Preface…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1

Criterion 1……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1

Criterion 2……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...3

Criterion 3……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….7

Criterion 4…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….13

Criterion 5…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….15

Criterion 6…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….16

Criterion 7…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….18

Appendix A Anticipated Areas in Which Licenses Will Be Offered………………………….20

Appendix B Example of Standards Mapping……………………………………………………………21

This report describes the progress and current state of development at Indiana State University of the Unit Assessment System (UAS) required by the Indiana Professional Standards Board (IPSB) and National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). Some background on the structure of teacher education at Indiana State University may be helpful in reading and interpreting the information presented in this report.

Teacher education at Indiana State is centered in the School of Education and the Dean of the School of Education is the recognized head of teacher education. In addition, teacher education programs involve departments and faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences, School of Business, School of Health and Human Performance, and the School of Technology. The recognized NCATE unit is inclusive of all programs and faculty that are identified as teacher education programs.

Governance for teacher education programs rests with the Teacher Education Committee (TEC). It is charged with overall responsibility to assist in planning, approving, and coordinating the various changes in programs that prepare licensed educators for preschool through high school settings. TEC carries the responsibility for ensuring the University meets the regulations of the IPSB and the standards of NCATE and other relevant accrediting bodies. Voting members include 18 faculty representing all five of the involved schools/college, an undergraduate and graduate student, and a p-12 representative, with the majority of the votes in the School of Education. Items passed by the TEC are routed through the Dean of the School of Education for action. In addition, several committees have been in operation to provide advice and assistance on performance assessment and transitioning to standards-based licensure programs. They work to prepare and present recommendations to the Dean and TEC.

Indiana State University recommends candidates for instructional licensure in elementary, middle level, high school, and all grade education at the undergraduate level. At the graduate level we recommend candidates for administrative and school services licensure in a variety of areas. In Fall 2001, there are 1762 undergraduates enrolled in a teaching program. Approximately 160+ graduate students are enrolled in programs leading to licensure.

Criterion 1: The UAS incorporates stakeholders’ involvement in its development and management. Minimally, stakeholders should include education faculty, content faculty, P-12 faculty and administrators, candidates in the program, and program alumni.

There have been a large number and variety of individuals involved in the development of the UAS to date and we anticipate evolving stakeholder participation in the management, monitoring, and modification of the UAS over time. A database specifying the name, affiliation, and description of involvement is maintained and available for review. The following summary offers an overview of documented stakeholder involvement up to the current time:

b. Structure for stakeholders’ involvement:

Stakeholder involvement is structured to be both formal and informal. Teacher Education Committee, School of Education Congress, and Professional Development Schools Steering Council, and many departmental committees are formal governance structures that provide for extensive, ongoing stakeholder involvement. Other groups listed in the preceding chart have been formed specifically to accomplish the work of transitioning to a standards-based, performance-assessed system of licensure and educator preparation. They are less formal and advisory in nature, providing several levels of involvement and perspectives. They have been, and will continue to be, involved in the development, implementation, and monitoring of the UAS to varying degrees.

c. Description of stakeholders’ continued involvement in monitoring and modifying the UAS:

The Teacher Education Committee is representative of all stakeholders. Stakeholders continued involvement in monitoring and modifying the UAS will be evident through use of the TEC on an annual basis for review of program data and making recommendations to individual programs. Content faculty, professional education faculty, and p-12 faculty are all involved in evaluation of performance assessments and continuous improvement of processes.

Evidence:

Stakeholder database, findings and recommendations from focus groups, TEC minutes, documentation from Stakeholder Meetings, departmental meetings records

Criterion 2: The UAS includes evidence that the conceptual frameworks for the unit’s programs incorporate all Indiana Professional Standards Board (IPSB) standards. IPSB standards include the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) principles and the IPSB content and developmental standards for each licensure area.

a. Incorporation of INTASC principles and IPSB standards into the conceptual framework:

The overarching theme of Indiana State University’s educator preparation programs is "Becoming a Complete Professional." This theme encompasses five broad areas. The first three recognize the three essential areas of the work of an educator:

Educator as expert or mediator of learning,
Educator as person, and
Educator as member of communities.

The word complete in the title acknowledges that, to be truly successful, an educator must be effective in all three of these areas. Similarly, the word becoming is included in the title because a new graduate of one of the University’s educator preparation programs is not yet a complete professional as a teacher, counselor, school psychologist, speech language pathologist, principal or superintendent. Each has only developed a solid foundation for becoming such a professional in the chosen role.

The component "Educator as Expert or Mediator of learning" deals with an educator’s professional skill as a mediator of students’ learning and/or of the progress individuals make in achieving their potential. The component "Educator as Person" represents the traits that make a successful educator justifiably respected and emulated by students. The component "Educator as Member of Communities" reflects the necessity of contributing to the various communities of which educators, as professionals, are members. To be proficient, an educator cannot simply be skillful as a mediator of learning or simply be respected and emulated by students or simply be a contributing member of relevant communities. Instead, a truly successful educator must at the same time be a competent mediator of learning, a person viewed as worthy of respect and even emulation by students, and a contributing member of the communities in which educators are expected to function.

The final two areas under the broad umbrella of "Becoming a Complete Professional" are expectations pertaining especially to those completing an Ed.S. or Ph.D. degree: "Educator as Leader" and "Educator as Researcher." Being a leader of fellow educators is not an expectation that falls exclusively upon educators with a leadership title, just as engaging in systematic inquiry is not reserved just for those in administrative positions in their respective areas of education. However, they are essential features of successful educational practice in positions normally requiring these advanced degrees.

The Teacher Education Committee voted, at its meeting of March 24, 1999 to retain "Becoming a Complete Professional" as an overarching theme for all of the unit’s programs conceptual frameworks. INTASC principles were explicitly incorporated as outcomes for all undergraduate teacher preparation. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards propositions were approved as outcomes for advanced level teacher preparation. Remaining educator preparation programs adopted standards of their respective accrediting agencies as specific outcomes expected for their graduates (i.e., ISLLC, ASHA, CACREP, and NASP).

INTASC principles as outcomes for the undergraduate teaching programs’ conceptual framework is demonstrated in the following organizer:

Undergraduate Teacher Preparation Programs

The teacher as an expert or mediator of knowledge

1. Possess content knowledge

2. Understands developmental teaching

3. Provides instructional variety

4. Uses assessment

The teacher as a person

5. Addresses and understands diversity

6. Provides motivation

7. Has effective communication skills

The teacher as a member of communities

8. Knows and uses the community

9. Provides reflective evaluation

10. Builds relationships

Because the INTASC principles form the basis for the IPSB standards, IPSB standards are also implicitly incorporated into the conceptual framework. IPSB content and developmental level standards are looked at as the means to explicate and operationalize the concepts of: educator as expert mediator of learning, educator as person, and educator as member of communities in particular.

b.

c. Incorporation of INTASC Principles and IPSB Standards into Programs.

Stakeholders in various licensure areas have worked diligently for the past three years to revise programs, course content, and performance assessments to incorporate INTASC principles and the appropriate IPSB content and developmental standards for their areas. Although clustering of standards and holistic assessment is evident across the entire curriculum of each program, agreements for incorporating specific standards in specific courses have been reached in secondary and all grade programs. The content areas have accepted responsibility for INTASC #1 and the content standards. The professional education faculty in the School of Education are responsible for incorporating and assessing INTASC #2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and 10 and the developmental standards in the professional education sequence, including early field experiences and student teaching.

c. Mechanisms used by the unit to assure that all IPSB standards are included in all programs.

The Dean’s Office of the School of Education and the TEC review all licensure programs for inclusion of appropriate IPSB standards and to ensure that other accrediting bodies’ standards are being met.

Each program has "mapped" INTASC, content, and developmental standards across the program curriculum. For those program areas that do not yet have standards developed, the programs are using standards of their professional associations. This mapping is then recorded in a database managed by Education Student Services. Representative performance indicators, performance assessment evidence, and assessors have also been mapped. A representative sample is appended (see Appendix B).

Each department with a licensure program has a curriculum review process and committee.

A standard "NCATE" syllabus with explicit notation of INTASC and IPSB content and developmental standards incorporated in the course is required for all professional education, general and content methods, and content area courses designated as "key" and requiring a grade of "C" or better. Our target is to have all syllabi in electronic format and on the web for easy revision, based on analysis of aggregated data in UAS and feedback.

Formative and summative assessments embedded in courses and outside of courses are tied to clusters of standards that are identified and enumerated.

Statement of ISU Conceptual Framework(s) with outcomes and supporting knowledge base documentation; conceptual frameworks are reflected in course syllabi, in other written materials, in UAS guidelines and in rubrics used to assess field experiences and portfolios; TEC minutes; course syllabi in which INTASC and IPSB standards and performance assessments are explicitly noted; Teacher Education Handbook; Handbook for Portfolios (Elementary and Early Childhood); Candidate portfolios and reports, lesson plans

Currently candidates are informed of INTASC principles and IPSB standards by faculty advisors and professors in introductory professional education courses. Undergraduate initial orientation sessions for teacher education students also included information about the standards and expectations of candidate. Candidates are required to meet with an advisor each semester and information is shared at that time. Standards and principles are identified in syllabi. There are required courses in each program that have been designated to introduce the INTASC principles and IPSB standards. Assessment rubrics used in courses and for portfolios and reports explicitly identify the principles and standards to which they are linked.

The Student Teaching Handbook for Elementary and Early Childhood Education, Portfolio Handbook for Elementary Education Student Teachers, and the Handbook of Student Teaching, Office of Field Experiences (for secondary, all grade, speech language pathology/communication disorders) are required texts for candidates and all clinical faculty and provide extensive information about the standards and required assessments.

A virtual web-based Teacher Education Handbook has been completed and will be put online very soon. The handbook is a comprehensive reference to be used by anyone, even prospective students, to get answers about teacher education at ISU. Easy to navigate links point the reader to the INTASC principles and select the appropriate IPSB standards for each licensure area the reader is interested in.

b. Multiple forms of performance assessment that comprise the UAS

Faculty use a wide variety of performance assessments to assess student performance within courses. These include written and oral exams, simulations, case studies, reflection papers, end of course tests, videos of teaching or other performances, evaluation of lesson artifacts, psychomotor tests (e.g., music recitals, fitness tests in PE, ability to use chalkboard to demonstrate a math problem and solutions), and others. Each program has completed mapping of the standards and performance indicators across the curriculum. The mapping also identified representative assessments tied to clusters of standards being assessed within courses.

Elementary and early childhood education candidates currently have two different portfolio assessments in their program. Portfolios completed in Block II, III, and IV of the program contain performance artifacts or other evidence of INTASC principles and IPSB standards achievement and are assessed prior to student teaching in the elementary and early childhood programs. Course instructors use standards-based rubrics to evaluate the portfolios at the end of each block. A second portfolio assessment modeled after the proposed IPSB induction portfolio and the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards portfolio assessment is now required of candidates at the completion of student teaching. The portfolios include lesson plans for five consecutive days of literacy instruction and lesson plans for five consecutive days of numeracy instruction, student work samples from two students of varying ability, reflections on student progress and instructional modifications, videotape of instruction, and reflection/commentary. Pairs of trained evaluators use standards-based rubrics to evaluate each portfolio.

Secondary and all grade programs use a portfolio assessment format called the "Report" which utilizes teacher work sample methodology and is very similar to the elementary and early childhood portfolio, with the exception that the specific lessons are in the content of the specific licensure program. Report I and II (smaller versions of the final report assessment) are embedded in initial courses and in the general methods courses. Satisfactory completion of the full version of the "Report" during the student teaching semester is required. Both trained content-area faculty and professional education faculty judge this performance assessment using a standards-based rubric.

Praxis I is used to assess basic skills and candidates must attain a score at or above the level required for licensure to progress in the program. Praxis II is a new performance assessment being added to the UAS this year. Candidates must take the appropriate specialty area tests prior to student teaching and must attain a score at or above the level required for licensure to complete the program.

Candidate performance in field settings is regularly assessed, using standards-based rubrics for both early field experiences and student teaching. Clinical faculty (both school based and university) who supervise student teachers are well versed in the standards and use their knowledge to assess the student teachers’ performance in the field, again using standards-based rubrics/evaluation forms.

Programs at the graduate level for Administrative and School Services licensure areas are also using a wide variety of course embedded performance assessments. In addition, Administrative licensure programs (both Building Level and District Level) have a portfolio assessment linked to ISLLC standards. School Counselor and School Psychologist programs are using portfolio assessment. All Administrative and Student Services licensure programs have extensive internships and field experiences that are evaluated with standards-based rubrics. Each program has completed mapping of the standards and performance indicators across the curriculum. Gaps in the incorporation of standards and assessments have been identified and program and curriculum changes are being made. All programs are in the process of revision to align with the new licensure framework and therefore, their performance assessments are also being revised.

c. Points in the program at which summative decisions are made, the processes through which decisions are made, and the kinds of information used in those decisions:

Efforts have been underway to reach consensus across all teacher education programs on a system of decision points that can be applied to all instructional licensure programs. The stakeholder groups representing All Grade programs, 5-12 programs, and elementary and early childhood programs have agreed to four summative decision points for monitoring candidate progress. This recommendation will be approved by TEC this fall. As a reminder of the alignment with our conceptual framework and the belief that the purpose of teacher education programs is to move candidates along a continuum of "Becoming a Complete Professional", it is proposed that each decision point be labeled with corresponding initials "BCP" referencing the conceptual framework upon which our programs are built.

BCP 1: Entrance to Program

BCP 2: Pre-Student Teaching Phase One (5-12 and All-Grade) or Pre-Block II (Elementary/Early childhood)

BCP 3: Entrance to Student Teaching: Pre-Student Teaching Phase Two (5-12 and All-Grade) or Pre-Block V (Elementary/Early childhood)

BCP 4: Exit from Program

Requirements are as follows:

For elementary/early childhood:

For 5-12 :

For All Grade:

For elementary/early childhood:

For 5-12:

For All Grade:

For both 5-12 and All Grade:

For elementary/early childhood:

For 5-12 and All Grade:

Programs for licensure in Administration and School Services have each established a series of three checkpoints. In general those are: Entrance to Program, Pre Internship, and Exit from Program. The criteria for each checkpoint are currently being revised as each program completes revisions to align with the Rules 2001 licensure framework. Our next report will include a complete delineation of those points.

d. How the program assures that candidates have met the IPSB standards:

Each program has demonstrated through the mapping process, course syllabi, and assessment frameworks where the IPSB standards are addressed and assessed in the curriculum and course sequence. Performance assessments of these standards will generally occur within the context of specific courses in the programs and in the portfolios and field experience evaluations conducted. Classroom professors, clinical school-based faculty and university supervisors determine the degree to which candidates have met the IPSB standards through their use of assessment rubrics. Grades in key courses identified as have performance assessments embedded will provide evidence of content standards. Praxis I and II scores will be additional indicators. Use of the standards-based rubrics for evaluation of field experiences including student teaching and candidates achieving at least a satisfactory rating level on each standard will be further evidence. When the induction assessment is in place in the state, performance at the end of the 2-year induction period will serve as another indicator.

Rubrics are designed to discriminate three levels of performance on INTASC standards: proficient, satisfactory, unsatisfactory, and are used for evaluating student teaching, portfolio assessment and Final Report on a Teaching Unit in secondary programs. Some criteria are either met/not met such as GPA, Praxis score at licensure level, grade of "c" or better in key content courses. At most check points, all elements must be met at satisfactory or proficient level to continue to progress in the program. Under development is a common rubric to be used at multiple points throughout a candidate’s program to measure growth on each standard. It will also serve as a tool for informing candidate’s of expectations and allowing them to self assess progress toward meeting those expectations art a proficient level.

Teams of content area and professional education faculty, clinical school-based faculty, university supervisors and graduate students have received training in the use of rubrics to assess the exit student teaching portfolio or report. Each semester, a refresher session is conducted for those with previous experience and a debriefing/evaluation of process follows the week of portfolio presentations. The evaluations of the process are used to improve the process and rubrics.

Clinical faculty have been trained in the use of rubrics for assessing field experiences. A "train the trainer" model was used in which several daylong workshops trained two faculty from each professional development school in how to assess performance on standards and the use of rubrics to evaluate teaching episodes. These trainers have now conducted workshops in each of their home schools for all faculty in that school. A 60+ pages resource manual has been developed and is provided to every clinical faculty who works with early field experience students and/or student teachers.

A six-member group of faculty from the SOE and content methods faculty from across campus provided assistance to departments with teacher education programs in designing specific professional development for department faculty in performance assessment. Department-specific training has been offered for program faculty in each content area in the theoretical basis for performance assessment, designing performance assessments for specific courses, and the design and use of rubrics for assessment of performance.

g. Evidence that the summative decision point performance assessments provide qualitative discriminations among (and within) candidate performances:

At the conclusion of each portfolio/report performance assessment period, the raters complete an evaluation of the process and of the candidates overall performance.

Comments are grouped and used for improvement of the process. Scores on the assessment are reviewed with student teaching evaluation for congruence. Consensus of the evaluators is that the three-level rubric allows sufficient discrimination within candidate performances. The range of performance among candidates on this evaluation and the range of student teaching evaluations appears to demonstrate the power of the performance assessments to qualitatively discriminate among candidates.

Course grades, passing of checkpoint requirements, Praxis I and II scores are entered in the student information system (DARS). Recommendations from program areas, scores of portfolio/report performance assessments for each candidate are placed in each student’s file in the School of Education/Education Student Services (where education student records are officially kept) and the information entered into the UAS database managed there.

Students meet with their advisors once each semester where the progress of each candidate is reviewed and discussed. Candidates can use the DARS to access a report of progress in the program and also notification of "red flags" that indicate they have reached a stopping point and must see an advisor. Candidates are notified by letter if a negative recommendation is made at a summative decision point and what the appeal process is. When the system is fully interactive, candidates will use the new web portal "MyISU" to receive and extract progress reports. We plan to add additional reporting features to the system as we improve our School of Education database interface with existing university databases.

Before a candidate can enter a program, certain requirements must be met. All requirements at each checkpoint must be met at a satisfactory or proficient level in order to progress in the program. If remediation is required, it must occur before progressing to the next phase of the program. Most performance assessments in courses are considered formative. Assessment of performance in student teaching, portfolio/report, Praxis I and II, and GPA are summative and each must meet the established criterion for completion of program.

Periodic studies have been done to establish interrater reliability on portfolio/report assessments. Training reduces wide discrepancies in ratings between raters. We continue to evaluate for consistency.

The requirements for the portfolio reflect as closely as possible the types of tasks that teachers must perform well to be effective. The elements of the portfolio have been linked to specific INTASC standards.

Evidence:

Teacher Education Handbook, Student Teaching Handbook, ISU Undergraduate Catalog, statistical reports from interrater analysis, evaluations from raters, agenda from training sessions, agendas from orientation, agendas from student teaching seminars, sample DARS reports, minutes from TEC, record of departmental meetings, course syllabi

a. Percent (proportion) of candidates who passed, passed with remediation, failed each standard at each summative decision point:

Documentation on candidates who passed, passed with remediation, or failed each standard at each summative decision point is currently being compiled in each department and will be available for analysis system wide in the next semester. We also find that we need to improve our management information system to allow us to record that information centrally.

Each program has mapped the standards and performance assessments across the curriculum and the course syllabi are linked to specific INTASC, content and developmental standards. Grades submitted provide semester by semester evidence that the standards are being assessed and the GPA requirements at each decision point are an indicator of progress in attaining proficiency. Rubrics used in field experience components of general and content methods courses are standards-based and provide further evidence of the standards being assessed. Requirements for Praxis I and II are another way to assess content standards in the programs. Rubrics used in student teaching and in assessment of portfolios and reports are derived from the standards and provide assessment in the last stage of the program.

Data on one-year induction program are currently available from IPSB and are kept on file. When the two-year induction program is phased in and we are able to attain reports from IPSB regarding our candidates’ success rates, we will report this statistic.

We are continuing to develop our capacity to systematically use the aggregated data effectively to evaluate quality of courses and curriculum. GPA, grades in key courses, and test scores can be aggregated by cohort and used by programs to evaluate quality. The range of scores in student teaching evaluations and results of portfolio/report assessments can be used to evaluate strength of methods courses and field experiences. It is proposed to use analyses of Praxis Institutional Summary Reports that includes sub category scores as another opportunity for feedback to programs and content areas on courses and curricula.

Evidence:

Departmental meeting notes, summary reports

Criterion 5: The UAS uses aggregated assessments from individual candidates and other sources to refine and revise the conceptual framework and programs.

a. Description (or flow chart) and time line showing how data from candidate assessments are reviewed systematically:

At the program level, student teaching evaluations, portfolio assessments, and other field experience assessments are reviewed each semester in departmental committees. Potential revisions of courses, program sequencing, field assessments based on the aggregated data are discussed and implemented. Annually, Praxis I and II scores, entrance GPA, cumulative GPA, and candidate demographics are reviewed for trends at the program and unit level.

Evidence:

TEC minutes, Academic Notes, department committee meetings, student teaching evaluations, portfolio/report rater evaluations of the process.

Criterion 6: the unit ensures that its assessment system is continuously managed.

a. Person in charge of overseeing the UAS:

The Dean of the School of Education is the head of the unit and ultimately responsible for the UAS. Oversight has been delegated to the Associate Dean for Academic and Student Affairs. The Director of Education Student Services is the data manager and is responsible for the collection, recording, storage and retrieval of data.

b. Description of the implementation of the UAS:

The implementation of the UAS has proceeded through stages of conceptualizing, planning, piloting, revising and implementation. 1997-98 the focus was on developing performance assessments and piloting portfolio assessment.

In 1998-99, the conceptual framework was reaffirmed and INTASC principles adopted as outcomes for undergraduate programs. Praxis I was required for entry to teacher education programs.

In 1999-2000, the portfolio/report was revised and programs began the process of aligning curriculum to INTASC and IPSB content and developmental standards.

In 2000-2001, alignment to the new licensure framework was a major emphasis along with mapping of the standards and performance indicators across the curricula. Praxis II was required for entry to student teaching, the concept of key courses with grade of "c" or better was agreed upon as one element of the UAS, and faculty began submitting syllabi in the approved NCATE format linking standards. Assessments at summative decision points were agreed upon. An initial design for a management information system was developed. Clinical faculty were trained to evaluate new performance assessments for candidates. The system of assessment and monitoring of an individual candidate’s progress in the program is in place.

Throughout the process, the Associate Dean is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the UAS and works closely with the Director of Education Student

Services, department chairs and program faculty, the TEC, and other governance groups to facilitate the implementation.

c. Procedures for data management including its collection, recording, storage, and retrieval:

The university student information system (Banner) contains data on high school graduation, SAT scores, Praxis scores, courses taken, grades received, hours accumulated, and GPA. The degree audit system (DARS) interfaces with Banner and provides an audit of graduation requirements, as well as admission to teacher education program and eligibility to proceed to next phase.

A separate database maintained by Education Student Services maintains program information on mapping of standards and assessments across the curriculum. A new system is being developed to record and store data from summative assessments at each decision point. The development includes interfacing with the Banner system to retrieve existing student data that are included at each of the decision points. Currently hardcopies of individual candidate information from portfolio/report assessments, student teaching evaluations, and faculty recommendations are stored in each candidate’s file in Education Student Services and in the department.

Education Student Services and department files are confidential and available only to a limited number of staff. A candidate’s advisor, department chair, and a limited number of staff have access to the candidate’s information on the university information system. Candidates can access their information through DARS. The University has instituted a new web portal system this semester and we are exploring the possibilities of using that system for student and advisor access to appropriate records.

The Associate Dean of the School of Education works with the university Teacher Education Committee (TEC), the School of Education Congress, and respective departments and programs in the School of Education and content areas outside the school to monitor and review the conceptual framework, programs, and curricula. The Associate Dean has responsibility for Academic Affairs in the school, is NCATE/IPSB accreditation coordinator, Title II coordinator, is an ex-officio member of TEC, and serves as facilitator or liaison to curriculum and program development committees. The Associate Dean has oversight responsibility.

The University requires that each degree program have a Student Outcomes Assessment Plan that is implemented. Generally, the data aggregated for the UAS is the same data used for reporting in the Student Outcomes Assessment Plan.

Evidence:

Sample printouts from databases, Student Outcomes Assessment Plans, job descriptions.

a. Timeline for reviewing the UAS and the curricula:

Curriculum review is an ongoing process within departments and programs. The University cycles requires a formal review every five years and this usually occurs in conjunction with accreditation reviews within the school. Each semester, departments informally evaluate the effectiveness of the UAS, as it is developing. It is proposed that an annual review of summary data on a cohort of candidates be reviewed by TEC with feedback given to each program. A subcommittee of TEC will provide a formative review of one or more elements of the UAS annually. Full review of the UAS will occur every three years. The guiding question is: does our assessment system provide sufficient information to allow us to draw accurate and reasoned judgments about the quality and performance of our candidates, faculty, and unit?

The TEC is representative of all stakeholders including p-12 partners and candidates. Also, appropriate stakeholder groups will be asked to evaluate individual elements of the overall system for effectiveness. Departmental committees will play a major role in providing evaluative feedback to the TEC.

The types of data collected, aggregated data from each summative decision point, processes used, selected examples of a range of candidate performance on summative assessments including exemplars, follow-up studies done with candidates two years after program completion, data from IPSB on induction and portfolio assessment, employer surveys.

Criteria are still under development. As stated in 7a: The guiding question is: does our assessment system provide sufficient information to allow us to draw accurate and reasoned judgments about the quality and performance of our candidates, faculty, and unit?

Evidence:

TEC minutes, department committee minutes, results of surveys of stakeholders including graduates and employers, databases.