Program Review Report s1
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Six Year Program Review Report
Department of Education
October 1, 2009
1 Contents
1) Executive Summary
2) Departmental Mission and Role
3) Statistical Information about the Department
4) Program and Assessment
(A) Outcomes
(B) Assessment, Interpretation, and Next Steps
(1) Ten-Year Alumni Survey (1997-2006)
(2) Evaluations of Student Teachers by Master Teachers (Tabulated data in this particular form begins in 2006)
(3) Reading Instruction Competency Assessment (Tabulated data beginning in 2005)
(4) Teaching Performance Assessment (piloted 2006-07; official implementation 2007-08)
(5) Program Evaluations from Master Teachers (beginning 2006)
(6) First Year Graduate Survey
(7) First Year Employer Survey
(8) Senior Interview (summary of 12 interviews conducted 2005-2008)
(C) Conclusions to assessment section
5) General Education
6) Resources
7) Conclusions and Long-Term Vision
Pictured on the title page:
Dr. Gayle Tucker (1976-2009) Dr. Ruth Tucker (1976-2009) Dr. Andrew Mullen (2001-present) Heather Bergthold, Program Assistant (2007-present) Katrina Harman, Student Worker (2008-09)
Professor Michelle Hughes (2009-present)
2 Dr. Jane Wilson (2009-present)
3 Appendices:
A-Program Introduction (prepared for Accreditation Site Visit, April 2009)
B1-California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Committee on Accreditation Team Report (April 2009) B2-Institutional Response to Team Visit, presented in Sacramento, May 2009
C1- First Biennial Report (2008) C2-Commission on Teacher Credentialing Response to First Biennial Report (2008)
D-Additional data from Comprehensive Alumni Survey, 2008
E-Chart 1—Profiles of Full-time Faculty for past six years
F-Chart 2—Profiles of Part-time Faculty for past six years
G-Chart 3—Course Enrollments
H-Chart 4—Profile of Graduating Seniors/Credentials Awarded for past six years
I-Chart 5—Credential Program Outcomes
J-Catalog copy
K-Annual Assessment Calendar
L-Elaboration on Statement of Mission
M-Annual Reports to the Program Review Committee for:
2004-05 (#1) 2005-06 (#2) 2006-07 (#3) 2007-08 (#4)
N-CVs for full-time faculty
O-Budget chart
P-Additional TPA reflections (sample)
Q-Sabbatical Report (in process)
4 Additional evidence available in hard-copy format:
A-Individual course binders, most with student work samples and brief interpretive commentary, for the following:
ED 100 ED 101 ED 105 ED 110/111 ED 120 ED 121 ED 130 ED 150 ED 151 ED 160/161 ED 170 ED 171
B-Sample student teacher portfolios (at least one each year, beginning 2001-02)
C-1-Minutes of Teacher/Principal Advisory Board C-2-Minutes of Westmont's Education Advisory Committee C-3-Minutes of Department Meetings
D-Running List of Alumni with current information on jobs and contact information, as current as possible, starting from 1994
5 1. Executive Summary
As of Summer 2009, Westmont’s Department of Education stands at a critical threshold.
The Department has just received a highly affirming review from the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (Site Visit, April 2009: Appendix B1. The Department was awarded full accreditation for a seven-year period—a status that slightly less than half the institutions in California typically receive. The Team Chair and/or the CTC Consultant reported to the Committee on Accreditation in Sacramento that they were “extremely impressed” with numerous aspects of the program. Concerns were limited to minor technical compliance issues, and these were deemed of such little significance that the normal requirement for a one-year follow-up report to the CTC was in Westmont’s case waived entirely.
At the same moment, the department is experiencing a fairly momentous transition in faculty. Two of the three full-time members of the department retired in May 2009 after mutual 33-year tenures. At the same time, we have hired new faculty with an unusually deep pool of experience, knowledge of Westmont, and knowledge of the local community.
As a separately accredited unit within the college subject to rigorous, systematic, and recurring state scrutiny, the basis for almost all formal program assessment is the degree to which candidates demonstrate mastery of the CTC’s thirteen Teaching Performance Expectations (TPEs). Over the period under review, these have been the only formal outcomes agreed-upon as subject to on-going assessment, although the department has also discussed at various points since 2002 the degree to which the College’s Six Learning Outcomes are relevant. The degree to which the newly constituted department wishes to commit to assessing graduates’ attainment of outcomes apart from the thirteen TPEs will be discussed in the near future. See Appendix I for more detail on these outcomes.
The Department’s mission has been articulated for many years as follows:
Within the Christian liberal arts context, the Westmont teacher education program strives to develop reflective teachers who meet the needs of all learners through integrated and balanced instruction, who embrace the moral dimensions of teaching, and who desire to grow professionally.
Along with the statement above, the Department publishes on its Web-Page and in various other venues an extended set of statements elaborating on the implications of the liberal arts context and articulating more specifically some of the guiding beliefs and assumptions undergirding the department’s work (See Appendix L, or also may be found at site below:
6 (http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/departments/education/MissionStatement.html)
One of the priorities of the newly-constituted department in 2009-10 will be group reflection of the department’s mission and identity, and the extent to which the department may wish to articulate its mission and/or guiding assumptions in revised form.
In addition to the Credential Programs in Multiple Subject (typically for elementary teachers) and Single Subject (typically for secondary teachers), the Department of Education administers the Liberal Studies major. During the years under review, roughly two-thirds of the Liberal Studies majors have continued into Westmont’s Multiple Subject credential program. The Department also advises students in other majors who are interested in pursuing secondary education, although only students who complete the Westmont Single Subject program are reported on here.
Partly as a function of the on-going need to report to the CTC and partly as a function of responding to PRC mandates, the department has been in a continual state of program assessment over the period covered in this report, 2003-2009. Among the central findings from program assessment activity during this period:
In multiple contexts and venues, graduates of the credential program speak in exceptionally positive terms about the quality of their education. Among many other items, they express appreciation for the program’s personal care and attention, the practical professional coaching they received, and the degree to which they felt prepared for the demands of the K-12 classroom.
Master teachers consistently express similar or even greater levels of satisfaction with the preparation and quality of the Westmont candidates, in many cases commenting favorably on how Westmont student teachers compare with those from other programs.
Candidate performance on a variety of formal assessment measures, including the state’s RICA, CSET, and TPA, strongly validate in part candidates self-perceptions and master teacher perceptions about the quality of their professional preparation. This is documented in part in the text, in addition to further substantiation in the appendices and further data in bound binders and available upon request.
On our comprehensive 10-year alumni survey, technology surfaced as the most significant area where candidates wished for stronger preparation.
One of the most critical “findings” in recent years is the degree to which the Westmont Department of Education is truly unique, both at Westmont and relative to other institutions. This is less a finding from formal assessment than from on-going conversation and observation. There are multiple implications of this finding, as discussed in the report, but one immediate implication is the on-going need to clarify for
7 ourselves our identity and mission, and to be intentional and systematic in communicating that identity and mission to our various constituencies.
Among the most essential next steps:
As noted above, engage in deliberate and on-going conversation about the core identity and mission of the department.
Continue to explore ways to build numbers in the secondary programs. This has been the subject of extended and on-going conversations for at least the last eight years, but needs to be a major priority for the newly-constituted department. The next item would be one possible way of addressing this issue in part.
Continue to explore the feasibility of awarding a masters degree in terms of adding value and perceived value to our candidates’ investment of a fifth year of study.
Explore ways to build visibility in the Santa Barbara community. Among other forms this goal might take is providing professional development opportunities in areas not currently being served by other institutions.
Work with faculty mentors and college administrators, among others, to explore ways to capitalize on the significant administrative gifts of the in-coming faculty.
Explore ways to elevate the department’s level of visible scholarly activity, without sacrificing the distinctive qualities of the department that have traditionally received the most affirmation from gradates and practitioners.
Continue to monitor graduates and current candidates’ proficiency and self-perceived proficiency and confidence in the use of appropriate educational technologies. Among other things, this would include follow-up conversation to establish what particular competencies hypothetically might have been given insufficient attention in the past; and infusing the use of technology more thoroughly throughout the elementary and secondary programs.
A more complete list of next steps is included as part of Section 7.
8 2. Departmental Mission and Role
2.A. Mission Statement
The Department’s mission has been articulated for many years as follows:
Within the Christian liberal arts context, the Westmont teacher education program strives to develop reflective teachers who meet the needs of all learners through integrated and balanced instruction, who embrace the moral dimensions of teaching, and who desire to grow professionally.
Along with the statement above, the Department publishes on its Web-Page and in various other venues an extended set of statements elaborating on the implications of the liberal arts context and articulating more specifically some of the guiding beliefs and assumptions undergirding the department’s work (See Appendix L)
(http://www.westmont.edu/_academics/departments/education/MissionStatement.html)
There has been intermittent discussion of the mission statement since at least 2005, both at the department level and with the department’s Teacher/Principal Advisory Board. It was determined that we were too close to our accreditation visit to make major revisions to the existing statement. Discussions with the Teacher/Principal Advisory Board, however, were a significant factor in shaping the set of Guiding Beliefs and Assumptions that appear on the department’s web-page and in Candidate Handbooks. One of the priorities of the newly-constituted department in 2009-10 will be group reflection of the department’s mission and identity, and the extent to which the department may wish to articulate its mission and/or guiding assumptions in revised form.
It should be noted that the existing statement speaks primarily (if somewhat globally) to candidate outcomes, and does not address fully the department’s larger sense of mission, either in the past or future dispensations. Among other elements of our traditional mission that are not captured in the current statement:
Representing the college to the local schools, and thus indirectly helping to promote the college’s image and interests in the broader community.
Contributing in small ways, chiefly through our graduates and student teachers, to the health and vitality of local schools, and to the health and vitality of schools throughout the state, nation, and world.
Representing to the Westmont faculty and administration the needs and interests of students interested in pursuing K-12 education, whether or not they complete the Westmont program. Among other activities, this takes the form of second-tier advising
9 of prospective secondary teachers, and educating relevant academic departments about the credentialing process in California.
Raising the college community's awareness of and commitment to the sphere of K-12 education as one critical component of the local and global community we inhabit.
2.B. Contributions to the College’s Mission
The College has as its mission statement the following:
The mission of Westmont College is to provide a high quality undergraduate liberal arts program in a residential campus community that assists college men and women toward a balance of rigorous intellectual competence, healthy personal development and strong Christian commitments.
Perhaps the most significant way in which the department contributes to the college’s core mission is to support and extend the college’s ideals of liberal education throughout our students’ time at Westmont, including within the sequence of professional coursework.
While a certain amount of students’ professional coursework is necessarily oriented to the field and to learning pragmatic survival skills, relative to most other credential programs, and relative to much professional education, the Westmont department strives to honor and to integrate ideals of liberal education in all that we do.
This would include developing critical thinking skills, thinking historically and philosophically about issues within education, acknowledging multiple perspectives including those of race, class, and gender; and considering the implications of the Christian faith for professional theory and practice.
The department has considered on more than one occasion over the past six years the implications of the college’s six student learning outcomes adopted by the faculty in 2002. While we have not chosen to focus our formal program assessment around these outcomes, we are consciously committed to advancing these goals (see especially Annual Reports #1 and #4). Our senior interviews with students since 2005 have shown that graduates regularly point to significant experiences within the Department of Education as contributing to their growth in all six domains (see summary of Senior Interviews under Section 4, below)
The department also contributes to the overall mission and vitality of the college through individual faculty service. For example, education faculty over the last six years have chaired the Personnel Committee, prepared the WASC Educational Effectiveness Report, contributed to the Program Review Committee, served as mentors to at least three incoming faculty, and helped to coordinate the work of Phi Kappa Phi.
10 As noted elsewhere, the department also advises students in History, English, Mathematics, the natural sciences, Kinesiology, and Art—formally and informally—who wish to pursue a secondary teaching credential.
2.C. Contributions to General Education
This might well change in the future, but the department’s contribution to General Education over the last six years has been relatively modest.
Students may take ED 100 or ED 105 to fulfill a Writing Intensive requirement.
ED 100 and ED 101 may be used to satisfy the requirement in Serving Society/Enacting Justice.
ED 105 fulfills the requirement in Thinking Globally.
ED 109 fulfills the requirement for Integrating the Major Discipline for the Liberal Studies major.
In most cases above, it is Liberal Studies majors who are using these courses to fulfill GE requirements. ED 105 (Cultural Diversity), however, has attracted a range of students from other majors, including Biology, Sociology, Art, and English who are seeking to fulfill the GE requirement.
2.D. Recent History
The Department of Education has been remarkably stable in recent years. Dr. Gayle Tucker and Dr. Ruth Tucker joined the Westmont faculty in 1976 and remained here through the Spring of 2009. For several of those years, they were the only full-time faculty members in Education. Dr. Mullen joined the department in 2001, replacing Professor Sally Webb. We have also tended to enjoy long-standing relationships with part-time faculty, even if their terms of service have not been quite as long as the full- time faculty above.
Since at least the 1960s, the Department has been authorized by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing to offer the Multiple Subject (elementary) and Single Subject Credential (normally secondary). We are currently authorized to offer the Single Subject credential in the following areas:
Art English History/Social Science Physical Education
11 Mathematics Biology/Chemistry/Physics or General Science
For at least two years we have been in conversation with the Departments of Music and Modern Languages about the possibility of offering Single Subject credentials in music and Spanish.
The Department was recently reviewed (April 2009) by an accreditation site team from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, receiving an exceptionally positive report and full accreditation through 2016.
In 2004, after a major updating of legislation and new standards for teacher preparation were adopted, the Department was required to submit significant documentation in order to be re-approved to offer the Multiple and Single Subject credentials under State Bill 2042.
Beginning in 2008, the department was required to begin submitting a Biennial Report to the CTC (Appendix C1) Westmont’s report was used as an exemplary model in CTC state training this past year.
The Department’s procedures and policies for the administration of the state Teaching Performance Assessment were separately approved in early 2008.
As noted in the subsequent section, there has been some decline over the last ten years in the number of Liberal Studies majors—the chief pipeline for the Multiple Subject credential. At the same time, the proportion of LS majors who choose to remain and complete their credential at Westmont has significantly improved, such that the number of those receiving that credential has remained relatively steady up to 2008-09. Whether that will continue to hold true remains uncertain. The current junior class is strong, but the senior class is small, and it is not yet clear how strong the current first- and second- year classes will be.
Of equal or more concern has been the relatively stable, but very low, number of students who remain at Westmont to complete the Single Subject credential. This has been the subject of significant discussion and written correspondence/reporting to the Westmont administration.
As documented elsewhere, this is a relatively complicated set of issues, but perhaps the most significant (and multiply-overlapping) factors are three:
(1) the difficulty of completing a secondary credential on a “fast-track” (four-year) schedule;
(2) the high cost of the fifth year of study; and
12 (3) the lack of a masters degree at the end of the fifth year---a perk that most California peer institutions now offer.
A re-negotiation of the fifth-year expenses (Fall 2008) seemed to make a major difference in our ability to attract secondary credential students in its experimental year. Whether that one change will be enough to have a significant impact on our ability to attract and retain students interested in secondary education in the future is not yet clear
3. Statistical Information about the Department
3.A. Current faculty
During the time period of this report the department was comprised of 3 full-time teaching faculty members and varying numbers of part-time personnel. Complete curriculum vitae are available in the appendices.
The academic history of faculty (includes faculty present during past six year period, as well as newly hired faculty) is shown in the following table.
Professor Undergraduate Highest graduate degree degree A. Mullen Houghton Ph. D., Columbia University, Graduate School of Arts College, 1982 and Sciences and Teachers College, joint degree, 1996 G. Tucker Greenville Ed. D., University of Alabama, 1974 College, 1963 R. Tucker Greenville Ed. D., University of Alabama, 1976 College,1962
J. Wilson University of Ph. D., University of California, Santa Barbara, 1994 Washington, 1973 M. Westmont M. A. California State University at Northridge Hughes College,1989
Instructional and load data for each faculty member, along with course enrollments, are found in the appendices: Appendix E, Appendix G.
Over the six years covered by this report, department members made different kinds of contributions to the program. The general division of labor has been as follows:
In his role as chair, Dr. Mullen has served as the liaison with the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, including preparing for accreditation and responding to legislative and reporting mandates. The chair also represents the department to external constituencies,
13 including the California Council on Teacher Education, the Deans & Chairs meetings of the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, and our own Westmont Teacher/Principal Advisory Board. To this point, the chair has also coordinated the Liberal Studies major, and shared in day-to-day responsibility for the elementary program.
Currently, Dr. Mullen serves as the de facto Institutional TPA coordinator, but this is not an official part of the Chair's responsibility, and is not currently compensated (see below)
Dr. Mullen has served as the departmental diversity recruitment specialist, the assessment coordinator within the department, and has been the department's liaison with the Library staff.
With respect to instructional load, Dr. Mullen has taught a smaller proportion of the credential program classes (History/Social Science & Science in the Elementary School), but relatively larger portion of the Liberal Studies and pre-professional courses, including Children's Literature, Cultural Diversity, and our Explorations/Foundations/Current Issues course.
Dr. Ruth Tucker has served as the de facto coordinator of the elementary program, working primarily with elementary candidates. Her teaching responsibilities have been focused strictly on the credential program,
Dr. Gayle Tucker has served as the de facto coordinator of the secondary program, working chiefly with secondary candidates. His teaching responsibilities have been focused on the credential program, but he has also shared in the teaching of the Explorations/Foundations/Current Issues course. Dr. Tucker has also overseen the Costa Rica student teaching experience.
One provisional step we have taken in the new era has been for all three full-time faculty to own jointly both the elementary and secondary programs. This will necessitate an initially somewhat steeper learning curve, but we believe it will put the department as a whole in a stronger position to respond to the needs of students at both levels.
Dr. Mullen has assumed for now responsibility for the Costa Rican student teaching experience.
According to the latest studies of FTE's generated per unit of credit offered (or more precisely, per unit of load credit for faculty), the Department of Education has ranked at or near the bottom for each of the last three academic years:
2006-07 7.6 18 of 19 departments 2007-08 8.3 18 of 19 departments 2008-09 9.5 19 of 19 departments
14 Although the figure has risen in absolute terms, in relative terms the department is currently the lowest in terms of student enrollment hours generated.
The fact that the department does not offer lower-division coursework or offer entry-level General Education courses is one factor in contributing to this statistic. Low enrollment in the secondary program is also a major factor. It was anticipated that the seven students enrolled in 2008-09 would bring the "productivity" rating up, but administrative assignments related to accreditation and program review helped to keep the FTE at 9.5.
As noted elsewhere in this document, the department continues to explore ways to build secondary numbers. It is also possible that the department or individual faculty could include in their future teaching loads courses with the potential for cross-college- divisional appeal.
3.B. Profile of Part-Time Faculty
Over the six-year window in question, part-time faculty taught between 10% and 17% of the department's instructional load, depending chiefly on the number of student teachers that year and the number of reports due to the Commission on Teacher Credentialing in a particular period.
With respect to part-time faculty, we also work (or have worked) with a number of other Westmont departments in the selection, evaluation, and determination of staffing needs for courses required in the Liberal Studies and/or Credential Program curriculum (English 106, Music 184, Kinesiology 155).
It is anticipated that the percentage of the instructional load taught by part-time faculty will decrease unless or until enrollments in the credential program rise. (The percentage for 2009-10 is already below any year within the window under consideration.)
Throughout the six-year window, part-time faculty have been used most consistently in two specialized fields for individual 2-unit classes—Instructional Technology (ED 160/161) and Special Education (ED 130). It is anticipated that at least in the latter, and perhaps both of these areas, the department will continue to employ part-timers who bring a level of specialized expertise that may be lacking among the full-time faculty.
Although Cultural Diversity (ED 105) has been taught by a full-time faculty member for each of the past three years, we would be open to having that taught by a part-time faculty member, especially if we could at the same time bring ourselves into compliance with state standards and with institutional commitments vis-à-vis a more ethnically diverse Education faculty.
Only one of the part-time faculty members hired during this six-year window is a person of color. Over this same time period, however, we have offered a contract to one teacher of color in the area of special education, and have been in extended conversations with
15 (and have extended informal offers) to at least two other potential part-time faculty members of color.
With respect to gender diversity, in our department the preponderance of women students and preponderance of women in the field means that we are actually predisposed to being intentional about considering men as part-time faculty. Currently we have two male part-time faculty, including a male in special education, which until 2009-10 was always taught by a woman.
3.C. Number of Graduates
As shown in Appendix H (Chart 4) over the six-year period, there were an average of 17.2 Liberal Studies graduates, an average of 11.8 Multiple Subject credentials, and an average of 3.5 Single Subject credentials.
Over the course of the past six years, there has been a trend toward more of the Liberal Studies majors completing the program on the fast-track schedule.
Although there appears to be a trend toward retaining more Liberal Studies majors in the Multiple Subject program, the total number of LS majors and total number of Multiple Subject credentials appears to be declining over the period under review.
For this same six-year window, the students are overwhelming female (70 of 71 Multiple Subject credentials awarded) and fairly overwhelmingly White/Anglo/Caucasian (87%). Although there are male incoming students almost every year who indicate an interest in elementary education/Liberal Studies, only one has stayed in the program to complete the Multiple Subject Credential.
3.D. Tracking of Graduates
The department attempts to maintain contact with all of its graduates, although not surprisingly, has been much more successful in sustaining contact with those who complete the Credential Program than those who leave with a Liberal Studies degree and enter a credential program elsewhere.
A fairly complete list of graduates of the Multiple and Single Subject credential programs dating back to 2001, with as much past and present employment data as we had access to, was available to state accreditors at the time of the April 2009 site visit.
Despite reduced budgets for education, a high percentage of graduates has been employed in full-time teaching positions. At least 85 of 107 graduates between 2002 and 2008 have had at least one full-time teaching position (79.4%). Of the remaining 20.6%, some recent graduates have been employed as long-term substitutes, or accepted part-
16 time positions or education-related support positions. In a few cases, graduates did not even attempt to enter education because of choices to become full-time mothers, to travel, or to pursue more lucrative employment.
At least 11.2% of graduates over this same seven-year window have accepted full-time teaching positions in states other than California. At least 3.7% have accepted full-time international teaching positions.
At least 25.5% of graduates have taught in full-time positions in private schools, including Catholic, Lutheran, for profit, and non-sectarian schools, in addition to self- identified Christian schools.
A high percentage of alumni responding to our comprehensive 10-year survey expressed satisfaction with the quality of the program, and specifically how it prepared them for the day-to-day realities of the teaching profession (see Appendix D1 and Appendix D2).
3.E. Test-Score Data
The department has maintained since 2004-05 data on how Liberal Studies graduates perform on the seven component-subjects of the Multiple Subject CSET (California Subject Examination for Teachers). This has been shared with the math department (the subject area in which our graduates score the highest in absolute terms), and in the case of human development (the area where graduates have tended to score lowest) has been the basis for advising students to take PSY 115 (Child Development) at Westmont rather than at a community college or through an on-line format.
Single Subject students also take a CSET exam, but small numbers of scores make it difficult to draw conclusions from the data available. In general, our students' experience matches what we hear anecdotally from other schools, and seems to suggest more about the varying rigor or design of each particular examination than the quality of subject-area preparation at Westmont.
All credential program completers since 2007-08 have taken the CTC's Teaching Performance Assessment. The Education Department has carefully analyzed results from the two years of data we have, as reported in Section #4.
All Multiple Subject credential program completers take the Reading Instruction Competency Assessment (RICA), as reported on in Section #4.
Advising:
Advising responsibilities in the Department of Education are considerable, relative to the number of credential program completers. First of all, the desire of almost all Liberal Studies majors to pursue the fast-track schedule means that there is little room for error in
17 planning a four-year program. A great deal of time is spent working out plans that allow for appropriate coverage of all GE and major coursework, a possible semester off- campus, and still allow for graduation and the awarding of a credential in four years.
Secondly, the Department maintains both official and unofficial (and thus uncounted) advising responsibilities with a sizable number of prospective secondary majors, the majority of which enter programs at other institutions, enter teaching through non- traditional routes such as Teach for America, or are offered jobs at private schools without a credential. It continues to be part of the Department's mission to counsel all students interested in pursuing secondary education, and to discuss alternative routes toward their professional and vocational goals, whether or not a particular student intends to enroll in the Department's own Single Subject credential program.
18 4. Programs and Assessment
A. Student Learning Outcomes
1 & 2: See Appendix I.
3. Description of how the curriculum compares with disciplinary expectations: The coursework offered by the Westmont Department of Education is designed to fulfill the requirements of the Commission on Teacher Credentialing. We have some choice about the number of units a particular course counts as, or the way we choose to cover certain topics, but the overall curriculum design is (relative at least to most other Westmont academic departments' offerings) to a great extent constrained by (1) the CTC's expectations; and (2) the need to cover as much as possible within a nine-month period. That said, there are approved credential programs in California where, for instance:
Educational Technology is woven into other coursework, and is not required as a separate course.
The content of the foundations course (ED 100/101) and the cultural diversity course (ED 105) is woven into a single course.
Elementary science and Elementary social studies are offered as two separate courses rather than one (ED 120), as at Westmont.
Further, it is not clear how many programs offer a class parallel to Westmont's ED 151: Secondary Curriculum/Management/Instruction (single subject program).
And there seems to be partial redundancy for elementary candidates between Child Development (PSY 115; required in the Liberal Studies major) and Educational Psychology (ED 110/111).
Given that we are just past our accreditation site visit (2009), and we do not report to the state on the structure of our curriculum again until 2013, this is an ideal time to be studying the curriculum of other institutions and making any changes we deem appropriate. This is identified in Section 7 as one of our goals for the next academic year.
4. Co-curricular activity.
Every year, the department takes students to two nearby professional conferences—the Santa Barbara County Office of Education Curriculum Fair; and the Association of Christian Schools International conference in Anaheim.
At least up to the present, the department has sponsored a student chapter of the National Education Association, although this may or may not continue into 2009-10.
19 The Department has maintained a particularly active informal program of hospitality, with regular beginning-of-the-year, Christmas, and multiple end-of-year activities, in addition to a number of ad hoc events.
The department has tried a variety of one-time workshops (a Saturday Environmental Education workshop with a professor from Wheaton, 2007, that attracted local teachers, as well as our candidates; a series of public colloquia with local teachers, 2003-04), but student schedules during the credential year do not seem favorable to a great deal of special programming.
4B. Assessment data and interpretation
Eight sets of data are briefly summarized here, and/or a sample of the data is provided. In each case, more complete information is available upon request, either electronically or in binders.
(1) Ten-Year Alumni Survey (1997-2006)
In April of 2008, a survey was mailed to all program completers from a 10-year period, 1997-2006. Over the 10-year period, there were a total of 173 program completers who could potentially have received a survey. Of these, 78% were Multiple Subject and 22% Single Subject. A total of 69 responses were returned, which would translate initially into a 40% response rate. In fact, the rate was actually considerably higher since current contact information was not available for all completers and thus not all 173 completers received the survey. Of the Single Subject program completers 32% responded. Of the Multiple Subject program completers 42% responded.
On the whole, program completers from this ten-year cohort were highly favorable about their Westmont experience. Of the Multiple Subject respondents, 95% would recommend the program to others. Of the Single Subject respondents who responded to the question, 100% would recommend the program to others.
Respondents were asked to rate thirteen topics on a numerical scale of 1-5:
5=To a great extent/Very well prepared 1=To a very limited extent/Not well prepared
Within the Multiple Subject program, average ratings in descending order—
4. 6 Managing a classroom Being able to implement a personal teaching vision
4.5 Academic Content
20 Quality of Credential Coursework Quality of support/supervision from college
4.4 Quality of all Westmont coursework Quality of support/supervision from master teacher Quality of academic advising
4.3 Understanding/Strategies for teaching English Learners Quality of support in securing California credential
4.1 Understanding/Strategies for students with special needs
3.6 Using appropriate instructional technology
3.4 Understanding the politics/governance of schools
Average ratings above 4.0 in 11 of the 13 categories would seem to indicate a high level of satisfaction and a sense of being well prepared for the demands of teaching. Among these areas, minor variation in the average ratings may suggest not so much the actual preparation as variation in the inherent difficulty of the challenges.
Two areas were rated on average below 4.0. In the case of Understanding the politics/governance of schools the Department felt that students may not have fully understood the question. In fact, program faculty have given substantial attention to helping students understand how decisions are made within schools, and to practical issues of helping teachers negotiate the political realities of day-to-day teaching. Faculty would have anticipated this topic to show up as a relative strength of the program. Upon further reflection, however, we believe that program completers may not have felt as prepared with respect to the mechanisms of governance or financing of schools at the macro level, and we can certainly emphasize these topics more in the future, especially in the context of teaching our educational foundations courses, ED 100/101: Explorations in Teaching.
Average ratings for Using appropriate instructional technology are also relatively low, although there is considerable variation by class. In one recent year (2005) the average rating climbs to 4.7, and in the other most recent year (2006) this question is rated as 4.4. In general, the younger the class, the higher the rating. Another variable potentially affecting the rating is the staffing of coursework most directly related to this question. There has been more turnover in this area of the program since the last accreditation visit than any other.
There is an extremely high degree of student satisfaction with the current instructional technology faculty. Presumably this will translate into higher average ratings in this area by program completers in the future. Nonetheless, the relative gap in the ratings between this and other topics surveyed indicates that this is an area that the department should
21 target for further investigation in the immediate future. Moreover, the average quantitative ratings are supported in this case by several narrative (open-ended) responses.
Within the Single Subject program, average ratings in descending order are as follows—
5.0 Quality of all Westmont coursework Quality of support in securing California credential
4.7 Being able to implement a personal teaching vision Quality of support/supervision from the college Quality of academic advising
4.4 Managing a classroom Quality of Credential Coursework
4.3 Quality of support/supervision from master teacher
4.2 Understanding/Strategies for teaching English Learners Understanding/Strategies for students with special needs
4.1 Understanding the academic content Using appropriate instructional technology
4.0 Understanding the politics/governance of schools
As noted above with respect to the Multiple Subject program, average ratings above 4.0 in all 13 categories would seem to indicate a high level of satisfaction and a sense of being well prepared for the demands of teaching. Among these areas, variation in the average ratings may suggest in part variation in the inherent difficulty of the challenges as much as variation in the level of preparation within their credential program.
As the Westmont Department of Education has noted in other assessment documents, the small n in Single Subject cohorts means that the data should be interpreted with special care.
Again, as with the Multiple Subject program, the Single Subject program is rated especially high with respect to preparing completers to implement a personal teaching vision. As with the Multiple Subject program, again, respondents’ Understanding of the politics/governance of education and Preparation for using Technology are relatively lower.
22 Somewhat inexplicably, Single Subject completers rate the Quality of support in securing California credential relatively higher (relative, that is, to the ratings of Multiple Subject completers).
Also somewhat inexplicably, Single Subject completers rate the Quality of all Westmont coursework relatively high, at the same time that they give a relatively low average rating to Understanding the academic content. Conceivably, this reflects the greater intrinsic demands of content at the secondary level (relative to the elementary level), but it is a surprising rating nonetheless. A more complete version of the survey results is in the Appendices.
(2) Evaluations of Student Teachers by Master Teachers (Tabulated data in this particular form begins in 2006)
Beginning academic year 2004-05, we have calculated the average ratings of our Multiple Subject student teachers in each area covered by the Teaching Performance Expectations. We began calculating means for Single Subject student teachers the following year. We thus have five years of accessible data for Multiple Subject teachers and four years for Single Subject. We have discussed these tabulated results as a department and included them in the Annual Reports submitted to the Program Review Committee.
It has taken us several years to standardize the presentation of the data. Given the CTC's mandate beginning in 2008 for program sponsors to report in two-year increments, we have now adopted the following template, which allows for at least some comparison year to year, and comparison between MS and SS programs. We still need to develop efficient templates for looking at trends in the data over time. Since 2004-05, the department has called attention to any area that falls below a 4.00 average rating.
Small n's in general, and with particular respect to the Single Subject program, call for care in interpreting these means. Evaluations of SS student teachers were lower in general for 2008-09 than some other recent years, which based on master teachers' narrative comments, seems to reflect circumstances of individual teachers more than program in-puts.
The few areas that have dipped slightly below 4.0 in previous calculations of Multiple Subject means (see previous Annual Reports) do not show up as areas of concern for the two most recent years presented in this section. Conceivably this may reflect extra departmental attention to these areas (e.g., taking initiative in demonstrating competency in art education and physical education) or may reflect simply the overall academic and professional strength of the most recent two cohorts.
23 Multiple Single Subject Rating Scale: 1=poor Subject 2=below average 3=average 4=very good 5=outstanding
ND= No data (typically because there was no SS teacher in that area) 2008 2009 2008 2009 N=10 N-10 N=2 N=7 TPE 1: Subject-specific Pedagogical skills a. Reading/Language Arts Demonstrates familiarity with, and an ability to teach in accord with, state-adopted reading 4.8 4.6 5.0 4.8 standards Delivers a comprehensive reading/language arts program that includes reading skills and 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.7 comprehension, writing, speaking, and listening Uses a range of instructional materials, including quality literature 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.9 Uses a range of assessments to determine that students are making adequate progress 4.4 4.3 4.0 4.4 b. Mathematics Demonstrates familiarity with, and an ability to teach in accord with, state-adopted math 4.7 4.6 ND 4.5 standards Recognizes and teaches connections from one mathematical topic or concept to another, and 4.6 4.1 ND 3.5 helps students apply mathematical procedures to real-life situations Helps students develop multiple strategies for approaching and solving problems 4.6 4.2 ND 4 Anticipates and addresses student misunderstandings 4.7 4.4 ND 3.5 c. Science Demonstrates familiarity with, and an ability to teach in accord with, state-adopted science 4.6 4.7 ND ND standards Teaches developmentally-appropriate science content 4.7 4.7 ND ND Includes opportunities for students to do laboratory or field exercises, in which students become 4.6 4.7 ND ND active inquirers d. History-Social Science Demonstrates familiarity with, and an ability to teach in accord with, state-adopted history-social 4.6 4.4 ND ND science standards Enriches historical and cross-cultural study through the use of literature, art, music, drama, 4.4 4.4 ND ND cooking, and other cultural components Encourages students’ development as citizens, through building awareness of and participation 4.6 4.3 ND ND in classroom, school, neighborhood, state, national, and/or world communities Uses a wide range of subject-appropriate strategies, such as role playing, group projects, 4.4 4.5 ND ND independent research, debates, and so forth e. Visual and Performing Arts Demonstrates familiarity with, and an ability to teach in accord with state-adopted standards in 4.4 4.5 ND ND the arts Plans a variety of activities in art, music, theater, and dance, as school schedule and instructional 4.3 4.2 ND ND responsibilities permit Makes connections between the arts and other subjects 4.3 4.2 ND ND f. Physical Education Demonstrates familiarity with, and an ability to teach in accord with, state-adopted standards 4.9 4.7 ND 3.7 in physical education Develops motor skills and teamwork, promotes awareness of practices leading to health and 4.9 4.4 ND 4.3 safety, and helps to build positive attitudes toward physical activity TPE 2 Regularly checks for understanding, and makes appropriate instructional decisions about re- 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.2 teaching when necessary. Anticipates and addresses common student misconceptions TPE 3 Uses a variety of assessment strategies, formal and informal. Understands the purpose and use 4.4 4.4 4.5 3.9 of different assessments in the instructional cycle, including baseline exercises, progress- monitoring, and summative assessments. Teaches students self-assessment strategies Helps orient students to standardized tests and appropriately administers tests, including 4.5 4.1 4.0 4.2 providing accommodations for students with special needs Gives students timely and appropriate feedback on their achievement. Maintains appropriate 4.4 4.4 5.0 4.4 records of learning. Explains to students and their families the meaning of grades and
24 appropriate strategies for improvement. TPE 4 Plans instruction logically and sequentially, taking into account state-adopted academic 4.6 4.5 5.0 4.3 standards and students’ current levels of achievement. Uses a variety of instructional strategies 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.2 Explains material to students in meaningful terms, using examples and analogies pertinent to the 4.7 4.5 5.0 4.5 classroom and students’ lives outside the classroom. TPE 5 Makes instructional goals clear to students. 4.7 4.4 5.0 4.3 Ensures active and equitable participation from all students. Poses questions that challenge 4.6 4.3 4.0 4.6 students to think deeply. Engages in genuine conversation with students. Encourages students to articulate questions of their own. TPE 6 Plans instruction appropriate to students’ current developmental needs and interests, taking into 4.4 4.6 5.0 4.4 account (as applicable) student attention spans, needs for concrete examples and activities, and the development of students’ responsibility for their own learning TPE 7 Has a theoretical background for identifying and analyzing issues pertinent to English Language 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.0 Development, as these issues surface in actual individuals. Actively seeks knowledge about students’ linguistic and cultural backgrounds, including results 4.4 4.1 4.0 3.8 of students’ previous language assessments and the characteristics of students’ first language. Uses this information in helping students’ progress in English. Collaborates effectively with other professionals, para-professionals, and families in supporting 4.6 4.4 5.0 4.1 students’ language development. Supports students’ acquisition of English and students’ comprehension of academic content 4.5 4.7 4.0 4.0 through a wide variety of instructional strategies, including visual support, facial expressions, gestures, and other body movements; and the clarity of teacher’s own spoken English. TPE 8 Actively learns about students’ interests, backgrounds, abilities, and health considerations, and 4.6 4.5 5.0 4.3 takes this information into account in planning and supporting instruction. Works with other educators in identifying students with special needs and making appropriate accommodations, as necessary. Gets parents and families involved in learning 4.25 4.3 3.5 3.9 TPE 9 Plans instruction consistent with state-adopted academic standards. 4.9 4.5 5.0 4.5 Plans effectively both short-term and long-term, taking into consideration students’ current level 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.2 of achievement. Plans include accommodations for students with special needs. Uses support personnel, including aides and parent volunteers, to advance instructional goals. Makes appropriate connections from one day to another, helping students understand how 4.9 4.6 5.0 4.3 material relates to prior and subsequent content. TPE 10 Uses time effectively to maximize student learning. Establishes efficient routines and transitions 4.9 4.3 4.0 3.9 quickly from one activity to another. TPE 11 Communicates clearly expectations for student behavior. Creates a positive environment for 4.9 4.6 4.5 4.2 student learning. Establishes rapport with students and families. Is sensitive to individual student needs. Helps students take responsibility for their own behavior. TPE 12 Takes responsibility for what transpires in the classroom. Maintains high standards of 4.9 4.8 5.0 4.2 professionalism with respect to attendance and punctuality, preparedness, and mental and physical vigor and alertness Is aware of personal values and biases, and recognizes how these may affect teaching and 4.9 4.9 5.0 4.4 learning. Is committed to racial, ethnic, and gender equity, and assists students in developing ideals of justice. Models appropriate attitudes and behaviors in the classroom Understands key elements of national and state laws pertinent to education, and their application 4.8 4.8 5.0 4.2 in the classroom, including laws and procedures concerning the education of English Language learners, students with disabilities. Identifies suspected cases of child abuse or neglect and works with other professional to report such cases Respects confidentiality of students, families, and fellow educators 5.0 4.9 5.0 4.4 TPE 13 Engages in appropriate self-reflection about processes of teaching and learning. Actively seeks 4.8 4.6 5.0 4.3 feedback from others, including fellow educators, families, and students, as appropriate. Responds graciously to feedback, and makes appropriate adjustments in teaching, accordingly Demonstrates initiative and constant improvement 4.8 4.6 5.0 4.3
25 Interpretation—We need to continue to be especially intentional in preparing student teachers at both Elementary and Secondary levels to work with issues of Assessment (TPE 3), an area of increasing emphasis in K-12 education. Components of TPE 7 (English Learners) have often skirted the edge of, or fallen below, the departmental quality benchmark of 4.0. This most likely reflects the inherent challenges of the area, as much or more than the quality of Westmont's preparation, but we continue to make this an emphasis in our program across coursework. The component in TPE #8 about involving families in learning has been rated low fairly consistently, but it has not been clear what student teachers, especially at the secondary level, can do to improve this. For additional interpretation, see introduction to data, above, and/or previous Annual Reports (Appendices).
(3) Reading Instruction Competency Assessment (Tabulated data beginning in 2005; Multiple Subject Program only, since this is not normally taken by Secondary teachers)
Cohort 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total graduates 10 11 12 10 10 of MS Program Total available 9 10 10 10 8 scores as of time of calculating means Total pass rate 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% so far Planning and 3.44 2.90 2.90 3.10 3.00 organizing reading instruction based on ongoing assessment
Developing 3.33 3.30 3.10 3.50 3.00 phonological and other linguistic processes related to reading
Developing 3.22 3.20 3.20 3.40 3.25 reading comprehension and promoting independent reading Supporting 3.22 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.25 reading through oral and written language development Case Study * * * 3.20 2.75
26 Interpretation:
Graduates have a long history of success on the RICA, and consistently express appreciation to the faculty for their thorough preparation. 2005 is the first year where we calculated mean scores in the four RICA components. 2008 is the first year where we calculated means on the Case Study.
The one area where mean scores dip below 3.0 is Planning and organizing reading instruction based on ongoing assessment (2006 and 2007). However this same area in the preceding year has one of the highest single-component means of all (3.44).
Scores in two areas (Developing reading comprehension and promoting independent reading and Supporting reading through oral and written language development) are more consistent across the four years of data considered here.
In general, the major story in the data is that graduates are well prepared for the RICA.
(4) Teaching Performance Assessment (officially implemented 2007-08)
Westmont piloted one or more components of the CTC’s TPA beginning with Multiple Subject candidates in 2003. Official implementation of all four tasks for Multiple and Single Subject candidates began with the 2007-08 cohort. The program’s response to Standards 19-21 describing institutional procedures and policies for the TPA was submitted to the CTC in December 2007 and approved in April 2008.
Data from the initial two years of full implementation of the TPA indicates that candidates are well prepared to demonstrate the specific competencies required of beginning teachers in the state of California. The primary external scorer both years for Tasks “1” and “2”—someone who has scored for a number of different institutions for several years—has indicated that the Westmont responses are consistently among the best she has seen.
In 2007-08, all candidates passed Tasks “1,” “2,” and “4” on their first attempt. All candidates eventually passed all four components, in no case with more than two attempts. Task “3,” focusing on assessment of student learning, had the lowest mean score for the initial set of responses, and was the only task requiring some multiple subject candidates to re-submit. Department faculty discussed these results and identified ways to strengthen candidates’ knowledge base in the area of assessment, including additional practice in item analysis, identifying more precise criteria for what constitutes individual and class success on a particular instrument, and using on a routine basis a wider range of assessment strategies.
Single Subject means from 2008-09 were somewhat lower than for the preceding year, but this was not unexpected, given that we had only one SS candidate in 2007-08. but. Overall, candidate success rates on the initial attempt were somewhat higher. All 17
27 candidates in 2008-09 passed Task 1, 2, and 4 on their first attempt. Only one candidate had to repeat Task 3.
As shown in the Appendix P (see manually), the Department engages in detailed analysis of each component of the TPA.
2008-2009 Cohort Multiple Subject Single Subject
1st time pass Mean 1st time 1st time pass Mean 1st time rate scores rate scores
N=10 N=7
Task 1 100% 4 100% 3.3
Task 2 100% 3.4 100% 3.2
Task 3 90% 3.4 100% 3.3
Task 4 100% 3.6 100% 3.3
2007-2008 Cohort Multiple Subject Single Subject
1st time pass Mean 1st time 1st time pass Mean 1st time rate scores rate scores
N=10 N=1
Task 1 100% 3.7 100% 4
Task 2 100% 3.7 100% 4
Task 3 70% 2.9 100% 4
Task 4 100% 3.4 100% 4
Below is a sample departmental reflection on the first task from 2007-08. Complete set of similar reflections (one per task per year) are available in departmental files.
28 February 15, 2008
Reflections on Responses to TPA #1
Multiple and Single Subject Candidates (2007-08 cohort)
All responses (11) scored by external scorer. Double-scoring internally of responses 20081-20086 (55%) All responses read or skimmed.
20081—Very thorough. A good Institutional Benchmark case for future re-calibration exercises.
20082—Another excellent response. Maybe the only candidate who spoke of collaboration with Resource Room vis-à-vis the student with special needs
20083—Very thorough—another possible Institutional Benchmark case
20084—Writing is not strong, but technically that is not a consideration in scoring. A fairly solid 3, content-wise.
20085—Excellent across the board. Extremely detailed and thorough.
20086—Accommodations include breaking into small pieces—an underutilized accommodation for either of the Focus Students.
In general:
Candidates are clearly getting the need for teaching to multiple intelligences and/or different teaching/learning modalities.
Strong awareness of need for baseline assessment, for formative assessment, and for a range of assessment strategies (including “authentic” or performance-based assessments). Also the need for timely or immediate feedback.
Candidates clearly get the need for tangible materials and a range of visuals, especially when working with English Learners. Also the use of academic buddies/mixed-ability pairs.
Widespread use of Graphic Organizers (Venn Diagram, T-charts, etc.).
In most cases, candidates are making use of information provided, but they could do even better here. For instance, I don’t see any candidate in response to Scenario #1 who spoke of drawing on the classroom or school environment as a springboard for understanding setting.
Particularly in section #1, some candidates may be too reliant on model cases. While no candidate seems to have appropriated exact language or even paraphrased language, several candidates use the device of a hat, or two hats, as an attention-getting device.
29 Overall, accommodations for English Language Learner seems stronger, more detailed, and more convincing than the accommodations for the student with Special Needs. This may reflect the structure of the Task Itself, not our candidates’ preparation. Still, this is something to be watching.
Not all candidates yet have a convincing feel for developmental appropriateness, and say, the difference between what a typical 2nd grade class can produce in written form versus a typical 4th grade class. This is something candidates normally need time to develop, but another area to be watching as a program.
(5) Program Evaluations from Master Teachers (beginning 2005-06)
Multiple Subject Single Subject 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 N=11 N=10 N=9 N=5 N=3 N=11 Quality of content area preparation 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.3 3.9 Quality of professional preparation 4.5 4.8 4.7 4.6 5.0 4.3 Quality of communication with the department 4.7 5.0 5 4.8 5.0 4.7 Quality of classroom observations 4.9 5.0 ND 5.0 5.0 ND
Master teachers were first asked to evaluate the quality of the Westmont Education Program in 2005-06, and first presented in the form below during 2006-07. In addition to the quantitative ratings, most teachers provide a brief set of narrative comments, the overwhelming majority of which have been extremely affirming over the years. The Department's four previous annual reports have included summaries, interpretation, and follow-up proposals of this set of evidence.
For 2009, master teacher evaluations at the Multiple Subject level continue to be very strong, both locally and from our Costa Rica teachers. Narrative comments continue to be equally positive. Master teacher evaluations at the Single Subject level dipped below the departmental quality benchmark of 4.0 during 2009 for Quality of content area preparation. This may reflect three student teachers this year who passed the state CSET examinations in their respective disciplines, but had not in fact majored in that area.
A procedural note: We need to be consistent with the version of the form we send out. Some versions of the form include Quality of classroom observations, while some do not.
30 (6) Surveys of first-year graduates
The Department of Education has for many years surveyed program-completers approximately one year after graduation. The survey is completed anonymously, although in such a small program we may in fact end up knowing who has written a particular response..
Return rates have varied from one year to the next. In some years, (2008 and 2005), the rate has exceeded 80%, but some years have been considerably lower. Some of this variation is the inherent character of different classes, but a range of other circumstances may also be relevant.
Beginning with the class of 2004, a separate survey-component that focused on the TPEs was added. This created some confusion in one year, and long-term it may be more efficient and reduce the potential for human error to combine the two survey items into a single document. At the same time, we have found both components of the survey useful for different purposes, and have chosen for now to continue with both.
The component focusing on the TPEs is entirely quantitative, and it is that section which we began reporting to the CTC in 2008 as part of our Biennial Report.
A sample of departmental compilation and analysis of the results from the most recent cohort of Multiple Subject completers (completed program 2008; completed first year of teaching or alternative employment, 2008-09) is shown below. Charts in this format for Multiple Subject and Single Subject completers date back to Class of 2005. Written narrative comments on the survey results began the previous year. Complete sets of alumni responses and additional charts equivalent to the sample below are available from the department upon request.
A sample of compilation/reflection on the more comprehensive "grey" portion of the First Year Graduate survey is also included, again, from the most recent available cohort of Multiple Subject program completers. Additional reflection on this portion of the survey may be found in the Department's Annual Reports #1-4 (Appendix M, see manually)
31 First Year Teacher Survey Tally Sheet
Program Completers from 2008 (Multiple Subject)
Total Responses: 9 out of 10 completers as of March 8, 2009 (90% return rate)
Below Very Good Outstanding Poor (1) Average (3) Mean Note average (2) (4) (5) TPA 1—Subject Specific Knowledge Reading/ LA/ English xxx xxxxx 4.6 1 was 4/5 Math x xxx xxxxx 4.3 Science xx xxxxxxx 4.8 History/ Social Science xx xxxxxx 4.8 1 omitted Creative/ Performing Arts xxx xxx xx 3.9 1 was 4/5 Physical Education x xxxx xxxx 4.3 TPE 2—Monitoring student xxxxxxxxx 5.0 learning TPE 3—Interpreting/Use of x xx xxxxxx 4.6 Assessments TPE 4—Making content x xxxxxxxx 4.9 accessible TPE 5—Preparation to engage x xxxxxxxx 4.9 students TPE 6—Developmentally xx xxxxxxx 4.8 appropriate teaching practices TPE 7—Teaching English One was xx xxxxxx 4.7 Learners 4/5 TPE 8—Learning about x xxxxxxxx 4.9 students TPE 9—Instructional planning xxx xxxxxx 4.7 TPE 10—Instructional time x xxx xxxxx 4.4 TPE 11—Social environment xx xxxxxxx 4.8 TPE 12—Professional, legal, x x xxxxxxx 4.7 and ethical obligations TPE 13--Professional growth x x xxx xxxx 4.1
Compiled 3/09
As might be expected from a very strong and successful cohort, mean self-reported perceptions of candidates’ professional preparation was very high overall.
In only one sub-area, Preparation for Effective Teaching of the Creative/Performing Arts did the mean dip below 4.0. This has been a fairly constant item at the low end since we began calculating means, and has been discussed in both the Biennial Report (2008), various Annual Reports to the Program Review Committee, and discussed at the Teacher Advisory Board.
32 Somewhat unusual relative to some years, TPE 13 was also relatively low, even though it exceeded the departmental benchmark of 4.0. This is an area we will continue to monitor.
First Year Teacher Survey Notes on Grey Sheets (narrative portion of survey)
Program Completers from 2008 (Multiple Subject) Total Responses: 9 out of 10 completers as of March 8, 2009 (90% return rate)
Strengths identified in comments section:
Classroom management Science/Social Studies Reaching EL students High expectations during student teaching Advising identified as a “major strength of the Education department.” Costa Rica program Deep concern for students Great emphasis on teaching diverse students
To address even better in the future (comments section):
Master teacher could benefit from more knowledge of program Utilization of reading assessments Career advice “Red tape” to receive help in applying for credential or recommendation letters
Other:
Cultural Diversity rated low. Note that most or maybe all (?) in this cohort took the class prior to 2007)
(7) First Year Employer Survey
For many years the department has been surveying the principals who hired Westmont program-completers approximately one year after beginning employment. Since some program-completers deliberately take a year off, or do not succeed in securing full-time employment the first year, it has been complicated to get all the data we have sought, and to have a reasonably complete picture in a timely fashion. Nonetheless, through keeping careful track of graduates; and through mailings, follow-up phone calls, and making e- versions of the survey available, we have been able most years to get some picture of employer perceptions of our graduates.
Printed below is a sample of departmental compilation of the most recent available cohort of Multiple Subject graduates.
33 Survey of Employers of First Year Graduates Tally Sheet Program Completers from 2007 (Multiple Subject) Total Responses: 8 out of 12 completers
Instructions: Please check all items you are able to evaluate. Please compare the candidate’s performance with that of other first- year teachers. Poor (1) Below Average (2) Average (3) Very Good (4) Outstanding (5) Avg. Note Subject Matter One Knowledge (TPE score xxxxx xx 4.2 1) betwee n 3 & 4 Ability to One Communicate score xxx xx xx 3.8 (TPE 4, 5) betwee n 3 & 4 Classroom Management xx xxx xxx 4.1 (TPE 11) Planning and Organization xxxxx xxx 4.4 Skills (TPE 9) Instructional One Effectiveness score x xx xxxx 4.3 (TPE 4, 5, 6) betwee n 3 & 4 Use of Instructional xxxxx xxx 4.4 Time (TPE 10) Ability to Assess One Student Learning score xxxxx xx 4.2 (TPE 2, 3) betwee n 3 & 4 Teaching Diverse Learners (TPE 7, xxx xxx xx 3.9 8) Fulfillment of Professional, Legal, and Ethical xxx xxxxx 4.6 Responsibilities (TPE 12) Commitment to Professional xxx xxxxx 4.6 Growth (TPE 13) Interpersonal xx xxxxxx 4.8 Relations Health and x xxxxxxx 4.9 Vitality Overall Teaching Competence (in comparison to xxxx xxxx 4.5 other beginning teachers)
34 (8) Senior Interview (summary of 12 interviews conducted 2005-2008)
This exercise originated in 2004 in Westmont’s Program Review Committee, as one instrument among others to assess Westmont graduates’ attainment of the college’s adopted Student Learning Outcomes.
The visiting WASC team’s (2005) encouragement to focus more on the assessment of actual student work and less on self-reported data led to some uncertainty about continuing to use the instrument college-wide, but we have continued within our own department to interview at least one senior each year, and in 2008 again, to interview one senior each.
Clearly there are some limitations to the exercise, and long-term, some kind of systematic written exit survey may need to replace what has sometimes turned out to be a labor- intensive conversation with individuals. This will be a question that the department discusses when we are re-constituted during the summer of 2009. In keeping with its origins, the existing instrument is actually more directed to the assessment of the Liberal Studies major and General Education program than the credential program itself.
Despite the limitations of the survey, it has in fact been useful in helping the faculty to internalize an even clearer sense of our students’ overall experience throughout their years at the college.
Of the 12 interviews here total, 11 are Liberal Studies majors, and one completed her English major at a public university, coming to Westmont for the Single Subject Credential Program only.
Of the 11 total Liberal Studies interviews, 9 were completing the Multiple Subject Credential Program at the time of the interview, and a remaining student went on to complete the MS Credential program at Westmont later.
Full interview notes are available in Departmental Office.
Some recurring themes and/or areas that have led to program improvement:
In general, strongly positive about their Westmont experience, and the Westmont program (although there is potential for bias here with this particular instrument, in that some years it tends to be better students who got interviewed).
The significant growth student teachers reported in Oral Communication skills as a result of so many peer lessons during the credential program.
The need for more grounding in research methodology/research assignments (which comments have led to a new research-based assignment in Children’s Literature (ED 172); as well as to conversations with the English faculty about bolstering emphasis on research in required composition classes.)
35 Student questions (especially in the first two years of the survey) about the number of part-time professors in the Liberal Studies major, which has led to some reassigning of courses such that students in the Liberal Studies major could be introduced to full-time Education Faculty earlier in their four- or five-year Westmont experience.
The relative importance in students' overall growth of their off-campus experiences (Urban Semester in San Francisco, Europe Semester, Westmont in Mexico) and even the significance of many informal experiences off-campus supported or enabled by the college (e.g., spring break in Mexico teaching Vacation Bible School).
To the extent that these students’ experience is representative, some evidence that graduates do not feel they have grown in technology as much as in other areas. (Here there may be a conceptual flaw in the College’s standards themselves, since Research and Technology are combined into one ambiguous standard. Or both research and technology may in fact be areas to continue to monitor.)
While no individual hiring decision within the Education Program has been based entirely on student interview data, in at least two cases these interviews provided corroborative evidence that supported a particular change.
Those students who’ve attended large universities elsewhere comment on the positive difference at Westmont in terms of approachable professors, individual attention, and/or opportunities for 2-way dialogue with professors
Other evidence available but not included in the body of the Six Year Report:
The Department has reported to the state through its first Biennial Report on teachers' ratings of Pre-professional Field Experiences and ratings of the Early (Fall) Field Experience. This evidence is highly affirming, but the rating instruments do not seem entirely successful at discriminating between more and less successful students. Please see Biennial Report (2008) [Appendix C1] for more details about this data.
The Department requires that each student teacher compile a Student Teaching Portfolio. In the elementary program, these have been jointly graded; in the secondary program, graded by a single professor. While impressive in size, and in most cases suggestive of the enormity of each individual student teacher's accomplishments, the department has not yet been able to use the portfolios as a significant part of our overall assessment strategy. Among other issues, it is difficult to extract meaningful generalizations from these compilations. In any case, at least one portfolio has been saved since 2002, and these continue to be available for public review.
36 4C Conclusions about the evidence
Evidence of group reflection. There is substantial evidence in the Minutes of Department Meetings (available in the Department of Education office) that data in this report has been reflected upon collectively. Much of this data has also been shared with local teachers and principals on our Teacher Advisory Board; and with faculty colleagues through annual meetings of the Education Program Advisory Committee.
Overall strengths and weaknesses:
The overall strengths of our students include their ability to assume the roles and responsibilities of K-12 teachers, both as student teachers, and as professionals working in the field. With respect to specifics, students and alumni self-reporting about their experience and expertise does not totally coincide with the perceptions of principals and fellow teachers, but confidence in their ability to manage a classroom is often a self- reported strength.
Granted some limitations on what can be accomplished within the constraints of a single academic year, some possible areas for growth include:
Student ability to utilize, critically reflect upon, and carry out professional research within the field of education
The greater incorporation of technology into course assignments and completion of tasks during student teaching
The department should continue to be intentional in ensuring that students in the elementary program can demonstrate expertise in teaching the full range of elementary subjects, including the arts and physical education.
The department should continue to be intentional about teaching candidates to employ a range of assessment strategies, to interpret assessment data appropriately, and to use such data to improve subsequent instruction.
Even though we consider this an existing strength, we should continue to look for all ways possible to improve students' abilities to teach English Learners effectively
It is possible that secondary teachers can explore ways to connect with their students' families, even within the constraints of their role as student teachers.
37 General Education
As noted under 2C, the department’s contribution to General Education over the last six years has been relatively modest.
-Students may take ED 100 or ED 105 to fulfill a Writing Intensive requirement. Typically these courses are taken to fulfill a writing intensive requirement within the major (i.e., Liberal Studies).
-ED 100 and ED 101 may be used to satisfy the requirement in Serving Society.
-ED 105 fulfills the requirement in Thinking Globally.
-ED 109 fulfills the requirement for Integrating the Major Discipline for the Liberal Studies major.
In most cases above, it is Liberal Studies majors who are using the courses to fulfill GE requirements. ED 105 (Cultural Diversity), however, has attracted a range of students from other majors, including Biology, Sociology, Art, and English who are seeking to fulfill the GE requirement.
During the summer of ED 100 and 101, student responses to a prompt were scored by the course instructor, using a rubric developed by the GE Committee. As extracted from the cover memo that went to the Dean of Curriculum:
Clearly when one looks at the baseline writing vs. the end-of-course reflection, there is evidence of growth. Among other areas, students are able (in keeping with course purposes) to view education much more cosmically, through a larger set of societal lenses, and not think about schooling simply in terms of an individual teacher and his or her students.
There is clear evidence that most students are thinking about issues of justice, for instance, not simply in terms of what’s fair in disciplining two students, but with respect to larger issues of social inequities, including the role of class and race in influencing educational outcomes.
During the 2008-09 academic year, the GE Committee scored randomly selected responses to a prompt pertinent to Thinking Globally.
The average score of responses from ED 105 was recorded as "high" (upper 15%) in four of the five component areas of the instrument, and the remaining area "average," relative to other course means—suggesting that the course is contributing in fact what it is intended to contribute to students' general education.
38 ED 109 fulfills a requirement for Integrating the Major Discipline for Liberal Studies Majors. Portfolios prepared by students since 2006 have been informally scored and shared with a range of faculty members from outside the department, including faculty from History, Mathematics, Art, and English. Further information on the results of this process will be included in a separate report on the Liberal Studies major.
Summary comments for Section 5:
The limited evaluation conducted so far vis-à-vis the specific goals of General Education indicate that the coursework is fulfilling these identified purposes.
As noted elsewhere in this report, the Department might be able to extend its impact on students college-wide by expanding the range of courses offered for GE credit. To what extent such coursework falls within the purview of the department's mission is a subject for on-going departmental discussion.
39 6. Resources
6.A. Budget
Most areas of the budget have been relatively static since the beginning of the window under review. Expenses in at least two areas have grown significantly over these years. a) Scoring for the Teaching Performance Assessment (TPA). The Commission on Teacher Credentialing has identified a strict protocol for the scoring of the TPA, but has left it to each institution offering a credential to figure out how to pay for expenses associated with the instrument. Teaching candidates at many private institutions pay a substantial fee for the TPA. Up to this point, however, the department at Westmont has been reluctant to impose costs other than late fees. Beginning in the 2008-09 academic year, an additional $1500 was added to the Department's budget to cover in part expenses for external scorers.
Costs associated with the TPA vary considerably from year to year, however, depending on the number of credential students and the continuity of external scorers (the department has covered training expenses for two external scorers to date). To date, the department budget has more or less accommodated TPA-associated costs, but this may end up constraining the department in other areas over the long haul. Moreover, the position of TPA Institutional Coordinator is not currently filled. Much of the responsibility associated with this position is covered by the Chair without additional compensation, but this was never designed to be a permanent arrangement. It may be desirable in the near future, then, to re-evaluate the department's policy vis-à-vis charging candidates. b) Costs associated with the Costa Rica student teaching experience. To date, candidates fulfilling student teaching requirements in Costa Rica have paid only $500 beyond their regular Westmont tuition. This has meant in effect that the program is significantly subsidizing these students' experience. Beginning 2009-10, candidates have been asked to pay directly a greater share of the expenses related to their placements in Costa Rica ($1200).
Creating separate account numbers for each of these two areas of the budget and thus having access to clearer and more exact information would facilitate pertinent long-term policy decision-making in these areas.
On a separate note, the honorarium given to master teachers locally has not risen since at least 2001, and anecdotal evidence suggests Westmont's current compensation of $120 (often split between multiple teachers) is embarrassingly low. Beginning 2009-10, we are going to attempt to build in an annual incremental upward adjustment of approximately 10%. See Appendix O for more detail.
6.B. Additional Resources
40 The time associated with responding to new legislative and policy mandates in California teacher education is considerable. These include, but are not limited to, the reporting and preparation activities connected to the new (2007) accreditation cycle. To this point, the college has been appropriately responsive to specific requests. The release time granted in preparation for the 2009 accreditation site visit was a highly significant factor in the visit's successful outcome. It is essential that the college continue to be able to support the department in this way, outside of the regular annual budget.
Additional money for student scholarships would almost certainly be one major factor in allowing additional students an opportunity to remain at Westmont for a fifth year of study. The college's decision in 2008-09 to allow graduates to retain their existing financial aid from the college into the fall of their fifth year seemed to play an important role in our yield rate for applicants to the secondary program. Of seven applicants in this year, all seven entered the program, a rate we've never come close to matching. Retaining this policy appears to be one important factor, then, in attracting students to the credential program.
6.C. Library resources
The current chair has conferred fairly regularly with library staff on resource issues. During the 2005-06 school year, chair worked with Acquisitions & Collection Management Librarian to inventory existing holdings, using the Conspectus instrument. A sizable number of outdated materials were removed from library holdings at that time. The following year the Juvenile collection was re-organized and brought upstairs as part of the regular stacks in order for library staff to more effectively monitor and care for this collection. At the same time, the associated and largely far-outdated Curriculum Resource Collection was either incorporated into the Library's regular holdings or discarded.
One of the Department's currently identified needs is for a designated, monitored, and accessible space for a revitalized Curriculum Resource collection.
The chair has discussed with library staff on several occasions over the past six years on how best to use our annual budget for the collection. Although we order a variety of books annually aligned to our Credential Program coursework, we have tried to direct more of the funds in the last three or four years to the Juvenile collection, which seems to be the most heavily used collection relevant to our programs.
The full-time faculty recently met with the new Library Director for one hour in September to strategize about future needs. The Director has agreed to be the Library Staff Liaison for Education.
6.D. Auxiliary services
41 The Department of Education, like the Urban Program, essentially runs its own internships, so makes little use accordingly of the Office of Internships.
The Department annually invites staff from the Office of Life Planning to the Student Teaching Seminar to discuss interviewing and other matters related to securing employment. Individual faculty have also collaborated with the Office of Life Planning in two public events, one involving secondary educators and one program on the Myers- Briggs instrument. One important change in the Department's relationship with the Life Planning office is that effective 2007, the Education Department now maintains its own employment files for Credential Program graduates, adding some additional responsibility to the Credential Analyst/Administrative Assistant's position.
The Department's advisees take appropriate advantage of the college's Off-Campus Programs office. One of the most-voiced complaints eight years ago from advisees and alumni was that they either had not been encouraged or even "allowed" to participate in one or more opportunities for formal study off-campus. The Department has not maintained statistics on this, but judging from the involvement of students in various programs and the absence of the topic from our alumni surveys, the issue appears to have been resolved. Impressionistically, Liberal Studies advisees appear to participate in off- campus programs at rates approaching or exceeding other majors. Liberal Studies graduates have recently participated in Europe Semester, Westmont in Mexico, the England Semester, Urban, Thailand, Australia, Daystar [Africa], Consortium Exchange, and various May Term programs. In addition, with respect to encouraging global involvement, the Department runs its own Costa Rica program separately from the Off- Campus Programs office. A sizable number of Credential Program candidates have also participated in Emmaus Road teams and Potters Clay.
42 7. Conclusions
7.A. Accomplishments at the departmental level
Our greatest sense of accomplishment comes from our alumni who consistently testify to the impact the program has had on their personal and professional lives. Statements included as part of the Accreditation Site Visit last year (see especially Appendix X), in addition to notes available for review in our Alumni Correspondence Binder, and statements in the Comprehensive Alumni Survey, 1997-2006 (Appendix D, see manually) are serve to validate that sense of accomplishment.
We have just completed a highly successful accreditation process from the state’s Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Although there now is an on-going cycle of reporting that requires Biennial Reports and a range of other updates involving substantial to massive documentation, there will not be a site visit until 2016.
We have just hired two enthusiastic, hard-working full-time faculty with a range of pertinent experience, knowledge of the local community including its K-12 educational system, knowledge of Westmont, and an understanding of Westmont’s Christian ethos. These hires augur well for the future of the Credential Program at the college.
We have maintained a highly successful in-house international student teaching program through our partnership with the Lincoln School in San Jose, Costa Rica. Over sixty student teachers have completed required teaching experience there, and in several cases have used this experience as a springboard into other full-time ventures in international teaching.
At the individual level, faculty members have:
Served on various committees at the state and national level of the California Teachers Association
Contributed to the founding of Providence Hall (Christian high school here in Santa Barbara)
Read papers at national conferences, including the History of Education Society and the National Council for the Social Studies
Contributed to the college's WASC re-accreditation (2007) and articulating structures and procedures for Program Review
43 7.B. Long-Term Vision
Clearly a major part of any long-term vision is to sustain the department's long tradition of inspiring and preparing Westmont graduates to serve in K-12 classrooms. As noted elsewhere in this document that means among other things, continuing to build and maintain relationships with local teachers and principals, and with other academic departments at Westmont.
It also means a continuing responsibility for responding to state accountability and reform mandates. We are strongly committed to begin now the preparation for the Accreditation Site Visit in 2016, being scrupulous to maintain and to refine existing routines of data collection and review. The department's Annual Calendar of Assessment and Monthly Responsibility Chart for the Credential Analyst are designed in part to keep us on track in fulfilling this particular set of on-going demands.
So even as we look to the future, we do not wish to underestimate for a moment the demands of simply maintaining all that is good about the present and recent past; or to overestimate, accordingly what we are able to accomplish in the immediate future.
At the same time, we believe we can be use existing resources to have an even greater impact on our students, on Westmont, and our larger constituency of K-12 schools at the local, state, national, and international levels.
Among the steps we wish to consider over the next cycle of review are the following:
Goals Specific manifestations Other notes of progress To engage in deliberate and on- New or revised mission A priority for 2009-10 going conversation about the statement. core identity and mission of the department. This includes A list of specific conversation among ourselves, strategies for sharing obviously, but also intentional that mission with others. conversation with colleagues and administrators, among other constituencies.
Continue to explore ways to Documented We would like to at least build numbers in the secondary conversations with double the average number programs. This has been the targeted academic of SS credentials awarded subject of extended and on- departments at during the next cycle of going conversations for at least Westmont (some kind of Westmont program review the last eight years, but needs to Liaison assignment for (Current average from be a major priority for the each full-time faculty 1998-2009: 3) newly-constituted department. member?) The next item would be one
44 possible way of addressing this Scheduling events issue in part. and/or updating and creating promotional literature aimed at prospective secondary teachers
Additions and/or improvements to web- page.
Offering a new course for Spring 2010 (Windows into Teaching), seeking to attract students interested in exploring education, but not willing to sign up for a 4-unit class with attached field work.
Continue to explore the Documented feasibility of awarding a conversations with masters degree, in terms of administrators and/or adding value and perceived board members. value to our candidates’ investment of a fifth year of At least some greater study. informal documentation of the level of demand from students for such a degree at Westmont. Explore ways to build visibility Events organized or Two ideas worth exploring in the Santa Barbara facilitated. are an annual National community. Among other History Day event and forms this goal might take is Identified partners to some kind of annual providing professional help in carrying out Children's development opportunities in ideas under Author/Illustrator event. areas not currently being served consideration. by other institutions.
Work with faculty mentors and college administrators, among others, to explore ways to
45 capitalize long-term on the significant administrative gifts of the in-coming faculty.
Explore ways to elevate the department’s level of scholarly Checking in with one activity, without sacrificing the another annually as a distinctive qualities of the department, as to what department that have we've achieved in this traditionally received the most area, and what our plan affirmation from graduates and is for the year to come. practitioners.
Continue to monitor graduates Documented and current candidates’ conversations and/or proficiency and self-perceived completed survey of proficiency and confidence in current and/or recent the use of appropriate graduates. educational technologies. Among other things, this would include follow-up conversation to establish what particular competencies hypothetically might have been given insufficient attention in the past; and infusing the use of technology more thoroughly throughout the elementary and secondary programs.
Develop a Curriculum Resource Conversation with the Center. Library, the Provost's office, and the OCA have already begun on this point (9/09) As suggested by Assessment Coordinator (2008), find ways to more clearly align reporting requirements for the PRC with the CTC, such that we're doing as little unnecessary work as possible for both parties. Investigate the curriculum of This is a priority during the credential programs at 2009-10 or the following selected other institutions in year. It will be trickier to California and the Christian make major changes as we
46 College Consortium approach 2013 when we submit a substantial report to the state on the structure of our curriculum. Develop new promotional flyers and possibly an updated formal brochure or brochures for use in Admissions events and our own departmental promotional events.
Also—briefly noted:
As we reflect on where the department has been, and where we might go in the next six years, this is a list of additional questions to keep on our radar within the department. Many of these we have already begun to discuss as a newly-constituted faculty, and others are of less pressing priority, but are included here so as to be available for collective review.
Are there ways to move to an electronic system for storing student records that would help us be more efficient?
Are there ways to get more men into both Elementary and Secondary education?
Re-consider the Constitution Exam. How well is the current system working?
Clarify our advising/programming for students primarily interested in Junior High. Are we necessarily doing the right thing by having them go through secondary track? And are there unit-effective ways of helping students qualify for more Supplementary Authorizations than most of them seem to be right now?
Clarify and re-evaluate our procedures for EDJOIN and getting students launched on the job market. Are there ways to prepare students for interviewing or for marketing themselves even more effectively?
Re-constitute and clarify the purpose of our Teacher/Principal Advisory Board
Ensure our syllabi are all consistently in a format that works for purposes of Accreditation, as well as General Education and other internal Westmont purposes
Clarify our advice to students representing different sets of circumstances re: appropriate paths to earning the Professional Clear Credential.
Are there ways to be more efficient and even more effective in our Advising processes, including summer advising?
47 Can we organize our departmental photo collection more effectively?
How can we keep in more regular contact with our alumni?
Are there ways to work with our part-time faculty more effectively and help them to feel a part of the department and the college?
Are there ways we can improve our Student Teaching Portfolios?
Do our courses currently have the most appropriate titles, with respect to appeal, accuracy, and length?
What other changes in the ways we evaluate student teachers in the field might we wish to implement during 2009-10 or the following year?
Are there ways to work with the Public Affairs office more effectively to communicate about Teacher Education at Westmont?
48