Element One: Assessment System

Initial Programs: The Indiana Professional Standards Board (IPSB) required that all teacher education preparation programs submit a Unit Assessment System to the board by June 30, 2002. In conjunction with the mandate, the school has designed and is implementing a UAS that not only addresses the NCATE standards but also the seven criteria of the IPSB.

The school has developed a Unit Assessment System Schematic to reflect the elements of the UAS and the timeline for their implementation. In the schematic, the center section denotes the initial programs including the Transition to Teaching Programs and the elementary program offered on the Columbus campus. The sources of the data that will be used to assess individual candidates appear at the top of the schematic. The schematic denotes at what time during the program the assessments will occur and the color of the assessment indicates whether it is fully implemented (green), being piloted (blue) or in the planning stages (red). The sources of data for programmatic assessment are listed at the bottom of the schematic.

While the chair of teacher education coordinates candidate assessment, all data are aggregated and reported to the school's Evaluation Committee whose charge is to oversee the UAS. Candidates are assessed at six points throughout the program with multiple assessments occurring at each point. These assessment points are: (1) Application to Teacher Education, (2) Block I, (3) Block II, (4) Block III, (5) Block IV and (6) Beginning Teacher Induction Program. Candidate assessments also occur within courses throughout the programs (see Elementary Teacher Education Program Overview).

The candidate assessments occurring at these six points are:

Data is collected for programmatic assessment at the same six points, at the end of the first year of teaching, and two years after graduation.

As part of the overall UAS, the school has developed a plan for the use of individual benchmark data. This plan addresses how the school will evaluate candidates and, if necessary, mentor those who do not successfully complete a given benchmark assessment.

The Plan for Evaluating the UAS itself incorporates a Program Review and Assessment Committee (PRAC) Self-Study that is required of all units on the IUPUI campus. The Evaluation Committee will be in charge of the UAS review process during the 3^rd year of the 5-year NCATE cycle.

The Five-Year Summative Program Evaluation Plan lays out a plan for programmatic changes based on the data collected by the Evaluation Committee. The Data for Programmatic Assessment chart addresses the frequency, timing, participants, means of administration, and use of the programmatic assessment data. This table also shows what Principles of Teacher Education are addressed by each assessment.

During 1999-2000, there was considerable effort to increase the informed involvement of colleagues in the Schools of Liberal Arts and Science in teacher education. Two factors in particular focused attention on the general education of future teachers: (1) the Standards-based Teacher Education Project "STEP" which operates under the aegis of ACE and AACTE; and (2) IU President Myles Brand's "21^st Century Teachers Project" initiative (see STEP 2001 Report and STEP 2002 Report) . STEP provided modest funding to support collaboration around several topics related to the UAS (e.g., admission to Teacher Education, university attention to P-12 academic standards, alignment of secondary majors to the new IPSB license framework, Liberal Arts and Science faculty involvement in student teaching and scoring the Benchmark III Portfolio). Teams representing IUPUI has since attended the 2000, 2001 and 2002 STEP conferences in Washington D.C. and the Regional Conferences on Teacher Quality sponsored by the USDOE in Denver in July.

The core campus "21^st Century Teachers Project" brought together teams of content specialists from the Arts and Sciences, Education and local P-12 schools during summer 2002 (See 21st Century Teachers Project Initiative Final Reports: English, Social Studies, Math, and Science). These teams worked together to design new integrator courses, to revise syllabi for existing course in Arts and Sciences as well as in Education, and to develop more meaningful field experiences in P-12 schools. While each of the five IUPUI teams developed a plan to meet the needs associated with a specific content area, the overall goal was the preparation of future teachers who could support diverse learners in meeting high standards.

In fall 2000, the Committee on Teacher Education (COTE) was created to serve as a forum for facilitating collaboration among representatives from Education, the Arts and Sciences, and P-12 teacher practitioners. The council provides a broader audience for the reports of the UAS and serves as a vehicle to coordinate the various campus and university initiatives that involve teacher education.

During 2001-2002, additional meetings with content area departments were held to develop standard-based programs. Funding to continue the collaboration during summer 2002 was provided by the 21^st Century Teacher Project Initiative, and five content area teams developed plans for curriculum and assessment development. Candidates piloted the Benchmark III assessment?the Student Teaching Portfolio--in the fall, and stakeholders from departments throughout the university and from PDS partnership schools participated in reviews of these assessments (see Curriculum/Assess Meetings).

The unit assessment system and information about the individual assessments are shared with the candidate during the Teacher Education Induction (see Important Information 2002-2002). The Assistant Dean for Student Services conducts the induction session with each cohort of candidates at the beginning of Block I.

Both the initial programs and the unit assessment system are grounded in the Principles of Teacher Education. The school, in collaboration with the Arts and Science faculty and P-12 stakeholders, has documented the relationship of the Principles of Teacher Education to the INTASC Standards, IPSB content and developmental standards, Indiana P-12 Academic Standards and professional organization standards (see Content Map Directory). Candidate and programmatic assessments have been designed to reflect these standards (see Elementary Teacher Education Curriculum, Secondary Teacher Education Curriculum, and INTASC Framework).

A set of pilot Benchmark II tasks were scored during spring 2001. A scorers' reliability test was conducted on the results. A report was generated and shared with the school. As a result, the school plans to do more training of scorers prior to full implementation of the assessment.

Advanced Programs: The development of a UAS for the advanced program is in its infancy. The initial plan for UAS for Indianapolis advanced programs was developed by the Evaluation Committee and has been modified several times by the graduate faculty over the last academic year. The development of this system has paralleled that of the UAS for the initial programs up to this point.

Candidate assessment occurs at five points in the advanced programs (1) Application to the Program, (2) EDUC J500/L500, (3) EDUC H520/530, (4) EDUC Y520 and (5) Program Completion.

The UAS for the advanced programs denotes collection of data for programmatic changes at the same five points as the candidate assessment. The school piloted the Master's in Education Survey during the spring 2002 semester (see Masters Survey and Masters Survey Data).

. The return rate was so low that the data did not provide valid information about the programs. However, the data will be used to redesign the survey and address ways to increase the return rate during the spring 2003 semester.

Element Two: Data Collection, Analysis and Evaluation

Initial: The school collects the following candidate and programmatic data:

Advanced Programs: The school has collected and analyzed data for its advanced programs in the following ways:

Element Three: Use of Data for Program Improvement

Initial: The Evaluation Committee was given the charge to oversee the design and implementation of the UAS. They have met on a continuous basis since prior to the last NCATE visit (see Evaluation Committee Minutes). The committee has designed, piloted and re-designed the programmatic assessments in conjunction with the school's faculty (see Early Unit Assessment System Plans). The Chair of Teacher Education, who is a member of the committee, has guided the development of the candidate assessments of the UAS. The candidate assessments have been collaboratively designed and evaluated with Arts and Science Faculty and P-12 Stakeholders.

Although the UAS is still a work-in-progress, there have been programmatic changes implemented as a result of data from the assessments.

Early in the development of the Learning to Teach/Teaching to Learn Program, new and innovative ideas were piloted with groups of elementary and secondary cohorts. The assessments resulting form these pilots groups guided the faculty in the design and implementation of the new programs that all candidates will complete (see Cohort II Report and Cohort III Report).

As a result of piloting the Benchmark II assessment for elementary candidates, the faculty redesigned the elementary program. Early data indicated that candidates were not performing well on Benchmark II. At Teacher Education Meetings, faculty discussed the implications of this data. They discussed whether the assessment had appropriate expectations for candidates at this stage of professional development. After a lengthy discussion, the decision was made that the assessment was a good performance-task measure and that candidates should have the skills and knowledge at this point in the program to successfully complete the benchmark. The faculty then turned their attention to the elementary program and looked closely at the professional education courses dealing with mathematical pedagogy. It was decided that having only one professional education course that addressed mathematics did not satisfactorily prepare candidates to teach mathematics in the elementary setting. As a result of this discussion, a new 6-credit hour course was designed (EDUC E345 -- Language Arts & Mathematics for Young Children). It will be offered for the first time fall 2002.

The school has developed a plan to systematically study the effect of any changes and to evaluate the UAS itself (EUAS). Completed rubrics are shared with candidates and individuals, and aggregated data are shared with school faculty and other stakeholders via the Committee on Teacher Education (COTE).

Advanced Programs: The school has used candidate performance in coursework and projects to assess the advanced programs in the past. The results of these assessments are routinely shared with the candidates. As a result of the need to take a more systematic approach to candidate and programmatic assessment, the school has developed a Unit Assessment System for Advanced Programs.

Faculty discussion surrounding the development of the UAS for advanced programs have resulted in a subcommittee being formed to investigate the re-design of the advanced programs offered by the Indianapolis units. The committee is revising the current requirements and adding some requirements. The committee is designing the programs in relation to the Certificate in Community Building & Urban Education that the school offers.