs of students who are English language 70 84.3% 15.7% 1.84 .367 7395 86.5% 13.5% 1.86 .342 learners. 6 ...to meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural 72 84.7% 15.3% 1.85 .362 7401 91.0% 9.0% 1.91 .286 backgrounds. 7 ...to meet the instructional needs of 72 72.2% 27.8% 1.72 .451 7389 77.7% 22.3% 1.78 .416 students with special learning needs. 8 ...to understand how personal, family and community conditions often affect 72 87.5% 12.5% 1.88 .333 7373 92.9% 7.1% 1.93 .256 learning. 9 ...to learn about my students' interests and motivations, and how to teach 72 91.7% 8.3% 1.92 .278 7387 95.3% 4.7% 1.95 .211 accordingly. 10 ...to get students involved in engaging 72 93.1% 6.9% 1.93 .256 7375 94.0% 6.0% 1.94 .238 activities and to sustain on-task behavior.

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 17 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 16-B General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of All Types of CSU Teaching Credential Programs During 2007-08, as Evaluated in 2007-08 by Graduates Exiting these Programs

Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates This CSU Campus: CSU System: Exiting All Credential Programs in the CSU All Credential Programs All Credential Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Well or Somewhat Well or Somewhat As a new teacher, I am … N Adequately Or Not Mean SD N Adequately Or Not Mean SD Prepared Prepared Prepared Prepared 11 ...to use computer-based technology to help students learn subjects of the 71 67.6% 32.4% 1.68 .471 7368 82.9% 17.1% 1.83 .377 curriculum. 12 ...to use computer-based technology for 69 69.6% 30.4% 1.70 .464 7356 84.6% 15.4% 1.85 .361 instruction, research, and record keeping. 13 ...to monitor student progress by using 71 93.0% 7.0% 1.93 .258 7374 94.0% 6.0% 1.94 .237 formal and informal assessment methods. 14 ...to assess pupil progress by analyzing a variety of evidence including exam 72 87.5% 12.5% 1.88 .333 7372 91.7% 8.3% 1.92 .276 scores. 15 ...to adjust my teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand and 72 94.4% 5.6% 1.94 .231 7385 94.2% 5.8% 1.94 .234 learn. 16 ...to adhere to principles of educational 70 91.4% 8.6% 1.91 .282 7359 95.5% 4.5% 1.96 .207 equity in the teaching of all students. 17 ...to use class time efficiently by relying 71 90.1% 9.9% 1.90 .300 7370 95.4% 4.6% 1.95 .210 on daily routines and planned transitions. 18 ...to know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students and 71 73.2% 26.8% 1.73 .446 7376 81.3% 18.7% 1.81 .390 families. 19 ...to communicate effectively with the 72 88.9% 11.1% 1.89 .316 7385 89.1% 10.9% 1.89 .311 parents or guardians of my students. 20 ...to work collaboratively on school issues 72 84.7% 15.3% 1.85 .362 7382 90.5% 9.5% 1.91 .293 with other teachers in our school. 21 ...to think about problems that occur in 71 87.3% 12.7% 1.87 .335 7369 92.4% 7.6% 1.92 .264 teaching and to try-out various solutions. 22 ...to understand my professional, legal, 71 85.9% 14.1% 1.86 .350 7396 92.7% 7.3% 1.93 .261 and ethical obligations. 23 ...to evaluate and reflect on my own teaching and to seek out assistance that 72 95.8% 4.2% 1.96 .201 7394 97.2% 2.8% 1.97 .165 leads to professional growth.

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 18 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 17-A General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Multiple Subject Teaching Credential Programs During 2007-08, as Evaluated in 2007-08 by Graduates Exiting these Programs

Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates This CSU Campus: CSU System: Exiting Multiple Subject Credential Programs in the CSU Multiple Subject Credential Programs Multiple Subject Credential Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Well or Somewhat Well or Somewhat As a new teacher, I am … N Adequately Or Not Mean SD N Adequately Or Not Mean SD Prepared Prepared Prepared Prepared 1 ...to prepare lesson plans and make prior 53 96.2% 3.8% 1.96 .192 4452 97.7% 2.3% 1.98 .149 arrangements for students' class activities. 2 ...to organize and manage a class or a group of students for instructional 53 96.2% 3.8% 1.96 .192 4447 96.9% 3.1% 1.97 .173 activities. 3 ...to organize and manage student 53 84.9% 15.1% 1.85 .361 4442 92.9% 7.1% 1.93 .257 behavior and discipline satisfactorily. 4 ...to use an effective mix of teaching 52 94.2% 5.8% 1.94 .235 4423 96.4% 3.6% 1.96 .186 strategies and instructional activities. 5 ...to meet the instructional needs of students who are English language 52 86.5% 13.5% 1.87 .345 4435 89.3% 10.7% 1.89 .310 learners. 6 ...to meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural 53 86.8% 13.2% 1.87 .342 4440 92.2% 7.8% 1.92 .269 backgrounds. 7 ...to meet the instructional needs of 53 71.7% 28.3% 1.72 .455 4434 76.8% 23.2% 1.77 .422 students with special learning needs. 8 ...to understand how personal, family and community conditions often affect 53 90.6% 9.4% 1.91 .295 4424 94.2% 5.8% 1.94 .234 learning. 9 ...to learn about my students' interests and motivations, and how to teach 53 94.3% 5.7% 1.94 .233 4439 96.6% 3.4% 1.97 .180 accordingly. 10 ...to get students involved in engaging 53 96.2% 3.8% 1.96 .192 4430 96.0% 4.0% 1.96 .196 activities and to sustain on-task behavior.

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 19 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 17-B General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Multiple Subject Teaching Credential Programs During 2007-08, as Evaluated in 2007-08 by Graduates Exiting these Programs Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates This CSU Campus: CSU System: Exiting Multiple Subject Credential Programs in the CSU Multiple Subject Credential Programs Multiple Subject Credential Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Well or Somewhat Well or Somewhat As a new teacher, I am … N Adequately Or Not Mean SD N Adequately Or Not Mean SD Prepared Prepared Prepared Prepared 11 ...to use computer-based technology to help students learn subjects of the 52 67.3% 32.7% 1.67 .474 4425 83.8% 16.2% 1.84 .368 curriculum. 12 ...to use computer-based technology for 51 68.6% 31.4% 1.69 .469 4410 84.6% 15.4% 1.85 .361 instruction, research, and record keeping. 13 ...to monitor student progress by using 52 94.2% 5.8% 1.94 .235 4426 94.6% 5.4% 1.95 .226 formal and informal assessment methods. 14 ...to assess pupil progress by analyzing a variety of evidence including exam 53 86.8% 13.2% 1.87 .342 4429 92.4% 7.6% 1.92 .265 scores. 15 ...to adjust my teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand and 53 96.2% 3.8% 1.96 .192 4429 95.6% 4.4% 1.96 .204 learn. 16 ...to adhere to principles of educational 53 94.3% 5.7% 1.94 .233 4422 96.7% 3.3% 1.97 .179 equity in the teaching of all students. 17 ...to use class time efficiently by relying 52 94.2% 5.8% 1.94 .235 4425 96.6% 3.4% 1.97 .180 on daily routines and planned transitions. 18 ...to know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students and 52 71.2% 28.8% 1.71 .457 4422 83.3% 16.7% 1.83 .373 families. 19 ...to communicate effectively with the 53 92.5% 7.5% 1.92 .267 4430 90.5% 9.5% 1.90 .294 parents or guardians of my students. 20 ...to work collaboratively on school issues 53 86.8% 13.2% 1.87 .342 4438 92.5% 7.5% 1.92 .263 with other teachers in our school. 21 ...to think about problems that occur in 52 88.5% 11.5% 1.88 .323 4422 93.0% 7.0% 1.93 .256 teaching and to try-out various solutions. 22 ...to understand my professional, legal, 52 90.4% 9.6% 1.90 .298 4436 92.8% 7.2% 1.93 .259 and ethical obligations. 23 ...to evaluate and reflect on my own teaching and to seek out assistance that 53 98.1% 1.9% 1.98 .137 4439 97.9% 2.1% 1.98 .145 leads to professional growth.

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 20 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 18-A General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Single Subject Teaching Credential Programs During 2007-08, as Evaluated in 2007-08 by Graduates Exiting these Programs

Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates This CSU Campus: CSU System: Exiting Single Subject Credential Programs in the CSU Single Subject Credential Programs Single Subject Credential Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Well or Somewhat Well or Somewhat As a new teacher, I am … N Adequately Or Not Mean SD N Adequately Or Not Mean SD Prepared Prepared Prepared Prepared 1 ...to prepare lesson plans and make prior 18 94.4% 5.6% 1.94 .236 2419 95.4% 4.6% 1.95 .209 arrangements for students' class activities. 2 ...to organize and manage a class or a group of students for instructional 18 88.9% 11.1% 1.89 .323 2411 93.0% 7.0% 1.93 .255 activities. 3 ...to organize and manage student 18 77.8% 22.2% 1.78 .428 2409 86.7% 13.3% 1.87 .340 behavior and discipline satisfactorily. 4 ...to use an effective mix of teaching 18 88.9% 11.1% 1.89 .323 2405 91.8% 8.2% 1.92 .274 strategies and instructional activities. 5 ...to meet the instructional needs of students who are English language 17 82.4% 17.6% 1.82 .393 2407 81.3% 18.7% 1.81 .390 learners. 6 ...to meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural 18 83.3% 16.7% 1.83 .383 2410 88.3% 11.7% 1.88 .322 backgrounds. 7 ...to meet the instructional needs of 18 77.8% 22.2% 1.78 .428 2404 74.5% 25.5% 1.74 .436 students with special learning needs. 8 ...to understand how personal, family and community conditions often affect 18 83.3% 16.7% 1.83 .383 2402 90.3% 9.7% 1.90 .297 learning. 9 ...to learn about my students' interests and motivations, and how to teach 18 88.9% 11.1% 1.89 .323 2399 92.7% 7.3% 1.93 .261 accordingly. 10 ...to get students involved in engaging 18 88.9% 11.1% 1.89 .323 2396 90.6% 9.4% 1.91 .292 activities and to sustain on-task behavior.

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 21 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 18-B General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Single Subject Teaching Credential Programs During 2007-08, as Evaluated in 2007-08 by Graduates Exiting these Programs

Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates This CSU Campus: CSU System: Exiting Single Subject Credential Programs in the CSU Single Subject Credential Programs Single Subject Credential Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Well or Somewhat Well or Somewhat As a new teacher, I am … N Adequately Or Not Mean SD N Adequately Or Not Mean SD Prepared Prepared Prepared Prepared 11 ...to use computer-based technology to help students learn subjects of the 18 72.2% 27.8% 1.72 .461 2397 81.7% 18.3% 1.82 .387 curriculum. 12 ...to use computer-based technology for 17 76.5% 23.5% 1.76 .437 2398 85.2% 14.8% 1.85 .355 instruction, research, and record keeping. 13 ...to monitor student progress by using 18 94.4% 5.6% 1.94 .236 2398 93.3% 6.7% 1.93 .250 formal and informal assessment methods. 14 ...to assess pupil progress by analyzing a variety of evidence including exam 18 94.4% 5.6% 1.94 .236 2397 90.7% 9.3% 1.91 .291 scores. 15 ...to adjust my teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand and 18 94.4% 5.6% 1.94 .236 2405 91.3% 8.7% 1.91 .282 learn. 16 ...to adhere to principles of educational 16 87.5% 12.5% 1.88 .342 2388 93.3% 6.7% 1.93 .251 equity in the teaching of all students. 17 ...to use class time efficiently by relying 18 83.3% 16.7% 1.83 .383 2398 93.3% 6.7% 1.93 .250 on daily routines and planned transitions. 18 ...to know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students and 18 83.3% 16.7% 1.83 .383 2405 77.2% 22.8% 1.77 .420 families. 19 ...to communicate effectively with the 18 83.3% 16.7% 1.83 .383 2404 85.4% 14.6% 1.85 .353 parents or guardians of my students. 20 ...to work collaboratively on school issues 18 83.3% 16.7% 1.83 .383 2397 86.4% 13.6% 1.86 .342 with other teachers in our school. 21 ...to think about problems that occur in 18 88.9% 11.1% 1.89 .323 2399 91.4% 8.6% 1.91 .280 teaching and to try-out various solutions. 22 ...to understand my professional, legal, 18 77.8% 22.2% 1.78 .428 2409 91.7% 8.3% 1.92 .276 and ethical obligations. 23 ...to evaluate and reflect on my own teaching and to seek out assistance that 18 94.4% 5.6% 1.94 .236 2405 96.0% 4.0% 1.96 .196 leads to professional growth.

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 22 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 19-A General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Education Specialist Teaching Credential Programs During 2007-08, as Evaluated in 2007-08 by Graduates Exiting these Programs

Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates This CSU Campus: CSU System: Exiting Education Specialist Credential Programs in the CSU Education Specialist Credential Programs Education Specialist Credential Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Well or Somewhat Well or Somewhat As a new teacher, I am … N Adequately Or Not Mean SD N Adequately Or Not Mean SD Prepared Prepared Prepared Prepared 1 ...to prepare lesson plans and make prior ------764 95.8% 4.2% 1.96 .200 arrangements for students' class activities. 2 ...to organize and manage a class or a group of students for instructional ------763 94.5% 5.5% 1.94 .228 activities. 3 ...to organize and manage student ------761 90.9% 9.1% 1.91 .287 behavior and discipline satisfactorily. 4 ...to use an effective mix of teaching ------758 94.1% 5.9% 1.94 .236 strategies and instructional activities. 5 ...to meet the instructional needs of students who are English language ------762 85.4% 14.6% 1.85 .353 learners. 6 ...to meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural ------761 93.0% 7.0% 1.93 .255 backgrounds. 7 ...to meet the instructional needs of ------760 96.2% 3.8% 1.96 .192 students with special learning needs. 8 ...to understand how personal, family and community conditions often affect ------757 94.1% 5.9% 1.94 .237 learning. 9 ...to learn about my students' interests and motivations, and how to teach ------758 95.9% 4.1% 1.96 .198 accordingly. 10 ...to get students involved in engaging ------758 92.3% 7.7% 1.92 .266 activities and to sustain on-task behavior.

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 23 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 19-B General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Education Specialist Teaching Credential Programs During 2007-08, as Evaluated in 2007-08 by Graduates Exiting these Programs Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates This CSU Campus: CSU System: Exiting Education Specialist Credential Programs in the CSU Education Specialist Credential Programs Education Specialist Credential Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Well or Somewhat Well or Somewhat As a new teacher, I am … N Adequately Or Not Mean SD N Adequately Or Not Mean SD Prepared Prepared Prepared Prepared 11 ...to use computer-based technology to help students learn subjects of the ------752 80.3% 19.7% 1.80 .398 curriculum. 12 ...to use computer-based technology for ------756 81.0% 19.0% 1.81 .393 instruction, research, and record keeping. 13 ...to monitor student progress by using ------757 92.5% 7.5% 1.92 .264 formal and informal assessment methods. 14 ...to assess pupil progress by analyzing a variety of evidence including exam ------755 90.1% 9.9% 1.90 .299 scores. 15 ...to adjust my teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand and ------761 94.1% 5.9% 1.94 .236 learn. 16 ...to adhere to principles of educational ------758 95.3% 4.7% 1.95 .213 equity in the teaching of all students. 17 ...to use class time efficiently by relying ------754 94.2% 5.8% 1.94 .235 on daily routines and planned transitions. 18 ...to know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students and ------757 82.3% 17.7% 1.82 .382 families. 19 ...to communicate effectively with the ------759 91.8% 8.2% 1.92 .274 parents or guardians of my students. 20 ...to work collaboratively on school issues ------756 90.7% 9.3% 1.91 .290 with other teachers in our school. 21 ...to think about problems that occur in ------757 91.8% 8.2% 1.92 .274 teaching and to try-out various solutions. 22 ...to understand my professional, legal, ------760 94.3% 5.7% 1.94 .231 and ethical obligations. 23 ...to evaluate and reflect on my own teaching and to seek out assistance that ------759 96.8% 3.2% 1.97 .175 leads to professional growth.

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 24 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Part D Evaluation Construct: Teacher Education Program Effectiveness Evaluation Sources: Program Completers Evaluation Focus: Assignment-Specific Teaching Practices

Part D treats the same evaluation construct – teacher education program effectiveness – as Part C above. Like Part C, this section relies on CSU program completers as the sources of evaluation data. Part D differs by focusing on a different domain of the teacher preparation curriculum than Part C. Instead of reporting on general concepts and practices that are typically included in all teaching assignments, Part D addresses pedagogical concepts and practices that tend to be associated with three large groups of teaching assignments: multiple-subject assignments, single-subject assignments, and special education teaching assignments.

Preparation for Assignment-Specific Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Focus of Part D

The design of the CSU Systemwide Exit Evaluation reflects the fact that teaching positions in elementary schools, secondary schools and special education programs have some distinctive pedagogical practices and concepts. The exit evaluation assesses the effectiveness of CSU campuses in preparing K-8 candidates for concepts and practices that are commonly associated with elementary schools (and not with secondary schools). The evaluation also examines CSU effectiveness in preparing other candidates to be proficient teachers in secondary schools, where teaching positions include duties and expectations that are unique to that level of schooling. In a third realm, the evaluation investigates the effectiveness of CSU campuses in preparing candidates for special education programs. In Part C above, the focus on common or core teaching concepts and practices meant that each pair of tables examined the same set of 23 evaluation questions. In Part D, each pair of data tables examine a distinctive set of teaching principles and skills.

Questions about Program Effectiveness Addressed in Part D

(1) When the evaluation focus shifts from preparation for general teaching issues to practices and concepts that are widely associated with multiple-subject teaching assignments, how well are the program completers of this CSU campus prepared for 22 ideas and practices, according to the campus’ Multiple Subject program completers? How do these assessments compare with assessments by their counterparts throughout California who completed MS Programs from all CSU campuses?

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 25 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands (2) When we again shift the focus to preparation for pedagogical skills and ideas widely associated with single-subject teaching assignments, how well are the program completers of this CSU campus prepared for 18 level-specific skills, according to the campus’ participating Single Subject program completers? How do this campus’ assessments compare with evaluations by counterparts who completed SS Programs from all CSU campuses?

(3) When the evaluation focuses on special-education teaching assignments, how well are the program completers of this CSU campus prepared for 33 assignment-specific concepts and practices, according to the campus’ Education Specialist Program completers (Level I)? How do these campus-specific evaluations compare with assessments throughout California who completed ES Programs from all CSU campuses?

Contents of Part D

Table 20-A Concepts and Practices for Multiple Subject Teaching (K-8): Effectiveness of CSU Multiple Subject Page 28 Programs as Evaluated by Program Completers in Relation to 22 Level-Specific Concepts and Practices

Table 20-B Concepts and Practices for Multiple Subject Teaching (K-8): Effectiveness of CSU Multiple Subject Page 29 Programs as Evaluated by Program Completers in Relation to 22 Level-Specific Concepts and Practices

Table 21-A Concepts and Practices for Single Subject Teaching (7-12): Effectiveness of CSU Single Subject Page 30 Programs as Evaluated by Program Completers in Relation to 18 Level-Specific Concepts and Practices

Table 21-B Concepts and Practices for Single Subject Teaching (7-12): Effectiveness of CSU Single Subject Page 31 Programs as Evaluated by Program Completers in Relation to 18 Level-Specific Concepts and Practices

Table 22-A Concepts and Practices for Special Education Teaching: Effectiveness of CSU Education Specialist Page 32 Programs as Evaluated by Program Completers in Relation to 33 Special Education Concepts and Practices

Table 22-B Concepts and Practices for Special Education Teaching: Effectiveness of CSU Education Specialist Page 33 Programs as Evaluated by Program Completers in Relation to 33 Special Education Concepts and Practices

Table 22-C Concepts and Practices for Special Education Teaching: Effectiveness of CSU Education Specialist Page 34 Programs as Evaluated by Program Completers in Relation to 33 Special Education Concepts and Practices

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 26 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Important Characteristics of Data in Part D

Important characteristics of statistical data throughout this preliminary work-product are described on page 3. Additionally, the statistics in Part D have the following important properties.

(1) For program completers, the response options for the questions in Part D (Tables 20-22) are shown below with the coded value of each response. Evaluation participants were encouraged to mark “x” (“Don’t Know”) if they did not have a sufficient basis for selecting a response from zero to three. Response Options in Tables 20-22 Response Options in Tables 20-22 Well Prepared = 3 Somewhat Prepared = 1 Adequately Prepared = 2 Not At All Prepared = 0 I Don’t Know = x

(4) Program completers who selected “Don’t Know” about an aspect of their preparation (“x”) are not included in any column of statistical data because their responses did not describe the effectiveness of their preparation.

(5) Campus leaders and faculties are urged to exercise caution in interpreting statistics based on small numbers of participants. All statistics resulting from the evaluation are estimates of actual program effectiveness. The extent to which a statistic is reliable depends in part on the numbers of participants whose judgments are included in the statistic. Statistics about Education Specialist and Single Subject Credential Programs are often based on small numbers of respondents because these programs have fewer program completers than Multiple Subject Programs. Charts A and B gain in importance whenever limited numbers of participants (N) answer evaluation questions.

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 27 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 20-A Concepts and Practices for Multiple Subject Teaching (K-8): The Effectiveness of CSU Multiple Subject Programs During 2007-08, as Evaluated in 2007-08 by Graduates Exiting these Programs While They Taught in Grades K-8

Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates This CSU Campus: CSU System: Exiting MS Credential Programs in the CSU Multiple Subject Programs Multiple Subject Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) At the CSU, how well prepared are you to Well or Somewhat Well or Somewhat begin… N Adequately Or Not Mean SD N Adequately Or Not Mean SD Prepared Prepared Prepared Prepared 1 ...to know and understand the subjects of 52 94.2% 5.8% 1.94 .235 4414 95.6% 4.4% 1.96 .205 the curriculum at my grade level(s). 2 ...to teach reading-language arts according to California Content Standards 52 92.3% 7.7% 1.92 .269 4418 96.7% 3.3% 1.97 .178 in reading. 3 ...to understand child development, human learning and the purposes of 52 96.2% 3.8% 1.96 .194 4410 94.5% 5.5% 1.95 .227 schools. 4 ...to teach mathematics according to 52 98.1% 1.9% 1.98 .139 4408 95.4% 4.6% 1.95 .209 California Content Standards in math. 5 ...to teach science according to California 50 90.0% 10.0% 1.90 .303 4390 92.3% 7.7% 1.92 .266 State Content Standards in science. 6 ...to teach history and social studies according to California Content 51 92.2% 7.8% 1.92 .272 4398 93.3% 6.7% 1.93 .250 Standards. 7 ...to teach visual and performing arts according to California Content 51 70.6% 29.4% 1.71 .460 4389 85.5% 14.5% 1.85 .352 Standards. 8 ...to teach physical education according to the California P. E. Curriculum 51 86.3% 13.7% 1.86 .348 4385 83.9% 16.1% 1.84 .368 Framework. 9 ...to teach health according to the California Health Curriculum 50 72.0% 28.0% 1.72 .454 4373 80.3% 19.7% 1.80 .398 Framework. 10 ...to design hands-on classroom activities that suit the attention spans of my 51 96.1% 3.9% 1.96 .196 4403 96.1% 3.9% 1.96 .193 students.

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 28 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 20-B Concepts and Practices for Multiple Subject Teaching (K-8): The Effectiveness of CSU Multiple Subject Programs During 2007-08, as Evaluated in 2007-08 by Graduates Exiting these Programs While They Taught in Grades K-8

Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates This CSU Campus: CSU System: Exiting MS Credential Programs in the CSU Multiple Subject Programs Multiple Subject Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) At the CSU, how well prepared are you to Well or Somewhat Well or Somewhat begin… N Adequately Or Not Mean SD N Adequately Or Not Mean SD Prepared Prepared Prepared Prepared 11 ...to enable my young students to interact with their peers in healthy, productive 51 96.1% 3.9% 1.96 .196 4409 96.3% 3.7% 1.96 .190 ways. 12 ...to promote the academic skills of pupils 52 92.3% 7.7% 1.92 .269 4406 95.5% 4.5% 1.95 .208 at different levels of prior proficiency. 13 ...to extend students' concrete thoughts by familiarizing them with more abstract 52 88.5% 11.5% 1.88 .323 4401 91.9% 8.1% 1.92 .272 ideas. 14 ...to assist students in managing their time and in keeping track of school 52 88.5% 11.5% 1.88 .323 4413 93.7% 6.3% 1.94 .243 assignments. 15 ...to build on peer friendships, develop group skills, and encourage leadership 52 98.1% 1.9% 1.98 .139 4394 94.9% 5.1% 1.95 .220 roles. 16 ...to encourage students to take risks in discovery activities and divergent 51 92.2% 7.8% 1.92 .272 4413 94.3% 5.7% 1.94 .231 thinking. 17 ...to assist students in making sound 52 96.2% 3.8% 1.96 .194 4401 94.4% 5.6% 1.94 .229 ethical judgments. 18 ...to assist students in decision-making, 52 96.2% 3.8% 1.96 .194 4397 95.7% 4.3% 1.96 .202 problem-solving, and critical thinking. 19 ...to create an environment that supports 52 94.2% 5.8% 1.94 .235 4399 96.8% 3.2% 1.97 .177 language use, analysis, practice and fun. 20 ...to use language so pupils at different levels understand oral and written 51 94.1% 5.9% 1.94 .238 4398 95.3% 4.7% 1.95 .212 English. 21 ...to teach the skills of English writing and to provide appropriate feedback to 52 94.2% 5.8% 1.94 .235 4411 94.7% 5.3% 1.95 .224 students. 22 ...to assist individual students in areas of their instructional needs in reading and 52 96.2% 3.8% 1.96 .194 4420 96.2% 3.8% 1.96 .191 mathematics.

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 29 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 21-A Concepts and Practices for Single Subject Teaching (7-12): The Effectiveness of CSU Single Subject Programs During 2007-08, as Evaluated in 2007-08 by Graduates Exiting these Programs

Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates This CSU Campus: CSU System: Exiting SS Credential Programs in the CSU Single Subject Programs Single Subject Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) At the CSU, how well prepared are you to Well or Somewhat Well or Somewhat begin… N Adequately Or Not Mean SD N Adequately Or Not Mean SD Prepared Prepared Prepared Prepared 1 ...to know and understand the subject(s) in which I earned my teaching 18 94.4% 5.6% 1.94 .236 2404 97.3% 2.7% 1.97 .163 credential(s). 2 ...to teach my primary subject according to State Academic Standards in my 18 94.4% 5.6% 1.94 .236 2394 96.9% 3.1% 1.97 .174 grade(s). 3 ...to contribute to students' reading skills including comprehension in my subject 17 82.4% 17.6% 1.82 .393 2388 91.0% 9.0% 1.91 .287 area. 4 ...to use textbooks and other materials that are aligned with State Standards in my 17 88.2% 11.8% 1.88 .332 2378 93.3% 6.7% 1.93 .250 area. 5 ...to recognize adolescence as a period of intense pressure for students to be like 18 83.3% 16.7% 1.83 .383 2389 94.6% 5.4% 1.95 .225 peers. 6 ...to anticipate and address issues of drug, 18 72.2% 27.8% 1.72 .461 2393 82.7% 17.3% 1.83 .378 alcohol and tobacco use by my students. 7 ...to anticipate and address possession of 17 70.6% 29.4% 1.71 .470 2385 75.8% 24.2% 1.76 .429 weapons and threats of violence at school. 8 ...to anticipate and address the needs of 18 72.2% 27.8% 1.72 .461 2388 77.3% 22.7% 1.77 .419 students who are at risk of dropping out. 9 ...to understand adolescent development, human learning and the purposes of 18 77.8% 22.2% 1.78 .428 2385 90.8% 9.2% 1.91 .289 schools. 10 ...to assist individual students in areas of their instructional needs in my subject 18 94.4% 5.6% 1.94 .236 2388 95.4% 4.6% 1.95 .209 area.

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 30 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 21-B Concepts and Practices for Single Subject Teaching (7-12): The Effectiveness of CSU Single Subject Programs During 2007-08, as Evaluated in 2007-08 by Graduates Exiting these Programs

Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates This CSU Campus: CSU System: Exiting SS Credential Programs in the CSU Single Subject Programs Single Subject Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) At the CSU, how well prepared are you to Well or Somewhat Well or Somewhat begin… N Adequately Or Not Mean SD N Adequately Or Not Mean SD Prepared Prepared Prepared Prepared 11 ...to establish academic expectations that 18 88.9% 11.1% 1.89 .323 2385 94.9% 5.1% 1.95 .219 are intellectually challenging for students. 12 ...to provide opportunities for students to 18 88.9% 11.1% 1.89 .323 2384 92.3% 7.7% 1.92 .266 develop advanced problem-solving skills. 13 ...to communicate my course goals and 17 94.1% 5.9% 1.94 .243 2385 94.8% 5.2% 1.95 .221 requirements to students and parents. 14 ...to develop fair criteria for course grades and to explain these to students and 18 88.9% 11.1% 1.89 .323 2382 94.2% 5.8% 1.94 .234 parents. 15 ...to help students realize the connections between my subject and life beyond 18 88.9% 11.1% 1.89 .323 2380 93.9% 6.1% 1.94 .239 school. 16 ...to help students realize the impact of academic choices on life- and career- 18 83.3% 16.7% 1.83 .383 2358 92.9% 7.1% 1.93 .257 options. 17 ...to encourage/enable students to assume increasing responsibility for their 18 83.3% 16.7% 1.83 .383 2392 94.3% 5.7% 1.94 .232 learning. 18 ...to encourage/enable students to learn behaviors that contribute to future 17 82.4% 17.6% 1.82 .393 2395 94.4% 5.6% 1.94 .230 success.

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 31 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 22-A Concepts and Practices for Education Specialist Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Education S p ecialist Programs During 2007-08, as Evaluated in 2007-08 by Graduates Exiting these Programs

Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates This CSU Campus: CSU System: Exiting ES Credential Programs in the CSU Education Specialist Programs Education Specialist Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) At the CSU, how well prepared are you to Well or Somewhat Well or Somewhat begin… N Adequately Or Not Mean SD N Adequately Or Not Mean SD Prepared Prepared Prepared Prepared 1 ...to know and understand the subjects of ------753 91.4% 8.6% 1.91 .281 the curriculum at my grade level(s). 2 ...to teach reading-language arts according to California Content Standards ------736 93.5% 6.5% 1.93 .247 in reading. 3 ...to understand child development, human learning and the purposes of ------750 90.4% 9.6% 1.90 .295 schools. 4 ...to teach mathematics according to ------725 87.9% 12.1% 1.88 .327 California Content Standards in math. 5 ...to teach science according to California ------705 80.1% 19.9% 1.80 .399 State Content Standards in science. 6 ...to teach history and social studies according to California Content ------707 82.5% 17.5% 1.82 .381 Standards. 7 ...to teach visual and performing arts according to California Content ------686 72.0% 28.0% 1.72 .449 Standards. 8 ...to teach physical education according to the California P. E. Curriculum ------679 69.1% 30.9% 1.69 .463 Framework. 9 ...to teach health according to the California Health Curriculum ------683 70.4% 29.6% 1.70 .457 Framework. 10 ...to design hands-on classroom activities that suit the attention spans of my ------750 92.8% 7.2% 1.93 .259 students.

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 32 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 22-B Concepts and Practices for Education Specialist Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Education S p ecialist Programs During 2007-08, as Evaluated in 2007-08 by Graduates Exiting these Programs

Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates This CSU Campus: CSU System: Exiting ES Credential Programs in the CSU Education Specialist Programs Education Specialist Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) At the CSU, how well prepared are you to Well or Somewhat Well or Somewhat begin… N Adequately Or Not Mean SD N Adequately Or Not Mean SD Prepared Prepared Prepared Prepared 11 ...to enable my young students to interact with their peers in healthy, productive ------750 94.3% 5.7% 1.94 .233 ways. 12 ...to promote the academic skills of pupils ------745 94.8% 5.2% 1.95 .223 at different levels of prior proficiency. 13 ...to extend students' concrete thoughts by familiarizing them with more abstract ------747 89.0% 11.0% 1.89 .313 ideas. 14 ...to assist students in managing their time and in keeping track of school ------740 92.3% 7.7% 1.92 .267 assignments. 15 ...to build on peer friendships, develop group skills, and encourage leadership ------747 93.0% 7.0% 1.93 .255 roles. 16 ...to encourage students to take risks in discovery activities and divergent ------743 91.3% 8.7% 1.91 .283 thinking. 17 ...to assist students in making sound ------740 91.9% 8.1% 1.92 .273 ethical judgments. 18 ...to assist students in decision-making, ------741 93.1% 6.9% 1.93 .253 problem-solving, and critical thinking. 19 ...to create an environment that supports ------741 95.8% 4.2% 1.96 .200 language use, analysis, practice and fun. 20 ...to use language so pupils at different levels understand oral and written ------741 93.4% 6.6% 1.93 .249 English. 21 ...to teach the skills of English writing and to provide appropriate feedback to ------731 93.2% 6.8% 1.93 .253 students. 22 ...to assist individual students in areas of their instructional needs in reading and ------743 93.8% 6.2% 1.94 .241 mathematics.

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 33 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 22-C Concepts and Practices for Education Specialist Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Education S p ecialist Programs During 2007-08, as Evaluated in 2007-08 by Graduates Exiting these Programs

Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates This CSU Campus: CSU System: Exiting Education Specialist Credential Programs in the CSU Education Specialist Credential Programs Education Specialist Credential Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) At the CSU, how well prepared are you to Well or Somewhat Well or Somewhat begin… N Adequately Or Not Mean SD N Adequately Or Not Mean SD Prepared Prepared Prepared Prepared 23 ...to know and understand federal and ------752 92.3% 7.7% 1.92 .267 state laws that govern special education. 24 ...to develop and implement IEPs with ------753 92.3% 7.7% 1.92 .267 parents, teachers and administrators. 25 ...to plan instructional activities in integrated settings for pupils with ------753 94.3% 5.7% 1.94 .232 disabilities. 26 ...to develop student assessments that ------750 92.5% 7.5% 1.93 .263 indicate progress toward IEP objectives. 27 ...to collaborate with para-educators in ------749 92.7% 7.3% 1.93 .261 meeting students' instructional needs. 28 ...to consult with general-ed. teachers ------744 90.5% 9.5% 1.90 .294 about teaching special education students. 29 ...to conduct educational assessments as ------751 92.9% 7.1% 1.93 .256 defined in students' assessment plans. 30 ...to use disability-specific teaching strategies and activities, when ------751 90.9% 9.1% 1.91 .287 appropriate. 31 ...to teach disability-specific curriculum ------747 90.0% 10.0% 1.90 .301 when applicable to my specialty area. 32 ...to develop and implement transition ------742 83.3% 16.7% 1.83 .373 plans for special education students.

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 34 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Part E Evaluation Construct: Teacher Education Program Value and Helpfulness Evaluation Sources: Program Completers of MS, SS and ES Credential Programs Evaluation Focus: Pedagogical Subjects, Program Support, and Fieldwork Activities in Programs

Program Value and Helpfulness as an Evaluation Construct

In Parts C and D the focus was on program effectiveness as the evaluation construct. Part E turns to a second construct for evaluating teacher preparation: program value and helpfulness. Before turning to the statistics in the following tables, we need a clear understanding of what this second evaluation construct means.

CSU conceptualizes program value and helpfulness in relation to common elements of teacher education programs. Specific focus is given to common subjects of pedagogical instruction, common activities in the fieldwork component of programs, and common elements of program information and support. Based on the CSU assumption that pedagogical responsibilities are challenging for beginning teachers, CSU wants to know how valuable or helpful are common pedagogical subjects of the preparation curriculum when program completers face the challenges of K-12 classrooms. Similarly, CSU wants to know how valuable or helpful are the most common fieldwork activities in professional credential programs. From a structural perspective, CSU also wants to know how valuable or helpful are various elements of information and support that enable students to participate successfully in a program. When teachers face the challenges of novice teaching, the value and helpfulness of their professional preparation is the extent to which the learned skills and understandings ease the novices' burdens and facilitate their success. Part E of this work-product examines this evaluation construct in place of the prior concept of program effectiveness in Parts C and D.

Whether the value and helpfulness of professional preparation programs are distinct from their effectiveness is an empirical question to be examined in statistical relationships in the CSU evaluation data. Conceptually, however, the two constructs are potentially independent from each other. Program completers who are relatively well prepared to begin teaching may assess the value and/or helpfulness of their preparation programs positively, negatively or neutrally. Other program completers who are relatively poorly prepared could conceivably reach the same range of judgments about the value and/or helpfulness of their university coursework and fieldwork. Having examined the data pertaining to program effectiveness in Parts C-D, CSU campuses may learn additional important information in Part E pertaining to program value and usefulness.

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 35 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Program Completers of Teacher Education Programs as Sources of Value-and-Helpfulness Data

CSU embraces the notion that universities may, in a variety of ways, provide instruction, fieldwork, and general program support that are valuable and helpful to new teachers. In the evaluation, value-and-helpfulness questions must not inadvertently favor particular ways of organizing and delivering preparation in programs. For example, instruction in a subject such as the psychology of pedagogy could be valuable and useful at one institution that focuses a specific course on educational psychology, but another university could achieve equal value and helpfulness by addressing topics of educational psychology in multiple courses. Value-and-helpfulness questions must focus squarely on the value and helpfulness of instruction in a pedagogical subject. Questions about the structure or organization of a program would also be legitimate, but should not be confused with the value-and-helpfulness construct.

Contents of Part E

Table 23 CSU Coursework and Fieldwork in Learning to Teach: The Value and Helpfulness of All CSU Page 38 Credential Programs (Combined) as Reported in 2007-08 by the Cohort of 2007-08

Table 24-A CSU Coursework and Fieldwork in Learning to Teach: The Value and Helpfulness of Multiple Subject Page 39 Credential Programs as Reported in 2007-08 by the Cohort of 2007-08

Table 24-B CSU Coursework and Fieldwork in Learning to Teach: The Value and Helpfulness of Multiple Subject Page 40 Credential Programs as Reported in 2007-08 by the Cohort of 2007-08

Table 25-A CSU Coursework and Fieldwork in Learning to Teach: The Value and Helpfulness of Single Subject Page 41 Credential Programs as Reported in 2007-08 by the Cohort of 2007-08

Table 25-B CSU Coursework and Fieldwork in Learning to Teach: The Value and Helpfulness of Single Subject Page 42 Credential Programs as Reported in 2007-08 by the Cohort of 2007-08

Table 26-A CSU Coursework and Fieldwork in Learning to Teach: The Value and Helpfulness of Education Page 43 Specialist Credential (Level I) Programs as Reported in 2007-08 by the Cohort of 2007-08

Table 26-B CSU Coursework and Fieldwork in Learning to Teach: The Value and Helpfulness of Education Page 44 Specialist Credential (Level I) Programs as Reported in 2007-08 by the Cohort of 2007-08

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 36 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Important Characteristics of Data in Part E

Important characteristics of statistical data throughout this preliminary work-product are described on page 3. Additionally, the statistics in Part E have the following important properties:

(1) For program completers, the response options for the questions in Part E are shown below with the coded value of each response. Evaluation participants were instructed to select “Does Not Apply” if their programs provided no instruction in a listed subject of pedagogical content. Response Options in Tables 23-26 Response Options in Tables 23-26 Very Valuable or Helpful = 3 A Little Valuable or Helpful = 1 Somewhat Valuable or Helpful = 2 Not At All Valuable or Helpful = 0 Does Not Apply = x

(4) Program completers who indicated that a question “Does Not Apply” are not included in any column of statistical data because their responses did not describe the value or usefulness of their preparation. (5) Statistics based on small numbers of participants should be interpreted cautiously. All statistics resulting from the evaluation are estimates of actual program outcomes. The reliability of a statistic depends in part on the numbers of participants whose judgments are included in the statistic. Statistics about Education Specialist and Single Subject Credential Programs are often based on small numbers of respondents.

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 37 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 23 CSU Coursework and Fieldwork in Learning to Teach: The Value and Helpfulness of All CSU Credential Programs (combined) When the 2007-08 Graduates Exiting These Programs Served as Classroom Teachers During 2007-08

Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates Exiting This CSU Campus: CSU System: All Credential Programs in the CSU All Programs All Programs A Based on your experience as a K-12 pre-service A Little Very or Very or Little N Or Not Mean SD N Mean SD teacher, how valuable or helpful was instruction Somewhat Somewhat Or Not At All and support in your Teaching Credential At All Program? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) A. How Valuable or Helpful was CSU Instruction in General Pedagogy? 1 Instruction in how children and adolescents grow and 61 73.8% 26.2% 1.74 .444 6979 85.0% 15.0% 1.85 .357 develop. 2 Instruction in the implications of human learning and 64 79.7% 20.3% 1.80 .406 7108 88.5% 11.5% 1.88 .319 motivation. 3 Instruction in school purposes, organization, issues 65 83.1% 16.9% 1.83 .378 7034 83.1% 16.9% 1.83 .375 and history. 4 Instruction in methods of classroom teaching and 72 93.1% 6.9% 1.93 .256 7308 93.0% 7.0% 1.93 .255 management. 5 Instruction in the teaching of English language 72 90.3% 9.7% 1.90 .298 7316 91.0% 9.0% 1.91 .286 learners (ELL). 6 Instruction in cultural diversity and multicultural 72 88.9% 11.1% 1.89 .316 7315 91.3% 8.7% 1.91 .282 education. 7 Instruction in teaching students with special learning 72 83.3% 16.7% 1.83 .375 7263 84.7% 15.3% 1.85 .360 needs. 8 Instruction in using computer technology for 64 65.6% 34.4% 1.66 .479 7142 80.7% 19.3% 1.81 .395 classroom instruction. B. How Valuable or Helpful was CSU Program Information and Support? 1 Information and support provided in initial 71 73.2% 26.8% 1.73 .446 7206 76.3% 23.7% 1.76 .425 program orientation. 2 Information, support, and solutions provided by 71 80.3% 19.7% 1.80 .401 7051 75.5% 24.5% 1.76 .430 the credentials office. 3 Information, support and advice provided by 68 83.8% 16.2% 1.84 .371 7084 83.7% 16.3% 1.84 .369 faculty advisor(s). 4 Information provided in written materials (e.g., 69 78.3% 21.7% 1.78 .415 7175 79.6% 20.4% 1.80 .403 handbook, catalogues, website).

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 38 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 24-A CSU Coursework and Fieldwork in Learning to Teach: The Value and Helpfulness of Multiple Subject Programs When the 2007-08 Graduates Exiting these Programs Served as K-12 Classroom Teachers During 2007-08

Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates Exiting Multiple This CSU Campus: CSU System: Subject Credential Programs in the CSU Multiple Subject Programs Multiple Subject Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Based on your experience as a K-12 pre-service teacher, how A A valuable or helpful was instruction, support, and fieldwork in Very Little Very Little or Or or Or N Mean SD N Mean SD your Teaching Credential Program? Some- Not Some- Not what At what At All All A. How Valuable or Helpful was CSU Instruction in General Pedagogy? 1 Instruction in how children and adolescents grow and develop. 44 77.3% 22.7% 1.77 .424 4148 85.8% 14.2% 1.86 .349 2 Instruction in the implications of human learning and motivation. 45 80.0% 20.0% 1.80 .405 4242 89.7% 10.3% 1.90 .304 3 Instruction in school purposes, organization, issues and history. 46 84.8% 15.2% 1.85 .363 4199 84.9% 15.1% 1.85 .359 4 Instruction in methods of classroom teaching and management. 53 96.2% 3.8% 1.96 .192 4388 94.1% 5.9% 1.94 .237 5 Instruction in the teaching of English language learners (ELL). 53 92.5% 7.5% 1.92 .267 4402 93.5% 6.5% 1.94 .247 6 Instruction in cultural diversity and multicultural education. 53 90.6% 9.4% 1.91 .295 4404 93.1% 6.9% 1.93 .254 7 Instruction in teaching students with special learning needs. 53 81.1% 18.9% 1.81 .395 4349 84.6% 15.4% 1.85 .361 8 Instruction in using computer technology for classroom instruction. 45 66.7% 33.3% 1.67 .477 4296 81.7% 18.3% 1.82 .387 B. How Valuable or Helpful was CSU Program Information and Support? 1 Information and support provided in initial program orientation. 52 69.2% 30.8% 1.69 .466 4338 78.9% 21.1% 1.79 .408 2 Information, support, and solutions provided by the credentials 53 79.2% 20.8% 1.79 .409 4216 77.8% 22.2% 1.78 .415 office 3 Information, support and advice provided by faculty advisor(s) 50 82.0% 18.0% 1.82 .388 4232 84.1% 15.9% 1.84 .366 4 Information provided in written materials (e.g., handbook, 52 76.9% 23.1% 1.77 .425 4314 81.5% 18.5% 1.82 .388 catalogues, website) C. How Valuable or Helpful Were Fieldwork Assignments in CSU Programs? 1 My supervised teaching experiences in K-12 schools. 53 98.1% 1.9% 1.98 .137 4370 96.6% 3.4% 1.97 .181 2 My field work (e.g., school visits, observations, school-based course 53 96.2% 3.8% 1.96 .192 4371 93.2% 6.8% 1.93 .252 assignments, etc.) and observations prior to supervised teaching. 3 Discussions sponsored by the university during student teaching. 47 70.2% 29.8% 1.70 .462 3995 84.4% 15.6% 1.84 .363 4 Guidance and assistance from field supervisor(s) from the campus. 53 86.8% 13.2% 1.87 .342 4344 89.8% 10.2% 1.90 .302 5 Guidance and assistance from supervising teacher(s) in K-12 schools. 53 96.2% 3.8% 1.96 .192 4350 95.2% 4.8% 1.95 .214

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 39 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 24-B CSU Coursework and Fieldwork in Learning to Teach: The Value and Helpfulness of Multiple Subject Programs When the 2007-08 Graduates Exiting these Programs Served as K-12 Classroom Teachers During 2007-08

Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates Exiting Multiple This CSU Campus: CSU System: Subject Credential Programs in the CSU Multiple Subject Programs Multiple Subject Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Based on your experience as a K-12 pre-service teacher, how A A valuable or helpful was instruction, support, and fieldwork in Very Little Very Little or Or or Or N Mean SD N Mean SD your Teaching Credential Program? Some- Not Some- Not what At what At All All D. How Valuable or Helpful Was CSU Instruction in K-8 Subject Pedagogy 1 Instruction in the teaching of reading-language arts in grades K-8. 53 96.2% 3.8% 1.96 .192 4392 97.0% 3.0% 1.97 .169 2 Instruction in the teaching of mathematics in grades K-8. 53 98.1% 1.9% 1.98 .137 4407 94.0% 6.0% 1.94 .237 3 Instruction in the teaching of science in grades K-8. 53 92.5% 7.5% 1.92 .267 4374 91.7% 8.3% 1.92 .276 4 Instruction in the teaching of history-social studies in grades K-8. 52 94.2% 5.8% 1.94 .235 4349 91.5% 8.5% 1.91 .279 5 Instruction in the teaching of K-8 art, music, drama and/or dance. 44 61.4% 38.6% 1.61 .493 4125 79.9% 20.1% 1.80 .401 6 Instruction in the teaching of physical education in grades K-8. 53 79.2% 20.8% 1.79 .409 4090 80.0% 20.0% 1.80 .400 7 Instruction in the teaching of health in grades K-8. 48 62.5% 37.5% 1.63 .489 4037 74.0% 26.0% 1.74 .439

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 40 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 25-A CSU Coursework and Fieldwork in Learning to Teach: The Value and Helpfulness of Single Subject Programs When the 2007-08 Graduates Exiting these Programs Served as 7-12 Classroom Teachers During 2007-08

Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates Exiting Single This CSU Campus: CSU System: Subject Credential Programs in the CSU Single Subject Programs Single Subject Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Based on your experience as a K-12 pre-service teacher, A A how valuable or helpful was instruction, support, and Very Little Very Little or Or or Or N Mean SD N Mean SD fieldwork in your Teaching Credential Program? Some- Not Some- Not what At what At All All A. How Valuable or Helpful was CSU Instruction in General Pedagogy? 1 Instruction in how children and adolescents grow and develop. 16 62.5% 37.5% 1.63 .500 2338 83.8% 16.2% 1.84 .369 2 Instruction in the implications of human learning and motivation. 18 77.8% 22.2% 1.78 .428 2355 86.4% 13.6% 1.86 .343 3 Instruction in school purposes, organization, issues and history. 18 77.8% 22.2% 1.78 .428 2327 80.0% 20.0% 1.80 .400 4 Instruction in methods of classroom teaching and management. 18 88.9% 11.1% 1.89 .323 2386 90.6% 9.4% 1.91 .292 5 Instruction in the teaching of English language learners (ELL). 18 88.9% 11.1% 1.89 .323 2380 86.5% 13.5% 1.86 .342 6 Instruction in cultural diversity and multicultural education. 18 88.9% 11.1% 1.89 .323 2382 87.4% 12.6% 1.87 .331 7 Instruction in teaching students with special learning needs. 18 88.9% 11.1% 1.89 .323 2379 81.4% 18.6% 1.81 .389 8 Instruction in using computer technology for classroom instruction. 18 61.1% 38.9% 1.61 .502 2348 78.7% 21.3% 1.79 .409 B. How Valuable or Helpful was CSU Program Information and Support? 1 Information and support provided in initial program 18 83.3% 16.7% 1.83 .383 2352 71.6% 28.4% 1.72 .451 orientation. 2 Information, support, and solutions provided by the credentials 17 82.4% 17.6% 1.82 .393 2324 70.9% 29.1% 1.71 .454 office. 3 Information, support and advice provided by faculty 17 88.2% 11.8% 1.88 .332 2324 82.3% 17.7% 1.82 .382 advisor(s). 4 Information provided in written materials (e.g., handbook, 16 81.3% 18.8% 1.81 .403 2339 75.0% 25.0% 1.75 .433 catalogues, website). C. How Valuable or Helpful Were Fieldwork Assignments in CSU Programs? 1 My supervised teaching experiences in K-12 schools. 17 94.1% 5.9% 1.94 .243 2326 93.0% 7.0% 1.93 .255 2 My field work (e.g., school visits, observations, school-based course 17 94.1% 5.9% 1.94 .243 2353 87.0% 13.0% 1.87 .337 assignments, etc.) and observations prior to supervised teaching. 3 Discussions sponsored by the university during student teaching. 15 86.7% 13.3% 1.87 .352 2128 80.2% 19.8% 1.80 .399 4 Guidance and assistance from field supervisor(s) from the campus. 17 88.2% 11.8% 1.88 .332 2368 86.1% 13.9% 1.86 .346 5 Guidance and assistance from supervising teacher(s) in K-12 17 88.2% 11.8% 1.88 .332 2334 91.6% 8.4% 1.92 .277 schools.

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 41 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 25-B CSU Coursework and Fieldwork in Learning to Teach: The Value and Helpfulness of Single Subject Programs When the 2007-08 Graduates Exiting these Programs Served as 7-12 Classroom Teachers During 2007-08 Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates This CSU Campus: CSU System: Exiting Single Subject Credential Programs in the CSU Single Subject Programs Single Subject Programs Based on your experience as a K-12 pre- (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) service teacher, how valuable or helpful was Very or A Little Very or A Little instruction, support, and fieldwork in your N Some- Or Not Mean SD N Some- Or Not Mean SD Teaching Credential Program? what At All what At All

D. How Valuable or Helpful Was CSU Instruction in 7-12 Subject Pedagogy 1 Instruction in ways of teaching English classes 7 85.7% 14.3% 1.86 .378 535 89.3% 10.7% 1.89 .309 in grades 7-12. 2 Instruction in ways of teaching Language Other ------167 89.2% 10.8% 1.89 .311 than English classes in grades 7-12. 3 Instruction in ways of teaching Mathematics 8 100.0% .0% 2.00 .000 392 92.9% 7.1% 1.93 .258 classes in grades 7-12. 4 Instruction in ways of teaching Music classes in ------89 86.5% 13.5% 1.87 .343 grades 7-12. 5 Instruction in ways of teaching Art classes in ------109 90.8% 9.2% 1.91 .290 grades 7-12. 6 Instruction in ways of teaching Physical ------191 92.7% 7.3% 1.93 .261 Education classes in grades 7-12. 7 Instruction in ways of teaching Science 3 100.0% .0% 2.00 .000 176 83.0% 17.0% 1.83 .377 (Biological Sciences) classes in grades 7-12. 8 Instruction in ways of teaching Science 1 100.0% .0% 2.00 -- 40 70.0% 30.0% 1.70 .464 (Physics) classes in grades 7-12. 9 Instruction in ways of teaching Science 1 100.0% .0% 2.00 -- 52 86.5% 13.5% 1.87 .345 (Chemistry) classes in grades 7-12. 10 Instruction in ways of teaching Science ------45 75.6% 24.4% 1.76 .435 (Geosciences) classes in grades 7-12. 11 Instruction in ways of teaching Health Science ------29 79.3% 20.7% 1.79 .412 classes in grades 7-12. 12 Instruction in ways of teaching Social Science ------427 90.4% 9.6% 1.90 .295 classes in grades 7-12. 13 Instruction in ways of teaching Agriculture ------44 95.5% 4.5% 1.95 .211 classes in grades 7-12. 14 Instruction in ways of teaching Business classes ------19 78.9% 21.1% 1.79 .419 in grades 7-12. 15 Instruction in ways of teaching Home ------12 75.0% 25.0% 1.75 .452 Economics classes in grades 7-12. 16 Instruction in ways of teaching Industrial and ------10 90.0% 10.0% 1.90 .316 Technology classes in grades 7-12. Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 42 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 26-A CSU Coursework and Fieldwork in Learning to Teach: The Value and Helpfulness of Education S p ecialist Programs When the 2007-08 Graduates Exiting these Programs Served as Classroom Teachers During 2007-08

Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates Exiting Education This CSU Campus: CSU System: Specialist Credential Programs in the CSU Education Specialist Programs Education Specialist Programs

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Based on your experience as a K-12 pre-service teacher, how A A valuable or helpful was instruction and fieldwork in your Little Little Very or Or Very or Or N Mean SD N Mean SD Teaching Credential Program? Somewhat Not Somewhat Not At At All All A. How Valuable or Helpful was CSU Instruction in General Pedagogy? 1 Instruction in how children and adolescents grow and develop. ------689 83.7% 16.3% 1.84 .369 2 Instruction in the implications of human learning and motivation. ------710 86.6% 13.4% 1.87 .341 3 Instruction in school purposes, organization, issues and history. ------707 82.2% 17.8% 1.82 .383 4 Instruction in methods of classroom teaching and management. ------738 94.2% 5.8% 1.94 .234 5 Instruction in the teaching of English language learners (ELL). ------738 90.7% 9.3% 1.91 .291 6 Instruction in cultural diversity and multicultural education. ------734 92.8% 7.2% 1.93 .259 7 Instruction in teaching students with special learning needs. ------742 97.7% 2.3% 1.98 .150 8 Instruction in using computer technology for classroom instruction. ------705 81.1% 18.9% 1.81 .392 B. How Valuable or Helpful was CSU Program Information and Support? 1 Information and support provided in initial program orientation. ------715 75.1% 24.9% 1.75 .433 2 Information, support, and solutions provided by the credentials ------708 77.1% 22.9% 1.77 .420 office. 3 Information, support and advice provided by faculty advisor(s). ------729 84.8% 15.2% 1.85 .360 4 Information provided in written materials (e.g., handbook, ------722 82.0% 18.0% 1.82 .384 catalogues, website). C. How Valuable or Helpful Were Fieldwork Assignments in CSU Programs? 1 My supervised teaching experiences in K-12 schools. ------713 93.1% 6.9% 1.93 .253 2 My field work (e.g., school visits, observations, school-based course ------729 92.0% 8.0% 1.92 .271 assignments, etc.) and observations prior to supervised teaching. 3 Discussions sponsored by the university during student teaching. ------665 84.8% 15.2% 1.85 .359 4 Guidance and assistance from field supervisor(s) from the campus. ------725 90.2% 9.8% 1.90 .297 5 Guidance and assistance from supervising teacher(s) in K-12 schools. ------707 92.4% 7.6% 1.92 .266

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 43 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 26-B CSU Coursework and Fieldwork in Learning to Teach: The Value and Helpfulness of Education S p ecialist Programs When the 2007-08 Graduates Exiting these Programs Served as Classroom Teachers During 2007-08

Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates Exiting Education This CSU Campus: CSU System: Specialist Credential Programs in the CSU Education Specialist Programs Education Specialist Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Based on your experience as a K-12 pre-service teacher, A A how valuable or helpful was instruction and fieldwork in Little Little Very or Or Very or Or N Mean SD N Mean SD your Teaching Credential Program? Somewhat Not Somewhat Not At At All All D. How Valuable or Helpful Was CSU Instruction in K-8 Subject Pedagogy 1 Instruction in the teaching of reading-language arts in grades K-8. ------707 94.3% 5.7% 1.94 .231 2 Instruction in the teaching of mathematics in grades K-8. ------688 89.2% 10.8% 1.89 .310 3 Instruction in the teaching of science in grades K-8. ------637 77.1% 22.9% 1.77 .421 4 Instruction in the teaching of history-social studies in grades K-8. ------622 75.9% 24.1% 1.76 .428 5 Instruction in the teaching of K-8 art, music, drama and/or dance. ------603 68.5% 31.5% 1.68 .465 6 Instruction in the teaching of physical education in grades K-8. ------589 67.7% 32.3% 1.68 .468 7 Instruction in the teaching of health in grades K-8. ------592 67.7% 32.3% 1.68 .468

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 44 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Part F

Evaluation Construct: Teacher Education Program Quality Evaluation Sources: Program Completers of MS, SS and ES Credential Programs Evaluation Focus: Program Qualities Sought in Professional Accreditation Standards

Teacher Education Program Quality as an Evaluation Construct

At the state and national levels, new accreditation standards recently established mandatory qualities of accredited preparation programs. In some cases, the new accreditation standards describe program qualities that are likely to be largely invisible to credential candidates while they enroll in credential preparation programs. Other accreditation standards describe program attributes that are likely to be readily apparent to many enrolled candidates, however. CSU campuses already have multiple sources of information about program features required by accreditation standards. The CSU Systemwide Evaluation could serve to supplement these existing sources of accreditation information. The evaluation asks program completers to answer program quality questions based on first-hand observations of their credential programs. These evaluation questions are closely aligned and congruent with the new state and national standards.

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 45 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Contents of Part F

Table 27 The Quality of Pedagogical Preparation Programs in Relation to Professional Accreditation Standards: Page 47 Evaluations by Program Completers of All Credential Programs (Combined) Table 28 The Quality of Pedagogical Preparation Programs in Relation to Professional Accreditation Standards: Page 48 Evaluations by Program Completers of Multiple Subject Credential Programs Table 29 The Quality of Pedagogical Preparation Programs in Relation to Professional Accreditation Standards: Page 49 Evaluations by Program Completers of Single Subject Credential Programs Table 30 The Quality of Pedagogical Preparation Programs in Relation to Professional Accreditation Standards: Page 50 Evaluations by Program Completers of Education Specialist (Level I) Programs

Important Characteristics of Data in Part F

Statistics in Part E have the following properties.

(1) In Tables 27-30, thirteen statements describe standards-based qualities of teacher preparation programs. The response options for these nine statements are shown below with the coded value of each response. Program completers were encouraged to mark “x” (“Does Not Apply”) if they did not have a sufficient basis for judging the accuracy of a statement. Response Options in Tables 27-30 Response Options in Tables 27-30 Statement Was True = 3 Statement Was Somewhat True = 1 Statement Was Mostly True = 2 Statement Was Not True = 0 Statement Does Not Apply = x

(2) In each table, Columns (2) and (7) show the percentages of teaching program completers who gave favorable responses (“3” or “2”) to a statement. Columns (3) and (8) show the percentages giving unfavorable responses (“1” or “0”). Percentages are rounded to nearest integers

(3) Means and standard deviations in Columns (4), (5), (9) and (10) are based on the numeric scale shown above. Mean values range from a minimum of zero to a maximum of 3.00, and are substantially but not entirely correlated with the percentages in Columns (2), (3), (7) and (8). (5) Program completers who indicated that a statement “Does Not Apply” (“x”) are not included in any column of data because their responses did not describe their preparation programs in terms of standards-based program qualities. Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 46 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 27 The Quality of Pedagogical Preparation Programs: Evaluations in 2007-08 by 2007-08 Exiting Graduates of All Programs (Combined)

Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates Exiting All This CSU Campus: CSU System: Credential Programs in the CSU All Programs All Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Somewhat True Somewhat While you were in the Teaching Credential Program, True or True or True N Mostly Mean SD N Mean SD how true was each of the following statements? Or Not Mostly Or Not True True True True The program had a sequence of courses and school 1 experiences that addressed the complexities of teaching 71 76.1% 23.9% 1.76 .430 7245 80.1% 19.9% 1.80 .399 gradually over time. The program provided an appropriate mixture of theoretical 2 ideas and practical strategies, and I learned about links 72 81.9% 18.1% 1.82 .387 7257 79.2% 20.8% 1.79 .406 between them. During the program, I saw evidence that university faculty 3 and administrators worked closely with educators in K-12 70 74.3% 25.7% 1.74 .440 7172 69.6% 30.4% 1.70 .460 schools. At each stage of the teaching credential program, I felt ready 4 to assume a little more responsibility for K-12 student 71 83.1% 16.9% 1.83 .377 7223 88.0% 12.0% 1.88 .325 instruction. I taught in at least one school that was a good environment 5 for practice teaching and for reflecting on how I was 72 91.7% 8.3% 1.92 .278 7212 94.5% 5.5% 1.95 .228 teaching pupils. I felt welcomed by the staff in the school(s) in which I was 6 70 87.1% 12.9% 1.87 .337 7156 90.9% 9.1% 1.91 .288 placed. My cooperating teacher(s) frequently observed my teaching, 7 67 85.1% 14.9% 1.85 .359 7036 88.1% 11.9% 1.88 .323 met with me and offered useful advice about my teaching. My cooperating teacher(s) modeled the kind of teaching that 8 was encouraged by my university teacher education 67 86.6% 13.4% 1.87 .344 6989 84.7% 15.3% 1.85 .360 instructors. My university supervisor (s) regularly observed my teaching, 9 met with me and offered constructive feedback about my 71 87.3% 12.7% 1.87 .335 7223 89.4% 10.6% 1.89 .308 teaching. During supervised teaching, my university-based supervisor 10 and cooperating teacher communicated effectively with each 67 83.6% 16.4% 1.84 .373 6902 83.0% 17.0% 1.83 .375 other. Over time, the credential program and its curriculum met my 11 72 87.5% 12.5% 1.88 .333 7227 85.5% 14.5% 1.86 .352 needs as I prepared myself to become a good teacher. During the teaching credential program I developed valuable 12 71 85.9% 14.1% 1.86 .350 7230 88.4% 11.6% 1.88 .320 relationships and felt a sense of community with my peers. My peers in the teaching credential program were ethnically 13 72 68.1% 31.9% 1.68 .470 7151 81.6% 18.4% 1.82 .388 and racially diverse.

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 47 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 28 The Quality of Pedagogical Preparation Programs: Evaluations in 2007-08 by 2007-08 Exiting Graduates of Multiple Subject Programs

Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates Exiting This CSU Campus: CSU System: Multiple Subject Credential Programs in the CSU Multiple Subject Programs Multiple Subject Programs While you were in the Teaching Credential Program, (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) True Somewhat True how true was each of the following statements? Somewhat or True or N Mean SD N True Mean SD Mostly Or Not Mostly Or Not True True True True 1 The program had a sequence of courses and school experiences that addressed the complexities of teaching 52 75.0% 25.0% 1.75 .437 4347 83.1% 16.9% 1.83 .374 gradually over time. 2 The program provided an appropriate mixture of theoretical ideas and practical strategies, and I learned about links 53 81.1% 18.9% 1.81 .395 4355 82.8% 17.2% 1.83 .378 between them. 3 During the program, I saw evidence that university faculty and 52 71.2% 28.8% 1.71 .457 4324 72.4% 27.6% 1.72 .447 administrators worked closely with educators in K-12 schools. 4 At each stage of the teaching credential program, I felt ready to assume a little more responsibility for K-12 student 52 86.5% 13.5% 1.87 .345 4349 91.1% 8.9% 1.91 .285 instruction. 5 I taught in at least one school that was a good environment for practice teaching and for reflecting on how I was teaching 53 94.3% 5.7% 1.94 .233 4357 96.7% 3.3% 1.97 .179 pupils. 6 I felt welcomed by the staff in the school(s) in which I was 53 86.8% 13.2% 1.87 .342 4335 91.6% 8.4% 1.92 .277 placed. 7 My cooperating teacher(s) frequently observed my teaching, 53 86.8% 13.2% 1.87 .342 4275 90.4% 9.6% 1.90 .295 met with me and offered useful advice about my teaching. 8 My cooperating teacher(s) modeled the kind of teaching that was encouraged by my university teacher education 53 86.8% 13.2% 1.87 .342 4264 87.1% 12.9% 1.87 .335 instructors. 9 My university supervisor (s) regularly observed my teaching, met with me and offered constructive feedback about my 53 88.7% 11.3% 1.89 .320 4341 90.7% 9.3% 1.91 .291 teaching. 10 During supervised teaching, my university-based supervisor and cooperating teacher communicated effectively with each 52 82.7% 17.3% 1.83 .382 4215 84.9% 15.1% 1.85 .358 other. 11 Over time, the credential program and its curriculum met my 53 88.7% 11.3% 1.89 .320 4336 88.9% 11.1% 1.89 .315 needs as I prepared myself to become a good teacher. 12 During the teaching credential program I developed valuable 53 84.9% 15.1% 1.85 .361 4349 89.9% 10.1% 1.90 .302 relationships and felt a sense of community with my peers. 13 My peers in the teaching credential program were ethnically 53 73.6% 26.4% 1.74 .445 4290 82.6% 17.4% 1.83 .379 and racially diverse.

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 48 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 29 The Quality of Pedagogical Preparation Programs: Evaluations in 2007-08 by 2007-08 Exiting Graduates of Single Subject Programs

Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates Exiting This CSU Campus: CSU System: Single Subject Credential Programs in the CSU Single Subject Programs Single Subject Programs While you were in the Teaching Credential Program, (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Somewhat Somewhat how true was each of the following statements? True or True or True True N Mostly Mean SD N Mostly Mean SD Or Not Or Not True True True True 1 The program had a sequence of courses and school experiences that addressed the complexities of teaching 18 77.8% 22.2% 1.78 .428 2366 74.8% 25.2% 1.75 .434 gradually over time. 2 The program provided an appropriate mixture of theoretical ideas and practical strategies, and I learned about links 18 83.3% 16.7% 1.83 .383 2371 72.1% 27.9% 1.72 .448 between them. 3 During the program, I saw evidence that university faculty and administrators worked closely with educators in K-12 17 82.4% 17.6% 1.82 .393 2337 63.4% 36.6% 1.63 .482 schools. 4 At each stage of the teaching credential program, I felt ready to assume a little more responsibility for K-12 student 18 83.3% 16.7% 1.83 .383 2359 83.3% 16.7% 1.83 .373 instruction. 5 I taught in at least one school that was a good environment for practice teaching and for reflecting on how I was 18 88.9% 11.1% 1.89 .323 2344 91.3% 8.7% 1.91 .283 teaching pupils. 6 I felt welcomed by the staff in the school(s) in which I was 17 88.2% 11.8% 1.88 .332 2327 89.6% 10.4% 1.90 .305 placed. 7 My cooperating teacher(s) frequently observed my teaching, 13 92.3% 7.7% 1.92 .277 2277 84.7% 15.3% 1.85 .360 met with me and offered useful advice about my teaching. 8 My cooperating teacher(s) modeled the kind of teaching that was encouraged by my university teacher education 13 92.3% 7.7% 1.92 .277 2251 80.4% 19.6% 1.80 .397 instructors. 9 My university supervisor (s) regularly observed my teaching, met with me and offered constructive feedback 17 82.4% 17.6% 1.82 .393 2361 87.0% 13.0% 1.87 .336 about my teaching. 10 During supervised teaching, my university-based supervisor and cooperating teacher communicated effectively with each 14 92.9% 7.1% 1.93 .267 2218 79.7% 20.3% 1.80 .403 other. 11 Over time, the credential program and its curriculum met my 18 88.9% 11.1% 1.89 .323 2364 79.9% 20.1% 1.80 .401 needs as I prepared myself to become a good teacher. 12 During the teaching credential program I developed valuable 17 88.2% 11.8% 1.88 .332 2355 86.0% 14.0% 1.86 .347 relationships and felt a sense of community with my peers. 13 My peers in the teaching credential program were ethnically 18 50.0% 50.0% 1.50 .514 2332 78.0% 22.0% 1.78 .414 and racially diverse.

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 49 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 30 The Quality of Pedagogical Preparation Programs: Evaluations in 2007-08 by 2007-08 Exiting Graduates of Education Specialist Programs

Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates Exiting This CSU Campus: CSU System: Education Specialist Credential Programs in the CSU Education Specialist Programs Education Specialist Programs While you were in the Teaching Credential Program, (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Somewhat Somewhat how true was each of the following statements? True or True or True True N Mostly Mean SD N Mostly Mean SD Or Not Or Not True True True True 1 The program had a sequence of courses and school experiences that addressed the complexities of teaching ------732 79.0% 21.0% 1.79 .408 gradually over time. 2 The program provided an appropriate mixture of theoretical ideas and practical strategies, and I learned about links ------732 80.3% 19.7% 1.80 .398 between them. 3 During the program, I saw evidence that university faculty and administrators worked closely with educators in K-12 ------711 71.6% 28.4% 1.72 .451 schools. 4 At each stage of the teaching credential program, I felt ready to assume a little more responsibility for K-12 student ------716 84.2% 15.8% 1.84 .365 instruction. 5 I taught in at least one school that was a good environment for practice teaching and for reflecting on how I was ------708 91.5% 8.5% 1.92 .279 teaching pupils. 6 I felt welcomed by the staff in the school(s) in which I was ------697 90.0% 10.0% 1.90 .301 placed. 7 My cooperating teacher(s) frequently observed my teaching, ------684 86.5% 13.5% 1.87 .341 met with me and offered useful advice about my teaching. 8 My cooperating teacher(s) modeled the kind of teaching that was encouraged by my university teacher education ------669 85.2% 14.8% 1.85 .355 instructors. 9 My university supervisor (s) regularly observed my teaching, met with me and offered constructive feedback ------721 89.3% 10.7% 1.89 .309 about my teaching. 10 During supervised teaching, my university-based supervisor and cooperating teacher communicated effectively with each ------667 81.7% 18.3% 1.82 .387 other. 11 Over time, the credential program and its curriculum met my ------728 83.9% 16.1% 1.84 .368 needs as I prepared myself to become a good teacher. 12 During the teaching credential program I developed valuable ------725 87.9% 12.1% 1.88 .327 relationships and felt a sense of community with my peers. 13 My peers in the teaching credential program were ethnically ------729 85.6% 14.4% 1.86 .351 and racially diverse.

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 50 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Part G

Evaluation Construct: Teacher Education Program Quality Evaluation Sources: Program Completers of MS, SS and ES Credential Programs Evaluation Focus: Overall Program Assessment

Teacher Education Program Quality as an Evaluation Construct

The evaluation asks program completers to respond to a single question about their overall assessment of their teacher preparation.

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 51 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Contents of Part G

Table 31 Evaluation of Teacher Education Program Quality: Page 53 Overall Assessment in 2007-08 by 2007-08 Program Completers of All Programs (Combined)

Table 32 Evaluation of Teacher Education Program Quality: Page 53 Overall Assessment by Program Completers of Multiple Subject Credential Programs

Table 33 Evaluation of Teacher Education Program Quality: Page 54 Overall Assessment by Program Completers of Single Subject Credential Programs

Table 34 Evaluation of Teacher Education Program Quality: Page 54 Overall Assessment Program Completers of Education Specialist (Level I) Programs

Important Characteristics of Data in Part G

Statistics in Part G have the following properties.

(1) In Tables 31-34, program completers were asked to respond to one question about their overall assessment of their teacher preparation program:

“What is your overall evaluation of your Teaching Credential Program? Select the one statement that most closely matches your current overall perspective on your program.”

(2) The four response options for this question are shown below with the coded value of each response. Response Options in Tables 31-34 (a) I learned a lot in my CSU credential program. The program contributed in important ways to my teaching this year. (b) I learned quite a bit that was important. The CSU program also included a lot of material that has not been helpful. (c) The CSU program included relatively little substance. Most of the material has been of little value in my teaching. (d) The CSU professional preparation program offered nothing of value. It was almost entirely a waste of my time.

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 52 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 31 Evaluation of Teacher Education Program Quality: Overall Assessment in 2007-08 by 2007-08 Exiting Graduates of All Programs (Combined)

This CSU Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates Exiting All CSU System: Campus: Credential Programs in the CSU All Programs All Programs What is your overall evaluation of your Teaching Credential Program? Select the one statement that most N % N % closely matches your current overall perspective on your program. I learned a lot in my CSU credential program. 43 61.4% 4579 62.5% I learned quite a bit that was important. 24 34.3% 2269 31.0% The CSU program included relatively little substance. 3 4.3% 392 5.4% The CSU professional prep. program offered nothing of value. -- -- 81 1.1%

Table 32 Evaluation of Teacher Education Program Quality: Overall Assessment in 2007-08 by 2007-08 Exiting Graduates of Multiple Subject Programs

This CSU Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates Exiting Campus: CSU System: Multiple Subject Credential Programs in the CSU Multiple Subject All Programs Programs What is your overall evaluation of your Teaching Credential Program? Select the one statement that most N % N % closely matches your current overall perspective on your program. I learned a lot in my CSU credential program. 32 61.5% 3015 68.7% I learned quite a bit that was important. 17 32.7% 1193 27.2% The CSU program included relatively little substance. 3 5.8% 153 3.5% The CSU professional prep. program offered nothing of value. -- -- 29 .7%

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 53 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands Table 33 Evaluation of Teacher Education Program Quality: Overall Assessment in 2007-08 by 2007-08 Exiting Graduates of Single Subject Programs

This CSU Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates Exiting Single Campus: CSU System: Subject Credential Programs in the CSU Single Subject All Programs Programs What is your overall evaluation of your Teaching Credential Program? Select the one statement that most N % N % closely matches your current overall perspective on your program. I learned a lot in my CSU credential program. 12 66.7% 1198 50.1% I learned quite a bit that was important. 6 33.3% 934 39.1% The CSU program included relatively little substance. -- -- 209 8.7% The CSU professional prep. Program offered nothing of value. -- -- 48 2.0%

Table 34 Evaluation of Teacher Education Program Quality: Overall Assessment in 2007-08 by 2007-08 Exiting Graduates of Education Specialist Programs

This CSU Campus: Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates Exiting All CSU System: Education Credential Programs in the CSU All Programs Specialist Programs What is your overall evaluation of your Teaching Credential Program? Select the one statement that most N % N % closely matches your current overall perspective on your program. I learned a lot in my CSU credential program. -- -- 505 67.6% I learned quite a bit that was important. -- -- 198 26.5% The CSU program included relatively little substance. -- -- 38 5.1% The CSU professional prep. program offered nothing of value. -- -- 6 .8%

Preliminary Work Product (2007-08) Page 54 Dean of Education, CSU, Channel Islands