Department of
Teacher Education
CAEP Annual Reporting
York College has three academic schools. The EPP is located within the School of Health Sciences and Professional Programs, and consists of the Department of Teacher Education and portions of the Department of Health and Physical Education, which houses the K-12 Health Education and Physical Education programs.
The EPP is a CAEP’s 2020 recipient of the Frank Murray Leadership Recognition for Continuous Improvement and is fully accredited. The EPP continues to recognize the importance of ongoing data collection and analysis and uses multiple measures to assess its programs to be informed about the quality of program completers’ preparation. During the most recent CAEP accreditation process, the following are the EPP programs that were reviewed by CAEP:
- Biology/ Education 7-12 (BA)
- Chemistry/ Education 7-12 (BS)
- Earth Science/Education 7-12 (BS)
- English Education/Middle School Extension (BA)
- Health Education
- History Education/Middle School Extension (BA)
- Interdisciplinary Studies / Teacher Education 1-6 (BA)
- Mathematics Education 7-12 (BS)
- Physical Education
- Spanish Childhood Bilingual Education (BA)
The data displayed on this page address the CAEP Accountability Measures and were collected during the 2020-2021 academic year.
The data address completers' impact in contributing to P-12 student-learning growth and completers' effectiveness in applying professional knowledge skills and dispositions. For this measure, the EPP conducted case studies during 2020-2021 academic year.
Measure 1(Initial): Completer Effectiveness
Below are the data for the case studies that were conducted in 2020-2021 academic year to address completers' impact in contributing to P-12 student-learning growth and completers' effectiveness in applying professional knowledge, skills and dispositions.
Case Study: Mathematics Education 7-12 Graduate
The alum profiled in this case study graduated from York College Teacher Education Mathematics 7-12 program within the last 3 years. In this case study, the pronouns "they/their" will be used to support the anonymity of the participant.
The data in the tables included in the case study were based upon the alum's self-assessment of teaching in the 2020-2021 academic year, focusing on a lesson concerning slope. The faulty member's ratings in these tables were based upon interviews with the alum and written materials shared by the alum including lesson plans and analyses of student performance data. The principal ratings are based on self-reports from the alum about feedback from informal observations since formal observations have been delayed due to COVID.
Across most measures of teacher effectiveness and impact on student learning, the alum in this case study performed at the Effective level. Where performance was at the Developing level, this can be directly linked to the limitations of teaching during COVID.
Assessment D: Effective Teaching Work Sample (ETWS)
TASK1: Context Analysis
|
Component |
Faculty Assessment Highly Effective (4) Effective (3) Developing (2) Ineffective (1) |
Alum Assessment Highly Effective (4) Effective (3) Developing (2) Ineffective (1) |
|
Knowledge of Teaching Context -Community |
2 |
2 |
|
Knowledge of Teaching Context -School |
2 |
2 |
|
Knowledge of Teaching Context -Classroom |
3 |
4 |
|
Knowledge of Students |
3 |
3 |
|
Implications for Instructional Planning and Assessment |
3 |
3 |
Discussion:
This is the alum's first year at this school. Thus, their only experience with the school and its community has been during COVID, when mobility has been severely restricted. During several months of this year, instruction was completely remote, meaning that the teacher did not go to the school and its community. The remainder of the year involved hybrid instruction in which half the students were in the classroom and half participating on line each day. The alum described members of their department, support for new faculty, and the school's administration in detail. The alum said that they had not had an opportunity to explore the school building away from their own classroom and had limited interactions with other faculty members. The alum described in detail the resources used during instruction, both technological and physical in the classroom. Answers to interview questions included details of daily routines and rituals of instruction. Although the alum self-rated as a level 4, the artefacts necessary for that rating were not shared in the interview. Both interview questions and lesson plans demonstrated deep understanding of students in the alum's classes, which were limited to the students who attended class either in person or remotely. Instructional decisions relied upon this knowledge of the students and the available instructional resources.
TASK 2: Standards and Research-based Learning Outcomes
|
Component |
Faculty Assessment Highly Effective (4) Effective (3) Developing (2) Ineffective (1) |
Alum Assessment Highly Effective (4) Effective (3) Developing (2) Ineffective (1) |
|
Learning segment articulates a central focus |
3 |
3 |
|
Learning objectives align with the central focus |
3 |
3 |
|
Learning objectives align with NYSCC Learning Standards and other disciplinary standards* |
3 |
3 |
|
Learning objectives connect with knowledge of students' prior knowledge, interests, and cultural/community assets |
3 |
2 |
|
Learning objectives connect with knowledge of students' prior learning and development and therefore predict misunderstandings |
3 |
3 |
Discussion:
The alum created a coherent lesson plan that was driven by age appropriate mathematics standards and their understanding of the students' cultures and academic skill levels. The alum reported that this lesson was based upon their assessment of students' learning in previous lessons and was leading to more substantial challenges connected to preparation for the Algebra Regents exam. The alum discussed the ongoing use of math problems related to the students' lives. While the alum was focused on their students' developmental levels, they believed that the remote learning format limited access to students' prior knowledge, claiming to be surprised by some misconceptions. While this was the reason for the level 2 self-rating, the faculty reviewer identified the level of insight necessary for a level 3 rating.
TASK 3: Planning for Assessment
|
Component |
Faculty Assessment Highly Effective (4) Effective (3) Developing (2) Ineffective (1) |
Alum Assessment Highly Effective (4) Effective (3) Developing (2) Ineffective (1) |
|
Assessments align with the central focus, standards, and learning objectives |
3 |
3 |
|
The plan includes aligned pre- and post-assessments |
3 |
3 |
|
The plan includes several opportunities for the teacher to conduct formative assessments |
3 |
3 |
|
Plans include adaptations/ modifications of assessments |
3 |
3 |
|
Plans include quality assessment instruments including assessments adapted for ELLs |
3 |
3 |
|
Plans include a variety of assessment instrument(s) |
3 |
3 |
|
Assessment Plan Commentary. Include commentary on research /theory for ELLs |
3 |
3 |
Discussion:
The alum discussed the structured pre-assessment problem that started the lesson. The alum used technology to allow students to demonstrate their growing mastery throughout the lesson and the formative assessment of this work. Summative assessment included an exit ticket at the end of the lesson and opportunities for practice on Regents problems in the subsequent lesson. Each assessment included appropriate modification for diverse learners. All assessments were driven by the desire learning outcomes, especially the state standards.
TASK 4: Lesson Plans
|
Component |
Faculty Assessment Highly Effective (4) Effective (3) Developing (2) Ineffective (1) |
Alum Assessment Highly Effective (4) Effective (3) Developing (2) Ineffective (1) |
|
The plan is clearly articulated |
3 |
3 |
|
The plan reflects pedagogical content knowledge |
3 |
3 |
|
The plan reflects content knowledge |
3 |
3 |
|
The plan follows an organized progression of activities - a logical flow |
3 |
3 |
|
The plan includes a variety of instructional strategies |
3 |
3 |
|
The plan includes the deliberate grouping of students when appropriate |
3 |
3 |
|
The plan includes differentiation for students based on an understanding of the different needs of the students in the classroom |
3 |
3 |
|
The plan includes academic language |
3 |
3 |
|
The plan includes the implementation of digital technology |
4 |
4 |
|
The plan cites research/theory |
2 |
2 |
Discussion:
The lesson plan and interviews demonstrate significant embodiment of content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. The lesson plan was detailed and followed a logical learning progression involving gradual release. The plan included differentiated learning tasks that students pursued in deliberately structured groups that were limited by the fact that only part of the class was present in the classroom. Throughout the lesson the students had the opportunity to use technology as a learning tool. While the alum demonstrated pedagogical content knowledge, they could not cite sources of research or theory that were the basis of instructional decisions.
TASK 5: Impact on Student Learning
|
Component |
Faculty Assessment Highly Effective (4) Effective (3) Developing (2) Ineffective (1) |
Alum Assessment Highly Effective (4) Effective (3) Developing (2) Ineffective (1) |
|
Graphic Presentation of Data |
NA |
NA |
|
Interpretation of Data for Whole Class |
3 |
3 |
|
Interpretation of Data for Three Students |
3 |
3 |
|
Data Demonstrate Positive Effect of Instruction |
3 |
3 |
|
Implications for Future Teaching "Next Steps" |
3 |
3 |
|
Accuracy and Completeness of Data Collection |
3 |
3 |
Discussion:
The alum used a spreadsheet rather than graphics to display data. The alum articulated patterns in performance for the whole class, demonstrating gains across all groups of students. The three target students also increased in their master from pre to post assessment, and the alum could articulate reasons for performance variations. Plans for subsequent instruction were grounded in the students' performance data.
Assessment I: Lesson Evaluation Part B: Observation Evaluation
|
Component |
Principal Assessment Informal observation reported by alum Highly Effective (4) Effective (3) Developing (2) Ineffective (1) |
Alum Self- Assessment Highly Effective (4) Effective (3) Developing (2) Ineffective (1) |
|
The Learner and Learning |
||
|
1. Establishes a positive learning environment. Respect and rapport are evident. |
3 |
3 |
|
2. Demonstrates flexibility and responsiveness to students' diverse needs. |
3 |
3 |
|
Content Knowledge |
||
|
3. Demonstrates pedagogical content knowledge. |
3 |
3 |
|
4. Demonstrates content knowledge. |
3 |
3 |
|
Instructional Practices |
||
|
5. Effectively models and/or uses demonstration or representation (chart/picture/poster) to support learning a strategy or skill. |
3 |
3 |
|
6. Presents learning tasks in a manner that engages students. |
3 |
3 |
|
7. Engages students in learning tasks to support the mastery of academic language. |
3 |
3 |
|
8. Uses a variety of questions to elicit and build on student responses to deepen content understanding. |
3 |
3 |
|
9. Uses questioning to monitor student learning. |
3 |
3 |
|
10. Appropriately responds to formative assessment data with instructional decisions and feedback to students. |
3 |
3 |
|
11. Connects new content to prior learning as well as cultural and personal assets. |
3 |
3 |
|
12. Engages students in challenging work and conveys his/her high expectations for the students. |
3 |
3 |
|
13. Demonstrates an ability to manage time (closure). |
3 |
3 |
|
14. Demonstrates an ability to manage classroom rules, routines, and materials |
3 |
3 |
|
15. Demonstrates an ability to manage classroom space. |
3 |
3 |
|
16. Demonstrates an ability to use technology effectively. |
3 |
4 |
|
17. Makes a positive impact on student learning. |
3 |
3 |
Discussion:
The alum self- assessed at least target levels for all areas of implementing the lesson, giving specific examples of events during the lesson that demonstrated mastery of the different components. During the interview, the alum reflected on the feedback received during two informal observations. This included the progress made through implementing the principal's suggestions. The alum shared that the principal claimed to be proud of herself for having hired this alum for her school.
Assessment C
Dispositions Assessment
|
Component |
Faculty Assessment Highly Effective (4) Effective (3) Developing (2) Ineffective (1) |
Self Assessment Highly Effective (4) Effective (3) Developing (2) Ineffective (1) |
|
1. Addressing Individual Student Needs |
3 |
3 |
|
2. Cultural and Linguistic Awareness |
3 |
3 |
|
3. Openness to Technology |
4 |
4 |
|
4. Support All Students |
3 |
3 |
|
5. Student-centered Classroom Management |
3 |
3 |
|
6. Collaboration |
3 |
3 |
|
7. Professional Interactions |
3 |
3 |
|
8. Problem Solving |
3 |
3 |
|
9. Professional Ethics |
3 |
3 |
|
10. Timeliness |
3 |
3 |
|
11. Responsible for student learning |
3 |
3 |
The data for this measure is from Assessment L Employer Survey
Measure 2: Satisfaction of Employers
The Department of Teacher Education at York College, CUNY collects data to obtain an understanding of how well the EPP is preparing teachers to work in the classroom. A survey (Assessment K – Alumni Survey) is emailed to program completers one year after they graduate. Upon receipt of the completed survey, if the completer indicates that he/she is teaching, the EPP emails Assessment L: Employer Survey to the employer to collect further data on effectiveness of program completers. Both surveys (Alumni and Employer) focus on how well the EPP prepares candidates in the following areas: pedagogy, learners, instructions, instructional resource management, and professionalism.
The data below reflect employers’ and program completers’ satisfaction with the EPP for the following academic years: 2020-2021, 2019-2020 and 2018-2019.
For 2020-2021 the EPP received data from 1 employer. The data shows that the employer is pleased with the completer’s ability as the ratings were mostly “Strongly Agree”.
For 2019-2020 the EPP received data from 4 employers for 4 2019-2020 program completers. The data shows that employers mostly “Strongly Agree” and “Agree” that program completers were effectively prepared.
The EPP acknowledges that there are responses of “Somewhat Agree” and “Disagree” for two items in 2019-2020; however, since the numbers are small no conclusion could be drawn. The EPP is pleased to note that for the most current year (2020-2021) responses are mostly “Strongly Agree,” thereby showing that candidates are well prepared for the teaching
The EPP continues to be faced with low return of completers and employers surveys and is currently working on alternative ways to collect program satisfaction data.
Owing to the small numbers of program completers, the data are not disaggregated by program to ensure employers/completers confidentiality.
Assessment L: Employer Survey
|
|
2020-2021(n=1) |
2019-2020 (n=4) |
2018-2019(n=0) |
||||||||||||
|
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Somewhat Agree |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Somewhat Agree
|
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree
|
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Somewhat Agree |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
|
|
Pedagogy: The graduate was prepared to |
|||||||||||||||
|
Demonstrate knowledge of discipline-specific concepts and employ a range of activities to support students to learn these concepts |
1(100%) |
|
|
|
|
3(75%) |
1(25%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Demonstrate general knowledge of how students learn and engage students in active learning. You understand the different styles, interests, cultural assets, and prior knowledge that particular groups of students possess. When appropriate, you can use strategies that provide effective instruction for ELLs. |
1(100%) |
|
|
|
|
3(75%) |
|
1(25%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Connect new content to student interests, assets, and/or prior learning. |
1(100%) |
|
|
|
|
|
3(75%) |
1(25%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Learners: The graduate was prepared to |
|||||||||||||||
|
Present materials and learning tasks in an engaging and enthusiastic manner and provide opportunities for student input and participation at the appropriate level of challenge and rigor to support deep learning. |
1(100%) |
|
|
|
|
3(75%) |
1(25%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Establish clear expectations in the classroom with regard to both the rigor of work expected as well as classroom routines and procedures. |
|
1(100%) |
|
|
|
2(50%) |
2(50%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Encourage student questions and be responsive to the diversity of students’ learning and social/emotional needs. |
1(100%) |
|
|
|
|
2(50%) |
1(25%) |
|
1(25%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instruction: The graduate was prepared to |
|||||||||||||||
|
Use a variety of technological tools in the classroom in a way that is accessible to most of the students. |
1(100%) |
|
|
|
|
2(50%) |
1(25%) |
1(25%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Design and ask a variety of questions designed to encourage critical and higher-order thinking. |
1(100%) |
|
|
|
|
2(50%)* |
1(25%)* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Design a variety of assessment tools for formative and summative purposes and use assessment data to inform instructional planning.
|
|
1(100%) |
|
|
|
|
3(75%) |
1(25%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-2021(n=0) |
2019-2020 (n=4) |
2018-2019(n=7) |
||||||||||||
|
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Somewhat Agree |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Somewhat Agree |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
Strongly Agree |
Agree |
Somewhat Agree |
Disagree |
Strongly Disagree |
|
|
Instructional Resource Management: The graduate was prepared to |
|||||||||||||||
|
Conduct lessons within the anticipated time frame, and demonstrate the precise timing of activities. |
1(100%) |
|
|
|
|
2(50%) |
1(25%) |
1(25%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Create smooth transitions with little if any instructional time lost and establish clear and effective classroom rules and routines. |
1(100%) |
|
|
|
|
|
4(100%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professionalism: The graduate was prepared to |
|||||||||||||||
|
Build relationships with families, colleagues, and community in order to increase learning opportunities for students and understand how professional decisions affect others |
1(100%) |
|
|
|
|
4(100%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Independently problem solve while at the same time understand when to seek help and when a problem or circumstance calls for consultation with other professionals. |
1(100%) |
|
|
|
|
2(50%) |
2(50%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Demonstrate knowledge of the ethics and dispositions expected of teachers, and act in a responsible and trustworthy manner in all situations. |
1(100%) |
|
|
|
|
3(75%) |
1(25%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit sufficient maturity and self-confidence to respond positively and productively to feedback and make efforts to improve performance based on feedback. |
1(100%) |
|
|
|
|
2(50%) |
2(50%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reflect on the effectiveness of his/her teaching, and has discussed or exhibited how s/he made changes to future instruction. |
1(100%) |
|
|
|
|
3(75%) |
1(25%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contribute to an expected level of student learning growth |
1(100%) |
|
|
|
|
1(25%) |
2(50%) |
1(25%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*2019-2020: One employer did not provide answer for “Design and ask a variety of questions designed to encourage critical and higher-order thinking”.
Data provided relates to measures the EPP uses to determine if candidates are meeting program expectations and ready to be recommended for licensure. For this measure, the EPP focused on data from Assessment I (Lesson Planning/Observation/Reflection) and Assessment C (Dispositions). Assessment I and C are measures that the EPP uses to determine candidate competency at completion. The data were collected during 2020-2021 academic year.
Assessment C- Dispositions
Data Report: Spring 2021 and Fall 2020
The data below reflects the score candidates received during student teaching with regard to dispositions. These ratings were submitted by clinical supervisors. The data shows that candidates received "effective" and "highly effective" scores mostly, which is pleasing to the EPP. The number Ns are low because not all clinical supervisors submitted an assessment for all candidates. The EPP is concerned about this and have addressed this concerned by having assessment training sessions for all clinical supervisors and instructors. Data are not disaggregated by programs because of confidentiality for completers
|
Component |
Spring 2021 (n=9) |
|
Fall 2020 (n=4) |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Ineffective |
Developing |
Effective |
Highly Effective |
|
Ineffective |
Developing |
Effective |
Highly Effective |
|
|
1. Addressing Individual Student Needs |
|
|
8(89%) |
1(11%) |
|
|
3(75%) |
1(25%) |
|
|
2. Cultural and Linguistic Awareness |
|
2(22%) |
6(67%) |
1(11%) |
|
|
4(100%) |
|
|
|
3. Openness to Technology |
|
2(22%) |
4(44%) |
3(33%) |
|
|
4(100%) |
|
|
|
4. Support All Students |
|
|
8(89%) |
1(11%) |
|
|
3(75%) |
1(25%) |
|
|
5. Student-centered Classroom Management |
|
2(22%) |
6(67%) |
1(11%) |
|
|
3(75%) |
1(25%) |
|
|
6. Collaboration |
|
1(11%) |
7(78%) |
1(11%) |
|
|
4(100%) |
|
|
|
7. Professional Interactions |
|
1(11%) |
7(78%) |
1(11%) |
|
|
3(75%) |
1(25%) |
|
|
8. Problem Solving |
|
1(11%) |
7(78%) |
1(11%) |
|
|
4(100%) |
|
|
|
9. Professional Ethics |
|
|
7(78%) |
2(22%) |
|
|
4(100%) |
|
|
|
10. Timeliness |
|
1(11%) |
7(78%) |
1(11%) |
|
|
2(50%) |
2(50%) |
|
|
11. Responsible for student learning |
|
2(22%) |
5(56%) |
2(22%) |
|
|
2(50%) |
2(50%) |
|
|
12. Lifelong Learner |
|
|
8(89%) |
1(11%) |
|
|
2(50%) |
2(50%) |
|
|
13. Openness Feedback |
|
|
7(78%) |
2(22%) |
|
|
2(50%) |
2(50%) |
|
|
14. Reflective Practice |
|
1(11%) |
6(67%) |
2(22%) |
|
|
1(25%) |
3(75%) |
|
Assessment I: Lesson Evaluation
Part A: Lesson Plan Evaluation
Data Report: Spring 2021 & Fall 2020
Part A assesses the candidate’s ability to compose a lesson plan. Clinical supervisors submitted the data below during the respective semester when candidates student taught. The data shows that candidates received mostly “effective” and “highly effective” scores, which is pleasing to the EPP. Data are not disaggregated by programs because of confidentiality for completers.
Consider completer/employer/informant confidentiality when displaying data publicly.
|
Criteria |
SPRING 2021 (n=16) |
|
FALL 2020 (n=15) |
||||||
|
Ineffective |
Developing |
Effective |
Highly Ineffective |
Ineffective |
Developing |
Effective |
Highly Effective |
||
|
1. The plan is clearly articulated. |
|
1(6%) |
14(88%) |
1(6%) |
|
|
|
12(80%) |
3(20%) |
|
2. The plan reflects pedagogical content knowledge. |
|
|
16(100%) |
|
|
|
|
11(73%) |
4(27%) |
|
3. The plan reflects content knowledge. |
|
|
14(93%)* |
1(7%)* |
|
|
|
12(80%) |
3(20%) |
|
4. The plan follows an organized progression of activities - a logical flow. |
|
|
14(88%) |
2(12%) |
|
|
|
8(53%) |
7(47%) |
|
5. The plan includes a variety of instructional strategies. |
|
1(6%) |
11(69%) |
4(25%) |
|
|
|
11(73%) |
4(27%) |
|
6. The plan includes the deliberate grouping of students when appropriate. |
|
3(19%) |
13(81%) |
|
|
|
1(7%) |
13(87%) |
1(7%) |
|
7. The plan includes differentiation for students based on an understanding of the different needs of the students in the classroom. |
|
|
15(94%) |
1(6%) |
|
|
|
14(93%) |
1(7%) |
|
8. The plan includes academic language. |
|
1(6%) |
14(88%) |
1(6%) |
|
|
1(7%) |
11(73%) |
3(20%) |
|
9. The plan includes the implementation of digital technology. |
|
|
13(81%) |
3(19%) |
|
|
|
11(73%) |
4(27%) |
|
10. The plan cites research/theory. |
|
1(6%) |
12(75%) |
3(19%) |
|
|
|
9(60%) |
6(40%) |
Assessment I: Lesson Evaluation
Part B: Observation Evaluation
Data Report: Spring 2021 & Fall 2020
Part B assesses the candidate's ability to execute a lesson plan and support students, as observed by the clinical supervisor/cooperating teacher. Clinical supervisors submitted the data below during the respective semester when candidates student taught. The data below shows that candidates received mostly “effective” and “highly effective” scores which is pleasing to the EPP. Data are not disaggregated by programs because of confidentiality for completers.
|
|
SPRING 2021(n=12) |
|
FALL 2020 (n=14)
|
||||||
|
Criteria The candidate…. |
Ineffective |
Developing |
Effective |
Highly Effective |
Ineffective |
Developing |
Effective |
Highly Effective |
|
|
The Learner and Learning |
|||||||||
|
1. Establishes a positive learning environment. Respect and rapport are evident. |
|
|
8(67%) |
4(33%) |
|
|
|
10(71%) |
4(29%) |
|
2. Demonstrates flexibility and responsiveness to students’ diverse needs. |
|
|
6(50%) |
6(50%) |
|
|
11(79%)
|
3(21%) |
|
|
Content Knowledge |
|||||||||
|
3. Demonstrates pedagogical content knowledge. |
|
|
9(75%) |
3(25%) |
|
|
|
12(86%) |
2(14%) |
|
4. Demonstrates content knowledge. |
|
|
8(67%) |
4(33%) |
|
|
12(86%) |
2(14%) |
|
|
Instructional Practices |
|||||||||
|
5. Effectively models and/or uses demonstration or representation (chart/picture/poster) to support learning a strategy or skill. |
|
|
7(58%) |
5(42%) |
|
|
|
11(79%)
|
3(21%) |
|
6. Presents learning tasks in a manner that engages students. |
|
|
8(67%) |
4(33%) |
|
|
11(79%)
|
3(21%) |
|
|
7. Engages students in learning tasks to support the mastery of academic language. |
|
|
8(67%) |
4(33%) |
|
|
11(79%)
|
3(21%) |
|
|
8. Uses a variety of questions to elicit and build on student responses to deepen content understanding. |
|
|
8(67%) |
4(33%) |
|
|
13(93%) |
1(7%) |
|
|
9. Uses questioning to monitor student learning. |
|
|
8(73%)* |
3(27%)* |
|
1(7%) |
10(71%) |
3(21%) |
|
|
10. Appropriately responds to formative assessment data with instructional decisions and feedback to students. |
|
|
9(82%)* |
2(18%)* |
|
1(7%) |
13(93%) |
|
|
|
11. Connects new content to prior learning as well as cultural and personal assets. |
|
|
9(75%) |
3(25%) |
|
|
11(79%)
|
3(21%) |
|
|
12. Engages students in challenging work and conveys his/her high expectations for the students. |
|
|
10(83%) |
2(17%) |
|
|
12(86%) |
2(14%) |
|
|
13. Demonstrates an ability to manage time (closure). |
|
|
8(67%) |
4(33%) |
|
1(7%) |
10(71%) |
3(21%) |
|
|
14. Demonstrates an ability to manage classroom rules, routines, and materials. |
|
|
9(75%) |
3(25%) |
|
|
13(93%) |
1(7%) |
|
|
15. Demonstrates an ability to manage classroom space. |
|
|
5(45%)* |
6(55%) |
|
|
|
8(80%)** |
2(20%)** |
|
16. Demonstrates an ability to use technology effectively. |
|
|
7(58%) |
5(42%) |
|
|
12(86%) |
2(14%) |
|
|
Impact on Student Learning |
|||||||||
|
17. Makes a positive impact on student learning. |
|
|
7(58%) |
5(42%) |
|
|
|
11(79%) |
3(21%) |
*n
Assessment I: Lesson Evaluation
Part C: Reflection Evaluation
Data Report: Spring 2021 & Fall 2022
Part C assesses the candidate’s ability to reflect on his/her instruction and respond to feedback from his/her clinical supervisor. Clinical supervisors submitted the data below during the respective semester when candidates student taught. The data below shows that candidates received mostly “effective” and “highly effective” scores, which is pleasing to the EPP. The EPP is aware and is concern that the Ns are low. This is because not all clinical supervisors submitted assessment for all candidates. This may be attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the EPP have addressed this concern by having assessment submission training sessions for all clinical supervisors and instructors. Data are not disaggregated by programs because of confidentiality for completers.
|
Criteria
|
Spring 2021 (n=3) |
Fall 2020 (n=7) |
||||||
|
Ineffective |
Developing |
Effective |
Highly Effective |
Ineffective |
Developing |
Effective |
Highly Effective
|
|
|
1. The reflection covers the assigned topic(s). |
|
|
8(62%) |
5(38%) |
|
|
5(71%) |
2(29%) |
|
2. The reflection includes an analysis (using assigned questions for guidance) of how classroom events connect with theory/research. |
|
|
10(77%) |
3(23%) |
|
|
5(71%) |
2(29%) |
|
3.The reflection includes an analysis of the candidate’s impact on student learning. |
|
|
7(54%) |
6(46%) |
|
|
5(71%) |
2(29%) |
|
4. The reflection includes the consideration of multiple perspectives, such as those from the students, the cooperating teacher, clinical supervisor, parents, and school administration. |
|
|
10(77%) |
3(23%) |
|
|
5(71%) |
2(29%) |
|
5. The reflection includes a clear plan for improvement, in which specific goals have been set for the candidate’s instruction/assessment practices. |
|
|
9(69%) |
4(31%)
|
|
|
6(86%) |
1(14%) |
The data focuses on the ability of completers to be hired in positions for which they were prepared.
Measure 4: Ability of Completers to be hired
The data below reflect the number of program completers for three years along with certification and hired data. The number of “Hired in Area of Certification” is low because of the low returns of graduates’ survey, which informs if and where students are hired. Certification information is obtained from TEACH. The data shows for 2020-2021 91% of program completers are certified and ready to be hired.
| Year | Certified | Hired In Area of Certification | Hire Info Unavailable |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-2019(n=21) | 7(33%) | 3(43%) | 4(57%) |
| 2019-2020(n=26) | 17(65%) | 4(24%) | 13(76%) |
| 2020-2021(n=34) | 31(91%)* | 2(6%) | 29(94%) |
*10 program completers met all requirement. 21 program completers received COVID emergency certifications.
The Department of Teacher Education is open on Tuesday - Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. For questions/concerns contact the following individuals:
Teacher Education
Room AC-1D12
718-262-2450
Dr. Keiler
Chairperson
Regina Misir
Academic Accreditation Specialist
Ramaina Prashad
CUNY Office Assistant
